Industry Committee on March 24th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Let's stick with legitimate points of order.

Continue, Mr. Rota.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I thank you. I've been watching what's going on. We hear about coalition, but the only coalition that I've seen so far is a Progressive Conservative-Alliance-Reform coalition that exists out there. Any Progressive Conservative is pretty well squeezed out. I'm not sure what you'd call it. I'm not going to go on, because that's just going to feed Mr. Lake, and we don't want to feed him more than we have to.

In any case, the will of this committee is to vote on this motion. I would ask that we vote on the motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Rota.

Other than talking about Mr. Lake's nutrition, I can assure you that as far as your comments about this chair go, when the meeting began, I analyzed your motion. I think it's really the responsibility of every member to make sure that their motion is in order, so you bear the responsibility for that. Being the servant of the committee, I simply make sure that we follow the procedures as well as possible and that we don't go against those procedures and consequently have to deal with the Speaker if there is an issue with what we're doing here.

Next is Mr. Masse. I have three people on the speakers list right now.

Go ahead, Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to make sure it was on the record that this is not unprecedented. This is how the Conservatives and the other parties ganged up on the New Democrats and passed the HST in British Columbia and Ontario. It was done through a ways and means motion. It was moved rapidly through committee and passed in record time without study. I just wanted it to be clear that it's not unprecedented.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Go ahead, Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I just had a question, actually, for Mr. Rota. I think he said earlier that he had consulted with the opposition members and had gotten agreement, or something to that effect. I'm just wondering if he could tell us which of the government members, in the interest of working together on the committee, he consulted with before moving his motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I'm going to Mr. McTeague now.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Chair, I'm wondering about that last point. The parliamentary secretary gets an extra $15,000 or more a year. He knows full well that part of his job is to relay to the minister and the ministry what's happening on this committee. If he hasn't done that, then he should say so now. That motion was put forth two days ago and was sent to your office, to your address. I don't have to look at your BlackBerry to know that, Mr. Lake. If you didn't do your job, that's not Mr. Rota's fault: that's your fault.

I want to talk about the other concern that I have. Let this be a lesson to our friends in the Conservative Party. If you're going to mess around with legislation, something that has stood the test of time, a census that has worked very well for Canadians without giving much reason for changing it, these are the consequences of what happens when you decide at the last second that you're going to change and throw in reverse years of history that have worked very well for the country.

You should not be surprised, Mr. Lake, nor should any of the members on that side, that we're at a point where we've tried to fix this. Parliament has passed, in principle, the notion of fixing the damage you have done.

If Mr. Lake wants to come here as a member of Parliament in good standing suggesting that somehow executive power is more important than parliamentary power, then I suggest he go back and read a bit of history from the 1600s and find out how the king lost his head for doing the same thing.

I would also suggest, though, in the interest of time, that if Mr. Lake has taken the time to look at Mr. Rota's motion and has a concern, he ought to have raised it with the opposition, which, the last time I checked from the last election, constitutes fully 64% of the will of the Canadian people.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Next is Mr. Wallace, and then we have Mr. Lake.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'm going to try to stick with the issue, instead of the politics that seem to have been percolating up for reasons that I don't know.

My issue, Mr. Chair--and I think I've expressed it at this committee, and I know I've expressed it at the finance committee, which I'm a member of--is the role and the issue of private member's bills, which this is. We are dealing with a private member's bill.

If this were a Conservative bill from a Conservative private member, I would be shocked that the opposition would be so keen on passing it through so quickly. They would want to do their due diligence by looking at the clauses and by having staff here to discuss them.

The fundamental problem I have--and I'm not blaming any mover of private member's bills under the present system--is that the present system allows this to happen. I think the system needs to change so that there is a legislative requirement for due diligence on these private member's bills. Government bills go through legal and constitutional issues. They go through finance, even though our opposition members may not like the numbers that they're given or they don't think there's enough. There is a rigour to the development and the presentation of laws.

Let's be frank: this becomes the law of the land. It's not a motion to say we're bad or they're good or you should do this or you should look at this; this is actual law.

My issue with it and with all private members' bills, not just this one, is that in lots of cases I don't think there is enough due diligence done to private members' bills that other bills may have.

Both sides have called witnesses to come and talk at these committee meetings. The meetings were set up. We are expecting witnesses to come back, and then we'll have clause-by-clause consideration. Will I win many of my debates at clause by clause? Let's be frank: it's not likely, but at least we'll be able to be on the record as to why I am supporting or not supporting particular pieces, just as I have that right on other private members' bills.

Of any legislation, private members' bills need--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Masse has a point of order.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

On a point of order, as you did mention earlier, and seeing the time and that this is going to go on a while, I would suggest that we wouldn't even be able to have the witnesses get through their opening testimony at this particular point in time--

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Unless we extend the meeting--

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

--so I would invite them, if they so chose, to leave. That's my suggestion to you, Mr. Chair, through your earlier suggestion. I thought that might be the courteous thing to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Masse. You did it in a very non-partisan way and with integrity.

Unless I see any resistance to my right or left, I'm going to do that right now.

From the chair of the committee, you have our apologies that we are seized with other business that is urgent. Rather than delay you any further, we'd like to excuse you. I hope all of you will please accept our thanks and our apologies as well.

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Mr. Wallace, please continue.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

To continue, my thoughts on the matter are that on this particular bill we haven't had the opportunity to do due diligence. I think it works for both sides of the House, to be perfectly honest with you, that due diligence on these items allows the proponents to say that they looked at this, this was the testimony, and this is what we agreed or disagreed with. You have some substance as to why this is happening.

