Industry Committee on Dec. 12th, 2022

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

That's fine. That said, I think it's important to point out that that meeting should be held as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Are you talking about Minister Champagne's appearance before the committee?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

That would apply to the appearances of Minister Mendicino and Minister Champagne.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes, but as I understand your proposal, at this time the committee would invite Minister Mendicino to appear as soon as possible.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Precisely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Has everyone heard the amendment being proposed by Mr. Lemire?

Mr. Perkins.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure I have it right because I was listening to the interpretation.

Essentially, it's the first sentence of what's there now, and that we hold, as soon as possible, future meetings to have two ministers. I think they're two separate meetings, if I understand correctly, one with Minister Champagne and the other with Minister Mendicino. Is that in the one motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Perkins, what I understand from the discussions we've had, and what Mr. Lemire is suggesting, is that we amend the current motion solely for Mr. Mendicino, and then it's the intention of Mr. Lemire to bring another motion to invite Mr. Champagne.

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

Why won't we just do it in one motion?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

For me, the meeting that was to take place today was fundamental. By requesting this meeting under Standing Order 106(4), we postponed consideration of the estimates, although that's an important issue we need to deal with. This is where the minister has to answer questions from committee members. It is something that needs to be done, and I do not want to compromise on Minister François‑Philippe Champagne's appearance and the items we need to address.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

To be clear, Mr. Lemire wants Minister Champagne to appear before the committee, as he should have done today, to talk about the subject of the motion, as well as his overall mandate.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I would like to have Minister Champagne come before us for at least two hours, as soon as possible, to answer any questions committee members may have for him.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

As everyone knows, members have a lot of flexibility when it comes to considering estimates.

Has this made it a little clearer, Mr. Perkins?

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

It has.

I guess with all the discussions around, I'm a little confused by that, because the mandate of this committee is the Investment Canada Act, and to not have the minister responsible for the Investment Canada Act answering for the decisions made under that is odd to me.

I'm more than happy to have the minister come and talk about estimates at any time, even though they're already tabled in the House, but I think that's a separate meeting from this particular issue. I find it difficult to understand the value of saying we're going to have the public safety minister, who plays a role in this but is not associated with the request to do a full national security review under the Investment Canada Act.

Certainly, from my perspective, I would prefer if the second motion said the minister was coming back to talk about estimates, which was the original intent today; that this motion continue with the two ministers in separate meetings—I thought that's what we were talking about—that it remain open after that testimony, obviously, as to whether or not the committee wants to hold further meetings on this subject; and that it happen as soon as possible. As I understand it, depending on House circumstances, there is a slot available tomorrow night.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

From what I understand, Mr. Perkins, what Mr. Lemire is proposing is not considered a friendly amendment.

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

I'm not sure why we're not hearing from the minister directly responsible for a study on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Are you subamending the amendment by Mr. Lemire?

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

Yes, I would add Minister Champagne to the list so that it's the two ministers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Basically, it would be what Mr. Lemire has proposed but also that the committee invite in the shortest delay François-Philippe Champagne and Marco Mendicino. That's the amendment you are suggesting to Mr. Lemire's amendment.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

We have an amendment and a subamendment.

If there is no more debate, I think that brings us to a vote on the subamendment by Mr. Perkins, which, as you've heard, is to keep the first sentence in the motion, remove everything else but change it to be that the committee invite, in the shortest delay, the Hon. François-Philippe Champagne and the Hon. Marco Mendicino.

I just want to make sure that it is correct, and that it's everyone's understanding. I think it is.

I guess we'll proceed to a vote on that subamendment. If the subamendment is defeated, then we'll go to Mr. Lemire's amendment. We'll proceed like that.

Just to be clear, we'll do a vote on the subamendment, and then a vote on the amendment.

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

The subamendment is that Minister Champagne will be added.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes, in the context of that motion.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Could you reread the motion as it would be amended by the subamendment, Mr. Chair? I want to make sure I understand the wording properly, because adopting the subamendment could invalidate the second motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay.

The analyst, the clerk or anyone around the table may correct me at any point, but from what I understand, the motion would read as follows:

That the Committee, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), undertake a study concerning the contract awarded to Sinclair Technologies, which is owned by Norsat International, a subsidiary of Chinese telecommunications firm Hytera, a partly state-owned enterprise by the Communist Party Government of the People’s Republic of China, to build and maintain a radio frequency filtering system for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and that the Committee invite, as soon as possible, the Honourable Marco Mendicino, Minister of Public Safety, and the Honourable François‑Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.

That's Mr. Perkins' subamendment.