Canada-China Relations Committee on Jan. 20th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Ms. Alleslev.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I have two things. One, I think it's a good idea for the subcommittee to investigate this as well, but perhaps, just so we can all weigh in, because we do need all our committee members to weigh in on this.... On the official opposition side, we were thinking that maybe we would meet one day a week, but instead of for only two hours, perhaps we could consider three hours. Our thought was for Mondays from 10 a.m. until 1 p.m., if that's a possibility. Then we would be able to still have a sense of urgency, get a fair amount of work done, and get together and make some progress. That's what we were thinking, but perhaps we would put it to the subcommittee to investigate further.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Perhaps we'll have Sunday brunches instead of Sunday suppers—at home, that is.

Ms. Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I agree that this should go to the subcommittee. I recognize that there are two vice-chairs who are not here, and that's an important part.

I think the only thing that would be helpful to add is that the three-hour meeting from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. would probably work for Mr. Harris, who will be representing the New Democrats. However, one of the questions I would have is around televised access for the three hours. I hope the subcommittee is given that important information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Maybe I could answer the question about the television before we go on to the next speaker.

I indicated previously that we have priority over rooms and television from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Mondays. I presume that if the committee were to decide to make that 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., there are no other committees meeting then, so it would not be a problem.

Mr. Oliphant.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I believe there's been some discussion among the whips about this. I think it should go to the subcommittee.

We'll just signal that we are in agreement with Mondays from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. We think that's a good solution, but subject to the approval of the two vice-chairs. We're going to be meeting as soon as possible as a subcommittee anyway, so it will be good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you. That's useful.

Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Bergeron will then have the floor.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, as we lay the markers down for when we're going to be having these meetings and the projected order of business for the committee, I think it's important to note that “as soon as possible” means different things to different people. We've rightly identified that the work of this committee is urgent because we have Canadians who are illegally jailed in China. It's very important that we understand that today's meeting was the last day that this committee was allowed to have its first meeting, as directed by the House. We give ourselves a timeline, time goes by quickly and we find that we've used it all up, and “as soon as possible” was actually the last possible allowable time to make it happen.

It's also important to note that we have farmers across Canada who have lost over a billion dollars because of the trade actions China has taken, specifically dealing with canola. I think it's really important that we're cognizant of that and mindful of all of the different areas—and there are many more—that this relationship between Canada and China has affected, and of why it's so important that the important work of this committee be done expeditiously and that we give ourselves time-bound guidelines in directing our work.

It is vital to so many parts of our federation and its citizens that we act quickly, so I ask all members to be mindful of that. When we say things like “as soon as possible”, the spirit or intent of that, I believe, is good, but I think it's important that we act on that and truly do it as soon as possible, because when we just do it at the last date that is allowable, we might not be fulfilling the spirit of the obligation that we have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Oliphant.

I'm sorry, Mr. Bergeron, it is your turn to speak.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I know that our colleague just went back to the motion we just passed, but I thought we were trying to determine the most appropriate times to meet.

I would just like to ask a question. Our colleague, in presenting the Conservatives' proposal to meet Mondays from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., told us that they felt it would be better to meet once than twice, and for three hours rather than two. It seems to me that twice for two hours is more than once for three hours. So I would like someone to explain to me why we prefer one three-hour meeting over two two-hour meetings.

My second question involves the expression “as soon as possible”. Let me share with you a past experience I had with Chinese representatives a few years ago during a previous term in the House of Commons. We were in contact with, among others, people representing Taiwan. They told us they planned to open an office in Montreal soon. A country that is several thousand years old has a different definition of the word “soon” than a country that is barely 400 years old. To my knowledge, the office has yet to be opened in Montreal. So that is something to consider.

When we say “as soon as possible”, it must be understood that there is a sense of urgency. Not only are the economic interests of Canada and Quebec at stake. The lives of at least two Canadian citizens are as well. We must therefore proceed with diligence. We have set a deadline for a meeting with the ambassador, which is February 7, and I believe the ambassador will arrive in North America on January 28. That means he could join us in the next few days, perhaps January 29 or January 30. Those dates do not, however, fall on a Monday between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m.

So I ask you again: why should we meet once for three hours instead of twice for two hours? Honestly, I prefer two two-hour meetings. I believe we stand to get more work done in two two-hour meetings than one three-hour meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I will now give the floor to Mr. Oliphant. If anyone wishes to answer Mr. Bergeron's questions, I will give you the opportunity to do so, but it is now Mr. Oliphant's turn.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I think it would be very appropriate for us to take this discussion now to the subcommittee. Everybody will have the opportunity to talk about two twos, one three, three fives, two nines or I don't know what, but I think we can have that discussion there when people know their committee responsibilities and the other things that are on people's minds. I actually think it's not going to be productive for us to continue at this time.

