Industry Committee on Nov. 7th, 2023

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

The amendment has been sent to the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay. The amendment has been sent to the clerk and will be shared so everyone can see the working—

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

As a point of clarification, Mr. Chair, was it two meetings of four hours, or was it that we would do four...?

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

That was the basic idea. We can alter the format, but we want four hours of meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

The best way to say it would be two meetings or a maximum of four hours.

It will be two meetings or up to four hours, if they are split into one hour segments. I think that was the essence of what Mr. Lemire....

I have Mr. Vis, Mr. Généreux and then Mr. Perkins.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Am I able to speak to the motion itself or the amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

We are on the amendment.

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

We are on the amendment only. Then can I respond to Mr. Turnbull's comments that were in relation to the amendment or the motion itself?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

You can go ahead, Mr. Vis, on the...but we're debating the amendment right now, so try to keep to that.

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

In respect of time, I can discuss that. What we've put forward in this motion is six hours. I guess what we're arguing for, in the context of Mr. Lemire's amendment, is whether we're going to study this for four or six hours.

In respect to relevancy, it is this committee, whether we decide to or not, that determines ultimately, through the estimates process, whether SDTC and Industry Canada can actually fund this organization, although through, I would say, multiple governments of all political stripes the powers that committees hold to approve or disapprove of parliamentary spending have not been used to their full benefit and in the way that I believe taxpayers would want us to use them.

I remember fondly, in 2015, that the Prime Minister mentioned repeatedly that committees would be independent of the government, and he made a promise that parliamentary secretaries would not be sitting at committee tables, because he wanted to have them at arm's length from the government. Obviously, that is not the case at all.

I agree with Mr. Turnbull that there is some work being done already in respect to this motion, but it is this committee that has the responsibility, under the Standing Orders, to review and approve of how money to SDTC is being spent. The fall economic statement is coming at a time that's very.... It could come any day. We don't know. The budget will be coming in the next few months. I think it is imperative that this committee, with its responsibilities under the rules of Parliament that dictate that we approve or disapprove where money from Industry Canada goes, give this its due attention and look at whether or not this organization should receive any additional funds.

Obviously, the government has taken it so seriously that they have said that they're putting a freeze on it. That's a pretty drastic action. That's not something the Minister of Industry or anyone in government ever does, especially with this government, which has spent more money than any government in the history of Canada. Their shutting off funding for a primary conduit to fund start-ups in the clean-tech industry is a massive indictment in and of itself that there is something extremely wrong with what is taking place at this organization, this not-for-profit funded by the Government of Canada.

My point is this. It is the responsibility of this committee, under the Standing Orders and the organization of Parliament, to undertake its due diligence to determine how money is spent in Parliament and which organizations are allocated money. It is imperative that this work take place prior to the estimates coming before this committee when the new fiscal year starts.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Vis.

I understand that the amendment has been circulated by the clerk to all members.

I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Généreux and then Mr. Perkins.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect to Mr. Lemire's amendment, I'd like to second Mr. Vis's reminder that committees are independent.

We regularly get gentle reminders in the House of Commons that committees are independent. As such, I hope that my Liberal colleagues will have the decency to follow this recommendation from their ministers, who constantly remind us about that independence in the House.

That said, Mr. Lemire, I just want to say that, during the Charbonneau commission in Quebec and the sponsorship scandal right here in Ottawa in the 1990s, elected representatives, public servants, and even whistle-blowers in some cases, had to put a huge amount of effort over a long period of time into bringing these scandals to light.

Can we use the word “scandal” in connection with the matter before us today? It sure looks as though we can.

As my colleague, Mr. Vis, just said, the fact that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry literally froze all funds administered by Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, suggests at the very least that something fishy is going on.

That's why I think we should be able to have six meetings. We're here to work. I understand Mr. Turnbull's point of view, and I respect it. We certainly do want to avoid having two different committees do the same work.

However, I agree with Mr. Vis that it's up to our committee to deal with all matters relating to industry and innovation, especially all the funding that goes to that.

That's why, quite honestly, I think six hours is not too much. As far as witnesses go, we can leave our options open. I'm not opposed to that, but I think we definitely need to hear from the whistle-blowers and the SDTC executive, who need to come and be accountable.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Généreux.

I believe Mr. Lemire's amendment has been sent. Both versions were sent, but I don't think the English version matches the French.

I'm reading both, and I see that the English one doesn't say—

It's been sent again by the clerk with the English version. However, the English version does not refer to two meetings. It still has six meetings in it, so there might be a bit of an issue. I understand that Monsieur Lemire is working to send it around again in both official languages.

I have Mr. Perkins and then Mr. Masse.

Are you okay, Mr. Perkins, even if you don't have the English text, to comment on the...?

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

I didn't realize it's not in the attachment. It's in the email.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

It's in the email.

