Honourable members of the committee, I see a quorum.

    I must inform members that the clerk of the committee can only receive motions for the election of the chair. The clerk cannot receive other types of motions and cannot entertain points of order or participate in debate.

    We can now proceed to the election of the chair. Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the chair must be a member of the government party.

    I am ready to receive motions for the chair.

    Go ahead, Mr. Généreux.

    I propose that Joël Lightbound be the chair.

    It is moved by Mr. Généreux that Joël Lightbound be elected Chair of the committee.

    Are there any further motions?

    I see none.

    Pursuant to the House order of Thursday, November 25, 2021, I will now proceed to a recorded division, unless we have general consent. I'm seeing consent.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Clerk: I declare Joël Lightbound duly elected chair of the committee.

     That was one of the easiest elections I've gone through thus far in my political career.

    I want to thank you for the trust you have placed in me and for electing me unopposed.

    I will try to be a chair who is polite, respectful, and even-handed. I will do this job with honour and, most of the time, enthusiasm. I might make a few mistakes, so you've been warned.

    It's my first time chairing the committee, so I look forward to it. Thank you very much.

    The floor goes to the clerk for the election of the vice-chairs.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the first vice-chair must be a member of the official opposition.

    I am now ready to receive motions for the position of first vice-chair.

    I nominate Michael Kram.

    It has been moved by Mr. Fast that Mr. Michael Kram be elected first vice-chair of the committee.

    Are there any further motions?

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Clerk: Shall I proceed to a recorded division, or does the committee have consent? I'm seeing consent.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Clerk: I declare MP Michael Kram duly elected as the first vice-chair of the committee.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the second vice-chair must be a member of an opposition party other than the official opposition.

    I am now prepared to receive motions for the second vice-chair.

    I move that it be Sébastien Lemire.

    It is moved by Brian Masse that Sébastien Lemire be elected second vice-chair of the committee.

    Are there any further motions?

    Seeing none, shall we move to a recorded division, or do we have consent?

    (Motion agreed to)

    I declare Sébastien Lemire duly elected as the second vice-president.

    Thank you very much.

    My congratulations to Mr. Kram and Mr. Lemire on their election.

    As this is the first meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, I must repeat a number of little reminders.

    Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Some members of the committee are attending in person—welcome to those in the room. Others are participating using the Zoom application.

    Regarding the speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether participating virtually or in person.

    I would like to take this opportunity to remind all participants at this meeting that screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

    The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

    Given the ongoing pandemic situation and in light of the recommendations from public health authorities, as well as the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on October 19, 2021, the following recommendations are made to all those attending the meeting in person, so that we remain healthy and safe.

    Anyone with symptoms must participate by Zoom, and not attend the meeting in person.

    Everyone must maintain two metres of physical distancing, whether seated or standing.

    Everyone must wear a non-medical mask when circulating in the room. It is recommended that members wear their masks at all times, including when seated.

    Everyone present must maintain proper hand hygiene by using the hand sanitizer at the room entrance. Committee rooms are cleaned before and after each meeting. To maintain this, everyone is encouraged to clean surfaces such as the desk, chair and microphone with the disinfectant wipes provided when vacating or taking a seat.

    As the Chair, I will be enforcing these measures for the duration of our meetings, with the help of the House of Commons staff, of course. I thank you all in advance for your cooperation.

     I suggest that as the next order of business, the committee proceed to consideration of the routine motions. In preparation, the committee clerk has circulated a list of the routine motions the committee adopted in the last parliamentary session.

    With that, I open the floor to the adoption of routine motions.

    Go ahead, Mr. Fillmore.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I will proceed to read into the record the routine motions.

    On analyst services, I move:

    On the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, I move:

    On meeting without a quorum, I move:

    One moment, Mr. Fillmore.

    If you have any objections or if you have modifications to propose for any of the motions that are being read into the record, please manifest yourself so that we can debate the motion separately, so to speak.

    Mr. Fillmore, please continue.

    Thank you, Chair.

    If I may ask you, Mr. Chair, is the protocol for “mask off” when we're speaking, or is it preferred that it be on? Has the House a position on that?

    I think the consensus, from what I've seen in the House, and I guess the rules are similar in committee, is that if you are speaking, you can remove your mask.

    Okay. Thank you.

    If that's okay with everybody, then, that's what I'll do.

    On the time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses, I move:

    Thank you.

    I see that Mr. Lemire wants to comment.

    Mr. Lemire, the floor is yours.

    In the last Parliament, we assigned speaking time according to the number of witnesses. If there were six, we gave them five minutes, but if there were four, for example, the testimony could last up to seven minutes.

    Do we want that same flexibility, depending on the number of witnesses, or do we want it to keep it at five minutes in all cases?

