Industry Committee on Nov. 17th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 44 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 1, 2022, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-235 , an act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022.

Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to see everyone again.

First, there are a few items of business in terms of how we are going to proceed on the clause-by-clause consideration today that I'd like to share with you.

As the name suggests, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing the amendment, who may explain it should they wish. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to comment, the amendment will be voted on.

The amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package the committee members received from the clerk.

Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk.

Since this is the first time this committee is examining a bill clause by clause, I will proceed slowly so that everyone can follow the discussion.

Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment.

Once an amendment has been moved, the member will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

When an amendment is being debated, members may propose subamendments, which must be submitted in writing. The permission of the mover of the amendment is not required. The committee can have only one subamendment before it at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then, another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote to adopt or defeat it.

Once the committee has voted on the various clauses, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself.

If any amendments have been adopted, it may be necessary to order a reprint of the bill as a working copy for House use at report stage.

Lastly, the committee shall instruct the chair to report the bill to the House. The report shall indicate only the text of amendments that have been adopted and any clauses that have been removed.

Everyone seems to be clear on the procedure, so I think we are ready to start the clause-by-clause study.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

I therefore call clause 2.

(On clause 2)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Does anyone wish to propose amendments to clause 2?

Go ahead, Mr. Fillmore.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'll draw committee members' attention to the package of amendments that is before them, specifically amendment G‑1.

This is a very simple amendment. It is simply stating that the minister responsible would be “the minister responsible for economic development in the Prairie provinces” rather than the Minister of Industry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for going slowly.

Mr. Fillmore, I don't have a problem with the change, but could you provide an explanation as to why there has been the change in the minister responsible?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Certainly.

The bill itself refers to the Prairies and economic development in the Prairies. By good fortune, we have a minister whose portfolio is exactly that. It just makes good sense that we would have a minister who would have more of his or her attention to devote to this bill and its outcomes than the Minister of Industry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Fillmore.

Go ahead, Mr. Vis.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

In good faith, I have another question to Mr. Fillmore.

My experience with Pacific Economic Development and previous to that with Western Economic Diversification is that those ministers don't generally have much say over economic development or policy. They generally hand out grants to various businesses and organizations in their respective provinces. Including this clause in this piece of legislation would effectively enlarge the responsibility of the minister of economic development.

I'm not necessarily opposed to it. I just want to know whether the government side thought that implication through.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you.

I think that the drafter had included the Minister of Industry at the beginning as a statute minister. The drafter was under the impression that it must be a statute minister who is responsible in a case like this. Later it was determined that a non-statute minister could in fact be the minister responsible.

We think it's a great idea—the drafter thinks it's a great idea—for the reason that this will be a minister whose entire focus is the Prairies and their well-being. As we know, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is drawn in many directions at once. A lot of his time is spent overseas developing trade opportunities for Canada, and we believe that the good outcomes intended by the bill would be better served by someone with better focus on the Prairies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Go ahead, Mr. Williams.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you.

Through you, Mr. Chair, my question will go back to Mr. Fillmore.

There's a lot of language in here that does talk about.... For instance, in the summary, we still have “collaboration with the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Natural Resources and any minister responsible for economic development in the Prairie provinces”, so I think we already had that minister there.

Are we then eliminating the Minister of Industry? The Minister of Industry is being eliminated, but still we have collaboration with the ministers of environment, transport, finance.... I'm just wondering if the Minister of Industry should still be included in some part of this summary. How would we do that?

Thank you.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Yes, you're quite right. The Minister of Industry is still implicated. In a later amendment, you'll see where that comes up. In fact, I believe it's G-2 and G-3.

The amendments together eliminate the Minister of Industry as the implicated responsible minister, but add the Minister of Transport back in as one to be consulted with and to be part of consultations and collective work going forward, along with the Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Finance, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister of Transport.

The Minister of Industry gets put in that group of ministers, but we need somebody who's front and centre. The drafter and our team feel that it's best if it's the person who's devoted solely in their portfolio to the well-being of the Prairies. The Minister of Industry doesn't go away. That minister becomes one of the consulted ministers, along with those others that I've mentioned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Fillmore.

Go ahead, Mr. Williams.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you. I have a follow-up question.

Some of us are just coming into the INDU committee, so for clarification, is this the only bill relating to one part of Canada for a green economy? Do we have an act respecting the green economy of Atlantic Canada, for instance? Is there any other, or is this the only one in front of Parliament so far?

Thank you.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

I'm not sure, Chair, who the question was directed to, but I could offer one observation.

Regional bills like this—regional efforts—have passed in the past. For example, in the east coast, we had something called the Atlantic growth strategy, which was specifically geared towards some of the deeply ingrained economic hardships that we face in the Atlantic provinces. A special program was developed around that.

I liken this bill to that program. There is some fairly close precedent, I would say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Go ahead, Mr. Williams.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, to Mr. Fillmore again, where I'm getting to is this: Did we give that responsibility to another minister or did the Minister of Industry have that responsibility?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

It was the minister responsible for ACOA, which is the equivalent of the Minister for Prairies Economic Development Canada.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Okay. I have just one last question for Mr. Fillmore.

Just to get the wording right, through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Fillmore or whoever wants to answer, is this similar language? Do we have still that the minister would be collaborating with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Environment, etc.?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

That's exactly right.

If you were just to flip to amendments G-2 and G-3, you'll see that all of those ministers are together in a very happy and collaborative space within the confines of this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay. I see no more interventions.

Shall G‑1 carry?

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Shall clause 2 as amended carry?

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 3)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

We are now on clause 3.

I think Mr. Fillmore wants to move G‑2.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thanks, Chair. This will pick up where we left off.

These two amendments are trying to create a complete list of ministers who will be consulted and have input and responsibility with regard to the bill. I would therefore propose that the line 14 on page 1 be replaced with the following. It's odd, because it starts in the middle of a word, so it sounds like this:

ister of the Environment, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the

That ends the replacement of line 14.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Fillmore.

Are there comments?

Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.