Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 13th, 2020

[The Clerk]

I'm ready. The text of the motion is as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study on challenges facing populations living in fragile contexts, including an examination of issues such as education of refugee and displaced children; gender equality in fragile contexts; children on the move; children in conflict; child protection; children and peacebuilding; and other related issues including the effects of COVID-19, resource scarcity, health and nutrition; examining such cases and conflicts as Syria; Yemen; Myanmar; Venezuela; Ethiopia; and Afghanistan; that the concept note prepared by the Library of Parliament in the first session of the 43rd Parliament serve as the scope for this study; and that the Committee report its findings back to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

We have four colleagues who would like to speak to the motion. We'll hear from Mr. Bergeron first, and then Mr. Chong.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, first I would like to make a general comment.

We had indeed agreed to carry out this study in addition to a study, which was to be shorter, on updating a study from the last Parliament about democracy, but the pandemic happened.

During the pandemic, Mr. Levitt, the committee chair at the time, communicated fairly regularly with the vice-chairs on an informal basis. I believe everyone agreed that the topics we had identified for this committee's work were probably less relevant in the context of a pandemic and given the warnings from the World Health Organization, the WHO, about potential future pandemics.

Consequently, believing that we would have the opportunity to reconvene and reassess everything, we had informally agreed that we would consider how coordination by the international community could help us contain this pandemic and prevent those that the WHO had already warned us about.

In anticipation of that, I had prepared a motion for proposal. I do not know if you want me to present it now, Mr. Chair. A few minutes ago, I sent it to all members of this committee, including the clerk, in both official languages. If I may, Mr. Chair, I will read it and you can tell me what we will ultimately do with it.

In light of the informal discussions we had about the fact that the studies we had decided to conduct before the pandemic might be a little outdated, I propose:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the mobilization and coordination of the international community—including action taken internationally by the Canadian government—to contain this pandemic and to prevent ones that the WHO has already warned humanity about.

Of course, since I quite agreed with the earlier decision to conduct a study on vulnerable populations, you will understand that I have no objection in principle to us undertaking our work on this topic. However, I'm concerned that, if we were to choose such a topic, some may say that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is not entirely in tune with the current concerns of the international community, which revolve more around the current pandemic and preventing future pandemics, in light of what we have experienced and are still experiencing in this pandemic.

So, to remain relevant to the news and concerns of the day, Mr. Chair, I wonder if it might not be more appropriate to follow up on the informal discussions that had taken place between the chair and vice-chairs during the lockdown, and instead focus on how to mobilize the international community to contain the current pandemic and put in place measures to prevent future pandemics. That's why I have submitted this motion to you.

I therefore leave it in your hands, Mr. Chair, and reiterate that I agree, in principle, with the motion our colleague put forward, because I did agree the last time. Perhaps a few minor adjustments could be made in the French. For example, I would replace the word “fragile” with the word “vulnérable”, and I would include the word “notamment” in the list of countries. I believe that is what was agreed to.

However, in light of what has happened and the informal discussions we have had, I wonder if it is still as relevant for us to begin our work with this study, given what the whole of humanity has faced for a number of months now and is still facing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron, for your very important comment.

I think all of us are turning our minds to the relevance of COVID-19 and how we can adjust and adapt our studies accordingly, recognizing there well may be overlaps and a lot of fluidity in terms of the subjects we're thinking about and those you are bringing forward, so your point is very well taken.

I see that Ms. Sahota has put herself back in the queue. I think she wants to respond to your comments—I'm assuming in a very constructive way—but before we go to her, we have Mr. Chong, Mr. Genuis and Mr. Harris.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are a number of competing ideas coming from members of this committee about what we should study. We have the motion on the floor from Ms. Sahota. We just got a notice from Monsieur Bergeron about what he would like to study. I'm going to suggest a path forward for the committee and hopefully we can get a consensus on that.

I think what we should do is defer all these potential studies to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, so that the group of five of us—including you, Mr. Chair—can hash out what this committee is going to study in the coming months, as opposed to dealing with it right now.

