Evidence of meeting #30 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 china.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Yes. I'm not relieving you of the floor just yet. I'm just clarifying for the committee where we're at procedurally. Everybody's clear, I believe.
As a current speaking order, I have Bardeesy, Kirkland, O'Rourke, Guglielmin and Ste-Marie.
Mr. Bardeesy, the floor is yours.
Liberal
Karim Bardeesy Liberal Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Obviously, where we started today with the work of this committee and where we've ended up has been a bit of a surprising journey for us, but here we are. On our side, we considered the opportunities in front of us, but we understand that the Conservatives, offering a number of amendments to their own motion, have been changing the goalposts with respect to what was put on the table a while ago.
I also do want to point out that I think this is an important larger policy question. I know that recent news articles, referred to earlier, have been written about the work of Mr. McKay and other former parliamentarians on human rights and forced labour policy issues generally. I think it's important, if indeed we want to look at this issue.... We're not really looking at this issue. We're focusing on just a statement of principle. The statement of principle that I have just outlined seems pretty incontrovertible. It doesn't seem like it would be something that would be hard to disagree with.
I would also note that there are more competent committees that have been looking at these issues or have been engaged in these issues. It might be worthwhile considering, if we are indeed interested in the substance of these issues, working with the competent and relevant committees that have the expertise in these areas to do that. Obviously, as a committee that's focused on industry and technology, we can have a piece of this issue, but I know that there are other committees with more of a background on and more of a connection to these issues, whereas I think we are in the midst of a very important study here that we want to continue to do.
Conservative
Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I find this amendment surprising but not surprising. It sort of reveals to me an awful lot of where the Liberals are going with this. They seem to want to take the spotlight off the subject matter at hand, which is the unsafe and forced work conditions in China. Why they would want to do that we will leave up to the Canadian public. Perhaps my colleagues may wish to comment on it. I find it very revealing.
Perhaps what Mr. Guglielmin said earlier is more true than I thought when we started this meeting today, which is that perhaps these aren't just the feelings of my colleague Mr. Ma; perhaps it is a soft launch for what Mark Carney is trying to do in terms of softening his stance on China.
Those are my comments. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Thank you very much, Madam Kirkland.
I'll remind colleagues of the speaking order. I have Madam O'Rourke, followed by Mr. Guglielmin, Monsieur St-Marie and Mr. Bardeesy. As well, just as a reminder, we are on the amendment, not the main motion.
Madam O'Rourke, the floor is yours.
Liberal
Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The subject matter at hand today was electric vehicles. A subset of that was a concern around the allowing the importation of 49,000 electric vehicles from China. That was the subject matter at hand. That's what the witnesses were here to talk about.
In fact, because of this whole surprise motion, we didn't get to hear from two witnesses, some of whom were invited here by the members opposite.
The subject matter at hand was initially Canada's auto sector, which has 500,000 auto workers. It was about the potential impact of EVs—positive and negative. It was perhaps a reflection on the government's auto strategy that was warmly received on February 5 by all of the industry stakeholders. The subject matter at hand was all about Canadian manufacturing, Canadian jobs, the strength of our sector and potential impact.
Through a fair question to one of the witnesses, we seem to now have devolved into an examination of human rights in China, which is a fair question. However, the same question can be asked on a broad range of products and a broad range of countries. Do we not import clothes from all over the world, for example, from Bangladesh? Are there not potential human rights abuses in a number of places?
If we're going to have a legitimate conversation about human rights in China or elsewhere, then let's have that conversation.
I really think that if the question was legitimate, then the opposition, as it has done on many occasions in this committee, would have put an order on notice. We could have invited witnesses. We could hear from real experts on the real implications of this.
If this is a serious conversation, there are other committees that are better positioned, like the international trade committee and the global affairs committee, to really look into the matter around how human rights issues intersect with Canadian global policy and domestic policy.
What I struggle with is that we had unanimous consent around this table for the original motion, but that wasn't sufficient. The Conservative members of the committee wanted to have an ad hominem attack on one of the members of this committee—which is also not at the heart of our auto manufacturing and jobs in Windsor, Cambridge, Guelph, Alliston and all of these places that we're talking about. It was not about having a conversation about our EV supply chain or about the investments the government is making.
We've diverted into this brand new realm. If we want to address it legitimately, there is a way to do that more broadly and in a more robust way in a committee that specializes in that and that can bring in a minister and their staff and can call in experts for a study where there would be real benefits to Canadians, as we have done on productivity and the defence industrial strategy—quite cordially, in fact. We talked about some of the ethics around the defence industrial strategy. We are able to have these difficult conversations here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Madam O'Rourke, wait just a moment. I have to address a point of order from Mr. Falk.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
I allowed her quite a bit of latitude, but she's so far off base. She needs to talk to the issue.
