Industry and Technology Committee on April 16th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Madame Dancho.

Madame O'Rourke, I see you've had your hand up. I apologize. I'm not sure where in the order it went.

Mr. Ste‑Marie is telling me that you can speak before him.

It's your turn to speak. Thank you for your patience.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

No problem. Thank you.

I appreciate the bipartisan approach to this. As you know, Guelph has a large manufacturing sector. In fact, it accounts for 16,500 jobs in the city. I spoke with the president of the chamber of commerce this morning.

I completely agree that three meetings is better than two and that we want to have a good response, but I also think there's a lot of value in having the government provide a written response. It doesn't mean that we can't be working on this in between. In fact, I think you're hearing a commitment from the parliamentary secretary for industry, Mr. Bardeesy.

We all want to do as much as we can in the shortest period of time for the folks who are impacted by the unjustified and unfair section 232 tariffs. I want to be clear for folks that this is really affecting all of Canada and all of southwestern Ontario, and that while conversation is important, I fully agree this should supersede the other two studies, which aren't as urgent as this one. I think a government response, so that everyone can see the steps that are being taken, also adds value.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Ste‑Marie, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very pleased that we were able to debate this motion calmly. Everyone around the table and those online need to recognize the gravity of the situation. It affects everywhere, as Ms. O'Rourke just illustrated with the example from her riding.

I like that we can maintain a spirit of working together and compromising, but, in this case, accepting the subamendment, which has become the amendment, would amount to saying that the committee doesn't find the matter important enough to submit to the House. However, I get the impression that this is a timely issue. It's an emergency, and we have to mobilize.

I understand that the government is keeping track of the hours it spends on House business and that this would take some of them out of the equation, but it's necessary to take the gravity of the situation into account.

Yesterday, my leader put the question to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister wasn't aware of the matter.

Is it possible to take a few hours in the House over the next few weeks so that all parties can discuss the situation and determine whether it's that serious? I would be inclined to oppose this proposal so that we can debate it in the House, given the urgency and importance of the matter. However, I'm still open to the idea of listening to what colleagues have to say.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

Colleagues, I think it's a natural moment to take a quick break. I have hands up from five members. The current speaking order is as follows: Madame Dancho, Mr. Falk, Mr. Lewis, Madame Borrelli and Mr. Epp.

I think we could benefit from having a quick conversation among members to see if we can get ourselves to a solution on the present obstacle. I have asked the clerk to see if we can find a few more minutes of resources so as to not rush the conversation.

We've already agreed more or less on the principle of the next set of three meetings. What we're debating now is what we will do with the sum of those conversations. To allow us to start that set of discussions next week properly, it makes sense for us to create the time and space now to come up with an agreed upon direction, if possible, so that we're not going into next week still debating this.

With that, I'm going to suspend briefly and we'll come back in a few moments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, I am always proud to chair a committee where a couple of minutes is all that's needed to find a compromise. I think everybody has done a fantastic job of playing the role they must in order to advocate for those they represent, and then bringing that to the table of the committee to drive forward a solution that's in the best interests of Canadians, which, after all, is why we're here.

Mr. Bardeesy, I understand that in the course of the discussions that took place while we were suspended, you agreed to withdraw your amendment. I'm looking to you for verification on that.

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

Yes, that's right. I'll withdraw the amendment.

In the interests of getting this study under way, which I know will put some pressure on the clerk and others to start on Monday, I would like to proceed with a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Technically speaking—and I'd be shocked if I don't get this—I need unanimous consent for Mr. Bardeesy to withdraw his amendment.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

(Amendment withdrawn)

That's good. Unanimous consent has been granted. Again, there's that spirit of collaboration.

I don't think we're going to need a formal vote on this one, as I suspect we're going to get UC as well, which I'll verify. I see that Madame O'Rourke has her hand up. I'll go to her in just a moment.

Once the speakers list has been exhausted—and I suspect that the five members who raised their hands are going to lower them, with the exception of Madame O'Rourke.... No, I see she has taken her hand down. All hands are down, meaning that the speakers list is exhausted and we'll go to a vote.

I want to remind colleagues that the only change that was made to the original motion Ms. Borrelli presented a few moments ago was that it will now be three meetings. Otherwise, it's intact.

With that, I'm going to look around the table to see if there's any opposition to the motion's passing as is.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

We're going to call that successfully passed.

We will begin the first meeting on this emergency study on the 20th, followed by the 27th and 30th, at which point the subsequent meetings will be returned to the schedule—the final EV and final AI meetings—without moving Minister Solomon's appearance.

Again, I'm going to insist that members be in touch with the clerk immediately to begin ensuring that witnesses avail themselves of the committee next week.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.