Industry Committee on March 11th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Members, I'll call to order the 26th meeting of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

We have two items on the agenda today. First of all, in our committee business, we have a motion from Ms. Nash. Secondly, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will continue our review of Canada's service sector and consideration of a draft report. We will start with the motion from Ms. Nash.

Ms. Nash, everyone has a copy of the motion. You can read the motion or simply provide the rationale, but I'd ask you to provide the rationale for your motion.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll read the motion. It says:

In light of testimony provided at the March 5th meeting of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, and taking into account the demonstrated impact of the proposed sale of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. (MDA) on more than one government ministry; the Committee request that a representative of MDA, the Minister of Justice/Solicitor General, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Minister of National Defence appear before the Committee to provide testimony in regards to the proposed sale of MDA to Alliant Techsystems, before a decision concerning the sale is rendered under the Investment Canada Act.

My rationale for proposing this motion is that, first of all, as you know, the clerk did contact MDA to have someone appear. It was a late request and they were not able to appear before the committee. But it seems only fair that they would have the opportunity to do so.

Secondly, we have heard from the testimony on March 5 that the potential sale could impact other ministries in the federal government, and especially, it was outlined under the former Bill C-25 how this could impact Foreign Affairs; Defence as it pertains to national security and Arctic sovereignty; and the Solicitor General, under law enforcement. So I think it would be important to hear from these ministers as to how they view a potential sale and what would be the impact for Canadians on their responsibilities as ministers.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Just to clarify, then, you want the ministers themselves rather than department officials or representatives.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Well, the act does identify the ministers. They do have delegated authority, so I guess if they have delegated their authority to someone else, it would be appropriate for us to hear from them.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Brison.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Chair, constructively I would suggest that we ask for the ministers, not for representatives of the ministers. If the ministers are here, they would have public servants with them who could inform their comments. But I think on something like this we would want the actual ministers here.

Ms. Nash, would you agree to that?

I'm sorry, I read that as “representatives of”. We're on the same page, then.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Hanger, and then Mr. Carrie.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Of interest, of course, is the data acquired through RADARSAT-1, and also the potential for RADARSAT-2. I guess my thought is about who the main users of this data are, what departments.

We talk about Canadian sovereignty; that's an issue. Of course, this has been brought forward numerous times by the Prime Minister. But there are also environmental issues, transport issues. I'm hoping that this motion isn't going to restrict us, as noted here, if other expert witnesses are needed for those other departments, that it would be open-ended to allow for witnesses to appear in those other areas.

You know, we're moving off into another age here when it comes to, if you want, the three environments. You have land; certain things can be picked up on land. Certain evaluations can be made through vessels or whatever that deal with sovereignty issues--the Northwest Passage is one. But space is something that I believe rounds out the portfolio of examination, that gives you the full picture. There are a lot of users now in those areas, transport as well as environment.

So I have a question about the extent of the motion. Will it include such other departments if necessary?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to suggest a friendly amendment, Madam Nash, and the rationale behind the amendment.

First of all, Mr. Chair, my amendment would be that we delete “the Minister of Justice/Solicitor General”, because I don't really see the rationale of having that minister here. We would replace it basically, so that the sentence from the beginning would read:

In light of testimony provided at the March 5th meeting of the Standing Committee of Industry, Science and Technology, and taking into account the demonstrated impact of the proposed sale of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd (MDA) on more than one government ministry; the Committee request that a representative of MDA

And then I would say “department officials from Foreign Affairs and National Defence and other expert witnesses appear before the Committee to provide”. Then I would say “technical knowledge and testimony in regards to the proposed sale of MDA to Alliant Techsystems.”

The ministers would not be able to provide technical data due to the agreement that was signed under the Liberals.

If we look at the timeline we're dealing with, Madam Nash, there's a mandatory 45-day review, a proposed sale under the Investment Canada Act, and the 45-day review began on February 6, 2008, and it will expire on March 22, 2008, which really is only 16 days from now. Because of our schedule, we basically have today, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and then there's the break for the two weeks.

Announcement of the sale was January 8, 2008. The committee is only now beginning to undertake a study 12 days before the review process is scheduled to be finished.

