Evidence of meeting #1 for Canada-China Relations in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Mr. Fragiskatos, I don't hear you proposing a motion to amend at this point.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I'm proposing a motion to amend Mr. Bergeron's friendly amendment to Mr. Genuis's motion.
2:10 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I want to speak in opposition to Mr. Fragiskatos' amendment to the amendment. I'm assuming we're still talking about amendments to an amendment here.
I think the purpose of the rule, if you want to call it that, in the Standing Orders is to allow members who are not a majority to force a meeting to take place, or at least to have a discussion. If you're going to require all four parties to do it, then it just becomes a consensus that the chair would have to abide by. I don't think that's the real purpose of having this rule in the first place.
Having more than one party is important. In fact, if that rule were in place, the attempt to get this committee going might have succeeded if it weren't for the manifesto that was in the letter, which might have been more acceptable to more than one party and would have had greater consent. Whether or not the rule would still be able to apply is a different matter.
I think it's important to have more than one party. With regard to the rule of four, your point is well taken; it's not really material whether it's four or five. The idea would still be that there would be a meeting, and a majority would have to decide what to do once that meeting is in fact convened.
I'm speaking against the subamendment and in favour of Mr. Bergeron's amendment, and the fact that we're creating a rule that's common sense of the application of a similar approach for scheduling that's in Standing Order 106.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I originally proposed four members, but let me propose three parties instead of two. I know we keep going around here, but I think we can come to a resolution.
I'm bending quite a bit there to go back from four to three. What do my colleagues think about that?
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I'm sorry. I'm not following the procedures correctly here. I'm withdrawing what I had originally proposed and putting a new amendment on the table, to change the number that Mr. Bergeron had suggested from two parties to three parties.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Is it agreed that Mr. Fragiskatos can withdraw his original motion to amend?
I see no objections.
(Subamendment withdrawn)
You have proposed to move now to three parties. Is that correct?
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
We're debating that question.
Are there any comments or points on that?
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I disagree with the subamendment that's been proposed for all the reasons that Mr. Harris essentially said.
To add to that a bit, having the two-party requirement is already substantially beyond what applies to every other standing committee. That's number one.
Number two, when you are summoning a committee and the logistics involved in getting the letter together, it may be that there is a member who would support it but isn't able to sign it on short notice, or there may be a member who is more neutral on the question.
The requirement that you would need to have three parties agree before even calling a meeting seems a bit much to me. If you have two parties who say this merits an emergency meeting, then after they get together, other members who are maybe a little more on the fence can listen to the arguments. I think Mr. Bergeron's proposal here is very reasonable.
It's water in our wine, because it's a step back from what 106(4) says. I'm very happy to accept that amendment, but the subamendment is a bridge too far. It looks like you're trying to make it as hard as possible to call one of these emergency meetings. I think it is reasonable that there be a reasonable mechanism for those meetings to be called.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you very much.
I hope we'll get to a discussion of future business and the work plan, but I do have to call for other comments.
Seeing none, we'll have a vote on Mr. Fragiskatos' motion to amend, which would propose that we require three parties.
Did I see Mr. Harris's hand up?
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Oh. That was entirely my fault. I had it on the wrong button for translation. Excuse me. Thank you for that.
I would then go to a vote, seeing no further comments, on the motion to amend from Mr. Fragiskatos.
(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we are back to Mr. Bergeron's motion.
Is there any further debate?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us back to the main motion as amended.
Is there any further debate on the main motion as amended?
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Genuis.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Chair, I'm at the committee's disposal in terms of how we proceed on this, but I think it's a good point to really start in terms of the discussion at the first meeting. We had some outstanding items and motions that had been adopted by the committee that were not proceeded with as a result of prorogation. Maybe it's worthwhile to have a general discussion first, but my suggestion is that now would be a good time to readopt motions that we had already adopted as a committee.
There were two motions—one with respect to Tibet and one with respect to certain witnesses, Mr. McCallum and Mr. Wright—that the committee had unanimously adopted. I would suggest we readopt them to just ensure their application going forward. We had also adopted a motion to do a report with respect to the situation in Hong Kong. We have to, I think, consider possible modifications to that motion, but I think we owe it to the work we did previously to readopt or in any event consider next steps with respect to these motions.
Maybe I'd open that up for discussion before putting anything specific on the table, but it's worth having a discussion about.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you.
I wonder if the clerk could advise us on whether, in the event the committee wished to, there is some simple way to accomplish what Mr. Genuis is talking about.
2:15 p.m.
The Clerk
Absolutely. It's just readopting the same motions, essentially.
2:15 p.m.
The Clerk
It would be preferable, especially since he mentioned there might be some amendments.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
I think that's helpful.
I have Mr. Harris, and then I'll see who else I see.
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Of course, the committee can do what it wishes. The committee has a different composition from the previous committee, so if motions are brought that were brought before, it's fair to say that members of the committee may wish to either comment or debate on them rather than just simply adopting them.
As has been pointed out, some of the motions were related to particular times and things like that. I think we need to be careful in trying to adopt them all at once. I think we have to take them one at a time and see whether there is a need for further discussion or debate, whether we can deal with that today or whether it's something that's.... I won't call it “perfunctory”; maybe it's just reiterating things we've already decided.
If there's agreement here, then we can do that. I would just be mindful that some of the things may require debate.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you very much.
I'm not seeing anyone else wanting to comment.
Mr. Genuis.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
To simplify this, I'll start with putting on the table verbatim a motion that was previously adopted, and we can proceed with it or not, of course, as members wish. I move:
That Canada's former ambassadors to the People's Republic of China, the Honourable John McCallum and Robert Wright, be summoned to appear before the committee at a time, date and location to be determined by the chair and the clerk of the committee.
2:20 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Obviously, I have no objection to the committee re-adopting this motion. However, I seem to recall discussions we had with our beloved previous clerk, and I think the two witnesses had signalled their interest in appearing before the committee. Adopting this motion again will certainly have the effect of keeping their interest in appearing before the committee.