    According to the information that the clerk has provided, it was at the discretion of the chair. Personally, I am open to proceeding that way so that we give witnesses the most speaking time possible, since they have taken the time to come and meet with us.

    I would support that.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Fillmore, you may continue.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

     We're now up to document distribution. I move:

    On working meals, I move:

    On travel, accommodation and living expenses of witnesses, I move:

    On access to in camera meetings, I move:

    On transcripts of in camera meetings, I move:

    On notice of motion, I move:

    On orders of reference from the House representing bills, I move:

    We're nearing the end, my friends.

    On technical tests for witnesses, I move:

    On linguistic review, I move:

    That brings us to the close of the routine motions.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Fillmore.

    First, we need consensus among the members of the committee to pass these routine motions as a package, as Mr. Fillmore has just read them.

    Do we have consensus?

    Mr. Généreux, you have the floor.

    I move that we adopt the motions as a package.

    That's great.

    So do we have consensus for that motion to adopt all the motions as a package?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: I invite Ms. Lemelin‑Bellerose to introduce herself and say a few words.

     Good afternoon.

    My name is Sarah Lemelin‑Bellerose and I will be an analyst for this committee. I have been working with the committee for four years. I will also be joined by Scott McTaggart, who is participating in the meeting virtually at the moment.

    Ms. Lemelin‑Bellerose and Mr. McTaggart, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for your work. Without the analysts, committees would find it very difficult to operate.

     Thanks for all of your work. It's much appreciated. I look forward to working with you.

    The floor is open for anyone who has a motion to introduce.

    Go ahead, Mr. Kram.

    Then, it will be Mr. Lemire's turn.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I look forward to working with you on this committee. I understand it's your first time chairing a committee, and it's also my first time being the vice-chair of a committee, so I'm sure we'll learn this whole thing together.

    I would like to provide notice of one motion, which I will now read into the record. I have also provided advance copies to the clerk, which he will be distributing now.

    The motion reads:

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

     Thank you, Mr. Kram, for giving notice of that motion.

    I see that I have Mr. Lemire, Mr. Erskine-Smith, Mr. Masse and then Madame Gray.

    Go ahead, Mr. Lemire.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    We have received a very interesting document reporting on the work of the 43rd Parliament. It rightly told us that we began five studies. We heard very eloquent witnesses talk to us about subjects that are essential for economic development, both in Quebec and Canada.

    As we have those studies in draft, I would like us to be able to start the process of having them adopted.

    I am not really proposing that we invite the witnesses again, as interesting as that could be. The idea behind my proposal is to come to grips with those studies and get them going again, so that, in due course, we can adopt the reports and table them in the House.

    The studies dealt with the domestic manufacturing capacity for a COVID‑19 vaccine, the development and support of the aerospace industry, the economic recovery from COVID‑19, the proposed acquisition of Shaw by Rogers, and competitiveness in Canada.

    Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

    Mr. Erskine‑Smith, you have the floor.

    Thanks, Joël, and congratulations.

    I agree with Sébastien. We do want to do that with the work done by the last committee. Brian, Sébastien and I are the holdovers. In the case of reports that we had already finalized as a matter of course as a committee, it would make sense for us to bring them back online so that the government at least is obligated to respond to them, as we'd expected before the last election. That all makes sense to me.

    I would say, though, that it would probably make sense, given the timeline and that this is our first committee meeting, for a number of us to throw out ideas.

    I quite like the idea of studying critical minerals. There are a range of considerations there, as our Conservative colleague laid out, but it probably makes sense to kick this to our agenda subcommittee so that we can hash out a timeline. We can meet between now and Christmas, or we could meet in January—informally, even—as a starting point to go back and forth on some ideas. I think there's going to be a lot of agreement as to where we want to go. There are lots of ideas.

    In the last Parliament, most of our work was unanimous as we were studying competition, studying the Rogers-Shaw deal and studying competitiveness and affordability in the wireless Internet space.

    Rather than tabling a series of motions today, my suggestion would be that we kick the conversation over to the subcommittee, which will probably be more efficient for all of us. We can get going today and get the work going as a subcommittee sooner rather than later.

    Thank you, Mr. Erskine‑Smith.

    Mr. Lemire, I think that the clerk has received your motions. There may be a little problem in terms of the language, but he will consult you about that.

    I have Mr. Masse, Mrs. Gray, Mr. Fillmore and Mr. Dong on the list to speak.

    Go ahead, Mr. Masse.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Similar to that point, even if we don't get the final motion today from Mr. Lemire because it needs to be worked on, if we had co-operation to do that, it would probably be helpful. I don't think it's time-pending for today, but it would be good to get that work and commentary from the government on those subjects.

    This committee has a history of working fairly efficiently, so I hope we could extend that.

