Industry Committee on Feb. 1st, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you.

Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chair, we have about five minutes left to decide whether we want to schedule a productive meeting with the CRTC representatives and the officials. I would ask every member to show some understanding because, as we all know, this is an urgent matter. March 1^st is fast approaching, and we cannot afford to lose another meeting on setting priorities. We need to decide the matter today so that, on Thursday, we can have a discussion and a working committee, so we can make faster progress. That way, we can move forward on this file and others.

I think we should support Mr. Masse's proposal to have the officials from the department and the CRTC appear on Thursday, so they can explain the CRTC's decisions. It is my hope that all the members will support that. So, if I may, Mr. Chair, I would ask that we vote on Mr. Masse's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Lake.

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

Further to the conversation we're having in terms of priorities, on the issue of concurrent meetings, the Investment Canada Act has been put forward as an urgent priority by all the other parties. So the motion as it stands basically puts off any decision, report, or recommendation that the committee might come up with, because it insists that for some reason it's concurrent with a census private member's bill, which I'm not sure I understand the urgency of at this point. I can understand that there is a difference of opinion and that members of this committee may feel strongly that this private member's bill is the right way to go, but you'd be hard pressed to attach any kind of urgency to passing this private member's bill through a committee prior to May 12, which is the deadline for getting it through.

On the other hand, I go back to several months of commentary on the Investment Canada Act, probably years of commentary on the Investment Canada Act for the NDP, articulating how critical it is that we study it immediately. Member after member of the New Democratic Party insisted that the Investment Canada Act should be studied immediately.

We had a motion to study it immediately in this committee, but it was defeated by the opposition parties, with the swing vote being carried by the New Democratic member. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I don't understand it. But now we're dealing with a motion where we're actually pushing it down behind a private member's bill. We can all probably agree that while we may have a difference of opinion in terms of the substance of the bill, the urgency of the bill is completely political. There's nothing urgent that that bill is going to accomplish by coming through our committee. So I put forward that I think it's incumbent on us as a committee to pick our priorities carefully.

If we actually want to get beyond the partisan conversations that we're having, the partisan tone in Parliament, if we really want to move forward together and work together, we have to start focusing on what our priorities are, what is going to make sense from the standpoint of the good of the country. When a minister is carefully studying an issue like the CRTC decision, I think it's difficult to argue that the committee has anything to add to that equation by having meetings ahead of the other issues on the table.

Secondly, I think it's impossible to argue that Bill C-568 is on a par with the Investment Canada Act, as far as an issue of urgency for the committee to study. I think that's absolutely impossible to argue, so I do not understand at all why we would put those as concurrent studies.

I say it honestly, Brian, in the interests of trying to work together. I don't understand how that—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. There's a lot of conversation going back and forth. It really should be going through the chair. It's just a courtesy.

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

That's a fair comment. Sorry, Mr. Chair.

Through you, I apologize to Mr. Masse as well. We try on this side to look at what other parties have said about what's important. I can't comment on discussions that happened in camera, but you can see from what was passed in camera that we came to some agreement on the issues that the committee is going to study.

There is some compromise going on here, but it seems to be compromise among three parties, not four. That's problematic as we try to move forward here, as we try to come to some kind of agreement on what we're going to do. We're going to come to a vote now, and I have a feeling I know which way that vote's going to go. I think it's completely inconsistent with previous statements by members of the other three parties.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Just a caution, too--and this is a courtesy caution--we've had two members refer to a discussion that was in camera. Just be cautious of that. It was in camera for a reason--and of course you know the parliamentary rules around that.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move an amendment in my attempt for a compromise. My amendment would be that the concurrent meetings would be with the CRTC decision and the study of the Investment Canada Act, followed by the committee meetings for Bill C-568.

What I'm doing is substituting Bill C-568 out for the Investment Canada Act for concurrent meetings. And I'm more than happy to support that change, obviously.

Am I allowed to do that or not?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

It changes the intent of the actual—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

How does it change the intent? It's just changing what order the stuff is coming in.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Well, I think that's the essence of what we're talking about.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay.

In that case, Mr. Chair, I will not support the motion in front of me. I don't think the priorities are correct, to be honest with you. I believe a discussion of the CRTC decision is appropriate. I also believe that a discussion of where we're going on the Investment Canada Act is appropriate. I can tell you how I'm voting. I'm not voting for any the clauses; I'm not supporting what's going to happen there. It's going to pass and likely go back to the House. I don't think it should take up committee time as an “every other week” approach. This motion in its current state.... I don't think it's appropriate. I think we should deal with those other two much higher priority issues, and then when we're done with those, because we have till May, we can have a couple of meetings for the private member's bill on statistics.

