June 1, 1993 (34th Parliament, 3rd Session)


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen

New Democratic Party

Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):

Mr. Speaker, that is Kootenay West-Revelstoke, but we forgive you again.
I had been engaging in a few remarks on Motion No. 2 before us which is:
That Bill C-62 be amended by adding immediately after line 36 at
page 3 the following new Clause:
"Review of an Operation of Act
4. Five years after the coming into force of this Act, and at the end of every five year period thereafter, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act including the effect of those provisions shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose".
I had been commenting just before the luncheon recess on a number of the problems surrounding the earlier consideration of this bill and the various amendments before us on which the Speaker has just ruled.
The problem we had in committee and the problem we see now is that the government introduced 51 amendments during clause-by-clause consideration in committee. It placed all committee members in a state of some confusion in trying to sort out just where they were in the process and what they were dealing with.
Normally members operating on a committee during the period of clause-by-clause study have some idea of what they are dealing with. But in this case the government used a very odd procedure, particularly on a bill that is so complex.
The bill deals with an industry wherein the volume of the rapidly changing technology affects it greatly. It makes the whole matter so complex that we really wonder where we will be a couple of years down the road in terms of whether or not this legislation as envisaged and put together will do the job expected of it.
This industry not only is one of the largest domestic service industries, it is also one which is so absolutely
Government Orders
crucial to our international trade, both in terms of the hardware and the export of technology and expertise we have been engaged in. I am sure in the future it will consume even more attention of those in industry and government.
The motion before us asks for a review after five years. We feel that in the special circumstances which have developed during consideration of this bill that is perhaps too long a period, especially initially, to determine whether what we have done in this place and in committee will stand the test of even that relatively short period of time.
In order to give ourselves, the government and the industry and all interested parties in the country an opportunity, I would like to move a subamendment to Motion No. 2. I move:
That Motion No. 2 be amended by replacing the word "five" with
the word "two".

Full View