Evidence of meeting #2 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you, Madame Bendayan.
Mr. Sarai, you have the floor on discussion of the subamendment as presented by Ms. McPherson.
Noon
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank Ms. Bendayan and Ms. McPherson for raising this issue. I think the most pressing issue internationally for foreign affairs is the situation in Ukraine, and I think we must treat it as being of paramount importance and deal with it as quickly and as efficiently as possible. I'm not saying it trumps any other crisis in the world, but currently it is probably the biggest existential crisis in a military sense or a foreign affairs sense, and I think this committee should study it and we should hear from our experts. Hearing from the Ukrainian Canadian Congress as well is important, as Ms. McPherson has also stated, but also, perhaps we should listen to our experts, our departmental officials, and then try to get Ambassador Rae in as well. Perhaps after listening to them, we can get a better understanding of the situation and be better able to ask questions to Ambassador Rae.
It seems that I'm in agreement with Ms. Bendayan's and Ms. McPherson's amendments, which are to include his appearance, as well as to add some more witnesses into this. I think a study that is at least four meetings long would suffice, and if we need more, perhaps we can add a meeting. I think this should be the first study that this committee deals with in this Parliament.
Thank you.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Before I speak, I want to clarify something. If we add Ambassador Rae to the subamendment to Ms. Bendayan's amendment, would we not be changing the intent of Ms. Bendayan's amendment? It is my understanding that if that piece about Mr. Rae changes the intent, it should not be allowed as a subamendment unless we are asking Mr. Rae to come speak on Ukraine. If he's doing that, then fair enough, but I think if he's not doing that, it changes the intent of Ms. Bendayan's motion entirely. I don't know, and I would listen to what the clerk has to say about that, but I would think that we cannot allow the Mr. Rae piece to stick into the subamendment.
I want to clarify that before I speak.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
I had attempted to address that same point also in seeking clarification on whether the subamendment to reintroduce the original content of the report was in order, and it seems to have been confirmed to be in order, but perhaps in the interest of clarity we will ask one more time.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I'm speaking about the piece that adds Mr. Rae, just that line. That's all.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
That's exactly the line that I also asked about, but for the sake of clarity, let's ask it again.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Madam Clerk, on the subamendment as presented, is it in order in terms of the relationship it has to the original motion?
12:05 p.m.
The Clerk
In this particular case, Ms. McPherson indicated that her subamendment would no longer replace the first part, but rather add to it. What might be helpful if there is some confusion on the part of the committee is to deal with this one item of Russia-Ukraine and the subamendment that it contains within that motion, and then go back to inviting Ambassador Rae. That will have to be amended anyway, because the date on it is not correct.
If that is the will of the committee members, perhaps they could deal with those two issues separately instead of in one subamendment, but I will leave it in your hands, Mr. Chair.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Okay. Thank you, Madam Clerk.
Ms. McPherson has chosen not to do that. She has chosen to introduce Bob Rae in the text of her subamendment.
The question now is this: Is that subamendment procedurally in order because it adds to the.... Does the subamendment have to stay within the confines of the original amendment or can it bring in additional substance? If it's the latter, then I would imagine it's in order. If not, perhaps it wasn't in order and we need to backpedal.
12:05 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, I would suggest that the subamendment should amend the amendment, so in this case, it makes the most procedural sense to stick with the Russia-Ukraine situation and then move back to the Ambassador Rae point.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
In terms of tactics, though, the committee may not want to go back there, and Ms. McPherson has introduced it. What I need to have some clarity on is whether we can go ahead and vote on Ms. McPherson's amendment because it's actually in order or, if it's not in order, to bring us back to the confines of the amendment—
12:10 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, I would suggest that the proper course of action would be to deal with the subamendment that strictly amends what is before the committee at this time, which is the amendment of Ms. Bendayan.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Ms. McPherson, do you have views on this to align your idea with the views of the clerk?
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I don't know if the clerk could be more clear. I'm just wondering, is this votable? If we can vote on this, I would rather that we vote on it the way it is.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, perhaps I could be of help here.
I think there's some confusion here. As I understand it, Ms. Bendayan moved the following amendment to the report: That the words of the report beginning with paragraph one be replaced with the following, which is what is contained in motion number 10 in the PDF that was distributed about 20 minutes ago. That's what I understand to be the amendment that was moved at the beginning of this committee meeting.
I think what Ms. McPherson has moved as a subamendment is that the word “replace” be replaced with the word “added” and also the addition of the words concerning the appearance of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the replacement of or the striking of the words “in camera”. That's what I understand to be the case. The problem here is that we don't have a written copy in front of us of Ms. Bendayan's actual amendment to the report, an amendment to the main motion, which is the adoption of the report.
Mr. Chair, we need to clarify what's actually on the floor in terms of the amendment, and that will allow us then to figure out what's on the floor in terms of the subamendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you, Mr. Chong.
Going back to the conversation with Ms. Bendayan, she had decided that she would bring forward her motion, which members have, as an amendment to the original motion, implicitly before the committee, through the distribution of the subcommittee report, doing exactly what you suggested, Mr. Chong.
Ms. McPherson then came in and said, “Okay, we want you to do a couple of things. We want to make sure that this goes to the front of the line, that we have the flexibility to add emergency meetings, that we remove the in camera portion, and then to say, yes, we also want Ambassador Rae,” thereby reintroducing that element of the original motion before the committee.
The question now is whether that amendment is in order. I had received news—
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
—partway through the discussion that it was. There's now a question around that.
In the interest of expediency, I'm prepared to rule that it isn't and stand to be challenged on that, if that's helpful to the committee. I just wanted to make sure that we're on the right page, or at least the same page, with respect to getting something done today and giving the clerk and analysts some guidance in terms of the first study, which seems to be in the minds, as far as I can ascertain, of the majority of members at least, if not all of them, the expeditious discussion of the file on Canada-Ukraine-Russia.
Dr. Fry, you had made your intervention, and you do not feel that it's in order. I'm really trying to move things forward so it comes to a landing.
