Evidence of meeting #150 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was consumers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I would say yes. I would like to reintroduce the language of the amendment that still keeps the portion that seemed to be supported by all of the opposition parties, which is to report back to the House.
It's the same language. I can read it into the record, but I think it's the latter part that I've added, which is that after “Canadian consumers” there would be a comma, and “call on the CRTC to do a full review of the matter, of price certainty and the issue of surprise fees increasing during fixed-term contracts and urge that it take regulatory action.”
Liberal
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
It was at the beginning, I think. I believe it was in the original language.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Are you using the same motion and putting that at the beginning?
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
You're using the same motion that Ms. Rempel Garner put forward, but you're adding on to the end of it a comma and “call on the CRTC to do a full review....”
It adds more substance to it, which I would certainly like to talk about in the House.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Given that the committee ruled inadmissible the amendment that you proposed, and it's substantially the same that you're proposing, I'm looking to the clerk to see if everything is possible.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
If we have unanimous consent to accept the amendment proposed by Mr. Turnbull, which would bring back the language he added in his amendment but keep the first part as MP Rempel Garner's motion had proposed—
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I noticed that you proposed adding the CRTC line at the end of the existing motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
That's correct. That's what I'm trying to get at.
I'll recognize Mr. Masse before we verify if we have UC on that.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I'd like to speak to the suggestion at some point, because I believe this is taking a distraction to the CRTC, whereas the minister should be acting now. I have strong feelings about that, because the CRTC will take months and months to deal with what the minister can do immediately.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I gather, Mr. Masse, you wouldn't give consent if I were to seek unanimous consent, which I think there is in the room. If we don't have your voice to that, then we're back to the original motion.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Yes, I would go back to the original motion, because I think this is a distraction from taking immediate action, unless I could be convinced otherwise.
Unless we could even potentially add a subamendment that would include the minister, then I could live with that, but I would want a subamendment at some point to include the minister to take immediate action.
Liberal
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
If we could add at the end of this that the Minister of Industry take all possible action in the interim to curb these practices, then I would be happy to include the CRTC.
I don't want to have to wait for the CRTC to report back six months later. This could be used as an excuse, in my opinion, so that the minister doesn't act until he hears back from the CRTC, whereas he could act right now.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Before it gets too complicated in terms of procedures, I hear you. Thank you, Mr. Masse, for letting us know what you intend to do.
I'll get back to Mr. Turnbull to deal with the proposition that he had.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I have a clarifying question, if it's okay.
I thought that the challenge to the chair's ruling was related to the “report back to the House” portion of the amendment, not the substance of the amendment. Ms. Rempel Garner challenged the chair on the ruling on reporting back to the House, not on the other piece of the amendment—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
From my understanding, the argument was that it substantially changed the original motion, and also—there were two parts to it—that we had already ruled on the “report back to the House” stage.
I deemed that, because you were introducing something new, which was the CRTC and that it was related to the motion, it was not substantially changing it in my mind, that it justified not having the “report back to the House” portion, which we had already ruled on. That was my ruling, which has been—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
—challenged.
If you're trying bring this amendment, I believe I would need UC on the CRTC part, because it's been deemed....
