Industry and Technology Committee on March 26th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Guglielmin, I'm going to pause you, too.

Mr. Ma, the floor is currently mine.

From my perspective, colleagues. the record has been set straight. There are differences of opinion, as per usual in this place, about the meaning and construction of the way something was articulated. Let's just agree to disagree.

Mr. Ma, I feel you've had the opportunity to set the record straight.

Mr. Guglielmin, I feel you've made your point. I'm going to afford you the opportunity to continue making that point, because the floor is yours, but I hope you'll do so very briefly because it's very clear to me, as the chair, right now that we have unanimous consent to support the motion. The debate we're having right now is on the motion. There is no more disagreement about whether or not there will be support for the motion. The disagreement is about whether or not the motion was necessary.

To me, this is now turning into a bit of a waste of our time, and I think we have to return to the testimony of the witnesses who have availed themselves to us today.

Mr. Guglielmin, the floor is yours, but I would ask that you please take the comments I've made into consideration. I'll return the floor to you.

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

Absolutely, and I'm glad that there's unanimous consent in supporting the condemnation of slave labour in China, because the number one responsibility and role of a member of the federal Canadian Parliament is to defend the interests of the Canadian people.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Ms. Kirkland.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I think I would like to add an amendment to the motion. The amendment would be this: “and that the committee condemn the comments made by the member for Markham—Unionville”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I'm just going to discuss this for a moment with the clerk to make sure that I understand the framing around this correctly, and then we'll come back to it.

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to raise a brief point of order.

There's 15 minutes left. Given what's going on, I don't think we're going to have time to come back to the witnesses, and that's unfortunate. It would therefore be wise to dismiss the witnesses before suspending the meeting.

We could ask them our questions by email, and they could answer by email.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

We've done this before in other meetings. We can listen to Ms. Kirkland's amendment and then take a very short break. We can then continue with the witnesses, with the assurance that we'll come back to the issue. That would be a win-win.

Colleagues, essentially—if I can just speak to this—we've done this before. Everything's on the record here, too. We're public, so I'm not concerned about disagreement. I might suggest, in order for us to leverage the expertise that we have here, that we use 10 or 15 minutes to re-engage with our witnesses, with a commitment from everybody around the table that we will return to this. It's a little bit—what's the word I'm looking for?—irregular, but to me it's a completely legitimate way for us to continue. We've done this before.

I'm going to look around the table to see how colleagues feel.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I think we can deal with this very quickly. We have a motion, and we have a friendly amendment to the motion. Let's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay. Without unanimous consent to Mr. Ste-Marie's proposal, I'm not going to make that decision, because it is outside the scope of the rules. It's something I feel comfortable doing with unanimous consent. However, with Mr. Falk's position, it's difficult for me to move forward outside of that scope. We will continue within the frame of the Standing Orders.

Madam Kirkland, go ahead. Is there anything else you want to add? Perhaps, for the record, you can reread the amendment that you're proposing.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Absolutely.

This is it exactly: “and that the committee condemn the comments made by the member for Markham—Unionville”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Bardeesy.

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

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this amendment.

It's unfortunate that it sounds like we won't get to hear the rest of the testimony from our witnesses today. I think it'll be helpful for us to get a written submission from them with some more details about some of the aspects that we were looking to talk about.

I don't know, Madam Clerk, if it's possible to send in some questions to the witnesses that they could then respond to.

I do want to speak to this amendment, which we will be opposing on this side.

You know, this is a very important study that was created and prompted with collaboration. It came from the other side, and we on this side, having already done in 2025, if you recall, a three-session study in a very collaborative fashion on the auto sector that, again, was prompted by the other side, agreed to an additional study, this time with more of a focus on the electric vehicle sector. We as members have been working collaboratively on now two studies.

I just want to recall that, when we have been working collaboratively, we have actually been in a frame, a mould or a situation where we've been able to get response from the government—not always the policy objectives that were achieved by the opposition. We had the minister in front of us. The minister has already been asked to return on autos once. The result of the earlier study.... All of this is in the context of what I think is.... I'm making these remarks about the earlier study and the work that we've done to date to express my disappointment about the direction that this amendment seems to be taking.

As a result of collaborative work, we were able to generate some very specific commitments from the minister on that first study. For instance, the Minister of Industry came and reported to us her intention to pursue legal options with respect to Stellantis after its decision around Brampton.

I think, if I'm looking at my colleagues around the table here—

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Just one second, Mr. Bardeesy. There's a point of order.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I don't believe the comments being made are relevant to the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I've traditionally been pretty judicious and pretty gracious as well in how I've interpreted it. I'll make sure I'm listening a little bit more closely.

Mr. Bardeesy, I'll let you continue. I mean, there's truth to the fact that it has to be within the scope of the amendment. I'm not sure you're outside that line yet, but it's something to be mindful of.

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

The collaborative work of this committee has not, in my experience on this committee—or, frankly, yet in the House of Commons—ever involved the naming of a member who had asked a question earlier in a session and the condemning of that. That has never been part of the work of this committee.

Mr. Chair, we've done one kind of urgent study. We have looked at legislation. We have tabled two reports. We've done that work largely collaboratively in relation to both the content and the process of this committee. When the caucus leads on this committee have had concerns and disagreements over the process issues, we have worked with you, with the clerk, with others and with our own colleagues to make sure we could achieve agreement. In some cases, there were issues identified within our caucuses. We worked collaboratively on it. We said, look, we'll work with our members to see what collaborative space exists. I think we've been very successful at doing that.

We now have a new study here, which we are in the midst of doing, on a very important set of policy issues related to electric vehicles. The focus in this session, in the questioning and some of the expert witness testimony, and definitely the questioning on the Conservative side, has been on China, which is just one part of a larger set of issues related to electric vehicles and electric vehicle policy.

I would point out that on March 31, a result of this committee's work that was I think opposed by the other side...or at least half of it was opposed by the other side. The other side encouraged the elimination of the electric vehicle availability standard, which was done by the government. The government also brought forward new electric vehicle rebates, which the other side opposed. I will point out to the committee and to those Canadians watching that those electric vehicle rebates of up to $5,000 on eligible vehicles are going to be available starting next week, March 31. We can have a policy debate about that. In fact, we have had that. This session today would be a good opportunity to do that. Who is eligible? What is eligible? What kinds of vehicles could be eligible in the future? All those are very legitimate points of concern for this committee.

We have, as the chair has pointed out, a record of the conversations of the last hour. In fact, we have a record of what's being said now.

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

I have a point of order.

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

In fact, this very motion has a record to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Bardeesy, you know that I have to address a point of order.

Mr. Guglielmin, you have a point of order.

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

Yes. The amendment was about comments made by Mr. Ma. Now we're listening to government talking points about EV rebates. Can we get to some relevance here?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Guglielmin.

I'll encourage Mr. Bardeesy to return to the basis. I did hear in his commentary some reference to prior discussions that have taken place at committee in relation to remarks made by members. I see some relevance in that. I also see a little bit of a skirting of that line.

Taking the point that Mr. Guglielmin has raised, Mr. Bardeesy, I'll ask you again to be mindful of relevance on the amendment. The floor is yours.

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

Absolutely.

As a parliamentarian here since May 2025, on the bar to condemn an individual member within a group of parliamentarians, to me, our common law and our parliamentary—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Bardeesy, I'll have to ask you to pause for a moment.

Mr. Falk, you have a point of order.