Evidence of meeting #52 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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 2)
(Clause 60 agreed to on division)
We'll move to clauses 61 to 107.
We can vote on them as a block.
All those in favour?
Yes?
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Chair, I apologize for slowing things down. Is this LIB-7?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
On clauses 61 to 107, all those in favour? All those opposed?
On division.
(Clauses 61 to 107 agreed to on division)
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Make it easy for me. That's the way I like it.
Now we're moving on to new clause 107.1 and LIB-7.
Majid, it's yours.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
It is mine.
Mr. Chair, as most of us discussed, we've identified periodic review as a need. We're proposing a five-year review to close one of the gaps that have been identified. We are also looking at a committee of Senate or the House of Commons or both to do the review and to generate a report and table it within a reasonable time.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
I just want to speak a little bit about some of the reasons—and I thought we had described some of them before— why it should be three years rather than five years. It hasn't been that long since we found out that Canada has slid down five places in the last couple of years and so on. So if you're not really paying attention to it then you have no reason to make any changes, or to prepare for any changes. This was the reason that we wanted to see what would happen after three years. It meant that it would be the start of a new mandate and a government would be able to refocus on what the legislation had done or accomplished.
Now that has been rejected, so I'm not going to continue to go over it. Obviously, they must believe that a five-year analysis would be adequate, but I just want to make sure that I have, once again, perhaps pointed out the folly in a five-year review. With such legislation, which is so sensitive at the present time as you're really trying to accomplish something, if all we're going to do is to punt it down the road, I don't think it's going to do what we want.
I'll leave it at that.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
At the appropriate time, Chair, I'd like to move an amendment.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
We would move, consistent with where Mr. Dreeshen just was, that we change “On the fifth anniversary of the day on which,” to “On the second anniversary of the day on which.”
I think I got at least one vote.
Don't I, Earl?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Do you want to change that to the “third,” or do you want to just leave it to the “second?”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
We have a subamendment to change the “fifth anniversary” to the “third anniversary”.
Is there any debate?
We'll vote on the subamendment first.
All those in favour of changing the “fifth anniversary” to the “third anniversary”?
Conservative