Industry Committee on Sept. 26th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Good afternoon, everyone.

It is now 8:18 a.m., and I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 136 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Before we begin, I would ask you to consult the cards on the table for guidelines on the use of microphones and earpieces. These guidelines were put in place to ensure the health and safety of interpreters.

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.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses who are here again. They haven't been asked a lot at the last few meetings, and I have little hope that they will be asked anything during today's meeting. Having said that, I'd still like to thank them for being here.

From the Department of Industry, we have Samir Chhabra, director general, marketplace framework policy branch, and Runa Angus, senior director, strategy and innovation policy sector.

As I mentioned, we are continuing our study of Bill C‑27.

Mr. Perkins, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move or ask the committee to resume discussion where we left off last time on my motion on SDTC and the contribution agreements.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

You've moved your motion again.

Mr. Perkins is moving that we resume the debate where we left it last meeting on his motion regarding SDTC. If we are to resume the debate where we left it, we would usually need a vote, unless I have consent around the table to get back to where we left off.

I think I see consent around the table.

On that note, we'll go to Mr. Patzer.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'm sorry, Chair. I just have a quick question.

This is just a procedural one. From what I understand, the last meeting was suspended. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

No, the last meeting was adjourned.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

No worries.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Maybe I could just ask for clarification, just to jump back in and resume the debate on this.

Where were we?

I just ask because I know there were some amendments, etc., and there was quite a discussion. There was an amendment that didn't pass, and then I think we were on either another amendment or we were on the main motion. I can't remember which.

Could we just have a refresher as to where we are, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That is actually a very good question, Mr. Turnbull.

I was hoping you would give us an answer, but I'll just check with the clerk to make sure we're on the same page. Just give me one minute.

We were on Mr. Garon's amendment, which added some aspects about redaction.

Before the meeting adjourned on Monday, we were debating Mr. Garon's amendment.

Mr. Garon, can you read out the amendment you were moving, just to refresh members' memories?

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

I suggest that we read out the motion and the amendment, so that we know what we're talking about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay.

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

The text reads as follows:

The committee therefore orders SDTC and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) to produce copies of each contribution agreement between ISED and SDTC reinforced and signed since June 4, 2024, redacted of any reference to company names, in both official languages, within 14 days of this motion, in order to verify…

So this amendment involves two items. The first is to add the words “between ISED and SDTC”, to ensure that we're talking about contribution agreements. The second item concerns redacting references to company names.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Garon.

We're still debating that amendment.

Is there any discussion? Can we go to a vote on this amendment? Is there consent to adopt it?

Mr. Turnbull, you have the floor.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you for that, Mr. Garon. It refreshed my memory.

When we left off in the last meeting, I was saying that I wasn't sure how comfortable I felt with that. I've since reflected on this, and I'm feeling more comfortable with what Mr. Garon proposed.

I think, on our side, that we're prepared to support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay. I was talking to the clerk. There is general support for the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

We're back to the main motion as amended by Mr. Garon.

Are there any comments?

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

I have a brief comment, Mr. Chair, so those watching know what we're doing here.

It's what's called a “production of documents motion” to produce documents that were referenced numerous times in our study of SDTC, the green slush fund. That reference was to something called a “contribution agreement”. Contribution agreements are referenced quite extensively in the Auditor General's report concerning the expenditure, in this instance, of $58 million that was outside, as the Auditor General put it, of the contribution agreements. What those agreements are.... They're agreements between the industry department and SDTC on what they could spend taxpayer money on—the parameters of it. They're not public documents, so it's pretty hard to make a judgment on what's been going on.

We've also heard testimony in another committee—from a whistle-blower—that the government has amended those contribution agreements since they put a new governance board in place. Those changes should be made public, in my view—not only the original agreements but also the changes themselves, so we can see what new governance rules and restrictions the Liberals have put in place for the expenditure of the $1 billion or so that the current foundation...because it hasn't been transferred yet to the NRC. What does it have in place for spending that money?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Perkins. Or rather, Mr. Turnbull.

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

It's the hair. We get confused.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

It's early.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Yes, It's really early, Chair. We'll get you another coffee. You must be hallucinating.

I just wanted to say that we don't have any issue with the contribution agreement being reviewed by committee members. I question the objective of this being a good use of our committee time, to be honest. I think members will review that contribution agreement and be satisfied, and we can quickly move beyond this.

I know the Conservatives have continued to study this at multiple committees. I believe our committee time is really valuable. We had just agreed to a motion that schedules some of our time and accommodates a lot of the interests, objectives and some of the priorities of the different parties. We're trying to be very fair and reasonable. I think we came to an agreement on that, and then this was the very next thing.

I'm just letting you know that I'm opposed to this because I question the objective and the motive behind it. I think the Conservatives have made their points on the record very clear. They're interested in doing this to try to continue studying SDTC for evermore. I don't think that's necessary. We've had enough investigations and reviews. The government has stepped up time and time again to get to the bottom of this. I think we have held people accountable.

I would just say we're opposed to the motion as amended.

The contribution agreements are something I'm sure members will enjoy reviewing. Go nuts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have been filling in at public accounts and other committees where this has come up as well.

Not to give you work, but in the meantime, can you maybe check in with the public accounts committee chair to see what they're doing on this? I'm just concerned about continually duplicating.

Industry is a huge file. I'm really happy we're going to move to the credit card study and the other stuff, too.

I have my understanding of what's going on there, but I would rather have it be chair to chair at some point in time, to discuss this. That's not unusual. When we were studying copyright at one point, I moved a motion to combine industry and...another committee. Oh, my goodness; it's going to come back to me later. It doesn't matter. Together we did a joint study.

I just wanted to maybe have you reach out to do that, so we know what we're getting into entirely, without relying upon rumours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

I will do that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Are there any other comments on the motion as amended?

Seeing none, I would ask the clerk to put it to a vote.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you, colleagues.

This would bring us back to Bill C-27.

(On clause 2)

We were at CPC-9.

We had left it at a subamendment by Mr. Perkins on CPC-9, so I'm looking at Mr. Perkins.