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
Michael Guglielmin Conservative Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Is the member filibustering to avoid this committee condemning China on their human rights abuses?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Mr. Guglielmin, there are three things here. First, that's not a point of order. Second, I couldn't answer the question. Third, even if one chose to exercise their right within the purview of the Standing Orders to speak to a motion, as many members from all parties have done from time to time, they're entitled to do so.
I'll return the floor to Madam O'Rourke.
Liberal
Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you Mr. Chair.
I am not filibustering at all. I think we are all concerned about human rights. We are all concerned about potentially unfair labour competition with Canadian workers, regardless of where it comes from. Canadians are interested in this particular study because unfair, illegitimate American tariffs are attacking our auto industry.
In response to that, the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister, through consultation with all of the industry groups, presented on February 5 a robust auto strategy that provides supports from government, supports for workers and a comprehensive EV strategy. It was so well received that the opposition wanted to bring another study to try to find ways to challenge it. That's fair. That's their right. They can do that. We had witnesses today who were prepared to testify on various aspects of the EV strategy, including the Chinese piece.
All we're saying is that if we want to have a real conversation about human rights, then let's do it in a robust, comprehensive way, not as a subamendment in a different committee. When we meet as a committee, we have Library of Parliament researchers who do a background brief so that we are all working on a similar set of facts. We're not in the middle of an EV study, talking about harvesting organs. We start with a common set of facts about the topic at hand. We invite witnesses who are here to inform us. We have an opportunity to ask questions. There is a study that is drafted and we have a chance to review it, and that is appropriate and useful for Canadians.
They dropped an amendment in the middle of a committee meeting on something else that could have been dealt with 50 minutes ago, because we all agreed on it. Clearly, the goal is not ultimately to have this conversation, but about a diversion. If we want to have a conversation about human rights, there are places in Parliament to have those, fully informed with unbiased research, with an opportunity to bring in witnesses and question them, and an opportunity to do our own additional research so that we have a really honest, fair conversation about this.
Some of the members have said they've been at this for 10 years. They know full well they can have a well-thought-out motion. They can put that motion on notice. There's an opportunity to discuss it and debate it. Everybody agrees. We're on our third or fourth study now, so they know how that works. They have colleagues at the foreign affairs committee. They have colleagues in international trade. Wouldn't they rather do it properly in those places, have the opportunity to invite a minister and experts and, if there was conversation that could potentially damage international relationships, do it in camera? Wouldn't that be more reflective of a responsible Parliament?
I think what we want to be doing here, Mr. Speaker.... I mean Mr. Chair. I apologize. We're getting close to question period.
Liberal
Liberal
Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON
My colleague's amendment is to say that if we care about human rights, then we are looking at human rights more broadly. Look, there's rubber in tires. There are all kinds of critical minerals in all kinds of things that we carry with us every day. We can have a conversation about whether there are security threats to vehicles. Then we should have the same conversation around iPhones or Google glasses, and how, if those are legitimate threats, we address those. To make good public policy, you have to start on the basis of fact, with solid committee work, research and conversation. We were ready to have that conversation 50 minutes ago. Rather than pursue that line in good faith, the members of the opposition wanted to attack a colleague here.
We know, Mr. Chair, that they're already sharing clips on social media, so it's not about a legitimate study for human rights. We'd be ready to have that conversation. Our colleagues in the appropriate committees would be ready to have that conversation. It's unfortunate that we are involved in some political theatre here that is not appropriate.
Liberal
Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON
There's lots of crosstalk here, Mr. Chair. It's clear that there's not a ton of respect for this committee process. Otherwise, we would have heard from our witnesses, frankly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I see it's still going on on social media. This whole political theatre we had here wasn't to make serious statements. It was really to get clips from a member of this committee, who isn't available to be in committee, but who is obviously available to make clips and post answers on social media.
I was here, prepared and ready to speak with witnesses. I would ask all members of this committee to be here in good faith to give Canadians something useful.
I was here today for auto workers. As you can see, we're not the ones posting clips on social media. We're here to do serious and legitimate work.
Liberal
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
She's so far out in the bay, I don't know if she'll be able to swim back. She's talking about people's social media activity. She should actually zero in on and get back to the actual discussion on the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Sorry; one second.
Mr. Falk, as is often the case in drawn-out discourse around amendments and motions, there's an ebb and flow. I think you were probably right to intervene at that particular moment, but I think it was a moment in the context of a broader set of points. We'll allow Madam O'Rourke to use it as an opportunity to refocus and speak to the amendment, as is her prerogative.
Liberal
Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Chair, the amendment is about whether we talk strictly about China or whether—
Conservative
Conservative
Michael Guglielmin Conservative Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, I can't believe the Liberals have been filibustering a committee to avoid condemning China for their use of forced labour. Is that what's going on here at this committee right now?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Mr. Guglielmin, I have listened to many points of order from you today. I appreciate your desire to raise them, but I think you know that this is not a legitimate point of order.
Madam O'Rourke, I return the floor to you.
Liberal
Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We were willing to do that an hour ago now. All I'm suggesting is that if we have that conversation on what my colleague's amendment is, that wasn't good enough when we were ready to have that conversation. Suddenly—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Madam O'Rourke, I'm going to interrupt you. It's two o'clock. Resources have been exhausted.
The meeting is adjourned.