Canada-China Relations Committee on June 13th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I want you to know that I always do this in a spirit of collaboration, as everyone knows.

The fantastic thing about committees is that even if its members have started a study, they can suspend it to start another one if there is a priority that they haven't seen coming because of holidays, for example. The committee is sovereign. It's very simple.

Let me take the example of Mr. Chong, who was telling us that an Indo-Pacific strategy will be proposed by the government. At that point, if we have already started a study, we may well decide to suspend it to comply with the new motion that will be put on the table, probably by Mr. Chong. That's how collaboration works too.

What I find a bit disturbing is that we will have a meeting next week, but we will only discuss the schedule in September. That doesn't work. What are we going to say to each other next week? Are we going to play cards?

I think we should be talking about potential motions that can already be tabled. Everyone can do their job. We will work collaboratively in subcommittee.

I reiterate that if something ever happens in the news that we need to address quickly, then we will suspend the current motion and start on the new motion. The committee is sovereign. It is very easy to do that.

I propose to table my motions today, which are the two motions I have told you about. I can wait to table the third one. Then we will do what we want with it, we will discuss it next week. We will work as any good member of Parliament should work in a committee meeting.

So I move to table two motions, Mr. Chairman. You should know that I am replacing Mr. Stéphane Bergeron, from whom I have received extremely specific instructions. So my friend Mr. Bergeron will be very pleased that I am tabling these motions on his behalf in the special committee.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

We cannot have two motions moved. I would ask that you ask the member to choose one.

I would note that there has been no discussion between Mr. Bergeron and any member of this committee that I know of about these motions. There's an assumption that there will be unanimity, which is not the case. If it is in the spirit of collaboration, I would suggest that it is best....

Frankly, I'm very disturbed when someone assumes that we are not doing our jobs as members of Parliament and only one person is. I don't think the way to start this committee is to assume that one is a member of Parliament and doing their job, and we're not. Some of us have not had time to prepare motions.

The point of order is that there should be one motion presented by a member at a time. That's the way the rules of order in this House of Commons and all of the standing committees work.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

If I could offer something, we have an opportunity through the presentation of motions to develop a landscape of the things that we see as important and worthy of our consideration. The scheduling and stages of when we talk about them can certainly be up to the subcommittee. Between now and the date that we've picked, August 15, the field is open for people to submit as many motions as they see fit.

What I detect—and I can stand to be corrected—is that there's a sentiment that if we accept a motion now, we've nailed it down to the schedule and it's going to be first. Based on what we've seen with the changing situation in the relationship with China, I think that's probably not prudent at this point. It's unnecessary, given that we're not going to have any substantive work on it anyway for some period of time.

In other committees, we've adopted a fairly open approach to bringing forward all motions. Bring them in. Put them into the hopper. Let's see what the interests of the committee in total are and leave it to the subcommittee—or the whole committee, as we see fit—to determine the sequencing of these motions.

It's also been a practice at the committees I've been on that we spread it around. We'll take a motion from the Bloc and then a motion from the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP, so that each of us in turn has an opportunity to marshal the committee's energies behind a certain subject or study.

As chair, I'll make a suggestion that we invite motions, put them on the table and put them into that landscape that we're creating in order to find out what the interests of the committee might be.

Are there any thoughts on that?

Go ahead, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

That's fine with me. You have summed up my thinking very well.

I would still like to come back to Mr. Oliphant's point of order. I did not assume that he was not doing his job when I pointed out that there would be no meeting next week when the resources of the House would be available. I thought that reflected an unwillingness to work, but it was certainly not directed at Mr. Oliphant. I know that he is a hard-working man with a good reputation. It would be a great pity if we got off on the wrong foot.

That said, you should know that if two hours are available for a session to be held, but we do not use them, that is, in my opinion, a failure to do our job. I am not saying that no one works hard here. However, if we have two hours but we do not use them, I am not sure that our citizens are very happy. That's all I have to say about that.

On the other hand, I appreciated your comment, Mr. Chair. I do think it would be a good idea to give everyone time to draft their motions. As you can see, I am able to work collaboratively. They should at least be tabled and sent out by the time we meet next week.

Is this suitable to you?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

One thing we should probably try to confirm is whether we do indeed have meeting time available to us next week with the resources of the House.

Madam Clerk?

[The Clerk]

I think we do.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I would like to get a clarification, Mr. Chair. Is this a subcommittee meeting or a committee meeting?

Is the proposal to meet as a subcommittee next week or to meet as a committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

I would suggest that we meet as a committee, so each and every one of us who has an interest they'd like to see fleshed out in a study has that opportunity to present a motion.

Are there any other thoughts on that?

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

Frankly, we have, I think, eight notices of motion ready to go, which I have not done because I wanted to discuss them with colleagues. We have six motions for possible studies. We can present them all, but I would like us to look at them all and try to have a discussion about what is best. I think you need to think about how you start a study, how you scope it out and what it could be in terms of a project, as opposed to rushing to do a study. The results will be as good as the effort that's put into it.

We can put these all in and we'll have notices of motion and they can be discussed next week. They can all be moved next week as well, but I'm not sure that's the best way to work. We could end up having one motion presented, as we are doing in the foreign affairs committee, and it could go on. It has now gone on for four weeks on one motion. I don't want that to happen here.

I'd like us to actually have a round table, almost a committee-of-the-whole discussion about what we want to do and how we're going to do it. I think it would be healthier and that would be a good way to do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Back on the Prairies, we used to enjoy potluck dinners where everybody brought their specialty and we all enjoyed a piece of it.

