Evidence of meeting #9 for Canada-China Relations in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chinese.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Christine Holke
Lobsang Sangay  Sikyong, President, Central Tibetan Administration
David Mulroney  Former Ambassador of Canada to the People's Republic of China, As an Individual

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

Mr. Bergeron, you have the floor.

4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC

Mr. Chair, I'd like to echo the comments of my colleagues who spoke before me. First, I just want to say that, in principle, I completely agree with the motion. I believe that common sense tells us to support this type of motion. However, I have some concerns about the timing of the motion, since—I'm reminding Mr. Genuis—we were supposed to spend a few meetings discussing the specific situation in Tibet. This motion may not be comprehensive enough in terms of everything that we want to recommend to the government regarding the situation in Tibet.

I don't want to start a debate in front of Mr. Sangay. However, I think that this way of proceeding, which always involves facing a fait accompli with the presentation of motions, undermines the atmosphere of trust among the committee members.

I believe that we should try to avoid this type of process. As I said a few moments ago, it prevents us from establishing this atmosphere of trust, which would help us move further towards the goal that we all want to achieve.

Once again, we've ended up in this type of situation. We must discuss this issue in front of Mr. Sangay, which I find particularly improper. I want to assure Mr. Sangay that I support the idea of recommending a dialogue between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Tibetan authorities.

We wanted to take a closer and more in-depth look at the situation in Tibet. Therefore, at this point, the motion seems very incomplete and very inadequate when it comes to all the recommendations that we may want to make to the government.

I'll finish on that note, Mr. Chair.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

Next is Ms. Alleslev, and then Mr. Genuis.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think we need to be clear on the specifics of this motion. This motion is simply calling for dialogue between the Central Tibetan Administration and the People's Republic of China, with a view toward allowing the exercise of genuine autonomy for Tibet within the framework of the Chinese constitution. We're reporting this motion to the House. At a later date, absolutely, we would want to do other studies, because it is an important topic. Our next study is not this. Our next study, depending on what we decide, is on Hong Kong. We will look at other things as well.

So for us at this moment to say that we don't have enough information or that we would need to do a further study to be able to call for dialogue—I'm quite concerned about that. I would like to ask my honourable colleagues to vote in favour of this motion. It does not in any way preclude us from doing further studies. It simply shows our commitment to the situation in Tibet by calling for dialogue.

Thank you very much.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

Thank you.

I have Mr. Genuis, Mr. Oliphant and Mr. Harris.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Chair, I will strike myself from the list. Ms. Alleslev made the points I wanted to make.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

Thank you very much.

Mr. Oliphant.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON

I would just reiterate that we are not against, or I am not.... It's hard for us to communicate virtually. Normally, I would actually call a time out and do a little bit of a caucus. We're not able to do that. I do want to have it very clearly stated that we are obviously in favour of this sort of dialogue.

We are also very clear about how our committee processes should be fair. We didn't have an understanding that this motion would come today. I don't think that is fair. I think we will have the right time to make a set of motions on the very important human rights issues that we will then have a great deal of credibility as a committee to make and that will be heard well.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, with the unanimous consent of the committee, I would suggest that, if there's agreement, we suspend discussion of this motion until after Mr. Mulroney's testimony. I think the issue is fairly straightforward. I do see value in moving forward with it today. However, if there's unanimous consent to defer discussion of this until after Mr. Mulroney's testimony, I think that will give members a little bit of extra time to reflect on it, if that's what they're looking for.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

I did have Mr. Harris next, but I think I'll go to the question of whether there's unanimous consent.

Does anyone disagree?

Mr. Harris, I think you wish to speak to this.

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Yes.

I don't agree with that. I mean, look, my question was not based on the procedural issue. It's obviously in order, as the chair pointed out. Are we moving to a point, which I'm afraid we may be, where we're going to do one-offs and ad hoc motions all the way through? This is the Canada-China relations committee, which was struck to come up with a response on the whole issue of Canada-China relations. This is an aspect of it. We're not doing a study on Tibet. We aren't doing a study on Hong Kong. We hearing witnesses on Hong Kong. It's all part of the relationship between Canada and China, and they are intertwined.

I have no problem with the motion, by the way. Obviously, a dialogue would be a positive thing. I did hear two different motions from Ms. Alleslev and Mr. Genuis, but that's beside the point.

I think we should decide whether we're going to have this piecemeal approach to our work or not. That's a fundamental way of proceeding as a committee, because we can have one of these after each witness if it suits someone to bring a motion. I don't think that's a very positive way for our committee to work.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

Not seeing any further requests to take part in the debate, I'll call upon the clerk to proceed with a recorded vote on Mr. Genuis's motion.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Chair, I believe Peter Fragiskatos wanted to participate in the debate.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps I'm not seeing all the hands.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I would just say this. We have Dr. Sangay here, and with all due respect to Mr. Genuis, we've now eaten up about 10 or 15 minutes. The meeting has gone very well to this point. Dr. Sangay has been able to answer thoughtful questions and enlighten the committee. I've learned a great deal. I wish we would have continued in that vein.

I would just very politely suggest to my colleague Mr. Genuis that he bring this back to the committee through the proper avenues, make us aware ahead of time, and we can discuss the matter then. I don't see the need to continue to discuss it here and now, and certainly not later today. We can continue the meeting as originally planned.

That would be my view.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

I don't see anyone wishing to speak at this time.

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Is it in order to table that motion, Chair?

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

I'm going to have to check that question. I'll have a quick check on that with the clerk.

I'm sorry about that, folks.

Mr. Harris, do you wish to move to adjourn the debate? That's what I think you're trying to do.

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

No, what I suggested was that we deal with it later, that we not deal with it now, and tabling a motion is normally a way to do that in various meetings so that there won't be a vote.

I'm loath to vote against a motion that I favour, so it's one way of saying, look, this is not an appropriate time to be dealing with this.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

I'm interpreting that to say that you wish to move to adjourn the debate, which is the proper motion.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I can appreciate it, but he's clearly not wanting to table a motion, so let's just leave it on the table and let the process go forward.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

Okay.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Chair, can I ask for one point of clarification?

Are there normally rules in this committee with respect to providing notice, like 48 hours' notice on a votable motion, or not?

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

There are rules about votable motions, of course. However, when a matter is before the committee, a motion can be brought in relation to the matter that is before the committee.

Mr. Oliphant.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON

I would make the motion to adjourn debate on this motion, as the most appropriate way to do effectively what Jack has suggested, which is to come back to it later.

That's the way we do that in a committee, so at this point, I would move that we adjourn debate on this motion.