The other thing I'd like to put on the table, before this meeting adjourns today and after we have disposed of this motion from Ms. Sahota, is that I would like us to call the two ministers responsible for the estimates in front of our committee. As you know, Parliament has not sat regularly since mid-March, and I believe it a fundamental responsibility of parliamentary committees to review the estimates. We have estimates that are in front of this committee. I understand that the period of supply finishes on November 27, when they will be deemed automatically reported back to the House, so I think we should call separately both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Development to explain the estimates they have requested of Parliament.

I know we're not going to deal with that right now, because we're on Ms. Sahota's motion, but before we adjourn today, I'd like to at least see if there is a consensus within the committee to proceed and give the clerk something to work on when the committee adjourns today.

To that end, I'd like to move an amendment to this motion in order to give some clarity about what I'm proposing. This amendment would be in front of the motion that Ms. Sahota has just presented. The amendment I would like to move is the following:

That the committee have a discussion of the study below and any other future committee business, deferring any decision to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, that motions for consideration of future business by the subcommittee be submitted to the clerk no later than end of business day Thursday October 15, that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure meet this Friday, October 16, to discuss future committee business and that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure report back to the committee next week.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Go ahead, , Mr. Oliphant.

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

I will begin by saying that I'm completely in agreement with the intent of Mr. Chong's amendment to Ms. Sahota's motion. However, I don't believe it's an amendment; I think it is a completely different kettle of fish, which I would like you to rule on in a moment.

That being said, I think we could work our way out of this quite easily by withdrawing for the moment both Mr. Bergeron's and Madam Sahota's suggestions for work and considering this as a motion that Mr. Chong is bringing forward. I think it's quite good. It may actually be two motions, in my humble opinion. It may be a motion to invite each of our two ministers to appear before us for estimates, which I believe the government side would be completely in favour of, just to put that out there. Then everyone could present their motions on potential studies, have them go to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure and then have that committee report back.

I'm always a little nervous about telling the chair when to set a meeting. We could advise the chair that a meeting on Friday would be useful, knowing it is at the call of the chair that those meetings happen.

The spirit of this, I think, would move our committee along. It would allow us to take Mr. Bergeron's important issue and Madam Sahota's important issue, and other important issues that anybody else could raise, and put them into a hopper, and then the subcommittee could come back with a good initial work plan for approval by this whole committee.

I'm not wanting to stop discussion, but I'm kind of wanting to stop discussion.

Mr. Chong is smiling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much.

I have Mr. Genuis, Mr. Harris and Ms. Sahota on the list.

However, to untangle what is not quite yet a cascade of motions procedurally, Madam Clerk, would it be best if Ms. Sahota were to withdraw her motion in favour of the suggestions of Mr. Oliphant and Mr. Chong, or can we get there in a more expeditious way to achieve what I think is emerging as a common view?

Before we answer that definitively, I want to hear from Mr. Genuis and Mr. Harris, and Ms. Sahota as well.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Currently the motion of Ms. Sahota is before the committee. If she wishes to withdraw it, then it would take the unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw that and move to the consideration of deferring things to the subcommittee or to Monsieur Bergeron's motion, or however you choose to proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Okay. I was hoping to get to the question of whether Mr. Chong's amendment is in fact an amendment, and if I have to rule on that, I certainly will.

Let me go to Mr. Genuis and Mr. Harris and then Ms. Sahota, and then hopefully we'll have a complete set of views on the table for what to do next.

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

I'll be brief, then, because I'm in agreement with the Chong-Oliphant plan.

I want to make a general comment, and I mean this as a suggestion from me to the subcommittee. I agree that the subcommittee should discuss these matters.

Recognizing that we're in a minority Parliament, the dissolution of which could come at any time as a result of decisions that are going to be made above our heads, I think we need to look for bite-sized chunks of work that we can accomplish. The motion that we're still officially debating looks at people in fragile contexts, and it gives examples from three continents. From my perspective, it's so broad that it's the kind of megastudy that we risk not completing before events overtake us.

I've learned from experienced members of Parliament that some committees have tried to study issues that were so broad in scope that they ended up coming back to them in Parliament after Parliament after Parliament. That's true in general, and particularly true in the case of minorities.

