Industry Committee on March 24th, 2011

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

I feel like this is a Conservative--oh, sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, Mr. Rota, I have a speakers list.

Mr. Bouchard, go ahead, and then Mr. Rota.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the amendment moved by Mr. Lake completely changes the meaning of the motion presented by Mr. Rota. I highly doubt that it is in order. At the very least, we'll have to vote. In other words, it's the opposite of Mr. Rota's motion.

We support the bill. Actually, last summer, we talked at great length about the government's position on the change to the census. The bill on the census presented by the Liberal Party puts things in perspective. That's why we support this bill. I don't think we need to proceed with a clause-by-clause review.

I don't think there's anything weird about this, it makes sense, it's a way of moving more quickly. Mr. Lake asked what the point of this is since an election will be called tomorrow or in the next few hours. If an election is called, instead of dying before the clause-by-clause review here, in committee, the bill will die at another stage in the House of Commons. That will show that what was done with respect to this change was done fairly cavalierly. Over the summer, the rules were changed because of a decision by the minister, at the end of June 2010.

I think we're aware of the facts, we know the process inside and out, and we need to proceed and move on to the next stage. This is why we are in favour of Mr. Rota's motion. We are opposed to the amendment that was presented, which proposes a clause-by-clause consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I was making sure I was procedurally okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Rota, and then Mr. Braid.

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

If I'm not mistaken, if we send the bill back to the House, then I suppose, Mr. Chair, that you would be able to report to the Speaker that you were challenged and defeated. Then the Speaker would take it under advisement and have to rule on it. Am I correct in assuming that? Maybe I can get some clarification.

[The Clerk]

It would be through a point of order in the chamber.

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

So we can send it back as is, if we have the will of the committee, correct? We challenged it and we beat it. The will of the committee has to be respected. We can't be bullied into changing our minds. We know we want to send it over.

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

It was your suggestion.

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

Mr. Lake, I'm sorry, but this isn't Conservative advertising, which puts words in people's mouths and then shows them out of context. It was part of a discussion that I was having after you suggested something. I said it's something we can look at, but it wasn't one of my suggestions, and I don't appreciate your putting words in my mouth.

Mr. Chair, through you, I don't appreciate Mr. Lake's putting words in my mouth.

We can send it back. We can vote, send it over, challenge it, bring it to the Speaker's attention, and take it from there. I think that would be a nice easy way to do it, and we can allow our witnesses to come forward because we really want to hear from them.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Rota, thank you.

Before I move on to the next person—Mr. Braid, that is—there was a ruling that was based on the procedures of the House, and you are absolutely correct that it was overruled by the committee, but that has no bearing; it's not germane at all to your motion. That had to do with my ruling. Now we're debating the motion.

There's nothing in the debate here that would be overbearing or bamboozling. It's clearly the debate that the committee has, so--

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

I have a question once you're done. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

In consequence, other members have some concerns about it, and they're voicing them. Also, we're actually debating the amendment right now, not the motion. Once we've exhausted the debate on the amendment, we'll go to the main motion again.

Go ahead, Mr. Braid.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I won't ask for the committee to respect process, because that's clearly already been abandoned. What I would suggest—and this is a segue from Mr. Rota—is that we at a minimum respect our study of the ICA and the witnesses who are waiting to provide their valuable testimony to us. I would suggest that we have them come before us right now and that we defer this discussion on the motion until the end of this committee meeting and provide ourselves with whatever allotted period of time we need at the end of the committee to discuss this motion.

We've heard from opposition coalition representatives about how important the study of the ICA is. Ralph Goodale said:

From all sides in this debate about foreign direct investment, there needs to be more clarity about what net benefit means.

And Jack Layton said:

...the Government of Canada should take immediate steps to amend the Investment Canada Act...

Well, let's get to that. Let's have the witnesses here provide their important perspective on this piece of legislation, and let's hear from them now.

I'm moving to defer this discussion on the motion to a time at the end of this committee meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

It's a motion to defer. If you want to defer the....

I would respectfully suggest to all members in the most non-partisan way that I can to either defer it or, if we're going to continue this debate, to please advise me now so that we can respectfully dismiss the witnesses. Give me your best gut feeling on that.

Do you wish to defer, or do you wish to carry on a debate and excuse the witnesses?

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

Chair, I'm very much of the view that the motion presented by Mr. Rota was in order. He satisfied the time requirement. We have followed procedure, Mr. Braid.

I also recognize that there are witnesses here, but the decision is, of course, entirely your party.

On Mr. Lake's motion, we, up until this very minute—with the exception of Mr. Rota, the sponsor of the motion—have not responded, out of interest in ensuring that we get to some kind of a timely vote. If you're interested in getting the witnesses here, then ask the chair to call the question one way or another.

Thank you, Chair.

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

Mr. Chair, I will say something.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, Mr. Lake, go ahead.

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

When somebody moves a completely unusual motion like this and goes against the chair and challenges the chair to do something this unprecedented, I would assume that they would assume that it requires some debate. Clearly this unprecedented, incredibly unusual motion and procedural tactic will lend itself to some debate. Please, let's listen to the witnesses on the ICA. Let's move this debate back.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Well, I don't see any agreement on deferring and I don't see any kind of consensus to dismiss the witnesses, so I have no other choice but to continue the debate.

Go ahead, Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'll be very quick, Mr. Chair.

I just want to ask my Bloc friends who spoke earlier what their response would have been on Bill C-501, which we just dealt with here at this committee. There were 14 clauses, I think, or 15 clauses, and two that you agreed with. Because we were able to go clause by clause, you were able to support two clauses in that private member's bill and you were able, with us, to defeat other clauses.

I want the same right: to be able to make the arguments for this bill. Why are you denying me that right, the same right that you had two weeks ago on Bill C-501? I think it's only fair that we go clause by clause.

Thank you. I'm on the record for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Mr. McTeague.

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

Chair, I have no difficulty in reminding the committee that the direction from the House on this bill was given by the authority of Parliament, the authority of the Canadian people. I know it's a problem for some people on the government side, on the Conservative side, who tend to ignore that and prefer executive power, but it is a minority government up until tomorrow, and we'll see what happens after the elections.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

You're right.

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

Chair, Conservative members have exercised significant time in terms of the debate, and Mr. Lake has provided an amendment. If they wish to continue to debate the amendment, it might be fair for you to suggest to the witnesses that this may go on for another 10 or 15 or 20 minutes.

More importantly, though, Mr. Chair, we have from the parliamentary secretary a position at the outset that is highly inflammatory and comments that were extremely partisan—which we can expect—followed then by his last comment, which was a begging, an imploring. This face of Janus is just not acceptable, and I would suggest that if the member is serious about allowing the witnesses to stay, he ask for and concur with allowing a vote on his amendment, and we'll get on to the rest of it. Perhaps in 20 seconds we can have this over and done with.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Well, I don't think it'll be that little. We have two people on the speakers list. We have Mr. Lake and then Mr. Généreux.