Evidence of meeting #47 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Well, on that note, any member can bring up committee business and change the course, since we're the masters of our own destiny, and the majority of the committee represents the committee.
Mr. Lake.
Noon
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I think we have to have some form of amendment that we're actually talking about here. Right now, we have just the original.
Can you just read the motion for me as it sits right now?
November 25th, 2010 / noon
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Michelle Tittley
It is that the committee reinvite witnesses to appear, if they so choose, to comment on proposed amendments to Bill C-501.
Noon
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Okay. Can we work an amendment in?
I'd like to move an amendment, basically, that we reinvite witnesses to appear on Tuesday—whatever the date is—and Thursday—whatever the date is—next week, and then at the end somehow add to the wording that we schedule a meeting for clause-by-clause on the following Tuesday, whatever that date is.
Noon
Conservative
Noon
NDP
John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
I wouldn't like to see this bill delayed any more than it needs to be, and I think Mr. Lake's amendment is a good one.
The only thing I might add is that if four hours are set aside, I think it's good to hear the previous witnesses. It seems to me that any number of those witnesses may not be able to appear. Perhaps a suitable compromise would be that if there is space for new witnesses within those four hours, it would certainly be acceptable to me to hear them.
I'd like to hear what people think about that.
Noon
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
I don't favour the amendment, for the reason that if all of them want to reappear, it took us three sessions to get to this point, and as Mr. Rafferty pointed out, some of them may have a little bit of difficulty getting here. If we're going to do it right, we should do it right. I don't think we should constrain ourselves quite as much as this amendment proposes.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I'm actually amenable to what Mr. Rafferty is saying. That makes sense, because there were probably witnesses we invited who weren't able to come. I don't know if the clerk wants to comment on that, but certainly if there were, that might be an option. It's four hours of meetings. We did have quite a broad slate of witnesses for most of them, though, so if they wind up being a little bit shorter, that's not the end of the world either. If we decide there is room for one or two more at each of the two meetings, we can live with that.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
I would remind you that those meetings were very packed. It was interesting even to chair them, and of course to also make sure that members had fair time to question the witnesses. So that is a significant issue.
Mr. Rota.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
On a point of clarification, only people who were invited but didn't come would be additional witnesses, not new witnesses who would be pertinent to some of the changes, and who would actually give us new insight and some of the new interpretations. Am I correct?
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
If you have an example of a witness who wasn't pertinent before but would be pertinent, based on this new information, let us know. I haven't heard any argument for that, because I would have a hard time understanding who would have been pertinent before.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
As Mr. Sweet said, we are masters of our own destiny, so we could amend it at a later date, or if we have someone we want to propose, we could bring them forward.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
We are talking about two meetings to hear witnesses and a third for clause-by-clause consideration. I am pretty sure that not all of the witnesses we heard from previously will return. I think we could probably combine the ones that we've already heard from with some new ones, as proposed by my colleague. In any case, we can limit ourselves to two meetings to hear witnesses and a third for clause-by-clause. I think it would be appropriate to set a limit. That way we would be required to have results by the time the third session came around—in other words, for clause-by-clause. I believe there is a consensus on that. Conservative members seem to agree. I think I also heard Mr. Rafferty say that he is open to that idea. That is also our position.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
The flexibility is duly noted.
I think I can have a vote by consensus here, because I saw enough nods on the principle.
On the amendment constraining it to two meetings and then having a third meeting for clause-by-clause, do I have the right feeling that it does carry?
12:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
12:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
That's how we'll handle the business, then, and we've already said consensually that we will deal with the extension on this bill as well as Bill C-452.
Without any other business, the meeting is adjourned.