INDU Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
It was agreed, —
That, the committee resume consideration of the motion of Rick Perkins moved on Monday, September 23, 2024 which read as follows:
That, in relation to the committees ongoing study conflict of interest breaches at Sustainable Development and Technology Canada (SDTC), and given that; (i) Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne has issued a press release stating that “effective immediately, SDTC will also resume funding, under a reinforced contribution agreement with the Department of Industry (ISED), for eligible projects”; and given (ii) the SDTC whistleblower has told the public accounts committee that “new project approvals have now started” under these agreements; the committee therefore orders SDTC and ISED to produce copies of each reinforced contribution agreement signed since June 4, 2024, without redactions, in both official languages, within 14 days following the adoption of this motion, in order to monitor the departments compliance with the Auditor General recommendations.and of the amendment of Jean-Denis Garon moved on Monday, September 23, 2024 which read as follows:
That the motion be amended after the words “copies of each reinforced contribution agreement” by replacing the words “signed since June 4, 2024, without redactions,”, with the following “between ISED and SDTC, reinforced and signed on June 4, 2024, redacted of any reference to company names,”.The question was put on the motion, as amended, and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Jean-Denis Garon, Bernard Généreux, Brian Masse, Jeremy Patzer, Rick Perkins, Michelle Rempel Garner — 6;
NAYS: Chandra Arya, Vance Badawey, Iqwinder Gaheer, Ryan Turnbull, Tony Van Bynen — 5.
The motion, as amended, read as follows:
That, in relation to the committees ongoing study conflict of interest breaches at Sustainable Development and Technology Canada (SDTC), and given that;
(i) Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne has issued a press release stating that “effective immediately, SDTC will also resume funding, under a reinforced contribution agreement with the Department of Industry (ISED), for eligible projects”; and given (ii) the SDTC whistleblower has told the public accounts committee that “new project approvals have now started” under these agreements; the committee therefore orders SDTC and ISED to produce copies of each reinforced contribution agreement between ISED and SDTC, reinforced and signed on June 4, 2024, redacted of any reference to company names, in both official languages, within 14 days following the adoption of this motion, in order to monitor the departments compliance with the Auditor General recommendations.The committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The committee resumed clause-by-clause consideration on Clause 2 of the Bill.
The committee resumed consideration of the amendment of Ryan Williams, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 2, be amended
(a) by deleting lines 39 to 42 on page 5.
(b) by adding after line 25 on page 44 the following:
“(c.1) subject to sections 94 and 95, pay a penalty; or”
(c) by replacing lines 11 and 12 on page 45 with the following:
“Commissioner must decide whether to impose a penalty on the organization:”
(d) by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 46 with the following:
“(3) The Commissioner must not impose a penalty on an organization if the Commis‐”
(e) by replacing lines 14 to 37 on page 46 with the following:
“95 (1) The Commissioner may, by order, impose a penalty on an organization if
(a) the organization is given the opportunity to make representations; and
(b) the Commissioner determines that imposing the penalty is appropriate.”
(f) by replacing line 14 on page 47 with the following:
“amount of a penalty, the Commissioner must take the follow‐”
(g) by replacing line 14 on page 49 with the following:
“and subsection 99(1), other than the power to make an order under 95(1).”
(h) by replacing line 20 on page 49 to line 34 on page 50 with the following:
“Judicial Review
101 (1) If an application is made for judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner under this Act, or of any person to whom the Commissioner has delegated any of their powers, duties or functions, the Commissioner is the respondent in respect of the application.
(2) The costs of the Commissioner are in the discretion of the court but the Commissioner may not be ordered to pay the costs of any party.”
(i) by deleting lines 1 to 15 on page 51.
(j) by replacing lines 23 to 29 on page 51 with the following:
“after the day on which the individual becomes aware of the conviction.
(4) The action may be”
(k) by deleting lines 17 and 18 on page 55.
(l) by replacing line 22 on page 55 with the following:
“this Act.”
(m) by deleting lines 25 and 26 on page 56.
The committee resumed consideration of the subamendment of Rick Perkins, — That the amendment be amended by replacing subparagraph (2)(i) with the following:
“(i) by replacing lines 5 to 15 on page 51 with the following: “fered as a result of the contravention.””.
Debate arose thereon.
Rick Perkins moved, — That, given that the Government of Canada has invested upward of $50 billion towards the creation of an EV battery ecosystem in Canada and has mandated that all automobile sales in Canada be zero-emitting by 2035, and given that:
(i) Northvolt's $7-billion EV battery plant in Montreal, QC, has delayed construction for upward of a year while it undergoes a “strategic review” of its future operations, despite receiving $7.2 billion worth of taxpayer money; (ii) UNICOR’s $2.7-billion EV battery component plant in Kingston, ON, has halted construction, despite receiving 1 billion dollars' worth of taxpayer subsidies; and (iii) Ford's $1.8-billion EV expansion in Oakville, ON, has been scrapped and retooled to make gasoline pickups, despite receiving $590 million worth of taxpayer subsidies; the committee therefore agrees to conduct a four-meeting study, study beginning in the first week of November to review the feasibility of the government's EV strategy, given the significant amount of taxpayer support amid a global slowdown in EV sales, and that the committee agree to hear from witnesses submitted by members of the committee proportional to their representation in the House, report its findings to the House and request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.Debate arose thereon.
Michelle Rempel Garner moved, — That the motion be amended by replacing the words “week of November” with the words “sitting week of January or after the completion of the credit card study, whichever is earlier”.
The question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Bernard Généreux, Jeremy Patzer, Rick Perkins, Michelle Rempel Garner — 4;
NAYS: Chandra Arya, Vance Badawey, Iqwinder Gaheer, Jean-Denis Garon, Brian Masse, Ryan Turnbull, Tony Van Bynen — 7.
After debate, the question was put on the motion and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Bernard Généreux, Jeremy Patzer, Rick Perkins, Michelle Rempel Garner — 4;
NAYS: Chandra Arya, Vance Badawey, Iqwinder Gaheer, Jean-Denis Garon, Brian Masse, Ryan Turnbull, Tony Van Bynen — 7.
Rick Perkins moved, — That, with regard to the committees ongoing study of Bill C-27, and given Minister Champagne has accused opposition parties of slowing down consideration of the bill, but given that:
(i) the Minister delayed consideration of the bill for a year by leaving it on the order paper, preventing its consideration in second reading; and given (ii) liberal members of the industry committee have continuously filibustered consideration of the bill for five out of the ten meetings held on clause-by-clause, to prevent the passage of amendments recommended by the Privacy Commissioner; the committee therefore express its disagreement with Minister Champagne comments, and orders the clerk of the committee to draft a letter to the Minister requesting that his members stop their filibuster of Bill C-27.After debate, by unanimous consent, the motion was withdrawn.
It was agreed, — That, the Chair send a letter to the Minister with reference to the article in La Presse news, urging him to be more cautious in his public communications regarding the work of the Committee.
At 10:03 a.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.