Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I noticed that the subamendment the parliamentary secretary has moved still keeps the May 20 date. I see that as incredibly aggressive. It's even more aggressive than the timelines we set through the main motion. We have a break week. It's unfortunate that the budget was tabled so late, but that wasn't a decision of this committee; it was a decision of the government on which date to pick for the budget.
That was also the last day before a two-week break period outside of the House. During the financial crisis, when the world was falling apart, the 2009 budget was delivered at the end of February. It seems to me that the calendar timing is driven primarily by the government at this point.
I find May 20 to be incredibly aggressive in asking other committees to set aside what they are doing and get all hands on deck to deal with the studies coming out of this committee. I think we ought to be saying, “What are the priority areas?” or “Where are the areas of most discomfort?”
The government should be thinking about potentially splitting the bill. I would put that forward for consideration. If there are competition provisions people haven't seemed to be consulted on yet, we want the industry committee to look at that. Maybe they can look at it over the summer. However, to suggest that we need to do this and get it done because the government decided to introduce the budget at one of the latest possible dates.... I guess we could have not had a budget. We did have a year of that.
However, we need to be thinking about unique or special opportunities in order to make sure that some of these changes are actually tested. Typically, when you're going to amend the Competition Act or something, you do a consultation. You say, “Thanks very much” and put forward the draft proposals of the actual amendments you would like to make; you consult on that, and then you put them in a bill. I don't know why we couldn't consult on that over the summer and put that in the second budget bill, if the stakeholders feel there has been a lack of consultation. Asking the industry committee to do all that within a week and a bit seems incredibly ambitious, in my opinion.
The other point is, what are the other things this committee is working on that we ought to be focused on? There are some issues with CRA. There are some issues with an inflation study. Are we going to just pass this, and then...? My concern is that we're going to pass this motion and pass the budget through the committee, and then all of a sudden find ourselves with no more committee meetings to deal with some really important stuff. I'm just worried about the aggressive timeline we're asking of ourselves.
My question to the parliamentary secretary is this: Are you really held to the May 20 date, or is there some other, later date you would consider to keep us on a timeline you are comfortable with? If not, by virtue of the date alone, I cannot support the subamendment.