Evidence of meeting #14 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was services.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay. I have a speaking list here and I have other members who want to speak, so we'll proceed with the speaking list, and if you have a subamendment to the amendment.... Until we deal with the debate, our discussion will be on the amendment.
We'll go to Mr. Cannis.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, knowing the restrictions and the limitations that the minister is legally faced with, I was simply going to add, in response to a well-placed suggestion by my colleague, Mr. McTeague, that, “in as far as the Minister is permitted or allowed by law to discuss”. So we're also putting that, knowing very well that the minister will respond, “I am sorry, I am not permitted to discuss based on”--as the parliamentary secretary said--“confidential information”.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
So I am adding, “in as far as the Minister is permitted or allowed to discuss by law”. The clerk can rephrase it, but I think everybody understands where I'm coming from on that.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Well, I don't know if that is a subamendment, but that might work if you want to put that in as my motion. I don't have a problem with that being part of the motion. It is just that it makes the motion long and prolix. That is the problem.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Just let me confer with the clerk.
Okay, ladies and gentlemen, it is technically a subamendment and the debate is on the subamendment. The subamendment is in order. Now I am taking speakers on the subamendment. I have Mr. Carrie and Ms. Nash.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the members for their input.
I was wondering if we could talk about the subamendment and take a step back for a moment, because as my colleague, Mr. Stanton, said, this is the first time it has been mentioned that we'd like to have the minister here. I know the minister would like to come and discuss things with the committee.
First I'd like to know this from the clerk. If these are substantial changes to this notice of motion, do we need a new one brought forward to the committee?
Maybe a simpler way to address this might be, if we could agree, to have the committee write a letter to the minister asking him to please come before the committee within four to six weeks. As I heard Mr. Simard say, make it really simple; don't put anything in front of it, so that you can ask him whatever and have it a bit more open. That way might be a simpler way to address this entire situation.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Oh, I'm sorry, I had you down. This is the debate on the subamendment.
Mr. Cannis.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
I am just going to respectfully respond to the parliamentary secretary. By doing it that way--now maybe I shouldn't be protecting your minister this much--by making it as broad as you just outlined, you are opening him up for bombardment. The floor will be open, and we are setting guidelines here for him. We have worked very well on this committee in the past with great cooperation. That's what I'm seeing here.
So with all due respect, Mr. Carrie, on your suggestion to just send him an invitation to be here in two to four weeks, he'd better bring his shield and armour because you are allowing everybody to throw everything and anything, especially with the motion that Ms. Nash put on the table. She will then have every right to ask and expect a response. If he doesn't respond, he is susceptible to a lot of criticism. I am just being helpful to your minister.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
On Mr. Carrie's point--and I too appreciate, by the way, the interested members trying to get this going in a more constructive direction--are not these proposed changes to Ms. Nash's original motion substantial in the fact that they go beyond the ability of a simple amendment? Are we not required to go back here and actually see a new motion put before the committee?
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I declared the amendment in order. As you'll see, I was willing to accept the amendment that we cut out everything and just ask the minister to come in the next four to six weeks, which was Mr. McTeague's idea.
I was prepared to accept that, and it was as substantive an amendment as this is.
I don't have any further speakers on the subamendment.
Mr. Van Kesteren.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I agree with Mr. McTeague and I appreciate what he said. I'd like to see the word “declining” changed to “challenges facing”. You're talking about the decline in the manufacturing sector; I'd say “challenges facing”.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
The discussion is on the subamendment of Mr. Cannis. You can bring that forward on the amendment.