I have a bit of a bug about private members' bills, I've come to the conclusion, whether I'm on this committee or on the finance committee. We have a finance private member's bill that's down to one sentence. Is that the right way for us to be making legislative changes? I remind our colleagues that if you want to make a private member's bill that the sky is blue, you ask the Library of Parliament which act that would fall under and they send you the legal wording. There is no research. There's no background to it. You can do anything you want with a private member's bill.

From a system point of view, I think they play a role and highlight an issue, which this one is doing. I don't necessarily agree with what's in the bill, but it does highlight the issue. It's not a priority for us, as a team of the Government of Canada, to be looking at it. That's why I think in the concurrent system, if that's what we're going to go to, it's much more appropriate to have the Investment Canada Act and the CRTC decision happening at the same time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

Mr. Lake.

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

I did have just one thing to add to that, and I meant to mention this before. Just a reminder to the committee that when we're dealing with the priority of a fairly political private member's bill, C-568, and the Investment Canada Act, and weighing the priority of those two, I believe we had 12 hours of meetings during the summer on the census issue. For Bill C-568, we're going to hear from the same witnesses we heard from for 12 hours--I believe it was 12 hours--during the summer in committee.

As Mr. Wallace said, to pass a bill that we all know is going to pass anyway--it's going to pass six to five in the committee. There's no question. It's going to pass in the House. We know that's going to happen anyway; it's purely a political exercise. Is it really a priority? Is that equal? The Investment Canada Act is a study that the NDP has talked about making a priority for years. For months, the Liberals have talked about maybe making it a priority.

How, when we are weighing the two, are those two equal and worthy of a concurrent study? What possible motivation could there be for studying those concurrently, other than a political motivation? I don't understand what the purpose is of having a concurrent study on those two issues. If we're going to study, if we're serious as a committee about what we do, if we take our role as parliamentarians seriously.... I think Mr. Wallace was alluding to this.

I know this sounds like a rant. It sounds like a filibuster, although we're going to extend the meeting as long as it takes, but I think this needs to be discussed.

What is our role as a committee? Is it just to be pawns in some political game or are we actually wanting to get something done? And this notion of concurrent discussion of two separate issues, there hasn't been a good argument put forward for it. I can't possibly understand why we would want to approach it that way.

From my understanding, the Investment Canada Act is something we actually all take seriously, so why not study that first? Mr. Masse wants to say something, so I'll let him....

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Have you completed yours?

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

Yes. I'll let Mr. Masse speak.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I think what it boils down to is that you still don't understand the importance of the census to this country. I'm not saying they're equal; it's just doing the studies at the same time. They are both important issues. And the private member's bill that's been drafted addresses a very serious issue that.... It's not just the information about the census. The census actually backstops all the surveys in scientific information in this country. I'm neither valuing nor judging either/or.

I know we've got a week and a half to work on the CRTC stuff, which I think is really critical, and then we can get on with the two studies. Maybe one will wrap up before the other and then we have extra meetings available for it. Again, I'm able to meet more. I'd be happy to do that if we want to fast-track the Investment Canada Act, and then maybe we can talk, not at this meeting but another meeting, about adding a Wednesday.

So those are all on the table. I think this is just a simple compromise on very serious issues. I think all three issues are very important. To me that's just simply where it is. Maybe you don't get it. That's okay.

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

The issue isn't the importance of the census question. The fact is we spent 12 hours discussing it already as a committee. If we're serious about what we do as a committee, we have to prioritize some things. On this side of the table, we believe the Investment Canada Act and the study we're looking to do are important. We thought it was important to you too.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I see no more debate.

We'll go to the motion that we would meet for the next three meetings around the CRTC issue and then have concurrent meetings for C-568 and the Investment Canada Act.

I'll go to a recorded vote again.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

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

On a point of order, on that vote, I'm curious to know what the rule is when somebody inadvertently votes.... I'm just curious to know what the rule is.

[The Clerk]

It is the same, I would say, in the chamber and in the--

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

In the chamber we have one rule.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Jean Michel Roy]

We have as well. At what speed Mr. McTeague changed his mind makes a difference. I hadn't even recorded the vote yet.

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

Okay. I'm not making a big deal of it anyway. I'm just curious to know what the rule is. That's fine, Chair, let him change--

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

Mr. Chair, I was bored with Mr. Lake's soliloquies here, so I fell asleep. I'm sorry.