Evidence of meeting #32 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 technology.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Chris Lewis Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to committee members for indulging me for a few moments. I will be brief.
I will start by saying that I wish every day in Ottawa would be Ms. Dancho's birthday, because things get done. This is perfect.
Conservative
Chris Lewis Conservative Essex, ON
Again, Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
This is such an important study. We are literally hemorrhaging jobs in the industry across Canada. Probably the biggest hit is in Ontario, but Quebec is right behind.
We can't control what Mr. Trump does, but we can certainly figure out solutions in the short term for industry. I've been working with my colleagues non-stop to try to come up with solutions. I really do appreciate all the hard work and heavy lifting they're doing.
I'm so passionate about this, because this is food on the tables of all Canadian families from coast to coast. If there were ever a bipartisan special study, emergency study, this is the one, because this affects all of us.
I want to throw my strong support behind this study. Honestly, my personal strong support would be behind three days of study. I think that's the very least we can do.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Thanks very much, Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Epp, I understand that you would like to say a word. Welcome to committee.
Conservative
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for allowing me this opportunity.
I want to add my voice to those noting the importance of this study and want to acknowledge the hard work of my neighbours and colleagues from southwestern Ontario: Mr. Lewis, Madame Borrelli and Mr. Gill.
Regionally, we are so integrated on the agriculture side—that's not the focus here today—and the mould-making side, and even beyond that, as Mr. Bardeesy acknowledged. The downstream aluminum and downstream steel industries are also related to the very dynamics of this study. The mould-makers are leading the way and getting hit the hardest, and I won't say “first“, but they absolutely are being impacted by this.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of this study. Even though regionally we are so integrated with the auto sector right across the border, as Monsieur Ste-Marie stated, that impacts other parts of this country, and the downstream effects affect every Canadian across this country.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Thank you very much, Mr. Epp.
Colleagues, just before returning to Monsieur Ste-Marie to discuss and vote, if necessary, on the move from two to three meetings and the subamendment that Mr. Bardeesy wants to make, I just want to give everybody a sense of what the schedule looks like so we understand what we might be displacing before we enter the conversation about the number of meetings and the provision in the motion that specifies that this would supersede all business following April 23.
On this coming Monday, April 20, we have our second-last AI study meeting. That's not affected, because the motion specifies post-April 23. April 23 is our last meeting on EVs. That would not be impacted by this. The currently scheduled meeting that would be impacted by this is the one we have set on April 27, which is the fifth and final meeting of our AI study.
I just want everyone to be informed about what that looks like. We don't have any further committed business once we conclude the AI study. We do have some motions of proposed studies—including one from you, Madame Dancho, on fraud—but nothing that we've established on the calendar. The only other piece we have that we need to be mindful of is that Minister Solomon and his officials, at our request, have confirmed May 4 as an opportunity for him to appear.
Having said that, we may want to consider the necessity of adding an extra meeting or two in the week or so that follows the meeting on April 23 to accommodate this. That would be subject to House resources. We could displace the AI study on April 27, which would allow us to have April 27 as the first meeting on the mould-makers. April 30 would be the second meeting, but the third meeting would be Minister Solomon.
I just want everyone to be aware that if we stick to the terms of the motion as it currently exists, we are not accommodating Minister Solomon. I don't know what his availability will be.
I think we can work around this, but in the spirit of transparency and to make sure that we're all on the same page about what that superseding provision means, that's the lay of the land.
Madame Dancho, I think you want to speak to this, so I'll give the floor to you. Again, if there's further commentary before we get into actual amendments, I'd like to just hear that. If there's no further commentary, I'll go to Monsieur Ste-Marie.
Go ahead.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My understanding from when we last spoke about the potential of this study or this meeting is that there was nothing scheduled for next Thursday, which was conveniently done to allow the people who are already scheduled for Monday's study, for example, to come rather than cancel. We thought we could start this study on a day when there was nothing scheduled at the time. That was a bit of the rationale there, as you may recall, in our discussion on Monday.
From my calculation, if we started on Monday and the amendment passes to have three meetings, that would be the 23rd, the 27th and the 30th, yet you said Minister Solomon would be coming on May 4.
I may be misunderstanding, but I'm not clear on how the study would impact a ministerial appearance if it was three meetings long, took precedence over other matters and began next Thursday. That's Thursday, April 23; Monday, April 27; and Thursday, April 30. Then it would be done, and the minister would be here the next Monday.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
I'm sorry for whatever miscommunication there may have been. The Thursday when there is not something currently scheduled is the 30th, not the 23rd. There may have been a miscommunication there. Mr. Kingston and some others had been invited to the final EV meeting that we were holding. It is not Thursday the 23rd; it is Thursday the 30th, when we already had meetings set.
It's the will of the committee. Witnesses have already been confirmed, so there's always a small risk that witnesses who have agreed and committed might not be able to return, but here's a suggestion: If we feel that this is as urgent as I'm hearing members suggest it is, my recommendation would be that we turn the 20th—it's short notice, but we're going to have to do our best—the 23rd and the 27th into meetings on this. We would bump our final EV meeting and our final AI meeting, and it would mean not having to disrupt Minister Solomon's appearance. In other words, we're taking the final AI meeting and the final EV meeting, and we're moving them in order to accommodate what is one open space and two currently occupied spaces, which would deal with the urgent nature of this discussion.
