Evidence of meeting #32 for Canada-China Relations in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was trade.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Mr. Bergeron, you joined a lot of us in Taiwan and there certainly was a significant benefit from that.
Would the Bloc be in agreement with travel for this committee?
9:15 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Absolutely, Mr. Chair. I believe that the government should be able to use parliamentary diplomacy to exercise its influence abroad. I believe we have much to learn reaching out beyond our borders. This committee and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development believe it's very appropriate for parliamentarians to be able to take part in missions.
I'd like to address two things in connection with what I said earlier. On the one hand, are there any developments with our U.S. counterparts regarding a possible visit to Ottawa? Also, does the committee still intend to throw the ball back in the department's court about the Taiwan report?
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
On the first one, we have not had further engagement with our colleagues in Washington. Perhaps the lack of connectivity between the American Indo-Pacific plan and the Canadian Indo-Pacific plan suggests that in the course of this study, we invite the chair of that committee as a witness so we can talk about the American plan and opportunities to integrate. That certainly came up in the discussions we had in Washington, so I think that would be worthwhile.
I will detect from around the room, though, whether there would be interest in sending an invitation to the special committee in the States to come up here and have a more formal session than the rather casual meeting we had in Washington. I don't know. I'll look around the room to see if there's general agreement on that one.
Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
There's general agreement, but I want to stick to travel at this point, just because I'd like to get out of the meeting. Generally, we've already discussed that and I think we all thought it was a good idea.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
This would be to bring back officials to see where we're at with our recommendations. Is that what you had in mind?
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Without speaking on behalf of my whip—because I've done that before as caucus chair and it worked out well for me—first of all, the distances we're talking about for travel to Asia are quite far, so travel would have to be done during non-sitting weeks at a minimum. I think it really should be done only in July and August. That way we are not at risk of missing any sitting days of the House. That's the first part.
Also, these are long distances we're talking about, so cost, accommodations, flights and everything else are serious considerations for any type of travel this committee considers going forward.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
One would think, too, that because of the amount of territory involved in the Indo-Pacific region, we might wish to prioritize some key places to visit, but that's just my thought and comment.
9:15 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
I have another suggestion based on an experience I had when I was a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.
During a trip we made as part of a study on the links between Canada and the Arab-Muslim world, we split the committee in two so we could cover more ground. Half the committee went to North Africa and the Middle East, while the other half visited the Middle East and the Far East, and that helped the committee maximize its efficiency.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
I'm wondering, then, with deadlines coming up to make the pitch for committee travel, if all of us could check with our whips to get a sense of the comfort in that. Is that an agreeable thing to ask at this point?
9:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Very good.
We have the calendar. We have, I think, general agreement that we'll have seven meetings. We've heard that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will be with us between 8:30 and 9:30 on the 26th of the month. We can't, of course, pass over the fact that we're going to be missing quite a few Mondays because of the constituency weeks that have stacked themselves up in the spring session.
Is there anything else we need to cover?
Mr. Bergeron, go ahead.
9:20 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
I want to come back to the issue of Taiwan.
It seems to me that, at one of our first meetings last fall, we discussed the fact that we were taken aback, to put it mildly, by the lack of detailed responses—let's put it that way as well—from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade about a number of very relevant and useful recommendations we had made with respect to Taiwan.
I'm thinking, for example, of a response that said only that the department took note of our recommendations. Beyond the department simply taking note, has the situation led the process to evolve?
I believe that all committee members had expressed some interest in coming back to the Taiwan report. The question is what might the report look like and how would we get the ball rolling on it at some point.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
I could offer the experience we've had in other committees that a motion comes forward to bring back officials to review the reaction and actions following a report.
Mr. Oliphant, do you have something to offer?
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I just think technically the report is done. The government has made a response and Parliament has the opportunity to do this through a concurrence debate. Our House leader wouldn't want us to say that, but the opposition frequently raises concurrence motions. They do it regularly. It stops government business on a very regular basis. Sometimes they are absolutely absurd and we all know it, but if someone isn't happy with a government response we can certainly have a concurrence debate.
I don't know the timing on that and whether it's passed or not, but it's built into our Standing Orders to do a concurrence debate on a report if people are interested in the response from the government.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
I don't know if it was in a motion, Madam Clerk, or not, but I note there was an agreement that we would have a meeting on Taiwan after we concluded this study and would reinvite Harry Tseng, the trade commissioner, to come and talk to us. Of course, they've had an election since then and a few other things that we could catch up on.
We talked about it. We haven't had a motion. I don't know if we need one, but we certainly have our hands full on this study.
As we get to the conclusion of this study, we can revisit the desirability of having a follow-up session on Taiwan. Does that sound like a plan?
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I agree as well. I just don't think it needs to be on the report. I think an update on Taiwan is always good.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
All right. Is there anything else before we wrap up?
The energy level in the room, despite the hour, has been great. It's been a great session.
I want to thank our clerk, our analysts, our interpreters and both the parliamentary and office staff.
With that, we will adjourn.