Evidence of meeting #12 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 ambassador.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I would ask Mr. Genuis to explain the rationale here, why this committee is the committee to hear this out.
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
This is the Canada-China committee. It's an issue of Canada-China relations, and it fits squarely within our national security study, which we've already agreed to. I think we're developing expertise on issues of Canada-China relations, especially in our upcoming study as it relates to security. Clearly there are a few committees that I suppose could touch on the subject matter in general terms, but this fits very well with what we're studying.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Regardless of the substance, Mr. Chair, you will not be surprised to hear me say—and I think Mr. Genuis will not be surprised either, because it has been mentioned several times—that I do not appreciate this way of always presenting us with surprise motions at the last minute, which hold the work of our committee hostage. It happens at this committee. It also happens at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. It does not allow us to have any continuity of action. I still hope that, because of this message, Mr. Genuis will stop using this approach of always leaving us with a fait accompli, having to deal with a motion that we did not see coming, that comes out of left field, or in this case, perhaps more out of right field, and that derails the work.
I would suggest to Mr. Genuis that, based on his own argument, we begin our work on security. I am simply suggesting that this point be raised and that we continue our work as planned, that is, once we have completed our study of our interim report on Hong Kong, we begin our study on security, an issue that is not without interest or importance.
I just want to point out to my colleagues that, if we continually submit to the practice of being presented with surprise motions as a fait accompli, there will be no end to it. Let's continue our work, period.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, is that a motion Mr. Bergeron to table the motion?
Liberal
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Marie-France Lafleur
I did not hear any specific motion. Maybe Mr. Bergeron would like to specify.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
No, I was simply expressing my point of view. If Mr. Genuis wants to withdraw his motion, fine, otherwise I have indicated how I will vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you very much.
I have Mr. Fragiskatos and Mr. Oliphant, but try to be brief.
Mr. Fragiskatos.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I think Mr. Bergeron makes a very good point. I'll leave it there.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I think Mr. Bergeron has made a very good point that this should be incorporated into our national security study. It should be looked at in the full range of what we are doing in terms of national security, so I would now move to adjourn debate.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
The clerk can advise on that, but it's a non-debatable motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Somehow when you said “adjourn”, I thought you said “meeting”.
Madam Clerk, would you take the vote please?
Conservative
Conservative
