Canada-China Relations Committee on Oct. 9th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Oliphant.

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

I don't want to stifle debate on this. I just think it's important. There are two principles. One is the principle of the way special committees have been set up; the second principle is just to have full awareness at this committee. I think it's difficult when people move motions like this that are not routine and without having discussed it with people ahead of time. That was another problem we had in the last Parliament: Things would be brought suddenly to the committee without good process.

I don't want to stifle discussion. My intent is not to close this issue, but to get further information. I necessarily have to make the caveat that you, the clerk, would do some research for us on it and get back to us. I understand that it's debatable or amendable; I get that. I could just move to adjourn, but I don't want to do that. I hope we can move to adjourn so you can do your work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

In your previous statement you said you “could” move it. I take it that you are now moving what you said earlier.

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

Yes. I will move that we adjourn debate subject to the clerk verifying with the House the Standing Orders as they apply to special committees to make sure this is not ultra vires.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Okay.

On debate on that motion, I have Mr. Fragiskatos so far.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bergeron had his hand up first and then mine was up after his. It may be that others have identified their desire to speak in other ways. That's just what the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I very much appreciate your help because it is possible for me to miss that.

I saw Mr. Fragiskatos earlier, then I'll go to Mr. Bergeron and Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I realize I'm the one introducing the routine motions, but as a member of the committee I also feel compelled to offer a comment too.

I echo what Mr. Oliphant has said.

I'm not so sure that special committees possess this power. We should err on the side of prudence and be as careful as possible. I think what Mr. Oliphant has proposed is not unreasonable. He has not dismissed what Mr. Genuis is saying. In the spirit of making sure that we are doing everything as we should, it would make a lot of sense to adjourn to allow the clerk to look into this for us. Of course, we can revisit the issue.

Like Mr. Oliphant, I'm not closed to that. I'd be very happy to discuss this further to make sure that we're on the right footing here.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you.

Mr. Bergeron, you may go ahead.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm a little uncomfortable with Mr. Oliphant's motion, not substance-wise, but form-wise, given that the clerk told us the motion was perfectly in order.

The idea that a special committee would not be allowed to convene a meeting at the request of four committee members strikes me as specious. The clerk told us that the motion was perfectly valid and in order. I think my preference is to vote on the motion now, instead of putting it off until later.

That said, I understand Mr. Oliphant's reservations. I, myself, have often raised concerns in the past when motions were put forward without members being advised and having discussed them ahead of time.

I have another concern related to our experience with Standing Order 106 and its non-application to the committee. It's the fact that four members of the same political party were able to request that a committee meeting be convened, giving the impression of a partisan manoeuvre. However, the committee must—at least, as I understand it—work in the spirit of co-operation, pursuant to the routine motion that we just adopted and that had been adopted previously.

If I were going to propose an amendment to Mr. Genuis's motion, it would be to have four members from at least two political parties represented on the committee.

Since I understand that there must first—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Oliphant, you have a point of order.

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

Thank you.

We have an amendment on the floor and now the member is amending the original amendment.

We have a motion on the floor to adjourn debate.

We're not talking about the original motion.

I think due process is really good; it works, but we can't now be amending that motion while there's a motion on the floor to adjourn debate, subject to your ruling on that.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Oliphant's objection has to do with the fact that we aren't debating Mr. Genuis's motion right now; we're actually on Mr. Oliphant's motion.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, with all due respect to you and Mr. Oliphant, I had clearly understood that it was improper for me to propose an amendment now.

I took care to use the conditional tense, saying that if I were going to propose an amendment, this is what I would do. Then, Mr. Oliphant stopped me from going any further.

Since we have to deal, first and foremost, with the motion to adjourn debate on Mr. Genuis's motion, so to speak, I can't do it. However, if he had let me finish, I could have clarified that. Frankly, when it comes to making friends and getting his fellow members to support his motions, Mr. Oliphant doesn't always go about it in the right way.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Are there any further comments before we vote?

Mr. Genuis, you were on the list.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to the conditional discussion of prospective further amendments, I'm very open to having discussions about amendments to this motion. I agree with Mr. Bergeron that we should move this forward. Respectfully, this isn't a question of a substantive issue or study. This is a question of an operating procedure for the committee, which is the item we're discussing right now.

I want to maybe respond to some of the things Mr. Oliphant said. The issue around whether Standing Order 106(4) applies was a question of debate, and to be fair, a point of disagreement between folks on this committee before, because it was the Conservatives who wrote the motion that created this committee. In it, we said the powers of a regular standing committee would apply to this committee. In our minds, that included Standing Order 106(4). Therefore, it's not a question of whether the Standing Orders intended something or other. We were the ones who wrote the motion and what we intended was for Standing Order 106(4) to apply.

However, subsequent to that, you had suggested that you had a different interpretation of the motion that created it. What I'm trying to do is insert clarity into a place where there wasn't clarity before, to say in regard to a standing order that, as I can say as one of the people involved in drafting the original motion, it was the intention of the drafters of the motion that created this committee for Standing Order 106(4) to apply as it applies with every other standing committee. That was the intention. There was a certain interpretation about whether it was written in a way such that it applies.

It's not a question of needing to get the House's permission. The committee has a right to pass motions with respect to how it schedules meetings. We can have a conversation about whether the number of members or the formula is exactly right, but the need for this motion is that, with all due respect to our chair, whom we all have a great deal of respect for, there should be a mechanism in the rules that allows members of committees to convene a meeting of the committee if there is a period of time during which the chair is deciding not to convene a committee.

