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.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you.
I'll still ask the committee members whether they have any objections to the motion. If they want to discuss the motion, I think that they'll need to wait until the next meeting. I can see that Mr. Harris wants to speak. After Mr. Harris, I'll ask the committee members whether they want to adopt the motion. If they want to discuss the motion, I think that they'll need to wait.
Mr. Harris.
3:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I would think it would require some debate of elements of the motion in terms of what we would do, when we would do it and all of that. I think this is something I agree with Mr. Bergeron on, as it's already in the work plan, but he is basically setting an agenda item as to what will happen next. I don't think that's something we should.... We would need a debate on that.
If that's the will of the committee, obviously we will go from the study Hong Kong to his study, but we do have a work plan. I think adjustments to that would either have to be debated or at least discussed at the agenda and procedures committee before I personally would be ready to adopt it. There's nothing wrong with the content, but there are several items there. He's talking about the Communist Party, but the Chinese government's influence on Canada is on our agenda; security is; cybersecurity is. It will be part of our overall study, but the timing of it and all of that are matters for debate and discussion.
I would suggest that such a motion be sent to the committee for consideration.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to point out to Mr. Harris that the comments that I added after tabling the motion, when I spoke of the Chinese communist regime, aren't included in the motion.
My motion is fairly general. We should simply adopt it. The subcommittee can then analyze the motion and go further, since the motion doesn't focus specifically on a series of points. Above all, the motion concerns cybersecurity and national security.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Are there any objections to what we're expecting and discussing at the next meeting?
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I wonder if you could just clarify the process around that. Is it that you would the meeting and then we would resume consideration of the motion when we resume as a committee, or do we have to dispose of it in some way before you adjourn? What's the process? I'm just trying to understand.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
My problem is that I know we have limits on how long we have the Zoom call, and I'm afraid it's about to expire momentarily. We're going to run out of time, so we can't continue on an unlimited basis. We're beyond the two hours. I'm therefore trying to do this with agreement. I think it's hard for us to go on debating this because of the time not being allowed. Therefore what I'm proposing is that this motion come back to the committee for discussion when we reunite, having in mind, of course, that the subcommittee will probably have this topic and the fact that it's been proposed in its mind when it meets.
Does that help, Mr. Genuis?
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Yes, I understand where we're going on it. I guess it's a question of whether people are prepared to support it now. If not, then we obviously can't bend on that.
3:10 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, is it possible for us to refer the motion to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure for discussion and recommendation, or is that out of order?
3:10 p.m.
The Clerk
Now, because of a matter of time, I'm wondering if it's a motion to adjourn that you're trying to make, and that the matter be referred to the subcommittee, because the motion can also be moved at subcommittee.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
You're telling us that we're out of time.
Mr. Harris, is that what you have in mind?
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I want to tell the committee that there's no time limit for the Zoom call. The committee decides when we should finish up our work. It's not that I want to go on forever. I just wanted to make a clarification. We don't have time limits and, if we do, this matter should be reviewed.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you.
However, if you speak with the whip, I think that you'll learn that there are limits.
Mr. Harris, you heard what the clerk had to say. Are you proposing a motion to adjourn, with this motion being referred to the subcommittee?
3:10 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Well now, let me see. I don't want to insult Mr. Paul-Hus. If he wants the full committee to debate this, then the full committee can debate it. But in light of what Mr. Bergeron had to say and my awareness of what's on the committee's agenda, it's a question of what priority would be given to this. I would prefer to have the agenda and procedure subcommittee, where all parties here are represented, have an opportunity to consider whether we would give a priority to that as a group and make a recommendation, or at least take it into consideration before the full committee makes a decision. That's my preference. But I don't want to insult Mr. Paul-Hus.
I didn't think we were setting priorities here today, frankly. Aside from things that had already been dealt with by the committee with regard to Hong Kong and the passing of those motions, this is essentially new business for today. On that basis, I'd prefer to have it go to the subcommittee first.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you.
I think that I saw hands raised, first Mr. Bergeron's hand, then Mr. Oliphant's hand, and lastly Mr. Fragiskatos' hand.
Mr. Bergeron, you have the floor.
3:10 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Mr. Chair, I was just about to suggest that you ask whether there are any more comments on the motion, but I can see that there are more comments. As a result, the solution—which may not be the ideal solution, but rather the most appropriate solution under the circumstances—would be to adjourn the meeting and discuss the motion tabled by Mr. Paul-Hus at the earliest opportunity, either at the subcommittee or committee level.
3:10 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Mr. Chair, once again, I don't want it to seem like I'm ignoring the motion tabled by Mr. Paul-Hus. I was quite willing to adopt the motion as it stands today. However, since there appears to be more comments and we're running out of time to hear them, I move that we adjourn the meeting. The motion tabled by Mr. Paul-Hus could be addressed first thing at the next committee or subcommittee meeting.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.
The motion is not debatable, so I must put it to the committee now.
(Motion agreed to)
The meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much, and we look forward to seeing you soon.