Industry Committee on Dec. 9th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Bouchard.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I don't see a problem with hearing the witnesses when we come back. However, I would also agree to hearing them next Tuesday, if the committee so desires. On our side, we have two witnesses we would like to hear from. I think there is enough time to call them for next Tuesday. But I am in the hands of the committee if it prefers to do that later. I am quite certain that there would be enough time to invite two witnesses for next Tuesday.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

There's obviously an option. We've endured this for a while, so we could obviously have the first hour with witnesses and then clause-by-clause in the second hour. It always pressures us a bit, but that is an option.

Mr. Lake, did you have another comment?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

My understanding is that Mr. McTeague has a couple of witnesses, the Bloc has a couple of witnesses, and we may have witnesses who we want to have come before the committee as well, so that might not be an hour. I don't know that that's going to be sufficient, and then going to clause-by-clause. I think we're going to need to have two separate meetings at the very least.

I think we really need to see whether the witnesses can come or not. I think we need two hours to hear the witnesses is what I'm saying.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

The real issue is whether there's a lack of continuity after the witnesses give testimony and if we come back six weeks later to do the clause-by-clause. Or is it better to hold the witnesses and do the clause-by-clause right after? That's really our decision, from what I'm hearing.

Mr. Bouchard.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I suggest we hear from witnesses next Tuesday and that we take steps immediately in view of that. I think we will be able to use a good part of the two hours we have, and since the bill is not long, we might be able to set aside some time to deal with it. In reality, the bill only has one clause. So it will not take long to consider it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Rota, Mr. McTeague, and then Mr. Lake.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I would agree with that. If we wait until next week and we hear our witnesses, we could then decide to end the discussions the same day. So there wouldn't be a break between the evidence and the decision. If that can be worked out, I agree with hearing them on Tuesday.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I think we're going to Mr. McTeague now.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I can go to Mr. McTeague.

Go ahead, Mr. McTeague.

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

Mr. Chair, I hate to ask this. I have one question of the Competition Bureau before they leave. It's been nagging me for some time. So after we've discussed where we're going, could I just come back, with the indulgence of the committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay.

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

It won't be seven minutes, I promise.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Do we have to hear it? Why can't you just—

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

No, it's a good one. It has to go on the record.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I didn't actually hear what Mr. McTeague said.

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

It was nothing. A brief question after our discussion....

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

We're fine with whatever the committee decides. It does seem to make sense to have the testimony of the witnesses in a separate meeting, rather than in the meeting where we go clause by clause, even though it's one clause. It gives us time to consider what the witnesses have to say.

That said, it's one clause. So whatever you decide, we're fine with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

To get this over with, so Mr. McTeague can ask his question, we're going to invite the witnesses. The best-case scenario, we'll be done with the witnesses and go to clause-by-clause at that meeting; the worst-case scenario is that we will hear from the witnesses and then we'll go clause by clause sometime in February.

Is everybody in agreement with that?

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

My only suggestion is that we would allocate an hour and a half, at least, for witnesses and then have the legislative clerk be here just in case. It is one clause, and unless we're all going to debate the heck out of it, the decision will be made, the legislative clerk will be here, and then we'll get it done.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

It was my intention to invite the witnesses and then, as today, see how the questions go. If we wind down, then we'll go right to clause-by-clause.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

The only thing I'd say is if only one witness can come out of four, then there's no sense even having a meeting to hear from that one and then have three coming in after the break. That doesn't make any sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, we'll make sure there's a substantive showing of witnesses, or you're correct, we might as well go to February for both.

Did you have another comment?

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

Well, Chair, we have six amendments. That's why I'm concerned.