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

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Although I'm new to the committee, I did understand one thing in reading the motion to establish the special committee. Paragraph (i) stipulates that “the committee be granted all of the powers of a standing committee, as provided in the Standing Orders, as well as the power to travel”.

Basically, what that tells me is that this is a special committee, but one with the same powers as a standing committee. The committee is therefore empowered to do the same things as the Standing Committee on National Defence or the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, for example.

Madam Clerk, I know you don't participate in debate, but could you get back to us with confirmation on that?

The second point I want to make is that I would expect a committee like the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations not to behave like some bloated body that moves along at a glacial pace. It is imperative that the committee respond to situations. The antagonistic relationship between Canada and China is the very reason the committee was created. Our job is to step in. If an issue requiring the committee's involvement arises, we mustn't let anything bog us down, because that is our chief duty.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus.

I have a question for the clerk.

In light of the conversation, I'd like to know whether the committee is empowered to give itself this ability.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, I can comment.

Yes, the committee can adopt whatever it likes as a routine motion. A routine motion is one that is in effect for the duration of the session. As for whether Standing Order 106(4) applies or not, that portion of the motion can simply be removed, and the committee can decide how it wishes to meet.

Committees are always said to be masters of their own destiny, but they must stay within their mandates. In the special committee's case, the mandate is set out in the motion of September 23, which refers to the December 10 motion.

Of course, debate can be adjourned on any motion, as Mr. Oliphant moved. It wasn't clear whether there was a condition or not, so whether the motion was dilatory or debatable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you.

I don't see anyone else wishing to debate.

We will go to Mr. Oliphant, and then Mr. Genuis.

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

I would like to add that my issue is not about our deciding how we work, when we work and all of that. It's about invoking a section of the Standing Orders, a standing order that I don't think applies.

Absolutely, we could do this—I'm not against it—but I get a little confused. Mr. Genuis said we could have a situation where a majority of the committee wants to meet and the chair won't let it meet. That's quite different from Standing Order 106(4), which is not a majority of the committee.

I think we should take our time on these things. We should do it well. If this committee wants to set a rule requiring meetings to happen should two, three, four, five, six or seven members of the committee want to meet, that's fine. However, it's invoking that we should apply a section, a standing order; that's my issue. I know I get a bit fundamentalist about this, but the Standing Orders are there to protect us, to help us do our work. If they're in the way of a special committee doing its work, I'm happy to find a way around the fact that this doesn't apply in order to do our work well. That's my point. I know it sounds arcane, but I want to make sure....

If the whole part about Standing Order 106(4) were withdrawn and it was “here is an idea that we do”, I would be fine with it. I just don't think we have the power to demand that a standing order be applied to our work if it doesn't apply.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I think that's the first time I have heard a United Church minister describe himself as a “fundamentalist”.

Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was attempting to make a joke along similar lines.

I think we have a real ecumenical moment of agreement here insofar as I want to clarify that the motion I proposed referred to 106(4) as explaining why the motion says what it says. The motion I put forward does not mention 106(4) at all. It simply creates a procedure. That procedure happens to mimic Standing Order 106(4), but it does not invoke Standing Order 106(4).

The motion I put forward again was that the chair be instructed to convene a meeting of the committee within five days of the receipt by the clerk of the committee by email of a request signed by any four members of the committee provided that a) the reasons for convening such a meeting shall be stated in the request, and b) there shall be 48 hours' notice of the meeting.

Again, that mimics the language of 106(4) but does not reference Standing Order 106(4), so I think the procedural point Mr. Oliphant raised is addressed there.

I will note that the motion put forward that we're operating under says “that the committee be granted all of the powers of a standing committee”. That's where the ambiguity came from, the application of that section, “all of the powers of a standing committee", but it certainly has the power to put in place a procedure in terms of scheduling.

Again, we can discuss the particulars of that procedure. However, absent that procedure, we could have a theoretical situation where not only the majority but all of the committee members except the chair could want the committee to meet and could still not compel the committee to meet.

We did have a situation earlier this year when there was a desire on the part of all of the opposition members on the committee to meet in some form, but given the chair's ruling at the time that, without this clarification that 106(4) didn't apply, there wasn't a procedure by which that meeting could be summoned to take place.

In general, in terms of the operation of this first meeting, I think the point about people wanting to be informed of motions ahead of time.... This is our first meeting together. I think we want to use the time to have discussions about issues. If we don't, then we're going to end up scheduling another committee business meeting.

I hope there's a will to discuss, in general terms, at least where we're going in terms of agenda afterwards. I will leave that for the time being, but we're here, we have two hours scheduled, so let's use the time as much as we can. I think creating a procedure by which we can have other meetings take place at the will of members is an important part of that, and having the clarity of that in the first meeting is worthwhile.

