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.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Chair, I had said when I was speaking that I'm prefacing my remarks by asking a point of clarification.
I haven't even made my remarks with regard to the amendment yet.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Why don't we invite you to make those remarks with a bracket around your request for clarification, and we'll see if we can arrive there, and your substantive remarks may take us forward.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
With the exception of the piece about Mr. Rae, I think that Ms. McPherson's subamendment is fine. I accept that it is fine, but I do not agree. I will say that in all of my knowledge of the rules of committees, if a subamendment or an amendment substantially changes the intent of the motion, and unless Ms. McPherson is suggesting that Mr. Rae speak to the issue of Ukraine, I don't think it's—
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Point of order, Mr. Chair.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My understanding is that you've now ruled that the motion is in order, so—
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
No, I have not. I have suggested that as a discussion point to the committee if it's helpful. I have not ruled. I'd like to hear views—
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Excuse me for one second. I just want to convey my thoughts.
I'd like to hear from the members who are on the speakers list on the subamendment, because they may have additional views and comments that may be helpful to resolving this in the most constructive way. Until they've spoken, I will certainly not entertain making any rulings.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Just to clarify though, Mr. Chair, when you said “I'm prepared to rule; this is an order and I'd be open to a chair challenge”, were you not ruling that it was in order?
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Mr. Morantz, there's no challenge at the moment to be made because I suggested that if it's helpful to the committee I'd make a ruling that could then stand to be challenged. I have not made that ruling, because I haven't heard from the remainder of our colleagues.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I am supporting Ms. McPherson's subamendment, with the exception of the Mr. Rae piece. I also feel that there should be one meeting in camera, because the nature of Ukraine, Russia, the nature of what is going on in that region may require that we hear from some of the people who are briefing us and there may be some things that are sensitive and that are probably within security guidelines. I just think that by leaving at least one meeting in camera, or half of a meeting in camera, we would be able to discuss very sensitive security issues during that period of time.
That's my position on the subamendment. Thank you.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Thank you.
I'll just set where I think we are and where I think I am. I would agree to accepting the subcommittee report with respect to Mr. Rae coming to committee and adding to that a first study on Ukraine, which would be briefings first and then studies. I am fine with the way it's coming down.
I would agree with Dr. Fry that having one part of one meeting in camera may be a good option for the committee to get some information that we think could be more valuable. I'll be very clear that I don't necessarily need that. I'm the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, so I am briefed regularly in confidence. I'm not able to share certain things outside of that, but members of this committee don't have all of that capacity.
I think you may want a meeting—or part of a meeting—in camera or leave that option open. I think it would be smart to have that ability.
I am fine with us beginning this week. Having been a chair of a committee, I would say that sometimes we have plans to have an immediate briefing. Today is Monday and we have an unfortunate combination of events going on in Ottawa with many public servants not able to get to their jobs. We're asking them to come and brief us on Thursday. That should be fine, but I have requested briefings from officials at other times where it's been delayed because they're human beings who have to get that work done and need to prepare us.
I think it's fine, but we have to remember that while we can request a briefing, we don't demand the timing of it. I would like an early set of briefings and meetings on Ukraine. I don't want to shortchange our technical capacity to get good information and get experts who are from the diaspora who have an emotional connection to this, and experts who are not government and not from the diaspora who may have some intelligence for us. Those may be some academics who are studying it. I'm reading articles every day and I think the committee could gain some insight into why the world is in this position at this time. I don't want to shortchange the issue of Ukraine and Russia.
I would say, however, that given the chance, we would then take a third option as well. I think a committee should have an ability to be doing a second or a third thing at the same time as Ukraine. Sometimes there may be some delay in getting those things and, as Ms. McPherson says, things will change. We may want an ongoing set of situation updates from our officials on Ukraine and that's where I am very open to looking at vaccine access around the world. I think we should look at that. We do less international development at this committee than we do foreign affairs and we are both, so I would say that this would be an ongoing study. The chair, the clerk and the analyst could blend those three things together and keep us quite busy for the next month.
We can look at that list of 16 motions that are already presented to us. That would get rid of three of them, which are Mr. Rae and Ukraine. It gives us a little time to set the agenda after that.
I think Ms. McPherson's amendment does this. I don't think I can do sub-subamendment, so we're already at the motion there. I can't take out the part about having no meetings in camera. I would just advise the committee that I think it would be smarter if we had at least that capacity.
I am nervous about us defeating the amendment from Ms. Bendayan. I would caution the committee that once we decide not to do something—there's a motion on the floor that has been passed to not do something—revisiting it is a different thing than to just say that we're delaying it until later.
We have to be careful about our rules around revisiting work that was clearly defeated. I would say I'd be in favour of the subamendment, in favour of the amendment and in favour of the report as amended in the subamendment and amendment, and the actual report of the committee.
I feel Mr. Chong's stress about our getting to work, but this is the way we're getting it done. I would like to get those three things done. I haven't made an amendment because I can't further amend the subcommittee report to add in vaccine equity at this stage. We already have Ms. McPherson's subamendment, but once this is done—if I get the floor back—I will try to bring that back to get us doing those two things: one urgent, which is Ukraine-Russia, and one extremely important, which is the vaccine issue that could be our contribution to the COVID-19 pandemic we are in.
Was I clear?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Mr. Oliphant, thank you very much. If I had to summarize that briefly before going to the next speaker who would like to intervene, you've given supports for the subamendment as framed by Ms. McPherson, and you've given a suggestion that we retain the flexibility to go in camera during that study as needed. That will be helpful to Ms. McPherson, I believe, as she contemplates perhaps even making a change or tweaking the amendment to draw the consensus of the committee.
I now have on my list Mr. Aboultaif—
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, could I interrupt really quickly? I'm sorry to do this, but I just have some clarity for you. If we remove the “in camera”, it doesn't mean that we can't have an in camera meeting. It won't explicitly say there can be no in camera. It's just that we have removed the piece that says there has to be an in camera. That could be visited—
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Right. The committee can always go in camera or out of camera at its choosing. It's just if you want to invite witnesses to come in camera because they are discussing sensitive issues.... I think Mr. Oliphant is suggesting that this be part of the framework of the motion just to make sure there is clarity about our wanting to have those briefings that otherwise, in public, would not get us the content we would want to receive.
I had Mr. Aboultaif. Are you still on the list or have you taken down your hand for the moment?
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I lowered my hand, but I just want to emphasize it is important to study Ukraine. It will be an ongoing issue. We don't know how long it is going to be, and I hope to see a vote coming so we can just move on.
Thank you.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you.
The next people who wanted to speak are Ms. Bendayan, Mr. Bergeron and Mr. Ehsassi.
Madame Bendayan, the floor is yours.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
That you very much, Mr. Chair.
Things have since been clarified, so I will give the floor to Mr. Bergeron, who has not yet spoken on the matter.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
That's nice. Thank you very much, Ms. Bendayan.
Mr. Bergeron, you have the floor.