Industry Committee on June 1st, 2020

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I prefer to start the debate, if that's possible, Madam Chair. I can read it again.

Here's the thing: We are meeting virtually, and these are the realities of virtual meetings. If we were sitting in person in Parliament, we would be debating this and discussing it and not suspending, as we always do with motions. I would like to proceed with the discussion of this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Go ahead, Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I think we have some incredible witnesses here that I'd really like to ask questions of. I like your idea of taking it to the end of the meeting. I haven't seen the motion yet, but I've sure heard a lot of great testimony that I want to dive into and I wouldn't want to use this committee to not talk to the witnesses who are now in front of us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Is there any further debate?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Chair, I am comfortable with this because I have studied the Investment Canada Act a number of times, and we did get it through email. I'm ready to call a vote on the motion. It's straightforward. If we're going to study the Investment Canada Act, we can work out the details later and we can get to testimony.

I'd ask that you call the question and get this done. The way the motion is set forward leaves a lot of openness. That's what my preference is, to call the question and get this done and then hear our testimony. That would be the normal operating procedure that we do in the House of Commons, so if we can continue that, that would be great, because then we can hear the testimony.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

We have a few members here who would like to intervene. We have Mr. Erskine-Smith as well as Mr. Ehsassi.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I had a question because I listened to the motion, but I haven't seen the text and some of it flew by quickly. How many meetings were you expecting to have, Ms. Rempel?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

I suggested four. I would be open, if we wanted, to having a meeting to discuss business on how many we go into, but I'd like to hear from the department. I'd like to hear from members of the financial industry, people from relevant affected sectors and experts who have been giving advice in the media on this particular issue, and I'd like to get some data and quantify it.

I put the number of meetings at four, which would be an approximately two-week study. I'm happy to have more than that if need be, but I think we can probably bang this out fairly quickly. The goal would be expediency, given that I would think these transactions are being looked at right now and these situations are escalating. I think it's incumbent upon Parliament and our committee to provide advice to the government on this. It's directly within the scope of our work.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

It sounds reasonable, from what I've heard. My only concern, given that I didn't know it was coming forward, is that we don't have that many meetings left before we rise. Maybe we can meet into July in some way. There are other things we can discuss too, and I'm very interested in discussing recovery and focusing on a number of recommendations to government on what recovery ought to look like.

It is about how we can best use the finite time that we have. If it's four meetings at the expense of a series of other meetings on other topics, then some time to think about it would be nice in terms of how the calendar plays out. In terms of a specific one-off study, it sounds reasonable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Go ahead, Mr. Ehsassi.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Chair, I would heed the advice that you've provided. I think we have an incredible opportunity today to hear from people who are, first of all, very busy. They've taken time out of their schedules to benefit us with their input. Much like you've suggested, it would be a much better approach for us to hash out all the details after we have heard from the witnesses.

I understand the keen desire of the member to focus on this issue, but she had ample opportunity to bring this to our attention before, and I find it regrettable that we're not making the best of the witnesses who have very generously committed their time to be with us today. I think there should be a process in place. Again, as all of the members have indicated, there are a number of different details that we have to look into before we can reasonably consider this motion.

I would ask that we defer this discussion until we've had a chance to hear from the witnesses and that we return to this issue, I might add, after we have heard from the witnesses.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Chair, as a quick point of order, we will get our vote following the interventions of the people you had on your list, because I've called for the question. I just want to make sure that we're going to have a quick vote after that, when the interventions are done. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Procedurally, we have to collapse debate. We still have some folks who would like to debate the motion before us.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to say that I'm ready to vote and that I'll be supporting the motion. While we're debating whether we'll be voting on the motion, we're not hearing from our witnesses. I think that we're at the stage where we can vote on the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Is there any further debate on the motion before us?

Go ahead, Madam Lambropoulos.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

This is similar to Nate's point, actually, since a motion to the clerk.... We're in the process of sending one to finalize the current study we're doing and to have a report written and recommendations made. Given the amount of time, we don't know exactly how long we will be sitting, and we haven't really discussed as a committee when we want this committee to end for the summer. Maybe we could have some discussion on a timeline.

I have no problem with Ms. Rempel Garner's motion, but I'd also like to make sure that we do this report we're currently working on properly, and that we get to take into account all of the different things that we would like include.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Is there any further debate on the motion before us?

Go ahead, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I would have thought.... I mean, there's no reason to jam us with a motion like this. There's no reason to not have our committee meet in camera and discuss committee business as we normally do, based on past practice and just being reasonable with one another.

If we are to call the question now, I'll be voting against it, just because it's incredibly unreasonable to put this forward as you have, Ms. Rempel. I mean, you are free to talk to us, as always. You are free to communicate with us in advance. You are free to give notice, as is expected—you don't have to, I understand—and you are also free to have an in camera meeting where we discuss committee business as we normally do.

If you're going to jam us with it, then no. Although it sounds reasonable, again, my concern is finite time. There are a lot of different things that we could discuss. Is this worth four meetings in comparison to other things we could discuss? Maybe, but it's worth having a debate and not jamming us when we have witnesses here. If we're going to call the question now, fine. I'll vote against it. If it comes back, maybe it's reasonable and I can consider it at greater length, and maybe I'll vote for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Go ahead, Madame Rempel Garner.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

To Mr. Erskine-Smith, you might want to have a chat with your chair about informal conversations that were had about this particular meeting being a meeting to discuss business, which didn't happen in consultation with members of this committee. Afterwards, we got a notice of motion. You used the term “jammed”.

The other thing is that I do not need a lecture on my rights as a parliamentarian to move motions related to the business at hand. I don't need that. I understand this. I've tried to word it as neutrally as possible and made it as open as possible. This committee can come to an objective, rational position on a very hot topic, and just because members of this committee can't think quickly enough, so it seems, I don't need a lecture.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Is there any further debate on the motion before the committee?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Chair, I'd like to add an amendment that we look at the timeline differently so that it would be done after we complete this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

We have an amendment on the floor. Is there debate on the amendment?

Go ahead, Madame Rempel Garner.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Chair, I note that there is no timeline on this study, so I don't know when it's going to be completed. I don't support this amendment because right now this is a very hot topic. There are companies and strategic assets that we should be talking about. Are we allowing authoritarian countries and governments to purchase strategic assets in Canada? It's the headline all over the news.

There's a lot of stuff happening right now. I don't understand why we couldn't spend four meetings in the next two weeks to look at this important issue. I don't want it to be punted down the road. This is timely and should be looked at immediately, as per my remarks to you.

I definitely don't want this to be punted to the end of an indefinite study that has no scope and that was forced upon us due to the suspension of the House of Commons. I don't find that acceptable.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Chair, I won't be supporting the amendment. It's just a filibuster to put off our witnesses' testimony.

The motion we have is straightforward. We either support it or we don't, and then we can hear our witnesses' testimony. Any other business is just filibustering.