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.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
This is a question for you, Mr. Chair, but especially for the clerk. Do we have the ability to summon without an initial invite going to the individuals Mr. Genuis mentioned?
2:20 p.m.
The Clerk
Even if the motion says “summon”, we usually start with an invitation and then if they refuse, we go on to other procedures.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Okay. I think that's something that needs to be kept in mind here, Chair.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I wanted to check with respect to Mr. Wright. What I understood was that he declined due to reasons of being older and not feeling he had something to contribute. I'm wondering what the mover of the motion has in mind for Mr. Wright. I understand having McCallum, I get all that, but I'm wondering whether we are putting pressure on. I believe Mr. Wright is in his eighties and has not been an ambassador for several decades. I'm wondering what we're really trying to accomplish on that one.
Mr. Genuis has made the motion so he must know about Mr. Wright, his work and his age, and when he was actually the ambassador.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Just to emphasize, the motion that I put forward was to readopt the motion that the committee had previously adopted, so I wanted to, in moving the motion, be respectful of that precedent. I believe in the discussion that took place, I think the motion we had originally proposed was just having Mr. McCallum, and there was another member who wanted the inclusion of Mr. Wright.
In any event, I'm happy to remove the reference to Mr. Wright. I think it's particularly important that we hear from Mr. McCallum given how recently he was the ambassador and given how his engagement has so much bearing on current events before the committee.
I'm very open to a friendly amendment to remove the reference to Mr. Wright. I only put it in there because this motion is verbatim the one that was previously adopted. We can do something different; that's fine.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Before I go to Mr. Harris, let me ask the committee: Is it agreed to withdraw the name of Mr. Wright?
No, Mr. Harris wishes to comment.
2:25 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I was only going to comment on Mr. Wright. I understand that we had been advised by the committee clerk that Mr. Wright initially declined the invitation. Then when the second request was made after the motion was passed by the committee, he did agree to attend, with the caveat that he wasn't really au courant with the situation in China, but if we wanted him he would come.
I don't have strong feelings one way or the other on Mr. Wright, but if he feels he has nothing to offer, and unless some members think that he does, I'm willing to listen to what people say.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
I know Madam Holke is with us. She's in support of the clerk today. However, my understanding was in fact that, as Peter described, Mr. Wright had indicated that he's older, he doesn't have a lot of memory of the time, and so forth. I think that was part of it, but it's up to the committee.
2:25 p.m.
The Clerk
If I may just add, he did accept the invitation. He just wanted to make sure that it would be virtual.
2:25 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes. Both of them actually accepted to appear afterwards.
2:25 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Mr. Chair, I just wanted to point out that that's precisely what I was saying earlier. Both had accepted the committee's invitation after receiving a more formal request to appear.
Since the clerk just clarified that a friendly invitation would be extended first and since the two signalled their interest in appearing, I repeat that re-adopting the motion, as it stood in the previous session of Parliament, will certainly go a long way towards retaining their interest in contributing to the committee's work.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you.
Madam Clerk, can you just clarify for me? I think you said what the normal practice is. Is there anything that prevents the committee from summoning someone if, after a prorogation as we've had and a re-creation of the committee, it hasn't first invited them? I presume there is nothing, or is there?
2:25 p.m.
The Clerk
At the moment, we are just readopting the motion, if the committee wishes to readopt it. I will proceed with an invitation first, and then if they both decline again or one of them declines, we'll get back to the committee and the committee can decide on further actions.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Why would you do that if the committee is adopting a motion to summon them? Is it because there are rules that prevent you from summoning them before they've been first invited?
2:25 p.m.
The Clerk
No, it's just our practice. Usually we just reinvite them, because it's a new committee, it's a new session and it's a new motion. The former summons is no longer in effect. Essentially, everything needs to be readopted.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, the motion that I put forward was, again, designed to be the same as the previous motion, which says that they would be summoned to appear before the committee at a time. I am very comfortable with the clerk following a procedure of inviting first and then following up with a summons if the invitation is....
What this motion says is that we are prepared to use the power of the committee to require these people to appear, but absolutely extend all courtesy that is possible in the context of that expectation.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
That might be very helpful to the committee. Are there any objections to following that approach? I don't see any. Can we carry on to the motion before us?
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Genuis, I think you have some more motions.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Yes. This is also verbatim from before. It was adopted but not tabled in the House. The motion is as follows:
That this committee call for dialogue between representatives of the Tibetan people (His Holiness the Dalai Lama or his representatives and/or the Central Tibetan Administration) and the government of the People's Republic of China with a view to enabling Tibet to exercise genuine autonomy within the framework of the Chinese constitution, and report this motion to the House.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
I'm sorry. I think Mr. Bergeron may have a point of order or something, if you don't mind.