One suggestion that I want to put forward, again for the subcommittee's consideration, would be that we look at a specific issue of vulnerability. I want to suggest we should look at the issue of Canadian children who are stuck in Kurdish-controlled camps in northern Syria. That is a very specific case of vulnerability, and I think we can identify other specific cases of vulnerability.

If we look at specific issues rather than the general issue of people having challenges in places, we can come up with more targeted recommendations and more actionable results for the government.

I put that forward merely as a suggestion for discussion at the subcommittee. I'm supportive of moving forward with the plan that Mr. Chong and Mr. Oliphant have put forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Harris, go ahead, please.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Well, first of all, I got on the list to start with to suggest an amendment to Ms. Sahota's motion, because she was talking about a very general motion, as Mr. Genuis has pointed out, but what they left out of the list was one that I was moved to add to the list—which now includes Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, Venezuela, Ethiopia and Afghanistan. I would add Palestine to that. That is a country in which there are very vulnerable children. The state has no funds to operate with, and their vulnerability is increasing. I don't think they could be left out of any list dealing with displaced vulnerable refugee children as they exist in Palestine or as Palestinian refugees elsewhere.

I would want to include that as an amendment to the motion, but what I think Mr. Bergeron has given rise to, along with Mr. Chong and Mr. Oliphant—and it has been in my own thoughts as well—is something I've discussed with some members of the committee before.

Back on March 12, just before the House closed, this committee adopted a resolution coming out of a series of proposed studies—none of which have been done, obviously, and some of which may have changed focus as a result of what Mr. Bergeron has to say and the role that Canada might play in the current pandemic crisis. In particular, assisting countries that need help may be a priority.

Priorities is not going to be resolved by coming up with four or five or six different motions today. We do have a plethora of motions that were available. Some of those can be repeated easily, Mr. Chair, as I'm sure you know, between now and Thursday and be available for our committee on Friday, if it's the will of the committee to study them. That makes perfect sense.

Mr. Chong's motion suggested having both ministers come. I would say yes to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who's been before the committee on supplementary estimates, as well as to the Minister of International Development, who should be here on the estimates but perhaps also on her mandate letter, which would give some broader consideration for questioning by members of the committee. There should be two separate meetings. These could be done fairly early, without a lot of preparation by the analysts, and time would then be available for whatever study is given priority in order to arrange for witnesses and to get that process going.

I think that's a very good approach. The fact that Ms. Sahota's motion may be the first one considered doesn't mean that it's going to be the top priority of the committee. That's ultimately at the will of the committee.

What I think it would be wise to give to the subcommittee to consider is what we had on our plate already, as passed and adopted by the committee. That no longer exists, but the work was done, the thought was given to it and there were a lot of considerations given at that meeting by all members of the subcommittee and by the full committee when it adopted, on March 12, the motion that it did.

I don't think we should throw that work away, but obviously we should also modify it in accordance with the fact that for the last seven months we've been dealing with the extremely difficult coronavirus circumstances worldwide, and clearly that has to change our views. The other studies will be equally interesting for us to give priority to and perhaps modify, along with whatever other new ideas might come up between now and Thursday.

I'm of the view that we should either dispose of Ms. Sahota's motion or refer it to the committee, as amended or not, and deal with it that way. Procedurally at least, we could refer that to the committee if someone wants to move that and get it out that way, without Ms. Sahota having to withdraw it. She may want to withdraw it and submit it to the committee; that's up to her.

Those are my views, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Harris, thank you very much for that thorough commentary.

My unanswered question so far is whether Mr. Chong's amendment constitutes an amendment. I'm mindful of that.

I have the committee's collective view in front of me that there be a subcommittee meeting. I will certainly make myself available. If Friday works for the members of the subcommittee, then it will absolutely happen on Friday.

Also, I think there's a shared view that we will invite the two ministers separately for estimates.

I would like to go back to Ms. Sahota, who is still on the speakers list. Please go ahead.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

I will start by saying first of all that I appreciate all the interventions of my colleagues.

