Evidence of meeting #28 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 charging.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Karim Bardeesy Liberal Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON
I just need to bring up the language here. I know we had a motion in relation to the main estimates, which has not been moved.
Was the motion that's being presented here originally sent to us on February 19? Am I understanding that correctly?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Here's what I'm going to do, because we have a couple of back-and-forths going. I'm going to suspend. It's going to give Mr. Bardeesy an opportunity to pull up the language that he needs to draft the amendment that he would like to put forward. That will give the parties an opportunity to have a discussion while we're off-line. Hopefully, by the time we come back we will have a resolution.
I will note that we do still have to approve the defence industrial strategy final version, which we are going to do today, one way or another.
I'm going to suspend and we'll come back in a few moments.
Liberal
Karim Bardeesy Liberal Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON
Thank you.
We've had some discussions, and I would like to propose a friendly amendment.
In English, it's a friendly amendment, I believe. We've had discussions with the parties. I move that the motion be amended by adding before the words “supplementary estimates (C), 2025-26” the following: “main estimates 2026-27 and”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Effectively, the change being made here is that we are adding to the motion that is inviting the minister to appear on the supplementary estimates. We are inviting her, in that same appearance, to appear on the main estimates.
Madam Dancho.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Yes, we support that, certainly.
I would like to move a subamendment or, if we want to agree to adopt this, we can and then I'll move my own amendment. It's whichever you're procedurally fine with, but I can do either.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
My recommendation, which I think is the cleanest way to do this, is that if there's agreement to adopt it and then somebody wants to put forward an amendment to the newly amended motion, we do it that way.
Before we do that, we'll go to Madam O'Rourke.
Liberal
Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a quick question. The current motion that's before us is March 26, 2026, which is in two weeks, but we are in our ridings next week, so I have a concern about the time frame. One motion that was shared says March 26, but the notice of motion that was circulated previously on the main estimates says May 31, 2026. Can we get some clarity around the date?
Also, I want to express a concern that this was dropped in our laps in the middle of a study the Conservatives asked for, which interrupted our witnesses, so now we're dealing with this. I want to know why there's a rush for March 26 when the original proposed date was May 31.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
There are a couple of things. We're dealing with two separate motions here. We could certainly talk about the reasonability of the minister's being able to accommodate that March 26 date. Should she not be able to accommodate it, it doesn't negate the desire to have her appear. If she were to appear following that date of March 26, the deadline of which is embedded in the motion—and this is assuming we adopt it—then she would appear on the supplementary estimates and the main estimates.
Now, because the supplementary estimates, by that point, will have already been dealt with in the House, she could appear on the subject matter of the supplementary estimates, but what we would not be able to do, which we could still do with the mains, is actually vote—if we chose to—on changes to line items in the supplementary estimates. However, we would still be able to deal with the mains from the perspective of voting and from the perspective of reporting back.
From my point of view, if we are to pass the amendment put forward by Mr. Bardeesy, it really renders Madam Dancho's motion on the mains alone moot. We will have dealt with it in the motion dealing with the supplementary estimates.
I hope that made sense.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC
On that point, unless I'm mistaken, the main estimates must also be voted on before March 26, as that's what authorizes the government to make payments starting on April 1. Regardless of what the other motion says, both must be voted on before March 26. I would leave the date as it is. Then we'll see what the minister does.
When the motion on supplementary estimates was moved on February 19, the estimates weren't available yet. The deadline is indeed tight, but the government could have presented them earlier to give us more time. Let's just say that we're pressed for time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Mr. Ste‑Marie, I'm not sure that's correct.
May 31 is the deadline for reviewing the main estimates. So I'm not sure if both can be done on March 26. In any case, this changes absolutely nothing. The dates are not the issue here. It's really a matter of whether we want to combine the two.
Colleagues, we should worry a little less about the dates. I was just saying, for those who might not have had their translation on, that I'm not sure that Monsieur Ste-Marie is correct in saying the May 31 mains could not be voted on and reported back on if we have a meeting after March 26. I'm getting the clerk to correct that. That would be true of the supplementaries, but not of the mains, from what I understand. Having said all of this, that doesn't seem to be the primary point of contention.
The first thing I'd like to do, if there's no further commentary, is look for consensus around the table to adopt the addition that Mr. Bardeesy has recommended insofar as including the main estimates with the supplementary estimates appearance from the minister is concerned. The exact language could fixed if necessary, but I think everyone is in agreement with the principle.
Madam Clerk or the analysts, you have the language on the amendment that was put forward.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
We've seen it. Yes, that's fine, but I have an amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
We're good with that.
Mr. Bardeesy, go ahead and read the amended version that you put forward, please.
Liberal
Karim Bardeesy Liberal Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON
The amended version of the motion would be, in English:
That the committee undertake a consideration of the main estimates, 2026-27, and the supplementary estimates (C) 2025-26, referred to the committee; that the Minister of Industry and departmental officials be invited to testify; and that the committee report the votes back to the House no later than March 26, 2026.
Do I have to read the French version, too?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
No, I think we're good.
Madame Dancho, you had your hand up. Was it to speak to this, or can we vote on this first?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
I saw unanimous consent to adopt the amendment put forward by Mr. Bardeesy.
(Amendment agreed to)
We are now back to the main motion as amended.
Madam Dancho, the floor is yours.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thanks.
I'd like to move an amendment to the amended motion. It's a very brief one. On the second line, it would read, “the Minister of Industry and department officials be invited to testify for at least two hours”. The rest remains the same in the amended motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Colleagues, the effective change up for discussion is taking the motion we just agreed to amend, which is a ministerial appearance on both the supplementaries and the mains, and ensuring that it includes, as per Madam Dancho's amendment, a two-hour appearance as opposed to a one-hour appearance.
Mr. Bardeesy, the floor is yours.
Liberal
Karim Bardeesy Liberal Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON
I'll be voting against this amendment for the simple reason that I understand that things have been crunched a bit.
This motion, as amended by Ms. Dancho, calling for us to meet for two hours on Monday, March 23, and only at that time, has implications for the parliamentary calendar. I think that's pretty tight, and I'll be voting against it.
However, I understand that we will make every effort and that the minister will also make every effort, taking into account not only her schedule, but also the government's fiscal calendar, to ensure that we meet fairly soon.
Liberal
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC
I am announcing that I will vote in favour of this amendment.
It is customary for the minister to come to discuss the supplementary estimates and to return for the main estimates. Having her come only once for two hours strikes me as a good compromise.
I remind my colleagues and friends that Canadians chose to elect a minority government. So I think we can act accordingly, at least for now.