In the absence of Standing Order 106(4), a chair could decide not to convene a committee meeting even when a majority of the committee wants to see that meeting convened. Certainly Standing Order 106(4) was used significantly previously on other committees to convene important studies around systemic racism and around a range of other issues at other committees.

I think it's important. We can discuss the particulars of the procedure, but it's important that we, at this opening meeting, put in place a procedure that allows a group of members of the committee to summon a committee to meet and proceed with its work.

I suggest that means we vote down Mr. Oliphant's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It's Mr. Dubourg's turn. Then, we'll go to Mr. Fragiskatos, followed by Mr. Harris.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I fully appreciate Mr. Genuis's motion, because unique situations can arise that make it necessary to discuss specific issues. At the same time, the point my fellow member Mr. Oliphant is trying to make is that this is a special committee. There is a very clear distinction between a standing committee and a special committee, so we'll need to determine whether we can be empowered to do that.

I also want to point out that, against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, House employees have to take all the appropriate steps to make sure committees can meet. Now that all the committees are starting up again, we need to determine the ideal circumstances for holding meetings of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, pursuant to Standing Order 106(4).

For all of those reasons, it's a good idea to check what's doable with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

This is a motion to adjourn. That doesn't mean that we completely reject Mr. Genuis's motion. It's simply a matter of making sure that we are on the same page as the representatives in the House of Commons in order to satisfy the requirements of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have Mr. Fragiskatos, followed by Mr. Harris and Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's our first real meeting. I didn't mention this when I spoke a few moments ago, but it's a relevant point and I hope Mr. Genuis doesn't take it the wrong way. Surprise motions are just that, surprise motions. When we had that occur in the previous session, there were members around the table who didn't go for that. It never really served this committee when we had those sorts of motions come up like that out of nowhere, as they have today.

In any case, we're here, and as I said before—colleagues on the Liberal side have echoed this—there's no intent here to push this aside. What has been suggested is that we leave it for the clerk to look at and then come back and discuss further.

For example, if you look at the text of Standing Order 106(4), while the word “committees” is used, “special committees” is not used at all. For that reason, I feel uncomfortable in supporting what Mr. Genuis has suggested. We have to be completely onside when it comes to parliamentary convention and protocol. While the motion Mr. Genuis has put forward here today does merit a close look, analysis and debate, I'm not sure we're in a position to comment on it without the full analysis given to it by someone who's an expert on these things, and that would be the clerk.

Mr. Genuis has said that including something like this was the intention of the Conservatives when they first put the motion forward in Parliament to create a special committee to analyze Canada-China relations. We cannot analyze intentions. It's a guessing game if we get into that. We have to analyze facts. What stands out to me is that Standing Order 106(4) does not say anything about special committees. For that reason we have to leave it in the hands of the clerk.

I would ask Mr. Genuis if he would respectfully be open to taking back his motion, taking it off the table and reintroducing it at such time when we have had the clerk look into the matter. We can then debate it based on what she finds is appropriate and in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have Mr. Harris next, followed by Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

At first glance, I was inclined to accept Mr. Oliphant's concern about there being a standing order where there has already been a ruling that applied in one circumstance but not for special committees, and the question of whether or not it's appropriate for us to adopt a standing order of the House as a mechanism for calling a meeting, but I'm persuaded that this is really.... Whether it's called a power or a scheduling issue is kind of irrelevant and may be just a matter of argument as opposed to a matter of interpretation. Just because it's in the Standing Orders for committees doesn't mean we can't adopt a similar method of scheduling a meeting as a committee, so I'm open to that.

I should also remind people that I was in favour of our having meetings, despite the fact there was no procedure for doing that other than 106(4), and I would have supported calling a meeting under those circumstances.

I would also point out that the fact that you call a meeting doesn't mean that the four people who signed the document have the say as to what goes on at that meeting. They have to state what the purpose is, so that the meeting is called. However, you could show up for the meeting and then say, “No, we don't want to do that” or “No, we're going to meet, but we're not going to have the meeting. We're not going to meet for two hours now because we're not prepared to deal with this question.”

It turns out that, when we've used this as a party to get something on the table, and we have over the years, particularly in the summer session when there are no committee meetings regularly scheduled, you often end up going to Ottawa for a meeting on the issue, but all that happens is a meeting that says, “No, we're not going to do that” or “We'll schedule it for sometime down the road”. You get to tell the news media what you wanted to talk about, but you don't get to have the meeting about the substance.

That's the context in which I'm saying that this issue as to whether it's a standing order, what the standing order was intending and what the purpose of it was are all matters of debate, and if we can debate it another time.... I'm mindful of what Mr. Fragiskatos said, that surprise motions don't really go over that well in this committee because people aren't prepared to deal with them, which may have given rise to Mr. Oliphant's response to wait and give us a chance to think about it. Perhaps it would be wise to put the debate on this issue off for the next meeting and say, “Okay, let's raise it again the next time so people will have time to think about it.”

If Mr. Oliphant wants to consult parliamentary experts on what the purpose of this is to have his arguments brought forward, that doesn't seem to be an unreasonable thing to do, but I wouldn't say that the.... If the motion in terms of scheduling is in order, and that depends on a ruling of the chair at this meeting, then it's perfectly all right to decide how meetings would be scheduled in the same way that we decide as a committee when we will have our meetings.

We're going to get advice from the House as to when it's possible to have virtual meetings, and it may be that the idea of five days is not reasonable, given that the House can't necessarily find the time, the facilities and all of the virtual accoutrements that we need to have a meeting. That might be something we need to find out first as well. I would be in favour of postponing the discussion, but I don't think we need to have a ruling from someone else outside of the committee as to whether or not we can consider such a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Paul-Hus, please go ahead.