Evidence of meeting #144 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 savings.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I'm just posing the question in terms of debate. I think I can pose questions in my interventions. I wasn't suggesting that Mr. Perkins could answer right away.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I was not as much afraid of that as I was of Mr. Perkins jumping in and there being a back-and-forth between the two of you guys. As much as I enjoy it, that's not how it works.
Monsieur Garon, go ahead.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My issue with Mr. Perkins' motion is that we can hardly be against virtue. However, the motion almost implies that the government squandered $50 million. We know that the government could do this in some cases, as we saw with projects such as ArriveCAN. However, given the wording of the motion, I get the impression that we—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
One moment, Mr. Garon. It seems that there isn't any interpretation.
Liberal
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I get the impression that the Conservatives are on a fishing expedition. They're trying to find cases to fuel their election campaign. In some cases, we had good reason to believe that irregularities occurred and to demand accountability, and we did so. We asked for documents and reviewed them in camera, as in the Stellantis case, for example. However, in this case, we seem to have both a request for information and a trial.
The Conservatives are asking for emails and documents. You wouldn't ask for these things unless you strongly suspected irregularities. At the end, the Conservatives are already saying what they want us to report to the House.
In all cases of irregularities, whether they involve grants awarded when they shouldn't have been or violations of contribution agreements, or where we have reason to believe that things weren't done properly, I would like us to do this. However, in this case, the committee's role isn't to start a public trial of every company that benefited from a government program. It isn't to feed the election platform of the Conservative Party, which is fishing for new scandals. Our time is valuable and in short supply.
It's worth noting that the leader of the official opposition is against any industrial policy or grant. He said so himself. He lives in a world where other countries don't exist, where our competitors don't provide grants and where industrial giants don't relocate, for example. We live in a very imperfect world. As a result, we often see public money go down the drain. I can understand the frustration.
With all due respect to my Conservative colleagues, I don't see how their motion serves the public interest, even though the wording suggests that it does. They did the same thing with Mr. Carney last time. I don't particularly like him. We must avoid using committees to put people on public trial. We must avoid turning a committee into a people's court every time a person sees the potential to win votes. When I'm convinced that this motion serves the public interest, I'll support it. However, until I see proof to the contrary, I don't intend to support it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you for your eloquent remarks, Mr. Garon.
Mr. Masse, you have the floor.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Maybe I can propose an amendment to this motion that can get us over this and back to the witnesses.
I'm sorry, Mr. Garon, but this is going to be an English version, because I'm on the fly here and I'm unilingual, unfortunately. I don't have the skill of the two languages.
At any rate, the first sentence, still in English, would be the same. We would strike out “Liberal” and strike out “handout” and then finish with, at the end, “grant. And the committee report to the House.” Then we would strike out everything else.
Make it simple: Strike out “Liberal”, strike out “handout”, and after “grant. And the committee report to the House”, everything else is struck out.
Liberal
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Can I get a copy of the amended version of the motion in both official languages?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Yes, you can. It shouldn't take too long, since we're talking about deletions. Perhaps we could suspend while the motion is distributed as amended.
Ms. Rempel Garner, do you have a question?
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I'm not sure if this would be a point of order on form or a quick comment, but if Mr. Masse cuts out the word “handout”, it leaves a gap without an operative word. Perhaps he'd like to suggest a word that would be less.... What about “payout” or “grant”?
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
“Grant” means certain things to certain.... It's like spell-crafting here. “Contribution” is usually.... It could be “commitment”.
NDP
Liberal
November 4th, 2024 / 4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Okay.
Mr. Garon, we can suspend for two minutes while the amendment is distributed to members, if you still need it. If not, we will continue the debate on the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Okay. We'll suspend for two minutes.
Mr. Perkins, I'm trying to gauge whether I should let our witnesses go so they do not have to endure these debates on motions here at the committee. You will have other motions after, I believe.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I will, then, thank you all for your very interesting, albeit brief, testimony and presence here at the committee.
Mr. Stanford, thank you for joining us by video conference.
I will suspend the meeting for a few minutes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Colleagues, I see everyone around the table, and MP Bachrach, who's joined us virtually.
Everyone's received the amendment via the clerk, so now let's debate the amendment.
Mr. Turnbull.
Liberal
