Evidence of meeting #136 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 conservatives.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I actually think I need another coffee. This is a lot for a Thursday morning at 8:15 with half a cup in me.
If I heard my Bloc and NDP colleagues correctly, the issue perhaps is less with the content and more with the timing, so I propose an amendment to this motion.
It would be in the third and final paragraph of the motion. The first sentence would be changed. It reads, “the committee therefore agree to conduct a study of not less than four meetings, beginning in the first sitting week of”, but then strike the word “November” and replace it with “January, or after the credit card study is complete, whatever is earlier”.
I propose that amendment, which I'm hoping my colleagues will support.
Surprise, Rick.
I think that might address some of Mr. Masse's concern. I am very keen to start the credit card study as well. I certainly contributed to the witness list. I think a lot of people in my riding echo some of the concerns that are outlined in the study. I'm keen to get going on that.
I want to look at the content of this motion and perhaps make an argument for it.
Some of the Liberals have suggested that the wording of this motion is meant to suggest there isn't a need for a vibrant EV industry in Canada. I think that having an EV industry in Canada is a very important thing. Certainly, having lower-emission cars is something I think many consumers are keen to do. We're all partners in finding ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but doing so while ensuring the cost of living is kept low for Canadians.
There's nothing in the motion that suggests, as the Liberals have said, that we don't want an EV industry. It's actually the opposite.
Colleagues, if we want to have an EV industry in Canada, and this government has put a lot of money—a lot of tax dollars—behind this.... I want to remind us all that we have a fiduciary responsibility as members of Parliament to ensure tax dollars are being well spent. If they're being dedicated towards one company or another company and it's clear in the media those companies are experiencing issues, then it behooves us to ask the question that my colleague Mr. Perkins is asking here, which is to review the government's EV strategy. That's all this asks. It's asking if we are investing in the right spot and if the investments the government has made still make sense given the news that's happened recently.
Colleagues, I'll direct your attention to an article from CBC News, which is hardly a bastion of Conservative thought. It was published on September 1. It said, “Northvolt's EV battery plant in Quebec could be delayed up to 18 months”.
The government's entire argument on the allocation of billions of dollars as part of their environmental narrative hinges on plants like these. Now that we've heard this plant could be delayed, it behooves us to ask the question that's in this motion. Does this impact the government's EV strategy?
What I've heard here today, colleagues.... I understand there are politics behind us here. I understand that some of my Liberal colleagues might not want to ask this question. If people actually care about reducing greenhouse gas emissions by producing electric vehicles, then we should be asking. If there's a story in Canada's major broadcaster that this plant might not come to fruition, maybe we should ask if adjustments need to be made in the strategy to ensure that the objectives the government has tried to sell us on actually come to fruition.
There's one more thing. There's been a lot of talk about Quebec politics and Ontario politic and who's here and who's not here. I just have a couple of comments, folks.
Yes, I'm an Alberta MP, but I understand what it means to pull emitting cars off the road to reach greenhouse gas emissions targets, so I have been such a big advocate for the boondoggle that has been the Green Line in Calgary, which should have pulled 50,000 cars off the road by now. Just because I'm from Alberta, that doesn't mean I can't have something to add on asking whether the strategy is still working. I just want to say that.
Second of all, we have to be careful about talking about what regions are represented and who's not represented. I'm literally the only woman on this committee, so let's just park some of those things for a minute.
On the topic of Quebec politics, if we want to talk about this, it is now becoming a political issue. I ask for forgiveness from my colleagues from Quebec, but there is an MNA, Frédéric Beauchemin, and I think he's a Liberal MNA. He's criticizing the Legault government for putting all of its eggs in one basket.
Now we're descending into territory where there are billions of dollars at stake, potentially laudable objectives about producing electric vehicles, and we don't have a clear line of sight on what the government is going to do, if anything, to correct course. Maybe it doesn't want to correct course. Maybe there's a reason for that. Some of my colleagues have made passionate arguments that there's no need to correct course.
I think it would behoove us to spend a couple of meetings, given that there are billions of dollars on the line here, to have maybe some of these executives or the government officials come. We could say, “Do you know what? Even though we hear news that this plant is going to be delayed by 18 months and that the parent company has had a massive problem in its home company, it's still good, and here's why.” The government has not done that.