Do we want to suspend for a few minutes to make sure that everyone has the proper amendment?

We'll do that for a maximum of five minutes. The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay, we're back.

You all have the amendment in both official languages.

Mr. Perkins had the floor. Then we'll go to Mr. Masse and Mr. Williams.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My sympathies to the translator who has a bad cold, it sounds like. I have been grappling with it for a couple of weeks. Hopefully you will deal with yours more quickly.

On the amendment, on the number of hours, I was trying to provide the committee with a couple of different options. Either we do separate meetings, or we just tag them on. The six meetings I was proposing were six meetings of an additional hour added to each of the existing Bill C-27 meetings. It's about six hours, which is not far off of what I think Mr. Lemire is proposing.

MP Turnbull, in response to the issue of delay, it's not a delay if it's an hour on the end of the existing meetings that we're already having on Bill C-27. I haven't proposed that we stop anything at all on Bill C-27. I agree with you, and I think we're all in agreement, that there's a need to do a thorough examination of what's been, so far, very fascinating testimony from witnesses on that important bill.

In terms of what's not clear to me, first of all, I don't think it's the same work as the ethics committee is doing. I attended just out of general interest. I wasn't invited to go. I just showed up to listen and see what the minister had to say. The line of questioning that I want to ask the minister about is very different from what the members of our side did on the ethics committee. Our work and our responsibility with regard to the estimates and the public accounting of the industry department and all of the billions of dollars it expends each year are different from the ethics committee's, so I think our look at it is a little different.

With regard to the amendment that's here, the only thing that I'm really concerned about is that I'm not clear on when we would start. I believe that we need to have the minister. I believe we need to have the chair. I believe we need to have the president of the SDTC, and I'm not sure that we can hold off to figure out what ethics is doing with the whistle-blowers. I don't even know if the whistle-blowers will agree to attend any committee, because the nature of whistle-blowing is that it's quiet and behind the scenes.

I think we can start our own work, which probably, given this timing since we're coming up to a constituency week next week, would probably not start until we return from the constituency break. I'm not suggesting that it would start this Thursday, and then we're on a riding break. It would probably be two weeks today, I guess, before we would start—at the end of that meeting.

Initially, my thought is that I would probably vote against this amendment if it means that we have to wait until the ethics committee has gone through a number of its witnesses before we do anything. I don't think we can wait. I think we need to get at it, start making the decisions and invite the minister and officials to come to the first meeting when we return from the constituency break, obviously pending his availability. He has a busy travel schedule.

I would think that we could do that, and we would do it over, let's say, six hours in six meetings for now. I think we can get what we need to get done. If there's a way to mash Mr. Lemire's motion together with ours to make sure that's clear, I just provided two options. We can do separate meetings, or we could do it at the end. I understand why it might have been a little confusing about which way to go. My personal preference is not to schedule more meetings. It's to add an hour on to each of the existing meetings we have and certainly not to substitute it for the work that we're already doing on Bill C-27.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Just to clarify, my understanding is that, based on the amendment of Mr. Lemire, it doesn't require us to wait until ETHI has completed its undertakings with regard to this matter.

Mr. Lemire, I'm not sure if that's the intention of your amendment, but that's what Mr. Perkins just said. I didn't interpret it that way.

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

My intention is to avoid duplicating the work, for one, and, for another, to use our time wisely to study Bill C‑27 and to hear from witnesses.

Just as an aside, Mr. Chair, I'd like to share part of the actual definition of our committee: “The Standing Committee on Industry and Technology studies and reports on legislation, the activities and spending of Industry Canada and its portfolio members,” among other things.

Today's topic of discussion is squarely within our committee's purview. It is the very essence of our committee. The minister should be speaking to us. I think we need to demonstrate that diligence. However, if someone else does it, I think we can pick up where they leave off, take things a little further, and deal with issues relating to Industry Canada spending.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

Mr. Masse and Mr. William, for comments on Mr. Lemire's amendment.

Mr. Masse, you have the floor.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

There are a couple of things that come to mind.

First of all, it's not unusual for a same subject to be going concurrently through different committees, including this committee, because it is so overlapping. There are plenty of examples of that.

I was there, because Matthew was actually out of the country, so I happened to be the person who could fill in for him, and it worked out that way.

I'm not willing to cede this responsibility and the workers' lives, basically, to the ethics committee, when we're actually directly responsible for that agency in this chamber right here. I'm not willing to pass that up.

Ethics had its own thing going on. In fact, the meeting had to be suspended. Because of the conduct of certain members, the chair actually had to suspend the meeting. We don't have that problem here—thank goodness, Mr. Chair—but that's what actually took place at ethics. We had to actually cease operations because of the conduct of members there.