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

I'll ask Mr. Bergeron, because he put forward a friendly amendment.... I know what I said earlier, but we also have a lot of important work to do on this committee, and if we can deal with this today, then maybe so be it.

Can I ask Mr. Bergeron to read his friendly amendment again? I think there could be a meeting of the minds. I think what Mr. Genuis is talking about and what Mr. Bergeron is talking about could be amenable to me and perhaps to my Liberal colleagues.

If Mr. Bergeron wants to go ahead, I'm all ears.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Okay, but we're on Mr. Oliphant's motion.

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

At your discretion, of course....

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I think it is in order for Mr. Bergeron, if he agrees, to read out the motion he wanted to propose once we've dealt with Mr. Oliphant's motion.

Mr. Bergeron, please go ahead.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, if it's okay with Mr. Oliphant, I'm going to come back to my motion.

The problem last time may have been that the request was addressed to the chair and came solely from four Conservative members. That may have given the impression that it was a so-called partisan manoeuvre. Since we've agreed to work in the spirit of co-operation, I'd like to propose an amendment to Mr. Genuis's motion, to stipulate that the four members be from at least two political parties represented on the committee. That way, the request would not be seen as merely a tactic on the part of one political party.

Can we agree that it should be two political parties? Does anyone want it to be more? What I'm proposing is that the four members be from at least two political parties represented on the committee. In a nutshell, that would be my amendment should we have the opportunity to proceed with Mr. Genuis's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you.

Mr. Genuis, it's over to you.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I'm going to try to do something radical here and seek unanimous consent that we deem Mr. Oliphant's motion withdrawn, that we amend the motion by adding, “from at least two different parties” after it says “four members of the committee”, and that we deem the motion adopted.

If there is unanimous consent, we could do all of those things at once: withdraw Mr. Oliphant's motion, add in the amendment and then adopt the motion. That's what I would seek unanimous consent for. If there isn't, we can do it more slowly and mechanically, but I wonder if there's agreement to do that.

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

I would be happy to give unanimous consent to withdraw my motion to adjourn debate and seek advice. That part is fine. I just don't want to deem a motion adopted that's as complex as that.

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

Fair enough.

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

The reason I say that is that Standing Order 106(4), with the number four, is based on a committee of 10 members that does indeed demand what Mr. Bergeron was asking for, because within those 10 members, there are usually three Conservatives, one New Democrat and one Bloc Québécois.

My problem with even the number four is that it doesn't account for the fact that we have 12 members on the committee, as requested by the Conservative Party. I am fine—and other members will have their own opinions on unanimous consent to withdraw my motion—but I'd like to have a little bit of debate about the appropriate way of getting Mr. Bergeron's request, because it is different with 12 members than with 10 members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Does that mean you're withdrawing your motion, Mr. Oliphant?

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

I can. Once a motion has been made, it kind of belongs out there. That's for you to decide, but if you are happy with my withdrawing the motion, I would do that at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Are there any objections to Mr. Oliphant withdrawing his motion?

I see none.

(Motion withdrawn)

Mr. Bergeron, if you'd like to propose an amendment to the motion, now would be the time to do so.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

After listening to the part of Mr. Genuis's motion about the four members, I think Mr. Oliphant brought up an important point. In other words, if the special committee wishes to apply Standing Order 106, given that it has slightly more members than regular committees do, perhaps we should adjust the number of committee members or signatures required to have a committee meeting convened.

I'm going to stick to the amendment I proposed, which is to add, after “four members”, “from at least two political parties represented on the committee”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you.

Are there any objections?

Mr. Genuis, go ahead.

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

I have no objections. I'm happy to proceed on that basis. In terms of Mr. Oliphant's earlier point, Standing Order 106(4) just says “four members”. It's obviously based on a model, but the way it works at a standing committee is that any four members, including four Liberals or four Conservatives, could summon a meeting on their own.

This is a much more consultative requirement, in terms of engaging all political parties, than exists at other standing committees, but we're comfortable with it. I suspect if you were to change it from four members to five members, it would be a distinction without a difference, because to get four members of the multiple parties, you'd need, for example, three Conservatives and one Bloc. It would be just as easy to get four and one, or something like that.

I don't know if it's a major point either way, but Mr. Bergeron's amendment works and it's something we're willing to accept.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

Thank you.

I wanted to hear Mr. Bergeron's amendment, because I think it lays down a possible good foundation.

However, I would put the following to him and to my colleagues here. What about staying with the four members view, but one member from each of the recognized four parties, so there would be a Liberal, Conservative, Bloc and NDP? It wouldn't have to be unanimous. The four members would not all have to agree. However, you'd have to have a majority to go ahead with a meeting request.

Is that something colleagues would consider? I think it's a fairer approach, with all due respect. You would have all recognized parties taking part in the discussion and it does not require unanimity.