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.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Yes. I've been listening to Mr. Bardeesy here, and he's using language that is inaccurate. Nobody condemned anyone. We've pointed out what people have done and expressed our disappointment. I'd like him to retract that word.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Thank you, Mr. Falk. I doubt there'll be a retraction. I think we're splitting hairs—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
I think we're splitting hairs a little bit here.
Mr. Bardeesy, the point's been raised in terms of keeping on with the relevance.
I'm just keeping an eye on the clock. We do have additional resources that have been granted.
I'm about a minute away, witnesses, from letting you go. I've hoped that we would get to a resolution, but I'm getting the feeling that we might not, so we'll just wait.
Mr. Bardeesy, go ahead.
Liberal
Karim Bardeesy Liberal Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Chair, in parliamentary debate in the House of Commons, condemnation of what is said by the other side is a frequent—almost routine—occurrence. It is done in the spirit of debate. In my time as a member of the House of Commons where that practice is common, let alone at committee, where it is not common, I have yet to witness a successfully passed motion or even a credible motion in the House of Commons that has condemned the comments of another member.
In the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate, of course, we do that. That is the House of Commons and that is the place where those kinds of more partisan and more sharpened discussions around policy tend to take place.
In this committee, we have a record. The Hansard will produce a record, and people are free to interpret that record. It is not appropriate for this committee to reflect on its own conduct over the last hour and a half when we have witnesses in front of us and when there are radically different views of the interpretation of what happened in a very short exchange. We can leave it to other parliamentarians and to members of the public to pronounce on.
For a committee to pronounce on the comments of one member, which are clearly evident in the parliamentary record, and to lift that up in some regard and to have a motion and to ask the members on this side....
There's my colleague from the Bloc Québécois.
We're being asked to support such a motion.
Like I said earlier, the bar is extraordinarily high. We have no evidence that has been brought forward by anyone in this committee to date that suggests the work of my colleague over here, Mr. Ma, and what he said, has in any way violated standards, such that the extraordinarily high bar that it should take in any committee—that any deliberative body should take—to condemn one of its own applies here. We are nowhere near that bar.
I would invite my colleagues across to show precedent, past evidence and specific examples of where a committee has condemned one of its own members after comments were made that are available in Hansard. Again, we, as parliamentarians, also enjoy the benefit of parliamentary privilege, so I would invite them to show one example where a committee in this Parliament has done this and—
Liberal
Karim Bardeesy Liberal Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON
—has passed a motion condemning one of its own members.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Colleagues, we're losing a little of our procedural.... I'm trying to remember the word we use.
Mr. Vis, Mr. Falk and Mr. Bardeesy, there's a lot of crosstalk.
Colleagues, the witnesses were told they would be here today until one o'clock. It's now one o'clock.
Witnesses, thank you for availing yourselves. We very much look forward to any testimony that you want to provide to the committee through the clerk. We would certainly be keen to know what might have been said here today.
Members are always encouraged to reach out with sets of questions as well, if they'd like. Everything related to official committee business should go through the clerk and her office.
Having said that, Mr. Taylor and Madam Vlanich, thank you very much for being here with us today. I'm going to let you go on with your day, but I appreciate the fact that you stood through this with us for this last bit.
Mr. Bardeesy, the floor is yours.
Liberal
Karim Bardeesy Liberal Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON
You know that my usual interlocutor on these issues for the Conservative caucus, Ms. Dancho, was not here today. I cannot help but think that some of this behind this amendment is some concern around my colleague's presence on this side of the desk and not that side.
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Obviously, I sincerely apologize. The witnesses were here for an hour. They were able to make their presentation, but we weren't able to ask them questions. It will be done by email, but I'm very sorry this is happening.
As agreed, I support the motion, which the committee unanimously supports. Hoping to save time so we could ask the witnesses some questions, I didn't intervene. As they've now been dismissed, I'll speak to the proposed amendment.
I don't think it's the committee's role to condemn the comments of one of its members. The strength of a democracy lies in freedom of speech, the freedom to express opinions not everyone agrees on. Everyone brings their own perspective to the debate.
Mr. Bardeesy talked about his experience. He's been an MP and committee member for a year. I've been an MP for a little over 10 years. In a partisan way, we're here to represent our constituents and the values of our party. I could often condemn the things I hear in the House and in committee.
