Evidence of meeting #26 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 amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
9 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.
I have Ms. Yip, Monsieur Bergeron, Ms. Zann and Mr. Harris.
Go ahead, Ms. Yip.
May 10th, 2021 / 9 p.m.
Liberal
Jean Yip Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
I agree with Mr. Oliphant. We need relevance. Let's just keep it simple. Let's just go back to what we were discussing.
I think most of us are on board. We've already used up—I don't want to say “wasted”—enough time. We have witnesses who are here to answer questions, so let's move on this.
9 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Mr. Chair, I honestly feel as though I've missed an episode. Everything was going great, we were about to adopt a motion on which there was a consensus, and now, here we are, caught up in an altogether different debate with somewhat heated rhetoric. I thought we were at a different point. We all understood the situation. We all agreed that we wanted to obtain the documents, to get to the bottom of the matter and to understand what happened.
It now seems as though some of my fellow members are worried that the motion is being adopted too quickly and that they won't be able to carry on their vengeful diatribe or whatever this is. It is bizarre, to say the least. As my mother, who's from the Lower St. Lawrence, would say, “things are getting worse, not better.”
We should be voting on a motion on which we all agree. How did we get to this bizarre place when everybody was in agreement? New tensions have emerged, not only between committee members and some of the witnesses, but also among committee members, themselves. I don't understand how we got here. I'm shocked and disappointed, Mr. Chair.
We should vote right away. We are indeed wasting time, and I fear the meeting will end before we have a chance to adopt the motion.
In the spirit of co-operation that has defined the dynamic among committee members since the meeting began, can we not just come back to the motion we were getting ready to vote on—a motion we all agreed on, a motion we could adopt unanimously, Mr. Chair?
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lenore Zann Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.
I would have to say that we are all in violent agreement, and we were reaching the goalposts together before this side outburst happened. We don't need it. I think the histrionics are unnecessary at this point. We are all here and working collegially together. Let's just get back to the point at hand.
Thank you so much.
9:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you.
To the point at hand, I think what we have now put together is, first of all, that we ask that the Public Health Agency of Canada provide the documents to the parliamentary law clerk, which we've already asked for, who will review and ascertain the fairness of the report for the committee using the existing procedure. If they don't do that, we ask for an order of the House to do exactly the same thing, with one exception. At the end of doing what our motion says, as discussed with the committee, we somehow add “and these documents be laid on the table by the Speaker at the next earliest opportunity”.
I think that's superfluous at this point and that everything after the word “public” in amended paragraph (b) is superfluous, because the House then orders something consistent with our motion, which is that the documents be given to the clerk. The clerk then discusses them with the committee, and we decide. Then we carry on. We don't send them back to the House and then they come back to the committee. That's an unnecessary step.
I thought I had eliminated that when I moved my amendment, but apparently that didn't happen. We still have paragraph (c) in the original amendment by Mr. Genuis. This is part of the problem, I guess, of dealing with documents on the fly. I want to propose an amendment: that we delete all the words after “before a committee in public” as they appear in paragraph (b) of the now amended motion, and that it end with the word “public”.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you, Mr. Harris.
We currently have on the table Mr. Genuis's motion to amend the main motion.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
9:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I think that solves the logical issue referred to by Mr. Oliphant.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I share Mr. Chong's concerns and passions for the importance of Parliament.
I want to make some brief comments on the amendment I proposed.
In the event that the documents are provided by PHAC, it clarifies that the procedure by which those documents would be reviewed would be the same procedure that was envisioned in the motion of March 31. That's why I think my amendment is important.
My suggestion is to vote on my amendment and Mr. Harris's amendment, and then to vote on the main motion.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
That's, in fact, what I have in mind.
Is there any further debate on Mr. Genuis's amendment?
Is anyone opposed to Mr. Genuis's amendment?
Yes, someone is opposed to it. Therefore, I'll call on the clerk to take the vote on Mr. Genuis's proposed amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Harris, do you wish to move your amendment?
9:10 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Yes, I do.
It would remove all the words after the word “public” in paragraph (b).
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Would it be “before our committee in public”? It's after those words, right?
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you very much.
Does anyone wish to debate the proposed amendment?
Does anyone oppose the proposed amendment?
Mr. Genuis does, so I'll ask the clerk to take the vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings] )
We are now back on the main motion as amended.
I see no one else wishing to debate it, so I'll ask the clerk to take the vote on the main motion.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Genuis, go ahead.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to propose that the draft report that the clerk had referred to with respect to the privilege issue be distributed to members of the committee.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Is that the will of the committee? Is anyone opposed to that proposal?
Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, could I just ask for the rationale there?
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Sure.
The distribution of the work that the clerk has done would be a draft report, so it would be covered by the in camera requirements anyway. It is work that has been done that makes us aware of an option, if we wish to make use of it at some future point. I think it's reasonable for the members of the committee to have that in front of them so that we can consider it at a future point if we wish to.
The distribution of it to committee members is just a matter of information for our use. It doesn't in any way predetermine a next step.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Is anyone on the committee opposed to that distribution?
Seeing none, I will take it as agreed. I will ask the clerk to do so. Thank you very much.
Colleagues, it's 9:15 Eastern Time.
Mr. Genuis, is your hand up again?