The other examples that my colleague Mr. Perkins has raised in this motion are equally concerning. What the government is asking us to do, colleagues, is to continue to allocate billions of dollars to companies and plants that are not on the track that the government announced, so it is our responsibility to ask how the plan is progressing given these significant changes. I think that the amendment.... I'm looking in good faith to my colleagues. I want the credit card study to happen. I want to talk about electric vehicles, and I want to hear what the government is doing to make sure that, despite these reports, our country is still on track to make some of the targets, given the opportunity cost of the billions of dollars.
For the billions of dollars being directed here, at a time when there needs to be legitimate climate action in Canada, if it's not going to achieve the results that the government is saying it will in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and job growth, then we need to have a rethink about what the strategy is and how we're going to get there. That's why I support this motion. I disagree with the characterization that this is somehow irresponsible. We need to have smart solutions to address climate change, but if the government is putting billions of dollars into projects that are not going to come to fruition, there needs to be a rethink for all of those reasons.
I hope you'll support this amendment. It is the mandate of this committee to review strategies exactly like this. I hope you will support this and that we can move on with doing our jobs. Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Based on the conversation that we've had on this particular motion, I don't have a lot of hope for the Conservatives salvaging this right now. That's the feeling that I'm getting from the other colleagues around the table. I think we've all spoken passionately to where we stand on this. It’s clear that the framing of this is the problem. I think there are some underlying assumptions in the whole frame of the motion, which, fundamentally, I disagree with.
Therefore, Ms. Rempel Garner's changing the slight timeline, to me, doesn't fix the motion. I just think that it would be easier for us to revisit this when we finish Bill C-27. I think that if you and the Conservatives have questions for the minister on the changes to some of these, you're going to have him for two hours sometime in the next two weeks, which we've committed to.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Excuse me. It's one hour.
You'll have your time with the minister to ask those questions. I think we brought that into the scope of the motion to ensure those questions are.... It's anything to do with his priorities and mandate. That was how we left it. I think that's good news.
I say we dispense with this motion by voting on it, and then we can revisit this later on down the road when we've finished Bill C-27. We can say, “What does this committee have as priorities?” We can all put our thoughts into what our next priorities are and have a mutually beneficial discussion on reaching some consensus around what else we would like to study. The EV industry is something I'm interested in. I would love to think about how we might do something later on down the road on that, but I don't think, again, that now is the time.
It's the framing of this particular motion that I take issue with. I've heard very clearly from colleagues that they see it in a somewhat similar light. Actually, they made better arguments than I did, quite frankly.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.
Before we deal with the motion, we have to dispose of the amendment that was presented by MP Rempel Garner. We're still on the amendment right now. We've all heard it.
I have MP Rempel Garner.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
My colleague has talked about taking issue with the framing of the motion. I want to go through it very clearly and put on record that I don't agree with the assertion that there's a problem with the framing. The motion, literally, is fact, fact, fact, fact and fact.
It says:
governments have invested upward of $50 billion towards the creation of an EV battery ecosystem
That's a fact.
and has mandated that all automobile sales in Canada be zero-emitting by 2035
That's a fact.
and given that:
Northvolt's $7-billion EV plant in Montreal, QC, has delayed construction for upward of a year
Unless they're saying that CBC News has put out fake news, that is a fact. It has been reported. Eighteen months—
Liberal
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
We're not the ones who've ever said that the CBC puts out fake news.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
It's the Conservatives who say they're going to defund the CBC; then they use their headlines as evidence to make their arguments in committee.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you.
It is a fact that the CBC has reported that the Northvolt plant will be delayed by up to 18 months.
Point two says that “Umicore's $7.2-billion EV component plant in Kingston, ON, has halted construction, despite receiving $1 billion dollars' worth of taxpayer subsidy.” That is also a fact.
“Ford's $1.8-billion EV expansion in Oakville, ON, has been scrapped and retooled to make gasoline pickups, despite receiving 590 million dollars' worth of taxpayer subsidies.” These points are also facts. The framing is that these are statements of fact. There is nothing torqued in here. These are statements of fact that we should all be concerned with.
The operative cause of what this is asking to do is a four-meeting study to review the government's EV strategy, given the significant amount of taxpayer support amid a global slowdown in EV production and sales. There has been a global slowdown in EV production and sales; it's not just Canada. That is a fact. The committee agreed to hear from witnesses submitted by members of the committee.
