Evidence of meeting #24 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
February 9th, 2026 / 4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
No, I think it's okay for the time being because written copies are being handed out.
Mr. Bardeesy, you're on.
Liberal
Karim Bardeesy Liberal Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON
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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Mr. Bardeesy, I'm sorry to cut you off. I'm very eager to get the productivity report done. I think you're building up to your point, so could I ask you to get to it.
Thank you.
Liberal
Karim Bardeesy Liberal Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON
I am, yes.
I'm concerned about the effect of this motion if there are no amendments. It would cause another delay in the use of House time. We have a lot of important bills to work on and vote on, including Bill C–15, which we studied a few minutes ago. I therefore move an amendment.
This amendment would add at the end of the motion, “and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report”.
In French, this consists of adding the following at the end of the motion: “et que, conformément à l'article 109 du Règlement, le Comité demande au gouvernement de déposer une réponse complète au rapport.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
I'm going to give the floor to Madam Dancho to clarify it, but just as a reminder of where we are procedurally, that's a subamendment. Therefore, we're currently on the subamendment being proposed to the amendment.
Madam Dancho.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Chair, just so I understand, is it in addition to the last sentence, or is it replacing the last sentence? Is it “and the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House and the government issue a response”? I'm just not understanding it.
Liberal
Karim Bardeesy Liberal Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON
It's in addition to.... My understanding of the Standing Orders is that the response to the report is then required to be done before the report of the committee's findings. That is my understanding.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Give me one second. I think we're now tripping on ourselves a bit.
Mr. Bardeesy, could you reread specifically what it is you're hoping to subamend?
Liberal
Karim Bardeesy Liberal Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON
It's to add at the end of the motion, “and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report”.
My understanding of its effect is that the government's response is required before the committee then reports to the House.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
I'm going to suspend very briefly to allow for some clarity. I think I understand what you're trying to do.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
I'll just clarify a couple of things, and then I'll give the floor back to Mr. Bardeesy.
It was my mistake. I thought you were making a change, initially, to Mr. Guglielmin's amendment, which would therefore have made it a subamendment. Technically, it's a new amendment. Technically, I should have dealt with this amendment first and then moved on to that amendment, but we're fine. It's a separate amendment, so we're going to entertain this amendment first, and deal with it. Then, we'll go to that amendment.
For technical purposes, essentially, Mr. Bardeesy....
Actually, Madam Clerk, to make it easier, I think we should adopt Mr. Guglielmin's first because then we're changing.... This was my mistake.
Mr. Ma, unless it's on a point of order—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
That's no problem.
I'm sorry, but this is my error. Just so I can explain the logic here, Mr. Guglielmin's amendment changes the substance substantially at the beginning of the amendment.
Unless Mr. Bardeesy were to give us that exact same language before we even adopted it, rendering his moot, then we would have to go back to him, and it's a little dirty to do it that way.
We're going to come back to you. There appear to be some questions, Mr. Guglielmin, in relation to your amendment, so we're going to deal with that first, and then we can vote on that. That's going to bring us then to a changed amendment, assuming we're supportive, which I think everybody is. Mr. Bardeesy will then have the opportunity to bring forward his new amendment, which will make the change that he suggested, and then we should be ready to go.
I'm sorry that it got a bit messy.
Mr. Guglielmin, did you have anything to add to your amendment?
Liberal
Michael Ma Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Yes, please. I have three comments.
One, towards the end, about studying two concurrent topics, I don't think that's a very efficient use of time. It really convolutes the whole dialogue between parties and coordination. From my experience, that's not a good use of the committee's time. I think we should stay focused on one topic at a time.
My second comment is on the topic of “no less than 2 hours”. I think we all know that if it's meant to be a consecutive two hours, that's very tiring. I mean, no lecturer can actually do two hours either, as we have these meetings as well. We know it's mental fatigue. What I would say is that maybe two one-hour sessions would be sufficient. I'm sure you'd still be able to cover the same amount of information.
My last comment is on the word “alone”. Look around this room. We all have assistants behind us. Why is it that the minister is restricted to coming to this meeting alone? Those are my comments.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Okay. The comments are heard. I didn't hear a proposal of a subamendment, just some feedback.
Madam O'Rourke, were you hoping to continue this?
Liberal
Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON
I would agree, and I would move that we strike the word “alone”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Do we strike the word “alone”?
I'm just looking around for unanimous consent.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Good. We're moving forward.
We are still technically in the conversation on the amendment put forward a moment ago by Mr. Guglielmin.
Are there any comments?
Mr. Ste-Marie.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC
Mr. Chair, I'd like to clarify things.
I believe all three parties are in agreement that the amendment and Mr. Bardeesy's suggestion to amend it should pass. I therefore invite you to proceed with the vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
If that's the case, that's great.
Okay. We can do this all in one go here, everyone, as long as we're clear. What I'm hearing is that there's support for Mr. Guglielmin's amendment.
Madam Dancho.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I want to add just one point of clarification, because I appreciate the Liberal response to the word “alone”. The reason we mentioned it that way is that we didn't want her to come with other witnesses, but otherwise I agree.
How they're interpreting it is that it would be odd, but that's not the purpose of how we wrote it. It's fine to strike it, as long as she isn't coming when there's a panel of four other witnesses. That was the point of what we were trying to achieve.