I understand there are levels where this is concerned, but I don't think it's the committee's role to condemn the comments of one of its members. I think democracy requires freedom of speech, freedom to express one's opinion, which is not always unanimous. For that reason, I will not be supporting this amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Thank you very much, Mr. Ste‑Marie.
Colleagues, I'll do a bit of a status check for us.
Ms. Kirkland, I believe you raised your hand with a desire to speak to this amendment.
Prior to the amendment, we had a show of unanimous consent for the adoption of the motion put forward by Mr. Guglielmin. We then had an amendment put forward to that motion by Madam Kirkland, which is what we've been debating over the course of the past several minutes.
I suspect, based on what I'm hearing, that members from the Liberal side will oppose the amendment, although I'll look for some clarity from them. Monsieur Ste-Marie from the Bloc has indicated that he will oppose the amendment.
If a vote were to occur, we know what the result would be. However, as you know, colleagues, I can't call a vote until the debate has collapsed on the matter, so at this point I would encourage us to think about where we want to go from here. We know what the end result is going to be, unless there is some line of questioning that persuades members around the table to change their mind. Of course, it's the prerogative of members to try to do that.
After I give the floor to Madam Kirkland, I will encourage us to think about allowing this to go to a vote, given that we know what the outcome of that vote is going to be.
Madam Kirkland, the floor is yours.
Conservative
Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate you giving me the floor.
Since it was in question why the amendment came forward, I wanted to clarify that before we go to a vote. I decided to add the amendment due to the opposition we seem to have from my colleague Mr. Ma across the way to the initial motion made by Mr. Guglielmin. That made me feel like the member across the way was again defending the fact that he had defended China's record. It seemed to be so in the way he was questioning our witness.
For clarity, that is why I added the amendment. We could have moved a lot quicker had we not had that added.
Thank you, sir.
Liberal
Michael Ma Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Thank you, Ms. Kirkland, for your comments. It seems like you are projecting a personal perspective and interpretation, in the same way as Mr. Falk and Ms. Borrelli. We are here to represent Canadians, and you are injecting your personal views and not allowing me to project my comments.
If you look back at the record, it was a question, and the witness answered it. There was no projected comment one way or another. If you want to spin this any way you want, I guess you will do it anyway, but I'm setting the record straight that that was the line of questioning.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ma.
Seeing no further speakers, I'm going to call the amendment to a vote.
Madam Clerk, on this one, I think I'll get you to call the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
Colleagues, the amendment has been defeated. We're now back to the main motion.
We have already indicated unanimous consent for that motion.
Mr. Guglielmin.
Conservative
Michael Guglielmin Conservative Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
I would like to request a recorded vote on the main motion.
I would also like to add an amendment that says “and the committee report to the House”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Just give me a moment to chat with the clerk.
Colleagues, I'm going to suspend, because there are going to have to be some discussions amongst the parties here in order to create a bit of efficiency about where we want to go. We do have the extra resources, so I'm in no rush at this point.
I'm going to suspend to give everybody an opportunity to think about the amendment that's been proposed by Mr. Guglielmin. We'll come back to it.
The meeting is suspended.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Colleagues, we'll get back into things here.
Mr. Bardeesy, I see that you have your hand up. Give me one moment, please.
The parties have had plenty of time to discuss this. I think they have a sense of where they'd like to go with it.
I do have a procedural issue that I have to deal with.
Mr. Guglielmin, you made an amendment to your own motion, which you cannot do. That means I have to rule it out of order.
That brings us back to the main motion.
Madam Kirkland.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
You can, but I'm going in the order that has been set. I'm going to Mr. Bardeesy, followed by you. Of course, at that point in time, you can propose an amendment if you so choose.
Colleagues, just as a reminder, the amendment was ruled out of order for the reasons I just specified. We're now back to debate on the main motion.
Mr. Bardeesy, the floor is yours.
Liberal
Karim Bardeesy Liberal Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to move a very simple, very brief amendment to the motion. It would be to strike the words “in China” and replace them with “globally”.
In French, we'd say “au niveau mondial”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
That one was pretty clear, colleagues. I don't know if we need translation on that.
An amendment has been moved. We now begin debate on the—