Industry Committee on Sept. 23rd, 2024

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'm sorry, colleagues, but I still don't understand.

I understand what Mr. Garon is trying to do. I thought we were in agreement with Mr. Drouin's suggestion that there would be redactions according to ATI Act. I wonder how we got here. How did we get to a point where we're now saying...?

My understanding, Mr. Garon, is that you said “without redactions”, but I was expecting you to say “with redactions”, according to what I thought we had agreed upon as a committee.

Maybe I misunderstood.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Garon, you have the floor.

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

In fact, as I understand it, and I believe it is correct, when there is a contribution agreement, a mandate letter for a particular contribution is first signed between Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, and Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC. Then, at the second stage, an individual contract is signed with the company.

However, we're not asking for that last contract; we're only asking for the contribution agreement, which means there's no need to subject the redactions to the Access to Information Act. We are only asking for the mandate letter between ISED and SDTC.

Now, out of an abundance of caution, if there happened to be a specific company name in the mandate letters, we would propose that it be redacted. It would appear that these mandate letters do not include company names. The fact that we are not asking for contracts, but only for contribution agreements means that we do not need the Access to Information Act in this specific case.

Have I made myself clear?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

We've all heard the amendment.

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I think I understand correctly. It's the clarification on what's being requested. It's related to the contribution agreement between ISED and SDTC; that is really what is being requested here. Shouldn't it be subject to the same Access to Information Act in order to...? I don't know what's in that. I haven't reviewed that agreement, so I don't know what's in there, but to me, if there's anything that should be redacted, then it should be. It shouldn't be released to the public.

I just have a concern that if we say “without redactions”, we're assuming what's in that agreement, perhaps. I think I understand that it's not going to include....

Monsieur Garon, you actually said that it won't include any references to any companies, which I think is a good clarification. However, shouldn't it also be subject to the same kinds of requirements that an access to information request would be, in terms of making sure that anything that could be revealing or sensitive should be redacted?

I felt pretty comfortable when we were going down that route. I was getting more comfortable with this. Now I'm feeling like I'm back to.... I appreciate the clarification on what's being requested, because I think there was a lack of clarity on that to some degree, but now I'm thinking about what else could be in there that might not be relevant but could be sensitive information to either SDTC or ISED. However, I'm not too sure what's in it.

I think Mr. Perkins said that he's really looking for what SDTC is allowed to spend money on. I think that's the intention here, but I'm not sure about the motion being as clear as it could be.

I'll have to think about that. I need another minute or two to confer with colleagues to see if we can vote in support of that, because I'm not sure we can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Given that we only have six minutes left, we can suspend for three minutes but no more than three minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

We're ready to resume the meeting.

Colleagues, I would like the attention of committee members.

Mr. Turnbull, the floor is yours.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I conferred with the team here and looked at what else an unredacted copy would be exposing that might not be appropriate. I need a little more time to think about that. I don't really feel comfortable with a fully unredacted copy of a contribution agreement, which is of the scale and scope that I think this would include, to be out publicly. I don't think that is necessary.

I think reviewing it in camera as a committee could be more than fine, but I really don't think that it's necessary to have an unredacted copy.

If Mr. Garon had said “with redactions according to the Access to Information Act”, I probably would have been quite comfortable with it, but given the fact that he said he was removing all redactions, I'm now concerned that exposing such a contribution agreement in public might not be a good thing.

In fact, I think what we want to see—and what our job is, as Mr. Perkins constantly reminds us—is holding people accountable, and if that's our job, then we should be able to do that ourselves by reviewing that agreement in camera and by deciding how we move forward.

I think we'll be reassured by the agreement. I think that if we review it in camera, it'll show that there's a very robust governance framework and a system for making decisions, and that there are very clear guidelines. I think that will be clear to us.

I would suggest that maybe we take a little more time. I'm not sure whether we're going to get to CPC-9 anyway in our next meeting. I don't mean to sound overly pessimistic, but I have a feeling that we might have some other motions that come forward and that need consideration. Perhaps we can review this at the start of the next meeting and can hopefully have a way forward. Perhaps we can have some conversations between now and then to figure out a path forward on this issue.

I don't want to delay it, obviously, but we've had a good, robust discussion today. I just want to be sure in how I vote. I don't want to be voting in a way that compromises organizations out there, especially in the clean-tech industry, that have actually gone through a lot, a big impact, as a result of us freezing funds.

I know that we're out of time, Chair, but....

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Your timing is perfect, Mr. Turnbull.

If I were a betting man, I would bet that we will still be on Mr. Perkins' motion in the next meeting. Given that we are adjourning this meeting, we can resuscitate your motion on Thursday. We'll follow up with Mr. Garon's amendment then.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

The meeting is adjourned.