Evidence of meeting #2 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 going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
With respect, I think we are getting into semantics a bit. With the first part of the 360 review, in our case we're saying let's get the departments to us. The second half of the 360 review is getting the ministers and deputies in front of us. Then, we do have a full picture.
At this point, what we're talking about doing, the first half of that 360 review, is to bring in the departments and consult with them.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Mr. Longfield, I hear you.
I would like to ask you one key question going forward. We're going to have information coming out of the mandate letter. The mandate letter is a very broad document. We're going to be able to get some information, because the minister doesn't just have a letter in his hand that he was given three and a half months ago, he's actually been doing the work. In FedDev, for instance, which I'm a critic for, there have been six announcements, I think, and roughly $75 million or $80 million handed out. They're going to know some really key information; we're going to be able to ask some questions.
Then following that information, in terms of the broad focus, we're going to be able to move to the agencies at the same time and ask how this broad focus is aligning down through the organizations. How are they hitting the ground and implementing what your government is proposing?
Systematically, when you start with the annual review process, the 360 review process, you want to start by saying, what is it that you have given in terms of the marching orders so that we have something to measure against.
What we're going to get now is that they don't know what the measurements are. “We don't know what the goals are. We don't know what the tasks are that you guys have been given. Just tell us what you think you want to do.” All we're going to be doing, then, is inviting these people back after we have the ministers, to say, for instance in southwestern Ontario manufacturing, how is it that you're implementing what the minister, his deputy minister, and the staff in that department have tasked you with?
It's just common sense.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Look, I'm all for listening to everybody's views, having open discussions, but this is going on and on and on.
Can you please read the motion and put it to a vote?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
My issue in this particular case is this. Here we are, sort of the board of directors, and the first thing we're saying is that we don't want to talk to the CEO. I think it's important that we deal with that, and part of the amendment is to try to make that happen as quickly as we can.
The unfortunate part of taking the approach that is being suggested is that we end up interpreting what the mandate letter is. Therefore, we can interject any little piece of it that we wish in the discussion. The mandate letter is public. We know what it is, but we don't know the interpretation or the direction that the ministers are going in this regard. This is the reason that it's critical.
The overall motion does speak to bringing in the departments. As I said earlier, the process has been that the minister comes in for the first hour with his officials; in the second hour his officials stay there, and that discussion is where you can put some meat on the bones of the mandate letter. If we don't know where the minister is, then we are all interpreting where that is going to be. Believe me, the opposition may have some different interpretations than the government might have once that has been presented.
I think it's in the government's best interests to make sure that the discussion on the mandate letter, which can only come from the minister, is the first move that we have.
Thank you.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I find it really unusual that we wouldn't invite the minister as part of one of our first meetings. That's not the norm here. The norm on all the committees is to have the minister, and having the minister appear at the “earliest opportunity” is about the weakest you could do to invite a minister. That doesn't even include a date. It doesn't have a response time. It doesn't have anything. It simply says that the industry committee—sorry, I mean the innovation, science, and technology committee—is interested in hearing from the minister, so you get a chance....
I think having the agencies come here is a really good example of a good thing to do. I think that's a real benefit, but you know what? I'd rather hear from the minister at a time more convenient to his schedule than to their schedule, at the earliest time possible, and then perhaps there is a time frame in which we can hear from the minister and then we will go back and finish the other work being done because it is more convenient for the minister.
If it's a month later that we're finally meeting with the minister, I've never seen anything like that before. I really haven't. I think this is a fair compromise. It's not demanding a date. It's not demanding a time of response. It is at least telling the minister that we're interested and we want to hear from them, and all we have to do is interrupt something that we're doing—and we should do that anytime, no matter what. If the minister wants to come here when we're doing a study on something or when we're doing legislation, then that should always be our priority. It's a two-way street.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
My question may appear to be off topic, but it isn't really.
The meeting should end at 5:30 p.m. I am sitting on another committee this evening. The meeting is supposed to last three hours. It is about physician-assisted dying. That meeting is very important, and I must leave. What are the rules of procedure regarding the 5:30 p.m. deadline?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
I think we have had enough discussions. It's going on and on and on.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Will it be finished at 5:30 p.m.? Can the meeting continue after that time?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Procedural rules may be different in other committees, but we should have a vote to be able to extend the meeting's length. The same situation happened the day before yesterday. We finished at 11:30 p.m., and we had to vote.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Okay, as per the clerk, the notice of meeting was 3:30 to 5:30. In order for the meeting to continue, we need to have a consensus. Do we have a consensus?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Can I please ask, through the chair, to the clerk, to read the motion again and ask for an immediate vote after that? Thank you.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
That's actually against the rules. Point of order, that's against the rules.
On a point of parliamentary privilege, you can't force the vote on this. What we can do is we can all—
5:25 p.m.
A voice
[Inaudible—Editor]
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Excuse me. You're not an elected member. Please.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
This is interesting. Again, the whip's office is taking control in here. It's incredible. This is not what we were told was going to happen. Mr. Trudeau stood up time after time.... I agree with Trudeau on this.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I have just a quick question. You know, we were in camera and we decided to go public because we thought we'd be more productive and there would be less political posturing and that. That clearly hasn't happened, so the question to the clerk is this. Can we have a vote just to go back in camera right now? Can that vote be done now, right now?