Science and Research Committee on March 30th, 2023

[Jim Balsillie]

I'll make sure that's it's the extensive one that the finance and industry committees have had.

Yes, we have a flaw in our orthodoxy of economic planning, in that we think that if you invest in R and D, you will get economic outcomes. What happens is that if you don't have the freedom to operate, then the person who invests in the R and D finds that the benefit accrues to whoever owns the freedom to operate. The precondition to BERD—to business enterprise research and development—or R and D is freedom to operate.

Freedom to operate is all based on the legal principles of what's called restriction. I have the right to stop you from doing something. That's called a “negative right”. The ownership of this jacket is a positive right. Only one can wear it. It's rivalrous. The design for this jacket is non-rivalrous. It's a negative right. I can stop you from using that design. That's called intellectual property.

You simply want the ability to say, “Only I can do this. I can stop you from doing it. If I'm going to allow you to do this, then I get a reciprocal bargained structure”, generally called a rent. I can also say, “You may not do it, but I will embed it in my product.” When you start to do that, you get leverage, which drives what's called productivity or GDP per capita. That's how these other economies get more wealth per worker and how to put more money in the average Canadian's pocket.

The precondition to everything is the freedom to operate technical management of negative rights, which we don't do. When you look at these investments in the U.S.... We all talk about the downstream investments. We don't understand the special sauces, the upstream appropriation structures that are already in place so that they make sure they turn a dollar into $5 or $10. It's a very technical management of negative rights.

I have a paper on it, but if I can leave you with one thing, it is that R and D does not generate economic outcomes absent its precondition of managing the negative rights of freedom to operate. It's been absent in our policy architecture for 40 years, which is why we've manufactured last place in the OECD in our GDP per capita growth.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Thank you so much for that.

That concludes our rounds of questioning.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

We'll suspend here as the witnesses leave the room.

Thank you again.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Welcome back.

We have set some time aside today to pick up on our discussion from Tuesday; however, a very important reminder is that we are still meeting in public. In order to protect the confidentiality of the in camera proceedings, members must not make reference to any discussions, votes or motions that came up during our previous in camera proceedings, unless they were adopted. Notices of motion that have not yet been moved must also be kept confidential. Failure to do so could be raised as a question of parliamentary privilege.

Our goals today are to choose the committee's next study and a date for submitting proposed witnesses.

With that, the floor is open.

I recognize Maxime.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm getting back to proposing my motion. I informed my colleagues about this prior to the start of this meeting.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to get straight to the point and reread my motion, notice of which was filed today:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(i), the committee invite the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry to testify about the 2023‑2024 federal budget, at the latest on Thursday, April 27, 2023, and for one hour.

Mr. Chair, my motion is relatively straightforward and clear. I want to ask the minister to come and explain the absence, or even neglect, of investment in the last 2023‑2024 federal budget.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

If I hear you correctly, we have a motion on the floor that was submitted earlier, which everyone received via email.

I'll open it up for debate.

Go ahead, Mr. Cannings.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I would like to say I'm supporting this motion, for all the obvious reasons.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I think we have unanimous agreement.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Okay.

Seeing that we have agreement, I'll adopt that motion as read.

(Motion agreed to)

I'll move on to the business of picking the next study. I'll open the floor for someone to make a motion for the next study.

I'll recognize Maxime.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Chair, as the committee has a number of studies to undertake, as colleagues we decided that the next study should be on scholarships. That's what's in the motion I have already introduced.

If you would like, I can certainly reread this motion, or ask the clerk to do so.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

All right. There's a motion on the floor for a study, but we'll open up for debate.

Mr. Lauzon, the floor is yours.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe this point was debated in our previous discussions.

We agree that the next study by the committee should be on scholarships. However, I'd like to propose an amendment so that the study proposed by the Bloc Québécois be followed by the one proposed by our colleague Ms. Bradford, of the Liberal Party.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

The practice that I've been told is that committees never set their schedules out further than the next study. They never tie their hands to more than the one study. The practice in the House of Commons, I've been told, is that we only do one, but if there's an understanding from members that the intent is for the next study to proceed that way, I would look for somewhat of a gentleman's agreement that this would take place. That would be for the parties involved with the committee today.

Go ahead, Mr. Lauzon.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Mr. Chair, it's up to the committee to decide on what order to follow. There's no standing order stating that we can only plan one study at a time. They are just the usual practices.

We agree about beginning with the study requested by the Bloc Québécois, and as we are debating the order in which subjects should be addressed, I'd like to recommend that the topic mentioned in the motion proposed by Ms. Bradford, of the Liberal Party, be the next. We agree with that. If we adopt that, we can move forward.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

I appreciate that.

It is still the practice that we only schedule one study ahead, but you made the amendment, and we can vote on it.

I believe the practice of committees would be that we only schedule one at a time. Very likely, given the structure of this committee, it will be the Liberal study next, but I'm informing you that the practice of committees is usually to do only one.

We'll put that to a vote. Once again, we are the creatures of our own committee and we can set a precedent here, but I do think it's best to be decided as they come.

With that, is the amendment to your motion a friendly amendment?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Do I have the floor, Mr. Chair?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I have my hand up, folks.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Okay.

Madame Diab, we're going to first hear from Maxime, the person who moved the motion, and then we'll come back to online discussion.

Maxime, the floor is yours.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I mentioned a little earlier, the committee members held a discussion. As I told my colleague, I don't disagree on the meaning of her motion. However, I think that it's important to take action on things we can actually change. University administration is the responsibility of the governments of Quebec and the other provinces. Where the federal government can really change the act is in the contracts it awards to universities. That's perhaps what we should study to determine whether there are pay equity disparities.

The amendment I would like to add to my colleague's motion would make it more specific by focusing on federal government jurisdictions, which mainly affect the administration of contracts awarded to universities, because overall administrative authority for universities rests with the provinces and the Quebec government.

So I certainly want to study that. I believe it's an important subject. In fact, there are already pay equity statutes in Quebec. A great deal of progress has been made in terms of pay equity and I believe much more can be accomplished. However, we really have to focus on what the federal government can change, because that's our role as legislators.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

All right.

Now we'll move on to Madame Diab.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

I simply want to say that I approve of both motions.

I'm in agreement with both the motion and the amendment, I believe, and I would ask that we vote on it. I've never heard of....

Look, with all respect, the committee, I believe, has the authority to vote on the motion and decide that the next study should be the gender pay equity issue and I ask that we vote on that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Yes, the amendment we're always going to vote on.

We're into debate right now. We'll go through the debate and then we'll have a vote on the amendment and then on the actual motion.

Next up on my speaking order I have Mr. Collins and Ms. Bradford, and that's it for now.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to spend more time on this than we need to.

You mentioned it's past practice, which is a little bit different from what the procedural rule is. Can I just ask, through you to the clerk, if there is anything that prevents the committee, if we wanted to today, from saying the next four studies are x? If somebody puts the motion and it's agreed upon, is that permissible?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Keelan Buck]

The chair rules on the admissibility of motions. Procedurally it is an amendment that I think would work, but it's the chair's decision.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

It would be deemed in order. That's understood. I asked just for clarification as a new member.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Next up in the speaking order is Ms. Bradford.