Evidence of meeting #135 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sdtc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I mean, to me, if I were just to counter that, I would prefer the language “with redactions” rather than just deleting “without redactions”, because I think that would be for greater certainty, just as we said earlier, and it would be helpful to have that in there.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
It could be a friendly amendment that simply removes “without redactions.” Mr. Masse proposed that we consult each other in camera, which would prevent parliamentarians from raising the subject, from referring to it, and so on. I understand that the Conservatives are seeking transparency. Mr. Perkins expressed that objective and I fully support it.
I therefore think the solution would in fact be to withdraw the words “without redactions,” keeping in mind that the committee has the privilege of requesting unredacted documents, as required, if it determines that the redactions were intended to reduce transparency.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Very well.
Thank you, Mr. Garon.
The proposal therefore consists of completely removing the words “without redactions.”
Ms. Rempel Garner, you have the floor.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I think what my colleague from the Bloc is intending is not that it would be all black redactions of everything. However, the way that we word it, knowing this government.... It sued the Speaker of the House of Commons to prevent a document production order, and we've all had the black lines as responses to our Order Paper questions.
I'm wondering if there's a way that perhaps we could be specific about what the intention on the non-redactions would be. I'm just wondering if my colleague was trying to be specific about perhaps just redacting company names. Is that what we're talking about here? Otherwise, frankly, we know what's going to happen. If we say “with redactions”, it's going to come back with the black Sharpie of destiny all over it, and of course the Liberals are going to vote for that.
I caution my colleagues. I know that it's a wonderful thing to believe in the government and to believe that it will do the right thing, but we all know that it won't. I would just ask my colleagues.... I see it as somewhat problematic to just invite the government to kill a few trees with black Sharpies.
Liberal
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Since I am now an official member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, of course, I would lean towards opposing this motion, because we are studying the same one at that committee. This motion is a little redundant.
That said, to respond to Mr. Garon’s comments, and to set out a framework for those who will look into this, I would say that we would usually write “under the Access to Information Act.” That way, when third parties are involved, it forces the government to ask them if they agree with having their personal information published. These are not people who work for the government. They could be regular citizens or representatives of private businesses that deal with the government, but they still have personal information, and I respect that.
So, instead of removing the words “without redactions,” I would simply replace them with “under the Access to Information Act.” I don't know if my colleague agrees, but I'm giving him a chance.
Liberal
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
We can agree on making it a friendly amendment, so I will answer from that perspective.
I’d like to answer the question posed by my colleague, Ms. Rempel Garner. I myself have not seen the documents. If we remove businesses’ names, all we have to do is look at the list of businesses—which is public—to know who they are. It would take four and a half seconds to make those associations. In the end, that means the documents wouldn’t really be redacted. Mr. Masse proposed that we get the unredacted documents in order to review them, talk about them and determine what we need. As a committee, we cannot specifically decide what should be redacted or not. I have not seen these documents, so this makes me a little uncomfortable.
Now, as for the Access to Information Act, I am interested in hearing what my Conservative colleagues have to say about it. It remains Mr. Perkins’s motion. That said, the main motion proposes a deadline of 14 days to produce the documents. We have to be realistic. The government will send notices to tons of businesses, and they will send them to their lawyers to get their opinion. We won’t get a single document within 14 days.
Furthermore, Mr. Drouin says he is giving us a chance, but when you pull on the line, you catch a fish. I understand that he is acting in good faith, but if we go down this road, I have no hope of us getting any documents whatsoever. It could only be in the government’s interest for us not to get any.
I would therefore lean towards maintaining the amendment as is, but I am curious about what my Conservative colleagues think of it. I am ready to listen to them.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you.
The amendment remains as is.
Mr. Perkins, you have the floor.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I thought MP Rempel Garner articulated very well the use and wearing out of black Sharpies. Without some parameters for what the government could or couldn't redact, the whole thing will get redacted.
I think MP Drouin actually proposed the Access to Information Act, which at least puts some fences around it if it's public and needs to be redacted. We're talking about the contribution agreements here, not the list of companies that have received money. Frankly, I don't see anything that needs to be redacted, probably, at the end of the day, because it's not about a particular individual company or a particular individual. It's just about how you spend taxpayer money: What can you spend it on? There wouldn't be anything commercially sensitive, so if access to information were used, I think that would be a fair compromise.
In terms of the document itself, the document is already in both languages or it wouldn't be provided, one would presume, as the directors on the board speak both official languages and the documents are already available in both official languages. The documents have been provided by the department to the foundation, so it should be a simple matter of asking, “Is there anything commercially sensitive in the contribution agreement?” I don't believe there is. If there's something commercially sensitive, that's what they can redact. If not, give us the documents. That's where access to information, I believe, sort of draws the line: around commercial sensitivity.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Could we have a quick suspension to discuss this among our colleagues?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
We will now resume the committee meeting; there are 12 minutes left before the meeting adjourns.
Mr. Garon has the floor.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Mr. Chair, around here we rarely get it right the first time, but I think we may have a solution.
I therefore propose that my amendment be amended, and that it be done courteously by unanimous consent of the committee.
I'll read the last paragraph of the amendment. I will read it in French, slowly, for our friend Mr. Turnbull.
We move that the committee therefore order SDTC and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, to produce copies of each contribution agreement reached between ISED and SDTC, reinforced and signed since June 24, 2024, and that all references to company names be redacted.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Did I understand correctly? I thought I heard you say “June 24”.
June 24 is Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
In fact, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day is June 23, Mr. Chair. The following day is June 24.
September 23rd, 2024 / 5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Very well.
You've heard the terms of—
We had unanimous consent for Mr. Garon to withdraw his amendment, so he is moving this new amendment.
Mr. Turnbull, you have the floor.