I would suggest that if next week's meeting was our opportunity to bring our pot of motions along, we could lay them all on the table and ask questions of each other about what is meant and where we think we're going with a proposed study, etc. Mr. Oliphant, that could be the collaborative approach that then informs how we sequence the studies that need to be done.

Remember, though, that this relationship with China is complicated and variable. It changes very quickly, as we've seen so many times. What we may discuss next week might be quite substantially out the window by the time fall comes. We always have to allow for that dynamic.

Yes, Mr. Fragiskatos, save me here.

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

You don't need saving; you never have.

The way I see things going is as follows. Say that we met next week as a committee, would we decide which particular studies we would take up three months after the fact? That's my worry. As you just said, it is a very fluid relationship that Canada has with China, to put it mildly. I'm not sure how good that would be for this committee to take up. I don't see the utility of that.

If we get together and exchange ideas, I suppose that's all well and good as far as getting to know each other better is concerned, and hearing out what the various MPs on the committee would want to pursue as far as future studies go, but I don't know if that would be the best use of our time.

Again, we would meet next week. Parliament is adjourning shortly, as we know. Then we will meet three months later to take up a study that might be out of date entirely. There might be much more pressing situations to take up at that time.

That's my concern.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have an idea to try to get things moving along here. I have heard from Mr. Oliphant as well as Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe

Both Mr. Oliphant and Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe have expressed a desire to study the Taiwan case. This is clearly the case, given that Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe has submitted a notice of motion regarding Taiwan and Mr. Oliphant has indicated a desire to study the issue.

Perhaps next week we could agree to study Taiwan when we come back in September, with the proviso that if other urgent matters come up, the study would be suspended to deal with them at that time. We could always continue the Taiwan study after whatever urgent matter has been disposed of.

Perhaps we could come to next week's meeting with an idea of how many meetings we would have on Taiwan. I know the notice of motion that Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe has presented is suggesting six meetings. If we could arrive at a consensus on the number of meetings we would have, then at least the clerks and analysts over the summer could prepare at least two or three meetings for when we come back so we could hit the ground running.

I would be supportive of doing that if there were a consensus on the committee. I'm trying to help things along here so that we can get a consensus.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Is there an appetite then to have Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe make the motion and for us to handle that?

I see no objections, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

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

I do have some concerns about it, because it is referring to a previous Parliament.

Is it in the motion? I read the motion.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, the second motion that concerns Taiwan does not refer to the previous Parliament.

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

The motion that was given is one motion. It's not three motions. It's a notice of motion.

It's one motion. It has three parts. It continues and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Mr. Oliphant, do you have something further to add?

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

Well, I have no trouble with.... I mean that our second motion that we would be presenting is about Taiwan. The first one is about a kickoff with officials to give us the lay of the land. We would bring in the acting ambassador, the chargé d’affaires and the China desk. We would bring in the key officials to give us an in camera briefing on what we need to know about everything to get us going.

That would be our first idea of what we'd do. Second, we believe our first substantial study should probably be on Taiwan, with the caveat that if the Indo-Pacific strategy wants to take precedence over that because it emerges, then I'll be interested, just as you will be. That would be good.

We have no trouble with the concept of this. We're just trying to find a way to do it that is fair to the analysts, to make sure they have time to prepare and to scope out a study. What are we talking about on Taiwan? Are we talking about multilateral engagement, such as at the WHO and other places? Are we talking about peace and security issues, and the buzzing around? Are we talking about threats to their security? Are we talking about American engagement?

There's a lot we could talk about concerning Taiwan. I'd just like it scoped out, because studying Taiwan is big. Are we talking about trade and investment? It's our biggest trading partner in that part of the world. There's a lot we could do about Taiwan. I just think we need to scope out a study.

I would agree tonight, if we could say it by consensus, to our first significant study being Taiwan and to asking the analysts to help us come up with a study on Taiwan. I would do that. That would be no dilemma whatsoever, and it would be using previous resources. I think we are agreed to do Taiwan. I just want to make sure we have flexibility.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Mr. Oliphant, is there difficulty with the fact that there appear to be three motions collapsed into one notice of motion? Is that a technical sticking point for you?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

May I clarify one thing, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Yes. Go ahead, sir.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

I don't know why this ended up in one notice of motion. It's really three separate motions. I thought it was clear, but maybe there was a misunderstanding somewhere.

Personally, I would have postponed the motion on Taiwan. However, I think Mr. Oliphant's idea is a good one. He was suggesting that we ask the analysts to come up with wording for the motions that deal with the study on Taiwan. That would be fine with me if we discussed it next week.

As I was saying earlier, if something happens over the summer, which it probably will, we would drop the current motion and just move on to a new study.

In response to my Liberal colleague, every committee plans long-term studies. Even the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development provides for three- or four-month studies on situations that may change. At some point, study projects must be proposed. In any case, we have no control over the time or the terrain in countries where there are conflicts. It is the same thing in the subcommittee I just mentioned and, perhaps, in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and in several committees. Of course, when a study is planned and the committee's schedule means that it will not take place for four months, there is a risk of changes. You can't fight against that. It's the same thing at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

I think a consensus is developing in this regard. After hearing Mr. Chong's idea, Mr. Oliphant's comments, and the chair's wise advice, I think we could ask the analysts to come up with a draft study on Taiwan that would be agreeable to everyone, so that we could discuss it at next week's meeting. We could table that motion, somehow, next week, to make sure it's on the table when we come back in September.

I don't know if that's acceptable to everyone, but I think that's pretty much the consensus around the table right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Yes, Ms. Dancho.