    I have a couple of other small matters. Mr. Chair, I'm looking to you for guidance, because I have a motion here today. Are we going to go through motions, or are we going to push this to a subcommittee? I'm open to either situation.

    I'll just put on notice a motion I have for the auto sector. I can read that into the record right now. It reads:

    That's to complement a study that was unanimously adopted at the international trade committee just yesterday. It was proposed by the Liberal Party and supported by everybody else. It would be a a small snapshot of our domestic industry, given what's taking place in Washington right now.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

     Thank you, Mr. Masse.

    I understand you've just read it into the record, but would it be possible to send it to the clerk so that it can be circulated among members of the committee?

    Normally I do have the motions, but with COVID, my staff was not able to come in today. It's not that they're infected, but they have children they're taking care of under a school thing. Normally I would have that, but I can propose the motion from the floor, as I've done.

    Thank you.

    The floor is yours, Mrs. Gray.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Since it appears that the subcommittee will be discussing the different motions, I'll be really brief without getting into an explanation. I have two notices of motion that I will quickly read into the record.

     The first is:

    The second one would also be pursuant to Standing Order 108(2). It reads as follows:

    We do have translated copies that we can pass on.

    Thank you very much.

    I have Mr. Fillmore.

    Thanks, Chair.

    There are two things, but first I want to make sure we're not falling into any procedural holes here.

    We are providing notices of motion today. Is that right? We're not tabling motions.

    Okay. Thank you very much. I just wanted to be sure of that.

    The second thing is to Mr. Masse. Your motion regarding EVs and batteries is very interesting. It's substantially similar to a motion that the Liberal Party had prepared. If I were to read it into the record to give notice, I wonder if you'd be willing to talk about combining them at the subcommittee.

    I'll start with reading it in, and see how that goes. The motion reads:

     Thank you, Mr. Fillmore.

    I have Mr. Dong, followed by Mr. Lemire, Mr. Erskine-Smith and Mr. Fast.

    Mr. Dong, the floor is yours.

    Thank you very much, Chair.

    First of all, congratulations to you and to the vice-chairs.

    I look forward to working with all of my colleagues. This looks like a very interesting committee. I'm a new member to this committee.

    [Technical difficulty—Editor] collect all the ideas and proposals about different studies and put them toward the subcommittee to figure out an agenda. I will need some time to digest some of these notices. They're brilliant ideas, but they're new to me. I would like to suggest that these notices be forwarded to the subcommittee for agenda.

     Thank you, Mr. Dong. My understanding from the room is that there is a consensus to send notices of motion to the subcommittee, which will then discuss what the agenda of this committee should be going forward.

    I have Mr. Lemire, Mr. Erskine-Smith and Mr. Fast.

    Go ahead, Mr. Lemire.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    As we recall, in the last Parliament, there was a proposal to split the committee in two. Science and research now come under a separate committee.Consequently, when I read our committee's mandate, I realize that an update may be needed, because some responsibilities, specifically the one dealing with scientific research and development issues, are still included.

    It is good to be inclusive, but, at the same time, in my opinion, a key word is missing in our description. The word is innovation, and everything involved with it, which is part of what should inform the spirit of our committees. So I would invite you to think about the mandate that we would like for our committee so that we can send it on to the authorities in Parliament for approval. One day, we may even be able to change the name of our committee to include industry, technology and innovation.

    That seems to be very reasonable and perfectly legitimate proposal, Mr. Lemire.

    However, the clerk informs me that it is impossible to change the name or the mandate of our committee. The House can do so, but not the committee itself.

    I kind of thought that would be the case. That's why I formulated it as I did, so that we can think about the name and the wording, and communicate our preference to the House. Certainly, the House will decide but it can come from us first.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Erskine‑Smith, you have the floor.

    Since we're all throwing out different ideas, I have the two that I would be interested in. These are in addition to the good ideas that others have thrown out.

     I think we should have the CRTC chair in to speak with us for a meeting. I'm particularly interested in the complete reversal of their decision related to wholesale rates and its impact on affordability, but there are other things we could obviously discuss on that front. Given that we had Mr. Scott appear previously on this issue, I think it would be good to have him in early on in this session for one day. It doesn't have to be part of a formal study, per se. He could just to speak to us about the ongoing work of the CRTC and the status of that work in delivering affordable wireless Internet for Canadians—or the lack of affordable wireless Internet, at times.

    The second piece is around the innovation agenda and the strategic innovation fund, and specifically the billion-dollar net-zero accelerator. It is within Minister Champagne's remit. It would be quite interesting for us to look at that as a matter of accountability and as a matter of constructively looking at some of the innovation that is happening there.

