Industry Committee on April 8th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Friends and colleagues, welcome to meeting number 116 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

I call this meeting to order.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 24, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C‑27, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

Before we start, colleagues, I would just like us to adopt the seventh report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, the steering committee, as we call it.

You've all received it, and I would seek your consent to adopt the steering committee's report.

Are there any comments on the steering committee report?

Apparently not.

Is there unanimous consent to adopt the subcommittee's report?

I'm getting nods. Wonderful.

Before we begin clause‑by‑clause consideration of Bill C‑27, Mr. Vis would like to speak.

Mr. Vis, we're listening.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

An economy with low productivity can grow only so much before inflation sets in. Economies with strong productivity have faster growth, more jobs and higher wages, and they rely less on increasing interest rates to protect against inflation. High labour productivity is also closely associated with improving living standards because it allows wages to rise without increasing inflation.

Sadly the level of productivity in Canada's business sector is low. In fact, it is more or less unchanged from where it was seven years ago. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ranks Canada 29th among 38 OECD countries for labour productivity. OECD has also reported that Canada has the lowest number of manufacturing companies with more than 250 employees per one million people. Canadian companies on average use less capital and technology and are less innovative than are those of many other advanced economies. Compared to the U.S., Canada invests less than half in research and development, software, hardware and data as well as on marketing and sales.

This matters because the standard of living in Canada has deteriorated compared to that in other countries. Business insolvencies in the year ending February 29, 2024, have increased nearly 60% according to the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy. Month over month, Statistics Canada continues to report that more businesses are closing than are opening, and that is why I'd like to move the following motion:

That, given that the Bank of Canada is warning that weak productivity and low business investment have become a national emergency; that Canada has long lagged the United States when it comes to how much the economy produces per hour of work, and that Canada has fallen behind G7 countries with only Italy seeing a larger decline of productivity relative to the United States; the lack of Canadian business investment in machinery, equipment and intellectual property; and that new Canadians are working in low-wage, low productivity jobs that don't take advantage of skill sets they possess and that this weak productivity is making the central bank's job of controlling inflation more difficult, the committee call for four meetings to be held immediately and invite the following witnesses:

the Governor of the Bank of Canada;

the interim chief statistician;

various small and medium-sized businesses and industry representatives;

and that the committee hear from these witnesses the extent of the harm to the Canadian economy and the ability to control high inflation caused by weak productivity and low investment, and from government officials what they are going to do to remedy this emergency; and report back to the House.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Vis.

The motion has been moved, so we'll open it up for debate.

I recognize Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Maybe I can get clarification in terms of the mover's intention with respect to the chief statistician, because his party tried to eliminate the long-form census and actually did so under Tony Clement, the former minister of industry. I'm wondering what the relevancy or their intent is with respect to this position, whether they're trying to get rid of the census again or whether or not this is for a witness who they would like to have testify in front of us, given there's a definite conflict in terms of the Conservatives' position on the chief statistician and the Canada census.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Mr. Vis, do you want to respond to that?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Briefly, to my colleague Mr. Masse regarding the information presented by Statistics Canada, this deserves to be raised at the industry committee. It's not every day the Bank of Canada talks about a crisis of productivity in this country. I know we're about to commence Bill C-27 amendments but I'm hoping, with the will of this committee, we can have extra meetings to discuss some very serious concerns raised by the business community in Canada and the independent Bank of Canada and to hear from Statistics Canada on the alarming trends they are outlining in their regular reporting to Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Sorbara, you're the next speakers.

Mr. Turnbull, the floor is yours.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Today's meeting is supposed to get into clause-by-clause analysis. Mr. Vis has brought this motion. I would note that we just unanimously passed the subcommittee report on agenda. We had a very productive meeting, which resulted in this report that we just passed unanimously. It has a schedule that outlines all of our meetings and how we'll spend them, and the priorities we've agreed to. I will say we came to a consensus on this through a very productive conversation.

Our committee schedule seems to be quite full. The Conservatives keep bringing up many other topics they would like to study. It's certainly their prerogative to do so, but there are only so many things you can fit into an agenda. We've all agreed that Bill C-27 and its clause-by-clause are the priority to get through.

I feel like these things keep being brought up in order to delay Bill C-27. I want to know whether the intention of this, Mr. Vis, is to delay getting to Bill C-27, or whether the Conservatives are legitimately interested in studying this. In that case, I would say the most appropriate time is when we finish Bill C-27 or the other items that we've come to agreement on. I'm not sure. It might be the fall by the time we actually get to something like this.