My colleague suggests that an hour with the minister, when we have a litany of other issues, is sufficient to address this issue. That is not correct, number one; it's just not. That's a preposterous assertion. It's preposterous.
The second thing is that we need to hear from some of the executives and not just executives. If this passes, I would put on the witness list, hopefully, someone with a background in emissions modelling to look at what the delay in these plants means for the government's forward projections on emissions reductions, given the level of subsidies that they've directly committed to this. How have these changes changed the government's forward modelling on greenhouse gas emissions? Canadians are being asked to pay a lot. If we're not getting that reduction and certainly not getting the jobs in the period of time that they said, then what is the government doing to reverse course?
My colleague opposite has brought up the concept of politics a lot here. If I were going to make an assertion on why the Liberals don't want to do this, it is that the Minister of Industry is setting up for a leadership bid—that is public knowledge—and I think that his hallmark project, knowing that there are arguably some issues with it that might come under public scrutiny, would be problematic for people who might be seeking his favour in a leadership race. If we're going to ascribe motive, that's my gut feeling here.
I do not understand why anybody on this committee who cares about job creation in the auto sector, good, wise stewardship of tax dollars and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions wouldn't agree to a forward move study.
The operative clause here on the purpose of this study is to review the government's EV strategy. There's no motive that's given. It's just saying that there have been massive changes and that we should be reviewing the government's EV strategy.
You guys all know that there are problems here. There are structural problems with these deals now, and the wheels are going to come off the bus of these deals. At that point in time, we are going to look back to these meetings and the arguments that have been made here, where we are having members of the House of Commons saying, “No, we shouldn't look at that. We shouldn't look at billions of dollars of subsidies.” I know I will be. There are a lot of things that were said here today that I'm taking furious notes on, like, “Yes, they said that. Okay, not a problem,” and, “Turnbull at 9:10 on the thing,” because it's preposterous.
I hear in the House of Commons all the time about rich corporate executives. You guys are literally letting rich corporate executives off the hook. When a company like Northvolt announces that they're going to delay a plant by 18 months after basically shuttering their operations and their parent company, we're like, “Oh, no, it's okay. It's fine. We don't need to scrutinize this.” Even in January.... It's a sad state of affairs.
Anyway, I am now proposing that the amendment on the table seeks to address the concerns of my colleagues on the opposition side on timing, which is reasonable. I also want to get to the credit card study. I hope that you will accept the amendment and that my colleagues will think carefully about not supporting this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, MP Rempel-Garner, for reminding everyone that we are dealing with the amendment. I've been very generous in my interpretation of the amendment, but we should be addressing the amendment right now, before we come back to the motion.
Mr. Badawey, go ahead.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I said earlier, both the amendment and the motion really discourage the intent, what our government and, quite frankly, all of us—regardless of which party we belong to up here in Ottawa—are trying to nurture as well as strengthen when it comes to our economic opportunities over and above what we've been reliant upon in the past.
Again, I go back to what I said earlier about my province, Ontario. There's a reason that our production and performance have been at the level they're at, and it's that all levels of government are working together to ensure that this growth continues, especially, as I said earlier, with Canada's being the front door to new and emerging markets. There's a reason for that, and it is a matter of all of us working together to that end.
I want to make a final point—and I want to really drill down on this, coming from my former life in municipal government and now here in federal government—about how important it is that we participate in the investments needed within our supply chains and economic corridors with respect to capacity. That's the residual benefit of investments like this. It's not just going to the company. It's also going to the investments needed to really strengthen the capacity, creating fluidity within our economic corridors.
Mr. Chairman, I leave it at that. What I suggest now is that we simply go to a vote, so we can move on with our business of the day.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
It's a suggestion I like, and I see no other speakers on the list.
On the amendment...I put it to a vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
We're back to the motion proposed by Mr. Perkins.
Do any other members wish to speak?
Mr. Perkins, you have the floor.
September 26th, 2024 / 9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Well, we are on the main motion. I put it to a vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I know there are people watching right now and probably tuning in to see what's going on with Bill C-27 as we're talking about this. There has been a bit of what I'll perhaps say is a confused characterization of the status of Bill C-27 by Minister Champagne, with comments in Montreal yesterday where he said the three opposition parties were filibustering Bill C-27. Somebody, perhaps MP Turnbull, should update the minister on the status of this bill.