The issue is that they want to change the word “China”. We know this whole debate is revolving around China, around whether China is a human rights abuser and whether China is the country that's committing forced labour situations for the Uyghur people, forced organ harvesting for the Falun Gong and persecution of Christians. This is about China. This is about another country, and she needs to focus on that.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
On that particular point of order, I take your point, Mr. Falk. Because the amendment now speaks to changing it, that means that it expands the scope of what can be discussed. Discussion should be related to the scope, whether that's global or pertaining to one country. Because we are debating the amendment, not the main motion and not the previous amendment that was ruled out of order, it can expand beyond China specifically.
Mr. Guglielmin, I hope it's a real point of order here. I just want to say that if it's a point of order related to relevance, I just dealt with that in what Mr. Falk raised.
Go ahead.
Conservative
Michael Guglielmin Conservative Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
It's on the changing of the motion. It diverts the original intent of the motion so substantially that the entire amendment should be ruled out of order.
Conservative
Michael Guglielmin Conservative Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Right now, it's the ruling of the chair. Does the chair not agree?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
No, I don't agree, Mr. Guglielmin. Of course, you are allowed to challenge my decision, but no, I don't agree with your characterization. If I ruled this amendment out of scope, then I ought to be held accountable for allowing the previous one to be called within scope. I'm trying to be fair to both.
Is that the end of the point of order, or would you like to continue with a challenge of the chair?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Okay. We have a challenge of the chair.
Colleagues, we've been through this before. Mr. Guglielmin is challenging the chair's ruling in terms of the relevancy vis-à-vis the scope of the amendment proposed by Mr. Bardeesy to the main motion, which struck the word “China” and replaced it with “globally”, in essence.
Are there any questions, or can I go to the clerk to call the vote?
Madam Clerk, I will ask you, because I know the terminology for this one can sometimes be confusing, to clarify for members what word they need to use in order to properly express their perspective.
Thank you.
The Clerk of the Committee Miriam Burke
Shall the chair's ruling be sustained?
If you agree with the chair's ruling, you vote yes, and if you disagree with the chair's ruling, you vote against.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
The ruling is sustained.
We will continue where we were with the debate on the amendment as it was presented.
Madam O'Rourke, the floor continues to be yours.
Liberal
Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Chair Carr.
Let's bet back on topic.
The topic of the meeting is the federal government's electric vehicle policies. The topic is the federal government's auto plan, which was launched in February and is a comprehensive plan. There is a subpiece to the conversation today that is about allowing the importation of Chinese vehicles to get back to the level we had in 2023, when there was a different American administration, the policies were different, the 49,000-odd vehicles being imported were Teslas and Polestars, and there was no concern on the part of the industry or on the part of the opposition. In fact, the 49,000 vehicles, should they all be imported, would be fewer than the number of Kias sold in Canada right now. We don't seem to have a big concern about the current EVs that are being sold by a range of other manufacturers from other countries.
I'm just bringing us back to the whole point of this conversation, which is a legitimate and important conversation for the auto sector, Canadian manufacturing and Canadian workers. It is about the future of the Canadian auto sector, which includes electrification. We know that 20% of vehicles currently sold globally are electric vehicles. We know that, even in the United States, despite adversarial policies, 20% of luxury brands are EVs. We know there will be a technology transfer for that.
Issues were raised, and the witness who was speaking earlier also said that we have mechanisms to address those concerns. If we're going to be looking at any human rights concerns that we have with respect to the EV supply chain, then it makes a lot of sense to broaden that out to not look at only one country. We have to remind ourselves that there are a number of inputs in everything, from our iPhones, Google glasses and smart watches to the things in our homes that have critical minerals from all over the world, some of them with dubious human rights practices. If we're going to have a real conversation about that, let's not sneak it in at the last minute in a way that is completely disrespectful to our witnesses and detracts from the matter at hand.
Folks on this committee are experts at putting a motion together that is well thought out and discussed ahead of time so that people can prepare for it. Everyone came to this meeting today prepared for the witnesses, out of respect to them and their time. Everyone came to have the conversation that the Conservative Party asked to have here and that we supported. Why would we not have a proper, broad, robust discussion about that, one that includes more than China? Why would we not have that conversation take place in a committee where there's more expertise on that, such as global affairs or international trade? My colleague, Mr. Ste-Marie, has a colleague in the Bloc who has a private member's bill before the House regarding human rights violations in a number of different industries.