To me it's about my doing my job. Also, there's going to be a legislative change. The minister said we can't change the legislation, when the reality is that we can actually change it. If we change the legislation under this framework, it would come from this committee. It would come as a recommendation. It wouldn't come from ethics to change the legislation there, because it's a different set of responsibilities.

I'm not going to let those families down. I'm going to do what I have to do here to make sure that they are actually going to get the proper supports necessary, because they have to go in, again, every single day as this continues to go on, whether it's in public or behind the curtain. If it's not going to be behind the curtain, then I want to make sure that it's going to be done by members of this committee.

This issue was also brought up at science where it was turned down. This issue might go to environment. It might go to other committees. I know it's been shopped around quite a bit.

The bottom line is that I also don't want to have the professional public embarrassment of being part of a committee that turns its back on the responsibility we're mandated to do by virtue of being on this committee. That's what's being asked here—for us to actually turn our backs on our responsibilities and, just because it's convenient to let ethics do their own thing, we don't do our job here. That's critically important to understand.

I understand the importance of Bill C-27, but very few times has a committee basically stopped the sun and the earth from moving and put itself in a position where it can't do anything else, because of a bill.

By the way, the government never brought that bill into the chamber for the longest time, despite being urged to do so. On top of that, we had the minister here and a whole drama that continues to go on with amendments. It's actually led to a public campaign—if you check your emails right now—of people calling on us to stop Bill C-27. That's actually coming not just from ordinary citizens but from NGOs, the academic community and a whole host of different things. It's turned into a giant mess.

What I do know is that the individuals here in this issue are in our wheelhouse. I'm not willing to cede that. I'm not willing to cede that to the ethics committee, to the environment committee or to science committee. To me, it's very important that we do something on this, and for me it's about protecting the whistle-blowers and the workers. If we don't do anything and ethics muddles on this, those workers then have to wait for us to come back and revisit this to try to find another way back to the issue.

I really worry about that for their mental health and the way that they have to deal with this going to work every single day. In ethics they actually debated.... I had an amendment to give the chair some grace to scheduling when the whistle-blowers would come forward, because there were only two dates presented originally at that time. I amended that to give the chair more flexibility, because given my experience here, when you have that flexibility.... They only have one week. If something happens with the whistle-blowers...and it could be things that we don't imagine, where things at work turn because of all these public things that are going on right now and it becomes a different environment than is currently there.

For me, I don't want to let this be dragged out any further, but I also want to make sure that we don't end up basically passively supporting the lengthening of the duration of this, just because we don't do our jobs here, because we're willing to brush it off to ethics. It's a totally different environment.

I'm okay with the four or six hours, as long as we don't.... I'll be quite frank. If we have to do more for the workers, I'll be the one out there putting motions forward to actually increase the hearings. I'd rather not delay Bill C-27. I'd like to do whatever we can to keep going on that, despite all the failings of it, but don't use it as a shield to basically say we won't do our job here.

I'll support the time changes in the amendment to start, but I'll be the first to ask for more time, if necessary, to actually get to the bottom of this if we don't get protection for the workers.

That's what I want from the government. They have done some good things. The minister has done some positive things, but we still don't protect them, because we chose as Parliament to make them vulnerable to the situation. By the way, these boards and the CEO and the ones who have been.... These are political appointee positions.

That's kind of where I see things going. I appreciate that, and I'll end it there.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

I have Mr. Williams next on the amendment presented by Mr. Lemire.

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

Mr. Chair, I think we can all agree that we want to stand up for the whistle-blowers. I think we can all agree that ethics is doing its job with conflict of interest breaches. Our job is to look at the program and the misuse of $150 million so far.

I think the way we're looking at it is that it has to be six hours because of the workers, because of the people who step forward, because of the whistle-blowers. We have to put that time in for them. Hopefully, we get the six meetings. I think that's important. If you look at the calendar, that will only take us to the break. It kind of fits within the schedule. It just means that the committee has to do three hours instead of two for six meetings. I don't think that's out of line. I think that still allows us to do Bill C-27. At the same time, it does the important work that this seems to be. I think six hours is even pretty low. That would only be three normal meetings.

I think we'll probably go against that amendment, just to make sure it is six. It needs to be six hours for the workers. I think that's just fair to them. They put a lot of work into these documents. I can tell you from past experience that any staff who puts their livelihood, quite frankly, on the line to be a whistle-blower has to be commended and protected. We also need to be doing work on their behalf.

Lastly, this is the committee. This minister is responsible to this committee and this committee only, so we should be studying that here—and thoroughly. That's what I think we intended with the first motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I see no more comments on the amendment presented by Mr. Lemire. Hence, I will ask the clerk to put it to a vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Now we'll go to Mr. Perkins's motion as amended by Mr. Lemire's amendment.

Are there other comments on the amended motion before us?