To be frank with you, I am never in favour of allowing a private member's bill, on the committees I've been on, to go through the 60-day deadline or whatever that timeframe is—I think it's 60 days—and just automatically pass. I don't think that's appropriate. Private members' bills—let's be frank again—could deal with all kinds of issues that have very little research and very little understanding behind them. I've seen cases in which we've had to ask questions of movers of bills who did not know what was in their own bill and either had to look to staff or others or had to get back to us with those answers. They don't have the same eyes on them that regular government-generated bills have.

I think there needs to be an improved process for private members' bills. I prefer motions, because they ask the government to study something, and I think motions should come to committee, not just disappear. I think some changes need to be made.

In this particular case, I will not be supporting this going directly to the House, because I haven't had the opportunity to question the witnesses, including those who are going to be implementing the changes that are in this bill. I think that's a violation of my ability to do my job. The opposition like to talk a lot about how they've been violated in their ability to do their job. Well, I think this is a blatant approach to a private member's bill that doesn't allow me the ability to at least do the questioning. I may not be right, Mr. Chair, and I might not get my way in the end, but I shouldn't not be afforded that opportunity by just passing this bill through this committee today.

I think that's all I had to say, to be honest with you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

Mr. McTeague is next.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I appreciate that from Mr. Wallace, and I'd be more than happy to discuss with the parliamentary secretary his having a personal meeting with any one of the officials to determine and size up for himself whether the bill is adequate or not.

I'll come back to a simple point. A decision was made by executive authority; they proposed a change by fiat. What I've asked for and what the committee is asking for is a fix to that problem.

You now have a situation in which you have a classic debate between parliamentarians and the executive authority, which is supposed to be responsible to the parliamentary body. I'm not going to go through a histrionic exercise; the reality is that what we're dealing with here, Mr. Wallace, is very much a classic example of Parliament—not the cabinet, not Mr. Lake's boss—being supreme.

Today we are looking at a remedy to a problem created by your Minister of Industry, and we have what we believe is the perfect solution, endorsed in principle already at second reading by the democratically elected representatives of the Canadian public. If the executive and cabinet ministers don't like that, tough beans; the reality is that the power rests with members of Parliament like you and me. We may agree and we may disagree. You and I have disagreed on private members' bills that I've brought before us, and we almost caused an election on it.

At this stage, if we want to continue debating for the next 15 minutes, then we'll agree to disagree. My interest here, Mr. Chairman, is to make it abundantly clear that when it comes to the supremacy of parliamentarians, I will always fight for that right, regardless of what party they may be from. As the member obviously knows, my own track record and history on many of these issues is that I don't necessarily always follow my party. I'd like to see that kind of leadership from some of the members on your side.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

The member opposite, Mr. McTeague, made my point exactly. He made my point for me. He talks about the supremacy of Parliament and its ability to do its job. That's exactly what my argument has been. When a bill is sent from second reading to the committee for study, the committee could decide that we don't want to deal with it and let the 60 days lapse and let it go back to the House. I have never been on a committee where I have agreed, whether or not my party wants me to.... I am always pushing for us to look at private members' bills, because I think they're tools that are abused and misused and are not set up for the purposes they were originally for.

If the supremacy of Parliament or the ability to do your job is a fundamental right of a member of Parliament, this is exactly what this motion overrides. It overrides all our rights to be able to look at the bill clause by clause and discuss it with those officials who have to implement any change that any bill makes. At the end of the day, we are the ones who pass the laws and formulate the legislation, but the bureaucratic level has to do the implementation. Because Parliament is supreme, I don't think it's unreasonable for a member of Parliament to ask to look at this legislation clause by clause, as I have done with every other private member's bill.

So I think Mr. McTeague is right: it is our responsibility and our job to do that. That's why I'm opposed to this; it's because it overrides that responsibility.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

Go ahead, Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

It just seems crazy that we're in the position we're in right now. It's probably a good thing that the opposition parties have pulled the plug or are about to pull the plug, because this just can't happen, and whatever the outcome of the next election, I hope we can get beyond some of the stuff we've had to deal with over the last little while.

The industry committee has been known as one of the best-functioning committees, a committee where people got beyond some of the partisan games. Over the last little while it's become more like some of the other committees, and that's unfortunate.

We've had the opportunity to discuss some pretty important things. I had the chance to have a bit of a conversation with some of the folks who were supposed to be before the committee today, and it sounded as though they had some really interesting things to say. We have the briefs they're submitting. Obviously, if we go to an election, we won't have a chance to have those briefs as part of a report. It would have been nice to have come to a conclusion on the committee about the Investment Canada Act and to have given our thoughts on that.

In terms of my colleagues from all parties, I enjoy working on the committee. I enjoy working with every one of you. I know that sometimes it becomes a bit difficult, but I really do enjoy working with you. We don't know what this committee is going to look like or who will be on it or if we're going to be on it or if any of us will be on the same committee next time. Who knows? Last time I was on the human resources committee, which I loved being on too, and I was on the public accounts committee before that. I have really enjoyed working with the people on this committee. I'm using my last little bit here to—

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

To say goodbye?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

It's like a goodbye speech or whatever. It's good-bye for 36 days.

Let's face it. I think we get involved because we want to make a difference, right? We do, and this kind of thing is a bit frustrating. I've had conversations with just about everybody on this committee, regardless of party, outside our committee meetings, and they've been good, friendly conversations. I know that you guys have families and histories in business and other things that are really interesting to hear about it, and when we come back from our forced break over the next six or seven weeks, I hope we can come together and do some good work in whatever committee we're on. Maybe it'll be this committee, maybe it'll be other ones, but regardless of the outcome of the election, I do wish everybody on the committee well.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

There's an election?