Industry and Technology Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2025

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

When Stellantis had requested—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Falk, I apologize. As you know, when I have a point of order, I have to tend to it immediately.

Mr. Bardeesy.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I'm hearing basically the same thing. I'm wondering if we can just stick to the motion.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I find it is very pertinent to the motion—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I have the floor. Give me one second, please.

Colleagues, we're on track to get where we want to get.

Mr. Falk, I know that you have strong feelings and strong language that you'd like to apply. I know that some colleagues across the way have some relatively legitimate concerns about the use of that language in terms of how we would apply rules and procedure to this committee and the chamber. If there's another way you could make the same point by using some different words, I'd encourage you to do so, and maybe we can move on.

Thank you.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I think it's imperative that the CEO of Algoma come here so that we can confirm that the information coming to us from the Minister of Industry and from the Liberal caucus is consistent with the information that he would provide to this committee. It's imperative that he come here to confirm whether or not the information is accurate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

With that, I'll wrap up. I just think we need to have these people here. We need to get to the bottom of what appears to be incompetence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Falk.

Mr. Guglielmin.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It's my pleasure to speak in favour of this motion, as somebody who worked inside the steel industry. It's really a consequential time for the steel industry. The 25% tariff was manageable, but 50%, as we know, is impossible.

One of the key things that I find alarming and that I continue to find alarming here is the precedent that's being set. First, we have the contract with Stellantis, where there aren't any job guarantees. Now, we hear the new definition of success seems to be that, if we spend $400 million, we only get 1,000 job losses.

We continue to hand out money without any jobs guarantees. We have workers being affected all across the country. When we look at the auto sector, some 600,000 jobs are associated with the auto sector. All these are up and down the steel supply chain as well.

This is a very consequential issue. We need the relevant parties here at committee to testify and to make sure that the Canadian people are getting the transparency they deserve.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Ste‑Marie, I was going to give you the floor. However, since I think I know what you want to do and I see that another committee member has raised his hand, perhaps we could hear what he has to say first.

Also, Ms. Dancho just said she has a brief intervention as well.

If it is okay, we will go to Mr. Erskine‑Smith first, followed by Ms. Dancho. Then it will be your turn.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you.

Mr. Erskine-Smith.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks very much.

To start out, I think everyone in the House of Commons, and certainly everyone at this committee, is united in saying that we want to defend Canadian steelworkers. I think we're all on the same page there. I want to start there because I think there is a moment for unity that we are allowing to be frittered away, in some ways.

The threat comes from south of the border. You have volatility, instability and a menace in the White House when it comes to Canadian economic interests and our well-being, and we should all be united. There has been unity, and I worry about that unity fracturing. Just as a starting point, it's important to frame where we are and how we can work together to make sure we put the best interests of Canadian steelworkers first.

I have been to Sault Ste. Marie a number of times; it is devastating to Sault Ste. Marie. It is devastating to the community there and to families there. Everything we can do to stabilize the situation for Canadian workers and steelworkers is incredibly important.

We're talking about a $400-million loan from the feds and a $100-million loan from the provincial Conservative government via Doug Ford and his team. I just want to again be clear. The media reported the federal finance minister saying, “If it was not for the support, the situation at Algoma would be dire today.” I heard the Prime Minister in the House quote the CEO of Algoma Steel, saying there would have been “an even darker day”. The Prime Minister also said, “we had a choice: save two-thirds of the jobs or let the company go down.” I read that Vic Fedeli said, “Everybody, including the unions, knew [the layoffs] were coming, but they're coming faster because of the Trump tariffs.”

I don't want to be dismissive of the need to bring witnesses in. I absolutely agree that we need the CEO here, and I think ministers should attend. It would be very constructive to ask if this agreement was fashioned in the right way, in the best possible way. Could we have done a better job? Maybe, but I don't know.

Where I struggle with the motion is that I have no problem inviting witnesses to appear. I think we can constructively do this work. Let's play the accountability function that a committee should play and look at the government action federally and provincially. Let's look at what was or wasn't known as these agreements were being negotiated.

Could we have done better? Could we think of better ways to have job guarantees and protect workers? Was it possible in the circumstances of this particular case? Let's hear the testimony and come to some conclusions.

I struggle because Mr. Falk rightly said that we should study and then report to the House. This motion reports to the House and then studies. Personally, with the way it is drafted, as is, it doesn't make a ton of sense. I know we're going to run out of time tonight, but if we can come to a place where we're focused on studying the core substance of the issue and then subsequently report our findings to the House, that's a place that I think would be constructive and helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I have Madam Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the comments thus far, and I think they do make the point that this motion was crafted in a way to, yes, have a study at committee and so that we would have a debate in the House of Commons.

Unfortunately, I'm getting increasingly concerned that we are having a lot of push-back on having concurrence debates, which carry weight, which carry votes. Often ministers will come comment on them. I do appreciate that there's been some movement for some evening debates. I appreciate that, but again, I think the gravity of the situation we're facing seems to not be being recognized—by not allowing serious debates of concurrence in the House. I say that because I think there have been valid points made. The purpose of opposition is to hold government ministers, government parliamentary secretaries, and MPs speaking on behalf of government accountable for their policies.

Given that thousands of people are losing their jobs in the steel industry, surely the House of Commons of Canada should have a fulsome, binding debate on the policies best suited to deal with thousands of people losing their jobs, with no end in sight. There's been no guarantee that a trade agreement, a trade deal, is forthcoming, imminent or near on the horizon. To not allow a fulsome concurrence debate with a binding vote I think does a disservice to these job losses.

It deserves to be debated. We deserve to be able to ask ministers fulsome questions in the House of Commons. That is why we're very keen to have it reported to the House, Mr. Chair. I just want to drive home that point, and we will continue to drive home that point for all industries impacted by this trade war.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Madam Dancho.

Mr. Ste‑Marie, go ahead, please.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Chair, I very much appreciated the debates and exchanges. I think that, at the outset, if it were not for the American President's erratic protectionist policies, we would not be discussing all these problems. We really need to condemn the often even illegal policies, under American law, that his government is proposing and that have major repercussions here.

We all stand in solidarity with steel and aluminum workers at Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie.

I, for one, am in favour of this motion. I agree with the whole text, line by line. I agree that the committee should look into the matter with the witnesses on the list and that the committee should report to the House. Obviously, with the points that were raised by Mr. Erskine‑Smith, we could have slightly reworded the motion to specify that the committee will report after the witnesses have been heard. However, given the urgency of the situation, I am in favour of the motion as it stands.

Recently, we studied another motion on the automotive industry and heavy-duty vehicles, which we debated at length. In addition, the House is currently having a take-note debate on this subject, which also concerns us a great deal.

If we were all ready to vote on the motion now, I would be prepared to do so and I would vote in favour. However, I understand that this is not the case for all committee members and that the debates could drag on as long as there are still resources available for this committee.

In my opinion, that would be less productive than following the debates currently taking place in the House on the automotive issue. That is why I am moving to adjourn the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

Colleagues, we know what is going to happen now.

We know what happens when there's a motion for us to adjourn. It's a dilatory motion; there's no debate. I'm looking around the room, and I think we'll probably take a formal role call on this one.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

The meeting is adjourned.