Industry Committee on Sept. 28th, 2016

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I don't have a motion, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Mr. Lobb's motion called for a suspension. Mr. Lobb is the one who wrote that. I think that's part of what the debate is over here.

Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

There's no issue in the definition of “suspend”. There's no issue in the interpretation of that. I'm quite clear, because I told you that it was a fine study, but what I would say.... I go back to the Liberal promises on the independence of committees: that they would be independent, independent of parliamentary secretaries, independent of the cabinet ministers, and independent of the PMO. That's great. We'll assume that it is.

However, the logic that because.... I can't remember what Mr. Longfield's committee is that he was going to study it, the operations committee or whatever it is. The idea that we should stand down to the operations committee is the incorrect logic. They should allow us to conduct the study. If there are some supplemental things or in tandem or in parallel that they would like to look at....

We know what Stats Canada falls under and it's our job. It's not their job. It's our job. If the Liberals just wanted to say, in their opening comment on this motion, that they're not going to support it because they disagree with me and they don't want to support it because we're going to protect our Prime Minister, that's fine.

But with all due respect, to say you're not going to support it because the government operations committee is going to look at it is ridiculous. We're supposed to have independence on this committee. That was a promise that somebody made in the Liberal Party at some point in time, and we should have the ability to study what we need to study when it's appropriate to study it.

We're not going to be studying Veterans Affairs issues on this committee. We're likely not going to be studying defence issues on this committee. We're studying issues that are germane to this department, which is Stats Canada. If the Liberals want to vote against this motion, that is their right and that's their individual choice, but they shouldn't do it under the pretext, in the context, that they're not going to do it because somebody else is going to do it. It's our job to do it on this department, just like the agriculture committee would look at an agricultural issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We did have the opportunity to talk to StatsCan. They were here. We've dealt with that. I think what we have to recognize is that we cannot be sure that the other committees seized with this issue would be seeking out the testimony that committee members such as ourselves would want covered in this standing committee. Since we have the responsibility to deal with StatsCan, I think it's folly for us not to take on that responsibility.

This is where it should be studied. We don't know exactly where it might be. Maybe it's something that's proposed in the other committees. If it is, maybe they can stop that study and bring it back here where it belongs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'll offer a friendly amendment: suspend its study of the manufacturing sector on October 4 and 6 and commence studying the evidence of Statistics Canada. We get two days quickly for that and then we resume this.

I would also be mindful that as we try to wrap up our work on the manufacturing in committee, and hopefully have the witnesses here today, we also will have some government legislation to deal with, because the minister has tabled the bill.

I think that would be fair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Are you moving that amendment?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, that amendment, if it's friendly, for two meetings, if we don't want to use specific dates in case of other things. Two meetings, and if that's friendly, then—

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

As per the clerk, there's no such thing as a friendly amendment.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay. How about an unfriendly amendment?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay. I would move to suspend this study for two dates.... See, that's the problem. I'm trying to keep an open mind here, but at the same time....

I'm just going to stick with October 4 and 6. Leaving it open-ended is the problem, unless it can be reworked by somebody. Or suspend it for two days in October: how about that? I would move that amendment for two dates in October.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Okay. We have an amendment to a motion, for two dates in October.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Really quickly, in regard to the amendment, Mr. Chair, that allows us also to have two special meetings if we want to. That won't bump government legislation or anything else that we might have to deal with. This creates complete flexibility in October 2016.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

I was going to put “2019”.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That also will get us out of having to deal with the minister's legislation...we do want to deal with that and to finish our study, which we've put so much work into, and hopefully hear from our witnesses who are here today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Is there any debate on the amendment?

If there's no debate, then we will move to—

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I don't want to debate it. I'm ready to move on as fast as possible. I'd like to get to our witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Okay. All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed?

(Amendment negatived)

The amendment does not pass.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It was tied, I think.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Where do you get tied?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Let's have a recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Okay.