Evidence of meeting #23 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jean Lapierre Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr. Chairman, we have no intention either of monopolizing three hours of the House's time strictly to debate the motion. As Industry Critic, I don't think that would be in anyone's best interest. Of course, I could have the same problem as Mr. Crête if my leader decides that holding a debate would be a good thing. Regardless of what happens, I would rather confine the debate to this committee, devote more time to this and do our work.
We want to take our work seriously and to get a clear picture of the instruction's implications. We're not up for petty parliamentary games. Quite frankly, I don't think this topic is sexy enough to cause a demonstration on Parliament Hill.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Let's go to Mr. Masse to speak, and then we'll go to Mr. Carrie.
4 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Briefly, the maximum House time is three hours anyway, so I'm puzzled about the concern. Three hours to spend on a lot of issues, and it's important for the public to be aware of a number of different issues. I don't know what I'll do with regard to the motion. I didn't under manufacturing last time; I don't know if I'll do it this time. I have to consult my caucus, but for three hours of House time, that's limited. I can't understand the concern of Canadians not having three hours of debated public time about the telecommunication issues that are going to be facing them across this country. It's just three hours.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
If I could address that, Mr. Masse, to what end and to what purpose? As I was saying before, I'm sure you've had the opportunity to look this over. They did a really good job; for ten months all they did was listen to witnesses and come up with what we think is a very good report. This is a report that was started by the Liberal government. Respectfully, they did all the hard work. They did the grunt work back in 2003; there were recommendations. Allan Rock at the time said, “The government is firmly committed to fostering the long-term health of the telecommunications sector, which is a key driver of innovation in Canada. This requires both a regulatory environment that is conducive to competition and adequate access to capital.”
I want to move forward to find out exactly what the intention is. To debate it for three hours in the House, without any further information--If the intent is to listen to more witnesses, we could be agreeable to that, but the Liberal Party was there. We're just trying to implement what you're doing. We're open to listening to more witnesses, but I really don't want to waste three hours of House time. It is very important to debate this in the House, but I'm saying, Mr. Masse, what is the point of doing it now without even having the opportunity to bring the witnesses, which is apparently what the motion is all about--we want to listen to more witnesses? It's a waste of time for the House of Commons. Three hours in the House of Commons is very expensive time for the Canadian taxpayer, and if nothing new is going to come out of it, why bother doing it?
4 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
To what extent is the three hours...? I find it interesting that the parliamentary secretary is quoting Allan Rock. I could actually take the chair's quotes of Allan Rock and table them at any point in time in this committee.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I think you'd find some interesting quotes there. That's all I have to say, Mr. Chair.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I'll just perhaps add a couple of comments.
I'm sensing that I'm not getting a yes. I sense from the Liberals that they will raise this in the House. So the concern has not been allayed.
I would just say, as a member who was in opposition, that occasionally, very occasionally, you know, we used to put things on the order paper and we used to rise during routine business and we used to debate concurrence with a committee report just to throw the government off its agenda. It was on very rare occasions, I know. We're all parliamentarians. We all know how the system works. Let's be completely blunt about that.
I think the second concern--and Mr. McTeague, I know you've given your word, and that's fine, for your party--is a substantive one, and it relates to the fact that we've had one very compressed day on this here at committee. So we can't stand up in the House and speak as if we've heard from all the witnesses. And I'll be very honest. For some witnesses, for whom we told there was not enough time, we sent their written material to members. But they did not have the opportunity to present here.
I think it is first a procedural question, and second a substantive question. Obviously, I don't expect members to speak for their leaders, but members who are critics, I know very well the respect that your various leaders have for you as critics, and they'd certainly follow your advice.
If any of you can give any more assurance to Mr. Carrie, that might be helpful, but if you can't, that's your decision.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Mr. Chair, I can only reiterate for you what Mr. Lapierre said, and I think that's very clear and on the record. I can say no more than that.
As you have quite readily pointed out, there are a number of witnesses who may have wanted to come forward who did not get a chance to. Without getting into substantive debate, I think the real issue here is whether what is written in the book that Mr. Carrie has put forward, a very exhaustive book, is in fact consistent with what the minister has said, is consistent with what stakeholders are saying, and is consistent with what consumers are saying.
Frankly, I think that as a committee we have an obligation to look a little deeper within the timeframes that I think are acceptable to all of us, understanding that our priority is manufacturing.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Could we clarify, then?
Mr. Crête, you're saying no, you can't say that there won't be debate. The Bloc Québécois still may come up for debate. And Mr. Masse, it is the same thing; it is no.
Mr. Chair, maybe we'll just vote then, but I'd like a recorded vote, please.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Independent
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
The vote has been called, Mr. Chairman.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I would ask members if we will allow Mr. Arthur to address the issue after the vote.
4:05 p.m.
Independent
André Arthur Independent Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
I don't need anyone doing any favours for me. I said I would let people talk this through. It would appear that the discussion is over and the vote has been called. Therefore, I won't ask for any favours and I'll refrain from commenting.
Thank you, sir.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay. Are you ready for the vote?
(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)