Evidence of meeting #1 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
February 16th, 2016 / 4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Maxime Bernier Conservative Beauce, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to let my colleagues know that a similar proposal was adopted by the industry committee in 2006-2007. When I was in office and was the industry minister, the industry committee had a 24-hour time frame. It was very productive. I think Brian was on the committee at that time. I just want to tell my colleagues who are new that committees have adopted such 24-hour time frames in the past.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Not to belabour this, but I come from the medical industry and there were a few things we did that were life and death. That means if we didn't act within 24 hours some patient would die. When we had emergencies, or someone sent an email out like it was an emergency, our whole operation stopped because, for me, that's an emergency.
I say that just to put it out there as we move forward as a committee. I'm not at all comfortable ever being rushed, and I accept being rushed when it is necessary. I would be against this. I thank you for the explanation, Brian, but I see nothing there that says 24 hours would mean life or death for a car company or an investment. I think 48 hours is fairly sufficient, but I'm going to stick with that.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
You know, I've heard this. Mr. Arseneault speaks about 24 hours not being enough. It was incredible the last time we were sitting, the Prime Minister of Canada, who I would say is probably one of the busiest people in the country, was able to change his plans and rush to Montreal regarding energy east in about 12 hours. Surely the members of this committee can formulate a position in 24 hours. He's the Prime Minister and we're just members of a committee.
The last thing I would leave with you is this. I remember out of the Prime Minister's mouth, at event after event, how arm's length committees would become, and how they were going to be put back to what they were meant to be, providing advice, hearing witnesses, doing what they were always meant to be as part of our democratic systems. I look around, and I wasn't here the last four years, but I see whips' offices trying to run the show here and not the members of this committee.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Mr. Chair, I resent the reference to whether the Prime Minister rushed to Montreal or not, because in here it was a pre-arranged visit, and trying to bring in the Prime Minister here, I don't think is appropriate for the motion on hand.
Referring to the whip's office is also not good at this point.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I'm actually glad Frank's here, with his medical experience; that's the first thing I'm grateful for.
At any rate, I just implore that we have the time right now to test drive this through a session. I'm really worried because, say for example there's going to be an investment in Bombardier, it could be held off for three weeks given our schedule coming up.
I think you're going to find you have lots of decisions that are going to be made really quickly here on the Hill. Again, I think it would be a good compromise to test drive this. We go into camera to do new business, so you have the chance at that time to knock it down if you feel it's appropriate, or consider whether or not it is worthy enough for us to pursue.
It just gives us increased opportunity, and in a day if you're not comfortable with that, you get to knock it down.
I've seen this. There have been auto company issues and other things like that where you get very little notice in advance of what's taking place, and then we have no comment on a lot of things.
Especially during the session, I would suggest that a good compromise would be to try to test drive this. If you don't like it, you bring us back here and then you change it. It's a simple thing.
I think eliminating options is always a bad thing on committee.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
I'll just bring to the attention of the committee that, in the last government, it was still 48 hours' notice.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
It was 2006-2007-2008 he was speaking about.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
The last committee did adopt the 48 hours.
Okay, a vote has been asked for on the amendment of the 48 hours.
(Amendment agreed to)
Does the motion as amended carry?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Yes, we can.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
Okay, we'll move on to the next one: travel accommodation and living expenses of witnesses.
Go ahead, Mr. Jowhari.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
I move:
That, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses, not exceeding two (2) representatives per organization; and that, in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the Chair.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Is the motion carried?
(Motion agreed to)
All right, we'll move on to the next one: time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
I move that the witnesses from any one organization shall be allowed 10 minutes to make their opening statement.
The rotation for the committee members for round one is as follows: Conservatives six minutes, Liberals six minutes, NDP six minutes, and Liberals six minutes. For round two it is Liberals six minutes, Conservatives six minutes, Liberals six minutes, Conservatives five minutes, NDP three minutes. This will be a total of 50 minutes.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I just hope that the meetings are being run efficiently so we can get the second round of questioning. Traditionally we've had seven minutes as opening, but this change in format was very positive in many elements because it got all members in for good discussions. In the past, it was cut down. What I worry about is losing my space at the end, so I hope we can run as efficiently as possible so that I don't get cut off.
That's why it changed. We would have more members of the committee getting better time to address the witnesses, and it was a better balance.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Through the Chair perhaps to Brian, because he has dealt with this before, there are a couple of aspects to it. I suppose when you have everyone with six minutes so that you have everybody included in the discussions, sometimes that gets a little drawn out. In that last little bit, people are simply trying to find something to fill in their six minutes. It doesn't allow that to happen.
What had happened before, from what I understand, is that on the first round you had time that you could flesh things out, with seven minutes. I have a feeling that you'd be able to get more in-depth discussion at that particular point in time.
The other thing I would like to have on the table so we could discuss it is the order. I'd like to see a different order, with the governing party being first, and then the Conservatives, the NDP, and the governing party on the first round. I do have an order that I would suggest beyond that: the first round being Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Liberal, and then Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Liberal, and NDP.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
The total time you are suggesting is that in the first round we go for seven minutes, and in the second round five minutes for—