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.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Apologies, there were multiple points of order. I think Monsieur Bergeron, if I understand correctly, had his hand up first. We will go to him, and then to you, Mr. Morantz.
Monsieur Bergeron, please go ahead.
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
First of all, Mr. Chair, unless I am mistaken, I thought I understood that Ms. Bendayan's amendment was intended not to replace what had been adopted by the subcommittee, but to add to it. I need confirmation that this is indeed Ms. Bendayan's intention, otherwise I will be forced to vote against it, when I am rather in favour of this one.
Secondly, I admit that I am acutely uncomfortable discussing this motion while completely disregarding discussions held before December 23. It must be said that this subject was part of a certain number of subjects. If my memory serves, there were six that we had focused on, but for various reasons from one of the subcommittee members, they could not be adopted. Members of the subcommittee had agreed on a single point. Actually, there was another one, but it wasn't officially worded. On one hand, it was to invite the ambassador of Canada to the UN to appear before the Committee, and on the other hand, to invite both ministers for their letters—
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Mr. Bergeron, I must briefly interrupt you.
That discussion was held in camera. There are details that must not be discussed during a public meeting.
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
I understand, Mr. Chair. I was very careful not to say anything that would put anyone in an awkward situation.
I simply want to say that we cannot simply ignore decisions that were made. Indeed, I draw to your attention that there was a consensus for the ambassador and both ministers to be called to appear before today's meeting. For a long list of entirely justifiable and understandable reasons, that did not happen. I simply wanted to communicate the unease I feel about the fact that we are discussing this while disregarding everything that was discussed on December 22.
Thank you.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.
These are not really points of order. They are more points of debate. On Madame Bendayan's point, she was very clear that her amendment would extinguish the option of bringing Ambassador Rae and would not add to it.
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
On the second point you raised, Mr. Bergeron, the committee has the option of resuming discussion of all the challenges that were discussed in camera on December 22.
The committee has not abandoned anything. It can completely take up its discussions and move them forward as it sees fit, so procedurally everything is still on the table.
There was another point of order.
Please go ahead, Mr. Morantz.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
I just want to clarify with the clerk, because there was a vote taken at the subcommittee to invite a specific individual. That was the only item that survived as part of the subcommittee's report to this committee.
If Ms. Bendayan is proposing an amendment, does that not simply amend the subcommittee report to include her motion in addition to the vote that was taken to call the specific individual? I did not hear her say—and I see her nodding to me in the room. She did not specifically say that she wanted to exclude the decision of the subcommittee with respect to the calling of the individual we are discussing.
I'd like the clerk to clarify that, please.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Mr. Morantz, I believe I did circle back to Madame Bendayan and I believe she did clarify that is indeed her intention. We can do it a second time just for the sake of clarity among members.
Madame Bendayan, could you once again, please, just clarify the effect of your amendment as you have put it forward?
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I did indeed propose that we delay the study approved by the subcommittee, in order to urgently address the issue of Ukraine. As far as I understand, Mr. Bergeron and my colleague Mr. Morantz are emphasizing that there may be a possible consensus on the matter. I would like to arrive at a consensus that will allow us to make studying this issue a priority. We can review the calendar for availabilities as they pertain to the other study proposed by the subcommittee.
I would also like to hear the clerk on this issue. I believe that she is the one who corrected me by saying that it was not possible and that one study had to be replaced altogether by the other. We could invite the clerk to clarify it, under the circumstances.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Yes.
That you very much, Ms. Bendayan.
Madam Clerk, again, the amendment currently before us is an amendment to the original implicit motion, which puts the subcommittee report before the committee. If it passes, it would go forward as the new text of the subcommittee report motion and would thereby extinguish the original content of the subcommittee report.
To what extent is it then open to the committee to revisit, as Madame Bendayan is suggesting, the original content in the form of a future motion?
11:40 a.m.
The Clerk
Perhaps I could rewind just a little bit. There are two ways to amend the subcommittee report. One is by adding to it, and one is by deleting what's there and replacing it.
My understanding from the way Madame Bendayan was talking was that she would like to replace what was there. However, if the intention is not to replace what is there but simply to add to it, then that's completely acceptable as well.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Just to follow up briefly, if she does replace it, to what extent is the committee then precluded from again discussing the original content of the subcommittee report with respect to the appearance of Ambassador Rae in the future?
11:40 a.m.
The Clerk
The main committee can certainly discuss that again at any time. However, if the intention, as I said, is just to add, then that wouldn't be necessary. They could do both things on the subcommittee report.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
This is helpful, Madam Clerk, in the sense that it really meets Madame Bendayan's objective, which is to say Ukraine first; we can go back to the motion and the discussion around the appearance of the ambassador at a future time; and it's open to the committee to move that at a future time.
Is there an additional point of order, on the sequence of points of order we just had, to clarify where we are with respect to the discussion of this amendment? Okay.
I have an original speakers list of Madame McPherson, I believe, and Mr. Sairi. They had wanted to speak before Madame Bendayan took the floor.
We are now discussing the amendment—
January 31st, 2022 / 11:40 a.m.
Liberal
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I think the speaker who still has the floor is Ms. Bendayan. I am not sure she stopped her remarks. I think you asked her to clarify whether or not she would be agreeable to this addition to the subcommittee report.
I think she still has the floor before...unless it's a point of order.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
That's fine. I just wanted to outline for the committee the list of names I have following Madame Bendayan. If she has additional points, she is absolutely welcome to make them. Then I have Madame McPherson and Mr. Sarai on the amendment, if they choose.
If your interventions were for other motions, then please just remove yourselves from the list for the moment. I have your names noted down, and you can come back in following discussion of this amendment.
I then have Dr. Fry, Mr. Oliphant, Mr. Aboultaif and Mr. Chong. This is to make sure that we have clarity in terms of the sequence of speakers, given that we're in a hybrid format.
Madame Bendayan, do you have any remaining thoughts on your amendment as you proposed it?
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess I would just end by clarifying, with the greatest respect for the subcommittee's work and all of its members, that the situation has evolved since the subcommittee met. The matter of Ukraine is a matter of urgency. I propose that we study this first and that we revisit the work requested by the subcommittee in order to do those studies at a subsequent time.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
That you very much, Ms. Bendayan.
I will ask Madame McPherson and Mr. Sarai if they want to come in on the discussion on the amendment.
Ms. McPherson, I see that you're nodding. Please go ahead. You have the floor.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's nice to see everybody virtually—or in person, I guess, for those who are in the room.
First of all, I want to get a little bit of clarity from you. My understanding is that all of the things that were discussed prior to when the subcommittee met—the things we tabled in the first meeting of the foreign affairs committee—are still on the table. They're all up for debate as we look at our schedule going forward.
Right now, because Ms. Bendayan has brought forward this particular one, it is superseding all other things that the subcommittee has done. I just want to be very clear on that.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
We will continue to seek clarity as we need to. It's complex. We have a lot of members, a lot of competing points of view potentially, and also complex subjects.
This is now an amendment that was brought to the subcommittee report that was sent to you on December 23. It's a motion on Ukraine. If the committee chooses to accept that amendment, it will become the order of business that the committee chooses to engage in. Presumably, with agreement to that amendment, the committee would want to move forward fairly quickly. Everything else that was discussed or submitted in the form of motions, or discussed verbally, can then be moved as additional items for discussion. Part—