Thank you, Chair.
Thanks to our colleagues, Madam Dancho and Mr. Ste-Marie, for starting the collaboration on this part of our deliberations.
As I said briefly in our last meeting, the shorter study we did on autos had a beneficial impact on some of the deliberations of government and in the interaction with what we were hearing from witnesses, in particular, with regard to the effects of the electric vehicle availability standard and the prospective chill of investment that comes from U.S. trade actions, and the actions that Canada needed to take, in a unified way, to address the issues in front of us. I commend the work that we've already done on this file. Having had real results doesn't mean there are not disagreements or differences among the parties, some of which have been already raised today.
This motion creates the effect of our doing two concurrent studies again, which we had done in the fall period. I know that's more unusual than usual in the work of the committee and for the hard-working analysts we have. I do want to, at some point, put a question to the table officers about what the practical effects would be of implementing this motion, given that we did it with some hesitation last time and that we had a schedule in mind for the winter session, which didn't include this study. Once again, I just want to note that we did have an auto study in the fall that we put in place, in response to the circumstances on the ground there.
I also note that this motion has language in and around reporting findings and recommendations to the House. I think that, on this side and collectively, we've already used committee time, and question period and debate time in the House, quite well to highlight the issues in the auto sector that need a full and public airing. Indeed, we'll get four more meetings, so eight hours more, of a full and public airing on that with, potentially, the invitation of the minister, who, if she accepted the invitation, would be appearing for the third time before this committee.