We would have to accept two things. One is that witnesses who have accepted our invitations may no longer be available—that's the first thing—and the second is that it puts a fair amount of pressure on the clerk and her team to get witnesses ready to go for Monday. I suspect that members around the table have been in contact with industry officials, who would drop most things in their calendars in order to make this work for Monday.
I would simply insist to members around the table that if this is what we agree upon vis-à-vis the schedule, you should assist the clerk in making sure those witnesses are picking up their phones right away and making themselves available to the committee.
I'm just looking for some guidance.
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Mr. Ste‑Marie, I see that it works for the Bloc Québécois.
I'm looking to the Liberal side.
Do we have any concern with this?
Mr. Bardeesy.
Liberal
Karim Bardeesy Liberal Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON
Once again, if we adopted the subamendment to have three meetings, they would be the 20th, the 23rd and the 27th for this study. What would April 30 be?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
That's correct. It would be the 20th, 23rd and 27th. April 30 would be either the final AI meeting or the final EV meeting, which we're displacing to accommodate this. That would get slotted in on the 30th. Minister Solomon would come on the 4th, and then whichever of those two meetings is left—EV or AI—would be finalized on May 7.
Are you okay with that?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
I know you want to put a subamendment forward. We're not voting on that. We're just agreeing on the schedule.
Nothing has to be changed in the motion vis-à-vis accommodating that, because the provision in the motion speaks to “no later than” the 23rd, and we're starting three days before that.
Mr. Ste‑Marie, you want to move an amendment.
Before going any further, I just want to know whether there's any problem with holding three meetings.
Mr. Bardeesy, you have the floor.
Liberal
Karim Bardeesy Liberal Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Chair, that's not a problem, given the schedule we just set.
I assume we're going to adopt Mr. Ste‑Marie's amendment. In the spirit of co-operation, I want to make sure that we'll also discuss my subamendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
There's no need for a subamendment. It's an amendment if we don't need to vote.
I'm looking around the table. We just agreed on a calendar that was inclusive of three meetings. I don't know that it's necessary for Monsieur Ste-Marie to put forward an amendment calling for three meetings if we've agreed upon it.
Is that right, Monsieur Ste-Marie? Okay, that's good.
We've altered it. It's three meetings. Unanimous consent does that for us.
You now want to put forward an amendment to the motion, Mr. Bardeesy, and I'm going to offer you an opportunity to do that.
Liberal
Karim Bardeesy Liberal Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON
That's correct. Because we were doing a calendar and assuming an amendment that we didn't need to vote on, I hope this can be incorporated as well.
Shall I read the amendment, Chair?
Liberal
Karim Bardeesy Liberal Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON
In English, we would strike “Report its findings and recommendations to the House” and adopt the following language instead: “Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.”
In French: et, conformément à l'article 109 du Règlement, le Comité demande au gouvernement de déposer une réponse globale au rapport.
In the spirit of the co-operation we've had on these kinds of efforts, this is an appropriate amendment, and I think we want that kind of response.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Mr. Bardeesy, I want to be clear on something, and if you need a moment to speak with members of your team to clarify, I'll grant you that.
I think what we're talking about here is adding a response from the government, because if we strike the committee reporting its findings to the House, the government can't provide a response to a report that has not been delivered by the committee to the House. I want to be clear that what we're talking about is not striking that language but adding the government's response.
Is that correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Okay. I'll ask the clerk to make the official changes, but I want to look around the table. Do we understand the spirit of what we're discussing here? The clerk is going to make the change.
We're not striking anything. Mr. Bardeesy's amendment is to add that the government provide a response to the report that the committee has brought to the House. That is what we're now debating as the amendment.
Are we clear on that? We'll get it in writing to everybody, but that's what we're debating at the moment.
Next is Mr. Ste‑Marie, followed by Ms. Dancho.
Mr. Ste‑Marie, would you like Ms. Dancho to speak first?
Okay.
Madame Dancho, the floor is yours.
Colleagues, if folks feel like they need a minute to talk, I'm happy to suspend.
If you're good, the floor is yours.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am a bit concerned about this. While I appreciate that it's a compromise approach, and I know we work well with compromises at this committee, our understanding is that what this amendment substantively does is allow the government up to over 100 days to respond, and when the government has prepared its response, then we can have a debate in the House of Commons.
However, how we the Conservatives have worded this motion, a debate would be much more imminent in the House of Commons, meaning that representatives from all major parties would have the opportunity to debate and ask questions of the government and other parties about the impact and the magnitude of what's transpired over the last number of weeks with the American administration's changes to the tariffs.
I have some concerns that this amendment would mean there would be a considerable delay. In fact, I believe it could take us to next fall. This debate needs to happen now on the floor of the House of Commons, and we are really not amenable to any amendment that could potentially delay it until the fall.