If we're going to have a real conversation that is of value and that is to the level that Canadians expect in a parliamentary committee and in our legislature, then it should be done properly. It should not have a narrow focus. It should not be done after we have voted down a personal attack on a member of this committee who asked a question in good faith and in a way that has been seen many times in the tactics used by Conservative members of this committee.
We were ready to vote on this motion 40 minutes ago. I'm not sure what the time is. We were ready to support this motion, but this is about politics. This is now about casting aspersions on our Prime Minister. We've heard a couple of times that the Prime Minister could be involved in this. If we're going to have a conversation that is legitimate, then we need to do that, and we need to not narrow it down to one trading partner.
We need to be looking broadly at what this means. We could broaden it out as well. We could broaden it out to look at what the environmental issues are. If we really want to have a robust conversation in service to this place, with a study that can be used by other people to advance their own reflections, then we should do that properly.
Mr. Chair, it's important we have a debate and a study worthy of this committee and the Canadian Parliament. That's what our fellow citizens expect, and they too believe it's important to respect human rights. We all agree on that. In fact, everyone agreed 45 years ago.
However, instead of saying we're taking action and we all denounce a human rights violation, we're using every possible means to attack the Prime Minister to avoid addressing the issue of the auto sector and electric vehicles, which, as we know, are the future. We don't want to look at how to save 500,000 Canadian jobs. We don't want to get into the legitimate issue of a supply chain for critical minerals, assembly, or auto parts.
We had a witness here to talk about moulding. I'm very interested in that because, as everyone knows, the auto parts industry is extremely important in Guelph. I wanted to ask this witness about the Canadian government's planned investments to support these businesses, but we would rather target a committee member who's here because his constituents elected him to sit on this committee. We'd rather do that than rely on the research prepared for this committee meeting.
Here's my proposal. For our part, we're proud of the work we do here, because we prepare for these meetings. We prepare questions. Library of Parliament does research, and prepares suggested questions for us. Why? To do valuable, useful work that allows us to make well-articulated decisions, because it's important for Canadians.
If we want to do a study on global human rights, it shouldn't just include China. We can talk about China, in this case, but also about the other issues regarding vehicles, semiconductors, chips, phones and everything technology-related.
Looking at all the countries that are going to provide us with things, particularly and especially critical minerals, is a much broader study. If we're going to have this conversation, let's do it properly. It should be referred to the right parliamentary committee, in this case the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development or the Standing Committee on International Trade.
Members of the opposition parties should also be talking to their colleagues on those committees to bring forward a motion, as they've often done here during our study on productivity. I don't know if it was us or the Conservatives who put forward a motion for the defence industrial strategy, but there were a number of…
Liberal
Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON
Was it us? Okay, great.
Regarding AI, this committee has well-established procedures to allow us to do appropriate and useful work for Canadians, the industries, and the workers in those industries. I imagine a lot of people wanted to hear what the witnesses had to say today.
Unfortunately, we won't be able to draw any useful recommendations from these witnesses because we couldn't easily pass a motion everyone agreed on. That was obviously not the ultimate goal of the Conservative members on this committee today.
I imagine even if we manage to resolve our differences on the amendment, whether to focus strictly on China or go wider, there'll be another motion. The Conservatives are fond of those today.
When it's not a substantive motion, it's a personal attack, which is really unacceptable.
As parliamentarians, we come here to represent our constituents. We use our personal and professional background to ask questions in a way that respects this committee, the witnesses, Parliament and the work we do here.
For our part, we're saying we want to talk about human rights. We're willing to do that, but it would have to be a broad, useful and informed conversation. Canadians don't want us to talk nonsense. They want us to sit down and have a two-hour conversation on a topic, with witnesses from out of town. Mr. Taylor came all the way from Toronto, and, unfortunately, we didn't ask him a single question.
Furthermore, Canadians expect us to do a thorough job. That's my proposal. I support my colleague in his efforts to ensure we can have a real, meaningful conversation. Yes, we can have that conversation, but it has to be done in a constructive way, at the appropriate committee, backed by research. That way, we don't have to quickly look for data on our computers. It can be done. It happens every day in parliamentary committees. That's what Canadians expect.
If we want to have a good conversation, with useful and conclusive data, then a motion needs to be tabled before the relevant committee. Members know very well how to do that. It could be the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the Standing Committee on International Trade or, as my Bloc Québécois colleague said, it could be done through a—
How do we say private members' bill in French?
Bloc
Liberal
Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you.
That can be done through a private member's bill.
We have mechanisms in place to do that properly, by doing research beforehand. That's what Canadians expect.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Mr. Guglielmin, I think the interpreters might be happy. There was a transition from French to English there, and it gives them an opportunity to prepare.
Go ahead.