We've had 10 meetings so far for clause-by-clause, and in the last five meetings, the Liberals have filibustered one amendment. If the minister wants to get up to speed about the status of his bill, he waited a year between introduction and second reading before we even got to second reading in the House, so he delayed it a year, or at least his House leader did.
The Liberals have been filibustering in the last five meetings. It was actually the Liberals who agreed and suggested we delay Bill C-27 and proceed with the credit card study while they sort out their problems with their broken bill and the bad elements of it, particularly the creation of a new Liberal bureaucracy with the tribunal.
In regard to that, the committee needs to send a message directly to the minister that we appreciate neither his lack of knowledge of what's going on at this meeting nor the misrepresentation he is making in the media about our work on Bill C-27.
With that, I will move the following motion:
That, with regard to the committee's ongoing study of Bill C-27, and given that Minister Champagne has accused opposition parties of slowing down consideration of the bill, but given that:
(i) the minister delayed consideration of the bill for a year by leaving it on the Order Paper, preventing its consideration in second reading; and
(ii) Liberal members of the industry committee have continually filibustered consideration of the bill for five out of the 10 meetings held on clause-by-clause, to prevent the passage of amendments recommended by the Privacy Commissioner;
the committee therefore express its disagreement with Minister Champagne's comments in Montreal yesterday and order the clerk of the committee to draft a letter to the minister requesting that his members stop their filibuster of Bill C-27.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you.
Has the motion been sent to all committee members?
I'm not sure if it has been sent to members, and no notice was given, but technically we are on Bill C-27 in this meeting, so I will allow it.
Next up will be Mr. Garon and Mr. Masse.
Mr. Garon, the floor is yours.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank my colleague for moving this motion. We're waiting for it in both official languages so that we can look at it in detail, because it was read quickly.
In Bill C‑27, it's hard to know who's blocking what. It's blocking on all sides for a variety of reasons. I listened to Mr. Perkins read his motion. It must be said that it contains nothing but facts. It's true that this bill was inadequate, that it was the subject of numerous government amendments, and that it complicated matters. It's also true that this bill dates back to 2022, that it's taking a long time to study, and so on.
At the same time, I think we need to work in a spirit of co‑operation. We don't know how much longer Parliament will last, but we do know that, among the elements addressed in Bill C‑27, the first part on personal information is important. I'm still hopeful that we'll find a way forward.
Since we're on CPC‑9, we can speak to it. There was the famous tribunal issue. As we said here in committee—it's no secret—we're more or less in agreement on the creation of the new tribunal, and we were prepared to find alternatives.
For the Conservatives, CPC‑9 is a good amendment. They did what they could. We understand that the Liberals don't want to give the commissioner all the powers, but there is a way forward without the tribunal. However, it seems possible to me that the minister or the department felt a kind of rigidity, which made the parliamentary secretary's task almost impossible. When you ask the parliamentary secretary to create a tribunal on which the three opposition parties in a minority Parliament disagree, you find yourself unable to do so.
I understand that there are filibusters on both sides. By the way, Mr. Chair, even though the topic at hand was electric vehicles, what we faced today is in many ways a filibuster against Bill C‑27. We still sent the witnesses home.
It's important to tell the truth. If CBC is reporting hockey scores, are we going to do a study on those scores? We've arrived at this type of argument to postpone the study, and the Conservatives seem to agree. I just want to confirm that I'm not moving a motion.
Obviously, there are facts. I think that the minister needs to keep a certain reserve, and he knows that when it comes to the first part and the way forward, everyone is talking to each other, everyone is being constructive. This is true in the case of my colleague Mr. Perkins and his cronies. It's also true in the case of the parliamentary secretary and Mr. Masse.
I also think that, if the minister wants to make things easier for us, he needs to keep a certain reserve in public. We no longer know where the blockage is coming from. It's everybody's fault and nobody's fault at the same time.
We'll look at the text of the motion to see if we adopt it. If the minister is listening, I ask him to appeal for calm, to trust the committee, his parliamentary secretary and the discussions that will lead us to find this path forward.