    Lastly, Mr. Chair, do we need a formal motion here? It's been great to hear different ideas from others. Do we need to formalize kicking this over to the subcommittee, or since there appears to be consensus, are we good with that?

    Mr. Erskine-Smith, it seems that we don't need a formal motion. There is consensus in the room for the subcommittee to work it out.

    Perfect.

     I have Mr. Fast.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Let me begin by welcoming you to this position. As someone who occupied a similar position on the justice committee back when it was a minority Conservative government, I know how challenging it can be. I think you will find that if you are even-handed and understand that everyone at this table is working for the best interests of Canadians, we'll get a lot done here. That's my hope.

     When I speak of even-handedness, I think what will give you the most difficulty are witnesses who may want to run out the clock on their testimony. Given that there are different interpretations at different committees, and also in the House in committee of the whole, as to how much time will be allocated to the questioner versus the witness, I'd be interested to hear at a future meeting—to give you some time to ascertain what your position would be—exactly how you would handle witnesses who are trying to run out the clock. If it's a six-second question, will it be a six-second answer?

    I know there are occasions when you're going to have to exercise a great degree of judgment and discretion, because if you ask the question, “Please describe to me the origins of life”, that is a five-second question, but it may require five millennia to answer it. Situations may require great judgment on your part, so I hope you'll exercise that wise judgment.

    I also have a number of motions I want to read into the record, if I might. There are five.

    The first one reads as follows: “That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the national security risks posed by certain foreign telecommunications equipment providers, and that the committee call as witnesses the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and their officials, industry stakeholders, and telecommunications experts, and that no fewer than three meetings be dedicated to the study.”

     You can continue, Mr. Fast. I just had a quick question.

     The second one reads as follows: “That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the most important issues impacting the competitiveness of the Canadian economy, with a special focus on (1) labour shortages across the country, (2) barriers to interprovincial trade, (3) supply chain constraints and (4) red tape and burdensome regulation.”

    My third motion is as follows: “That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a further study of accessibility and affordability of telecommunications services; that the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the second session of the 43rd Parliament as part of its study on the subject be taken into consideration by the committee in the current session; that the committee adopt the report entitled “Affordability and Accessibility of Telecommunications Services in Canada: Encouraging Competition to (Finally) Bridge the Digital Divide”, which was adopted during the second session of the 43rd Parliament; pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request the government table a comprehensive response to the report; and that the chair present that report to the House.”

    The next addresses the issue of patents and patent boxes. It reads, “That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the benefits of implementing a patent box regime in Canada, similar to the patent box approach adopted by the Province of Quebec, with a goal of supporting our innovators, attracting investment to Canada, and developing, commercializing and keeping innovation and related intellectual property in Canada, and that the study review Canada's historical business expenditures on research and development as a share of GDP.”

    Finally, I give notice of the following motion: “ That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of how to streamline and eliminate red tape around federal science, research and economic development programs; that the study review Canada's historical business expenditures on research and development as a share of GDP, which have been well below the OECD average and have continued to fall since their peak in 2001; that the study include a review of the extensive costs that our innovators incur in hiring consultants and advisory firms to fill out and complete the copious paperwork for funding applications; and that the study focus on how science, research and economic development funding can be invested directly into research without being diverted into a complex administrative system.

    Finally, there is an additional one, Mr. Chair, if you will bear with me. It's a very short one. It reads as follows: “That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite relevant officials from Statistics Canada to study the latest inflation numbers, that this study consist of at least two meetings, and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

    I make that motion given the fact that Statistics Canada reports to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Fast.

    To your first point, I can assure you that I will do my utmost to be fair and even-handed. With regard to allocating time between witnesses and questioners, I'll take it under consideration and reflect on it during the holidays. To seek guidance, I'll probably watch videos of the chair of the justice committee in years past to see how he handled this matter.

    As for the notices of motion that have been given, I think there is already a lot for the subcommittee to reflect on, to work on and to prioritize, and then to come back with a plan for this committee.

    I would also suggest that members from the various parties here send notices before the subcommittee meets, perhaps in the next two to three weeks, and that the subcommittee meet early in 2022—not too early, but fairly early—so that we can try to hash out a plan for this committee going forward.

    If that's agreeable to all, I think that would be a path forward that could work.

    I guess there is nothing else on the agenda for this committee.

    I see Mr. Généreux.

     I don't know if you have time, because I think everybody wants to go back to the House for the presentation by the Minister of Finance, but it would be interesting to know each other more, so maybe when we come back we could present ourselves and state who we are, where we are from and how long we've been in the House so that we can understand who we are dealing with as partners here around the table.

    I think that we can certainly put those introductions on the agenda. Thank you.

    I have been told a lot of good things about this committee. I have also been told that it works very collaboratively. I hope that we are going to continue that tradition.

    The meeting is adjourned.