Mr. Chairman, I was very disappointed with the timeframe. Regardless of where we think we are or the last-minute briefings that we have been given by the department and by the parties affected, this is a long-standing issue that, in my view, the government tried to sweep under the rug in a very, very short and deliberately brief period of time.
Chair, this is a position taken that for the first time very clearly enunciates that someone within the department has taken it upon themselves to be in contempt of what I think is the long-standing process of allowing at least a reasonable time for commentary. And more importantly, other committees, such as the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, may be more interested in looking at the appropriateness of having a decision, which is well documented in the public domain, rushed by a decision by the department without consultation to members of Parliament, leaving us very little if any time. Indeed, if I am to take it that some members were consulted yesterday, Chair, it was done exactly a few minutes before the time for commentary was over.
Mr. Chair, you'll recognize that I did discuss with you and with others my overarching concern a week ago, when I first learned of this. And I thought the best solution would have been for this committee to at least make a request for a delay until at least one of the affected parties gets a chance to comment. I now learn that it's not just the generics that will be affected by this, but clearly consumers and the provinces.
I'm also concerned not just about the act being, in my view, in contempt of this committee and in contempt of Canadians, but it's also contemptuous of the Supreme Court of Canada. And whatever the merits of the debate are, they could have been thrashed out if the government had actually chosen, as it has in the past, the time-honoured position of informing all parties.
And I understand the argument that is being made that, yes, they should have known about it—here it is, there it is—but considering the amount of effort, considering the amount of legal work that has been done in this area with respect to notice of compliance, no matter what the thing is in terms of streamlining or updating these things, I find this is one of the most odious things.
I certainly have no difficulty with my colleagues on this committee. I think they've all worked very well. But I think in cases of equity and fairness we should be providing that time. I have absolutely no hesitation with supporting this motion.
I would also, though, perhaps want to contemplate an amendment to the motion, which would be that the committee also refer this matter to the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, and that it holds the Department of Industry in contempt for having attempted to put this out in a very short period of time with respect to notice.
It is unprecedented. It's unacceptable. No reasonable member of Parliament who is worried about doing through the back door what you can't do at the front door, considering the history of this very important issue and its implications on all our constituents, should take comfort with the idea that this is something we can simply dismiss.
Thank you, Chair.