Furthermore, the government members agreed with the opposition that the minister and last Wednesday's witnesses appear, and we are having the minister on Thursday. This committee will be hearing from the Minister of Industry. He is the minister responsible for the Investment Canada Act, and he will receive a recommendation from the department and he will decide to approve, reject, or ask for more time. He has until March 22 and then he's going to make one of those three decisions.

Under the Investment Canada Act, the minister has exclusive purview to extend the review of a sale for an additional 30 days, which would bring it to April 22, 2008. To tie the motion to the deadline that will pass next weekend would make the committee look ridiculous, in my opinion, because it's only 12 days away.

Department officials will be able to provide detailed technical knowledge about the history of MDA's relationship with the Government of Canada and contractual and licensing agreements that were signed by the previous Liberal government. Again, the Minister of Justice is not relevant to the review or the sale or the contractual obligations with the Government of Canada.

That would be the rationale for the friendly amendment. I don't think there's been any contact with the other ministers' offices up to this date, but my own opinion would be that to get three ministers in front of us, with the short period of time--considering what they have going on--it's going to be, in my opinion, a bit of a challenge, maybe not impossible. We could certainly try, if you'd like. We basically have three more sitting days, and I think we could get these officials in quite quickly.

Do you want me to repeat that friendly amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Did everyone get the friendly amendment?

If you could just repeat from “the committee request”. You're not changing anything before that, are you?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

No, no. Not at all.

In the English version it's line four. It reads: “...the Committee request that a representative of MDA” and then I would scratch out “the Minister of Justice/Solicitor General”, and then add “department officials from Foreign Affairs and National Defence and other expert witnesses”. As Mr. Hanger was saying, for example, Environment Canada is one of the biggest purchasers of RADARSAT-1, for those things. So you would get “other expert witnesses”, whoever we would like, “to appear before the Committee to provide”, and then I would say “technical knowledge and testimony”. And then I would just say “in regards to the proposed sale of MDA to Alliant Techsystems.”

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Carrie.

I have Mr. Stanton, Mr. Simard, Madame Brunelle, Mr. Brison, and Mr. Hanger speaking to the amendment.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I'll pass for now, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Stanton will pass.

We'll go to Mr. Simard, on the amendment.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Chair, I guess that meeting we had last week brought up a lot of unanswered questions.

I think the mention of the Avro Arrow probably hit us all. Anybody who has seen that movie knows we lost a lot of possibilities down the road.

I do think we have to take our time on this. Having said that, we know that leaves us under a certain amount of pressure. I don't think it's going to be possible to see three ministers from now to Thursday evening. I can't see that happening. I would like expert testimony. I also would not like the minister to decide this before we've had a chance to look at it.

We are the industry committee. He has the final say on this. It seems to me that the 30-day extension is something we should be looking at.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll go to Madame Brunelle.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I share Mr. Simard's concern. I think that we should carry out an in-depth study of this matter but you are telling us that the deadline is 16 days from now. I know it is possible for the Minister to extend this deadline, and we may ask him to. We might also add another amendment to this one, requesting that the Industry Minister not authorize the sale before the committee has produced its report. Otherwise, we will have done a very long study that will be useless because the minister will already have decided. That is my concern, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

My understanding, Madame Brunelle, is that the 45 days expires on March 22, at which time, or before then, the minister can ask for 30 days. There can be a maximum of 75 days. My understanding, and we can ask for the researcher's comment, is that the committee cannot force an extension past the 75-day period.

The committee may want to respond to that. The committee can request an extension, but the committee cannot force a decision later than a 75-day period.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Correct, Mr. Chairman. We would ask the Minister to extend the period to 45 days which would give us enough time to carry out our study. As you said, this might be added to the amendment. Otherwise, do you believe it would be better to submit another one? From what I understand, if the minister does not request an extension, we will not have 45 days but only 16 for our study.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You're asking that there be a subamendment for the 30 days' extension, until April 22, 2008.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

That is correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Are you moving that subamendment?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Yes, I so move, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Can you identify where you would put that? Would that be at the end of the motion?