Industry Committee on Aug. 16th, 2010

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Isn't Mr. Brown the next speaker?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

No, the next speaker is....

My apologies; the next speaker is Mr. Brown.

Okay, Mr. Wallace, you have the text of the two motions that were adopted.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Right.

So what happened is that due to commitments in my riding, I was unable to make the last meeting. But as a member of this committee, I'd like to be here if we're going to have further meetings, which I agreed to. I'd like to be here for that.

From reading what happened at the last meeting--it was sent to me, but I didn't bring it here, unfortunately, which is why I asked you to provide it--the second motion was that in relation to the committee's “study on the long-form portion of the census”, the minister table all documents and e-mails between Statistics Canada, the Privy Council, and the Minister of Industry. The committee also requested analysis, as part of that second motion.

The first motion was that in terms of the committee’s study of the long-form portion of the census, “this Committee notes that, the long-form census is a vital tool for good policy-making and the decision to amend it was short-sighted and carried out without consultation. Therefore, the government should immediately reinstate....”

When I read that--I'll be frank with you, Mr. Chair--I thought, well, okay, the opposition has come together, heard those witnesses, and has moved this motion. Because they have the majority on committee, they have moved this motion and this committee has dealt with the issue. It doesn't indicate in that motion that there would be.... It actually says, “And, that this committee tables this report upon resumption of Parliament.”

To me, it sounded like the issue had been dealt with; that the committee, through the majority opposition vote, had put a position forward; that it was going to be now reported to Parliament; and that the issue has been addressed and dealt with. And now we're hearing that the opposition wants to call more.

My thinking would be that.... I guess it's the committee's right to choose any path that they wish to choose--they're kings of their own domain, I guess you'd say, kings and queens of their own domain--that we do it again. Or is this an additional report?

I'm not sure where this is going.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Wallace, I'd just advise you that there are less than three minutes remaining in this meeting. If you wish to continue your intervention, you have that right as a member.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I will. Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

But I'd also remind you that there are two other members who wish to speak and other members who would like to see this go to a vote.

However, you have the floor, as is your right, so go ahead.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I have two more points with regard to the discussion that we've heard.

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

I think hit the nail on the head when he called it the “dead of summer”. Well, that's exactly why I think we should push off the ability to take the time to call witnesses and give them a chance to get here. It is the dead of summer, and there may be some difficulty for those who are on vacation or who have other plans to, in three days, be able to drop those plans and make it here to Ottawa for their ten-minute presentation and then a round of questions.

So that is the absolute point I was trying to make, that it is in the dead of summer. Why don't we push it to the end, where there's an opportunity...?

The parliamentary secretary suggested after Labour Day, even, after things sort of get back to normal. Even though we are not sitting yet as a Parliament, as a committee we certainly could do that.

Then the suggestion was, well, we can't interfere with the caucus meeting, which I agree with.

So let's have it two weeks from now, basically. Just over two weeks from now gives us time, gives me an opportunity, as a rightful member of this committee, to be here. That's why I can't support--

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Wallace, I just want to advise you that there's one minute left before adjournment.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

My last point, which I don't have the answer to, which Mr. Cardin brought forward, and which is an actual reasonable request, is that if the printing date of the forms is not until after we meet, why do we have to meet prior to?

I don't know when the forms that are going out in the spring are going to be printed. I have no idea. If we knew that the printing wasn't until October, then I agree with Mr. Cardin that we can have it later. But I just don't know that fact.

Those are my interventions, and that's why I personally cannot support the 20th, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

Mr. Brown, you have 15 seconds before adjournment.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to reiterate my point that I don't think three days' notice is a fair time to ensure that we have witnesses on both sides of this issue. I have no problem meeting later this week, or next week. It will cause the cancellation of some of my events that I had already scheduled in my riding; however, this is obviously an important issue, and there are those who want to have their say. I have no problem with them having their say. Let's just find a date that works for everyone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Thank you to members of the committee.

I'm going to adjourn the meeting, but before I do, if members call another meeting of this nature under the Standing Orders, I will double up the amount of time that we dedicate--from one hour to two--to ensure that we can come to some sort of consensus in 120 minutes, because clearly we couldn't in 60.

This meeting stands adjourned.