Industry Committee on Nov. 15th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Members, welcome to the second meeting of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

We're here to discuss committee business. We will start with the motions that we essentially tabled from the last meeting, so we will discuss those. If we have time, and if members would like to, we can get into future business after that, depending on how much time the routine motions take.

The clerk has done an excellent job of distributing the documents, the motions that were adopted by the committee in the last session as well as the motions that were proposed by Mr. Carrie at the last meeting. Members should also have “Allocation of Time for Questioning”. I know this is an issue that will likely be debated at length. There is also “As adopted by the committee in the previous session” and “Proposals of routine motion”. Members should all have a look at that document as well.

At this point, I recognize Mr. Carrie, to talk about the motions.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I wanted to thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm looking forward to the meeting this morning because we've had some discussion about the different motions that were put forward. I think the purpose of these more or less constructive motions by the government is to allow our committee to work and avoid some of the procedural pitfalls we ran into in the last session, to understand that these routine motions are going to apply equally to everyone here, all the different parties, and we want to introduce them in a transparent, constructive way.

I'm looking forward to debating them and discussing them today, because some contentious issues have been brought forward. But I think if we take the opportunity in the first meeting or two to discuss how we want to bring these forward, it will ensure that the committees work smoothly. Overall, I think our committee last session worked very, very well, and I'm looking forward to continuing in that spirit. So I'm looking forward to seeing what the opposition parties have to say about the motions and the changes that we feel will help things run a little bit better.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. McTeague.

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

Chair, thank you. I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's attempts at making some changes.

I have just a broad statement about the former routine motions for the committee. It has been generally accepted that this committee, perhaps more than any other committee, has been extremely flexible and that over the past year and a half, with some exceptions—and I note the parliamentary secretary may have alluded to them—these motions have worked out fairly well. I think, for instance, probably the most obvious one was the speaking order, which was an accommodation by both the New Democratic Party and our good colleague, Monsieur Arthur, to make sure all members had an equal opportunity to hear, provide, question, and create greater input in terms of development of legislation or consideration of issues. In my years working on this committee and other committees...this past 18 months have probably been more cooperative and harmonious than any time in the past.

I will tell the parliamentary secretary and you, Chair, that our party has a number of concerns with this. But before going into it point by point, I'm wondering if there might be consideration, because we could spend a lot of time on this. Mr. Carrie has pointed out a couple of sessions. I hope that's not the case. I think we would all like to try to attend to some very important business and develop a strategy on where we should be going, and not take two meetings to do this.

I would suggest we maintain the status quo in order to get back to where we were, so we can get on with the business of doing what we have to do. But there are a number of concerns in each section. I can tell the parliamentary secretary that we probably have difficulty with—and I'm being modest here—more like 80% of what has been proposed.

I would ask, Parliamentary Secretary--I know you've got work to do--in an informal way if you would consider maintaining the status quo. There may be some issues here that we can work in or out as we go through this, but my sense is that before we delve into this massive debate on a point-by-point, blow-by-blow, basis, we in fact consider maintaining and leaving well enough alone to the extent we can.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Madame Brunelle.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Chairman, based on my experience in several other committees, I found that this particular committee, through your chairmanship, operates rather well. We have reached significant agreement on several occasions which made it possible for us to work peacefully. I, for one, consider these amendments to be of little use. I think it is in our interest to maintain the status quo, and keep the rules we are used to.

I understand the government's intention to improve things, but as the saying goes, the devil is in the details, we must always be careful when seeking to change things. Otherwise, the opposite of what we hope for may occur.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci.

Ms. Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to thank those who put together the proposals for change. Being a new member of the committee, I am not familiar with the routine of this committee. However, I am told that it was a very harmonious committee and that there was a lot of productive discussion, and of course the unanimously endorsed report that came out of this committee.

I hope to be able to continue to contribute to that spirit of cooperation and collegiality. In my view, if it's working well, maybe it doesn't need to change. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think there is a spirit of cooperation, so that if there are particular instances that arise that are problematic, we can work together to try to resolve them, without throwing out what seems to be a good structure for this committee. I'm particularly concerned about the proposed changes to the speaking order that would remove our time substantially. I don't think that's a constructive approach. That's one particular item I'm concerned about, but I would strongly endorse the view of others that we maintain the status quo for this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Nash, if you look at the time for questioning in the last session, would that be acceptable to you?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes, it would.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the opposition for their input on these routine motions. As Mr. McTeague was saying, I don't want to spend two meetings on this, and the reality is if we put all these to a vote, you can very easily outvote the government on it. If we could discuss the rationale behind them and maybe just go through them once and talk about them, I would have the opportunity to explain the rationale. Everything we've got here is for improvement and for the right reasons, and believe me, your input is very much appreciated. I think if we can adopt some of these things it will allow us to complete our work even better than we did in the past.

So would that be a reasonable step, to go through it once so we have the input from the opposition parties to know what issues they have?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I think we're relying on the goodwill of members, but these are motions you put forward, Mr. Carrie, and I can say as the chair that I wouldn't expect this to take longer than an hour--less than an hour perhaps.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I don't think it would take long.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I don't think we'll be spending two meetings on this.

So if members want, we can go through point by point. If there's a big objection, if it's clear the government doesn't have support, perhaps the government can choose to fight another battle, so you have to make your arguments very persuasive, Mr. Carrie, as you can see.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Under “Services of Analysts of the Library of Parliament”, Mr. Carrie, why should we change the wording?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

There isn't a big change here. It was felt that by changing the wording slightly, we would just be clarifying it:

That the Committee retain, as needed, the services of one or more analysts from the Library of Parliament to assist the Committee in its work. These services may be requested at the discretion of the Chair.

That's the only difference there. If the services weren't required, then the chair would have the opportunity to have input into that. That's the only difference.

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

We have no objection.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

There is no objection.

All in favour of Mr. Carrie's wording?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

So what we're doing is voting clause by clause on the proposals? I thought you had intended just to go through and explain them. I'm just asking what the procedure is.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We could go through. My preference—it's up to the committee—would be to go through one point and move forward from there on each one as to whether....

If Mr. Carrie's argument is accepted and the committee feels it's acceptable, we would accept that. If the committee feels they'd prefer to stay with the current motion or not have the new motion, then they would just say so. That would be my preference. Then we could just go from point to point and move on very quickly.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

So you're proposing we go through and vote clause by clause or section by section? Is that what the proposal is?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Clearly we always hope for a consensus in this committee. The only other way to tell is by vote. If there's a better way of doing so, I'm open to hearing that.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I'd like to hear from my colleagues, but it seems to me that the other way to do it is just to go through and discuss each clause or hear feedback on each clause. I guess my concern is that we've had people say they would like to retain the status quo, and if we vote clause by clause, then we are not retaining the status quo; we're actually amending the rules.

I'd just like to be clear. If the vote means we are in fact amending the routine, then I just want to be clear on that.