Evidence of meeting #2 for Industry and Technology in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to extend my greetings to all my colleagues.
First, the interpreters told us that, when amendments or subamendments are read out, they should receive a copy with a translation already prepared, if possible. This would make their job easier given that commas and specific wording are often discussed. I would like to acknowledge the work of the interpreters.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC
I agree with the original motion. It accurately reflects the collaborative spirit of all the parties in this committee.
I also agree with the proposed amendment. In my opinion, it reflects the discussions held at the subcommittee meeting to ensure that this study alternates with the study that will be proposed later.
I also agree with inviting the ministers concerned to come and share their vision. In principle, I would also agree with the subamendment. Too often, the government and ministers show little interest in the work of parliamentary committees. They come quickly or they don't come back. However, I believe that all parties must keep things balanced and continue to work well together. If there were unanimous support for meeting with the ministers for two hours, I would agree with the proposal. However, given that all parties must continue to work well together, I'm less inclined to support the subamendment.
In short, I support—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Ste‑Marie, but there's a point of order.
Ms. Borrelli, what's the point of order? Is it your translation?
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Colleagues, I believe we've resolved the technical difficulties.
Mr. Ste‑Marie, you have the floor again.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I said, to ensure that the parties continue to work together, I'll be voting in favour of the motion and the amendment. I think that they reflect the discussions held. In addition, if there were unanimous agreement on the subamendment, I would also support it. However, to ensure that the different parties remain on good terms following the discussions held in the subcommittee, I won't be supporting the subamendment.
Liberal
Conservative
Michael Guglielmin Conservative Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, for clarification, as I am a new member, are we speaking only on the subamendment now, or the amendment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
That's correct. Where we're at right now, colleagues, is that Mr. Falk presented a subamendment. Discussion will continue on the subamendment until we reach a point at which there are no further speakers. We will then vote on the subamendment. If it's adopted, we will then resume debate on the amendment as amended. Once we're done dealing with that, we will go back to a final vote on the motion as amended.
We are currently on the subamendment. Do you want to speak to it?
Conservative
Michael Guglielmin Conservative Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Thank you again, Mr. Chair.
On the subamendment, I do agree that we're going to need the ministers here for no less than two hours each, just because, given the severity of files like industry and national defence, I think it's important that the people who are in charge of those departments present themselves to this committee for an adequate period of time so we can question them appropriately. Arguably, there's not even enough allotted time in the two hours, so we need to take as much opportunity as we can get. This is a committee of transparency, with a lot of professionals around the table, and I know we want to proceed constructively as a group of people who are trying to act in the best interests of this country. I think that, collectively, we can all agree that the ministers should appear for the full duration, as introduced by my colleague.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
I've sat here reflecting, and I think that, if we're going to spend a lot of time debating my subamendment, I would be just as happy to withdraw it. Let's pass the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
In order to withdraw it, Mr. Falk, as you may recall, we need unanimous consent.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
I'm looking around the table. I see it.
(Subamendment withdrawn)
We will resume debate on the amendment.
We ended, Mr. Falk, with you. Next on my list was Mr. Guglielmin, followed by Monsieur Ste-Marie, on the amendment that was proposed by Ms. Dancho.
Mr. Ste‑Marie says that this works for him.
Mr. Guglielmin, do you want to speak to the amendment?
Conservative
Michael Guglielmin Conservative Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Yes. I'll just articulate again that the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Industry play key roles in shaping Canada's defence and industrial strategy, and their direct participation is essential.
As I said a few moments ago, we're willing to work in the spirit of collaboration. I think that studying these amendments concurrently is fair to both the Liberals and the Conservatives because both of us, as my colleague stated, would like to have our motions studied first. This is probably the most adequate way to do it.
I'll say again that we believe having these ministers appear will strengthen the study and demonstrate a commitment to transparency and meaningful oversight. We're open to co-operating in this process, but the attendance of these ministers must be included.
Liberal
Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Chair Carr.
I'm delighted to join you all. It's my first time at the industry committee, and this is a critical issue for a city like Guelph.
A concern that I have around holding the studies concurrently is that.... The motion lists seven sectors that we want to explore in order to provide recommendations and a path forward in terms of an industrial strategy. My concern around having these be concurrent is that we would be looking at two very significant studies concurrently. I would prefer to have clarity, in terms of the one study, to move our experts from the sector and industry forward so that we have a holistic view in a condensed way.
It's my first time at committee, so I'm willing to hear from others about how that works. However, if we can have consistency in terms of what we're studying, so that we can arrive well prepared for the folks who are going to speak about these seven sectors, that's certainly my preference.