If the Conservatives want to replace this with one of their other priorities, which they've set out in our discussions...there are a number of them here. There are number five and number six, and number five was definitely a Conservative.... Maybe you want to substitute one of the other things to have a meeting on this topic.

I wonder if the Conservatives could clarify what the intention is here. Is it to delay Bill C-27, or is it to study this? Which other priority of theirs would they like to substitute this for?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Before I turn it over to you, Mr. Vis, I have Mr. Sorbara, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Masse.

I will go to Mr. Sorbara first.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Good morning, Chair.

I'm happy to see everyone this morning. Happy Monday to everyone.

First, to my colleague MP Vis, I was very happy to hear you say “the independent Bank of Canada”. That was very important. I thank you for putting on the record that the Bank of Canada is independent. I know your Leader of the Opposition wanted at one time to fire the Bank of Canada governor, and said that publicly. I think the independence of the Bank of Canada is very important for institutional integrity for many reasons, so I'm glad you put that on the record, Brad.

I want to get clarification on whether these meetings would be in addition to the meetings on Bill C-27.

We all want to have a strong economy with strong growth, and to create good jobs. I think yesterday's announcement on the AI front was part of that endeavour, and it continues to be.

I'm going to stop there. I look forward to getting to Bill C-27 and doing clause-by-clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Sorbara.

Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To MP Turnbull, these are in addition. I'm not surprised that you would like us to remove the green slush fund from further study and put this back on.

On the broader issue, the committee is in charge of its own destiny, and the statements and speech by the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of Canada officials happened after our steering committee meeting, when we agreed on the agenda. We thought it would be an appropriate time, given that productivity is obviously an urgent issue. If it wasn't, the Governor of the Bank of Canada wouldn't have raised the issue at this time.

Do not delay it until next year, or some other mythical time, and have a discussion, but actually do it when the Bank of Canada has raised it as a primary concern about the future ability of our country to afford the programs, the lifestyle and the things we all enjoy and love so much about being here.

In the spirit of being in charge of our own destiny and being nimble in order to reflect things that go on in the economy, because I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time, it's incumbent upon us to have these officials here to talk about this urgent priority raised by the governor and his officials.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

I'll now give the floor to Mr. Masse, and then to Mr. Garon.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have lived through debacles with the Canada census, which was seen as a model for many democracies for many years. We saw the outsourcing to Lockheed Martin, which we were able to stop under the Liberals—that was a Paul Martin regime decision—because it would have made our private information vulnerable to the United States under the Patriot Act. Nevertheless, Mr. Sheikh and Mr. Smith resigned.

I'm just curious about the Conservatives' renewed faith in the interim chief statistician right now, given their history of wanting to eliminate the long-form census under Stephen Harper, and of Tony Clement, as the former minister of industry, making stuff up on the fly about the census, including talking about putting people in jail. That's the history we have here at this committee with regard to the Conservative Party and the census. I would like further clarification about whether or not they have changed their position on the census and value having the interim chief statistician come to this table, or whether they're going to attack that individual when they come here and try to eliminate the census again.

That's what I gain from looking at this motion here, because it seems highly unusual that the Conservatives have actually renounced their position, given their history here, their former minister of industry Tony Clement and what took place.

At the same time, they're one of the star witnesses for this motion that was presented to us at the last moment.

I have a lot of reservation about this, again, from having fought against the previous outsourcing to Lockheed Martin and having fought to continue the long-form census, which was seen negatively by the Stephen Harper administration and up to today. I'm not sure where the Conservatives stand with regard to the chief statistician. I do not want the chief statistician to come here and be attacked or manipulated, versus what we have in the motion here. Again, to the Conservatives, is this a witness that they see as a value-added aspect to the motion, in terms of wanting to have the information come forward, or is it actually a front to try to eliminate the census again?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Mr. Garon, you have the floor.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll try to keep this short. I'm also sure that the purpose of this motion is to delay our work. I even wondered whether to speak.

I have a question for everyone. What's the point of meeting as a subcommittee, planning, working diligently, agreeing on something, adopting a report and then completely contradicting what we unanimously adopted five minutes ago? There was filibustering for much of the meeting. What type of organization or committee does things of this nature? It makes no sense.