We've signalled that we think it's a good option. I'm happy to listen to the other parties and, in the spirit of collaboration, to find times that work. I just think it would be most helpful if we now take that discussion into that venue to look at the calendar. The subcommittee should look at a working plan. Maybe we start with three-hour meetings and then move to five evenings in a row. I chaired the special committee on assisted dying. We had to meet every evening. We took every slot from 5:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. most days to get that work done.

I think that will be something we need to discuss.

With respect to “bientôt”, or the way we're working, on behalf of our side I just want to thank the clerk for putting this meeting together. The parties got you the names at the last minute. One party was late. We were pretty good, but parties got the names to you late. You had logistics to deal with. Putting a special committee together is unusual and I want to thank you. I also know the analysts have already been anticipating our motion and getting work done.

I also want to say two things. I think we should acknowledge, in this room, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in Newfoundland and in St. John's and other parts on the eastern side. Jack Harris is not with us today. That is a reality of life that we have to be sensitive to and he was very gracious. I talked to him about the possibility of our rescheduling and that it would take the House consent, but that is a reality.

The other extreme reality that many of us have faced in our own ridings is the death of 57 Canadians in Tehran. While this committee is important and our relationship with China is important, some of us have been very preoccupied with that. I have a high school mourning a death in my riding. I have families mourning in my riding. That has occupied many of us. We are working on this issue but we don't let the other issues go. Our world is complex, our world is difficult and people's lives are affected by these things. I think having this meeting is not late; it's timely. I think the House is managing us well and we'll do our part.

I think every member of this committee will help the clerk and the analysts do their work so they can help us do our work. We're getting the date done, so thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Oliphant, in respect of your comments in relation to the clerk and the analysts, and in relation to your concern regarding the people who were the victims of flight 752 and their families, I am sure all members would join in that view. I am seeing agreement on that.

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I would like to focus on two things.

First of all, our member from the Bloc Québécois asked specifically about the subcommittee and whether or not it should be deciding on our times. I do think that discussion needs to be at the subcommittee. If we decide to go with the 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. slot—I'm not on the subcommittee, but I want to give my opinion—I think that will work. Being from British Columbia, I travel a long distance to be here. I will be here for those. I think it's a good step for the committee.

Second, though, if there are exceptional requirements for further meetings at further times, just due to the nature of some of the people we will be working with, in order to make sure we can accommodate—again, it's written in the motion—many of the public figures who may need to have different time slots, I'm prepared to work. Parliament, I think, is prepared to work. I'd like to see that.

I did note today, Mr. Chair, that we were able to come up with unanimous support for my colleague's motion. I think that's a good first step, but I will say this. Again, the member from Quebec has mentioned that the ambassador will be in North America—as I mentioned earlier, he will be in Houston on January 28—and if the ambassador can be making public comments in Houston or talking and doing his job in North America on the 28th, to me there's no reason why the ambassador cannot be here for a period of time either before or after.

I don't think that we should, as Mr. Barrett said earlier, wait until the very last date. There are a number of issues that are very pertinent and are time sensitive. I have interviewed the ambassador at committee and have found that he's very capable of dealing with parliamentarians. I don't believe he'll require a lot of time to be briefed up. I think he'll be able to come here and give us answers. I do want to push the government to try to make that sooner rather than later, for the good of this committee and for this Parliament's work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Doherty.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chair, I am going to echo some comments along the lines of those of Mr. Albas and then bring up what Mr. Bergeron mentioned. If the ambassador is going to be back in North America, in Houston, there's no reason why he could not be appearing before this committee.

We have two Canadians who are being detained. To the comments of Lenore, our colleague across the floor, we should be moving forward, always, with them. We also have farmers who can't wait. They've suffered significant losses due to the trade action from this government. I think that as a committee we should be moving forward and trying to have the ambassador here at his earliest convenience.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Ms. Alleslev.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I want to echo what Mr. Oliphant said about those who so tragically lost their lives. Unfortunately, my riding was one of the ones that were quite significantly hit. It has really had a substantive impact. I want to send out, if I might—on behalf of all of us, I know—my condolences to everyone who has suffered as a result of this tragedy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Ms. Alleslev.

Mr. Bergeron, you have the floor.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Might I suggest that, once we have finished committee business, perhaps we should observe a minute of silence?

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

We could observe a minute of silence now.

[The committee observes a moment of silence.]

Colleagues, I've asked the clerk to reach out to the members of the subcommittee to work out the time as soon as possible for its first meeting. I hope that can take place very soon.

Is there anything further?

Seeing nothing, I thank the committee for its work today.

This meeting is adjourned.