Mr. Chairman, our members are somewhat concerned about this. If I understand correctly, the problem is the November 4 date. Unless this committee maintains otherwise, the government could unquestionably see this as competition. Given the serious nature of the situation, I think the March 1, 2007 date which we discussed and agreed to in a vote, is a compromise that will allow us to cover the whole question of the manufacturing sector. We could also set aside two or three weeks at a later date to examine this question.
As I understand it, the motion now on the table merely calls upon the minister not to make a decision on November 4, but rather to wait for the committee to table its report. That is totally acceptable, given that this is in the public interest. A few witnesses maintained that the government's telecommunications policy could conceivably violate the provisions of the Telecommunications Act. Therefore, Parliament may well have to make an amendment at the minister's request.
So the concerns we have are only preliminary, but they are concerns that would require this committee to look a little harder. We should not hold back on decisions that are made, but rather give light to the fact that the committee ought to spend a bit more time subject to the finishing of its study on manufacturing, which is why the March 1 proposal was made.
When we first proposed this, I said one day should do it. But I had no idea that the Bloc and other parties would have similar concerns arising from it.
I understand the concern that you've raised, Mr. Chair. I'm sympathetic to it and I can tell you there was no malice aforethought, no trying to make this more than what it was. But considering the grave implications of not looking at this, and the possibility that the minister's directive may be in contravention of the Telecommunications Act, I think it's incumbent on this committee and on Parliament to make sure that the appropriate legislation is in place and amended accordingly. So for that reason, I think that if there's time we would like to see this go.
Mr. Chair, I understand that the parliamentary secretary has been kind enough to offer something of an amendment in the English version. It affects the last two sentences beginning after the word “deregulation”. This would be after March 2007, now that we've passed it. It suggests that the adoption of this motion be presented to the House of Commons as soon as possible. I think there was a suggestion that this be removed entirely.
The practical effect would be—and this is not for debate but just to signal—that not reporting it to the House would suggest to the government and to Parliament that the committee doesn't care. I'm wondering if we can work on those words. I know that I left the parliamentary secretary with an opportunity to discuss with his colleagues how we might be able to work it around. I'm suggesting that we remove reference to the word “adoption”. We then have “that this motion be reported to the House of Commons as soon as possible”. I don't know if that helps the parliamentary secretary.