Honestly, I'm not sure that the Conservatives are all that interested in productivity. It's clearly a political ploy to make the news. Why weren't immigration policy experts proposed? We have a Canadian immigration policy, which aims to bring cheap labour and vulnerable people to Canada in large numbers. There isn't anything to challenge this. From an electoral standpoint, it helps the Conservatives and the Liberals. There isn't anything in this.

They weren't interested in productivity when it came to implementing policies that boosted oil exports from the west. I have an important point to make. When the Conservatives' policies are put in place, when more oil is exported, the Canadian dollar appreciates. This completely stifles Canada's industrial heartland in Quebec and Ontario.

We should be having these conversations long before the proposed conversations with the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the chief statistician. The Conservatives have shown little regard for them, as my colleagues said.

I would like us to remain consistent. At the last meeting, we could discuss other topics. We agreed on something. I'm a person who still believes that words have value. As a result, I think that we should continue our legislative work. Despite our disagreements on Bill C‑27, we should continue to work diligently, as quickly as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

I see that Mr. Vis wants to speak.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

First, I will point out to Mr. Masse that the labour force survey, the work that Statistics Canada does on understanding Canada's economy, goes far beyond the parameters of the census. I want the right data from the right people at the right committee to study the right problems that Canadians are raising with all of us right now.

It was during a period of time when Parliament wasn't sitting that the Bank of Canada made this announcement. I, as an opposition MP, have only so many tools at my disposal to raise the issues that the business community in Canada is very concerned about, and this is right at the top of the list. If I was not using my ability as an opposition member to raise a motion in committee with regard to a story that really has a lot of people concerned in Canada's business community, I wouldn't be doing my job effectively. They need to know that we're listening; my constituents need to know that I'm listening. The private sector doesn't get a lot of attention from this government right now. I have to do my job, and that's what I'm doing here in good faith, so I don't know why you're attacking me so strongly this morning. This was done in good faith, and I didn't want to do it in a way that would disrupt Bill C-27.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm not attacking. I'm just bringing up the facts of the matter. I don't want to agree to a motion that would put the chief statistician in front of me here, given the history that has taken place with your party. I don't know where your party stands on the chief statistician who oversees this information and this process. It's as simple as that. I can't agree to put somebody in front of us right here who could be attacked for something that is supposed to be, basically, part of holding the position and doing their job. That's why I'm questioning that. I want to know specifically whether the Conservative Party agrees with the census or not.

That's a specific thing I'm asking. You don't have to answer it, but it's not an attack. It's a factual thing. I support the long-form census. I support the short-form census. I support the chief statistician. I support the whole department. All those things are on the table for me. I want to know that if I'm supposed to support putting somebody in front of me without the proper tools. I want to know the reasons to be here. It seems odd to me that that's the balance of what you're asking for in this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

I'm glad to see that we are all in good spirits after two weeks in our constituencies. It fills me with hope as we embark on this journey to do clause-by-clause on Bill C-27.

Once again, I would like to welcome the witnesses, who are here to answer our questions throughout the process.

We're meeting with Mark Schaan, senior assistant deputy minister, strategy and innovation policy sector in the Department of Industry; Samir Chhabra, director general, marketplace framework policy branch; and Runa Angus, senior director, strategy and innovation policy sector.

Mr. Garon, you have the floor.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Chair.

According to some informal conversations, the committee could soon meet with Rio Tinto representatives, as agreed on the agenda.

Where do things stand on this front?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Madam Clerk. According to the current schedule, one hour would be allocated to the Rio Tinto representatives on April 17. Another hour would then be allocated to the minister. This isn't confirmed, but it would be in addition to the main estimates sometime in May.

As I was saying, I would like to thank the witnesses for starting this process with us. As everyone knows, April and May are set aside for clause‑by‑clause consideration of Bill C‑27. We'll be seeing each other often over the coming weeks.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, which concerns the short title and the preamble, is postponed.

The chair calls clause 2.

(Clause 2)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

According to my list, the first amendment, amendment G‑1, comes from the government.

Mr. Turnbull, you have the floor.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

My understanding is that G-1 is a very technical change to the bill. It's not making a policy change or a shift in the bill. A similar adjustment has been made in AIDA's schedule, so it's a very insignificant change, I would say. That's my understanding. Hopefully, we can deal with this one fairly quickly and move on to CPC-1.

Perhaps Mr. Schaan can just clarify it.