First, Mr. Bergeron, I agree that the word “vulnerability” could be replaced in terms of wherever we have “fragile”. That's not a problem. Also, for the countries that are listed, I believe you recommended “including, but not limited to” so that we're not limited to those countries.

I'm not sure if I agree with the extremely narrow focus that Mr. Genuis has provided, but I do agree with regard to Mr. Chong's amendments that I'm not sure if those are amendments. I think we would be moving to a motion that he could propose after we dispose of my motion.

I'm just trying to make up my mind as to whether I would withdraw this motion. I guess I need to hear from Mr. Bergeron if he's in agreement, because I don't know if his motion takes.... If I withdraw my motion, then there's no longer an amendment. Would we then be moving to Mr. Bergeron's motion, which he read into the record a little while ago, or would we not be moving to that? Otherwise, would he also be willing to withdraw it and send it to subcommittee? I need clarification on that before I can really make a decision.

I also wanted to say that it seems that through this process we will all be sending a lot of different notices of motion to the subcommittee. I also wanted to clarify that anything that gets decided at the subcommittee is not really a final decision: It would then come back to the whole committee to dispose of, vote on and make the final decision on. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Yes, Ms. Sahota. Thank you very much. That's right.

I think we're going in a constructive direction here. One thing I should say is that with respect to Friday, I may have been a bit hasty. I'm certainly available, but the meeting is contingent upon resources and the decision of the whips, so I don't want to hold it out that there will be a Friday meeting. If it can happen, I think it would be great to have it earlier rather than later, but it may have to be moved because of logistical constraints.

I would like to pass the word back to Monsieur Bergeron just to clarify if it was in fact a motion. I think he was getting into the text of a motion but may not have moved it as such. It's just so that we can, in the next 10 minutes or so—or less—tackle the question of what to do with Madam Sahota's motion.

Monsieur Bergeron, go ahead, please.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I had finished reading my motion and brought it to your attention. That said, if Ms. Sahota withdraws her motion so that it can be referred to the subcommittee, which will likely meet this week, I am prepared to do exactly the same.

In fact, if we want to have a constructive debate and try to arrive at a result in the seven or so minutes remaining for committee business, it would be more logical to refer everything to the subcommittee and come back with a proposal for the entire committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

All right. Thank you very much for sharing this opinion.

Madam Sahota, would you like to reply with any final thoughts on what to do next with your motion?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

At this time, I think all I'd like to say is that I recognize my motion is something that the analysts had helped to work on with the Library of Parliament previously, too, and it seems all members were interested in it at that point. I did try to incorporate the context of COVID-19 within it.

I do still strongly feel that it is a current issue, just as it was seven months ago. I understand that we're currently in a pandemic, but I do think that these vulnerable populations should be looked at by this committee within the context of COVID-19, because I think this pandemic makes it all that much harder for these populations, and we should be looking at solutions and reporting on those.

At this point, seeing as how Mr. Bergeron is also agreeing to withdraw his motion, I will withdraw my motion, slightly tweak it and present it to the subcommittee in time for whatever date is decided, because I don't think that what was framed as an amendment by Mr. Chong at this point is really on the table. I think we should move to discussion, hopefully, as to when the deadline would be for all of the members to submit their proposals. I will withdraw mine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Ms. Sahota.

Maybe I could ask the clerk about this. On the assumption that we may be able to pull off a Friday meeting of the subcommittee, would a deadline of Thursday be reasonable, or earlier or later on Thursday morning? What would be your advice in terms of when to put in material?

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If it is going to be Thursday, then I would ask that everything be sent to me in both official languages, because I may not have time to coordinate the translation on it as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Okay.

Are there any views from members on this turnaround, or anything else that should be raised with the subcommittee as we're planning its first session?

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

Mr. Chair, in addition to what the clerk has suggested, I also suggest that we report back to this committee the results of the subcommittee's deliberations next week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Okay. Again, that's contingent on.... I'm very optimistic that we will be able to do that under the time frame we're facing. We may face constraints from the perspective of resources and the decisions of our whips, but your point is taken.

Are there any other views to close out this portion of the discussion?

Okay. That leaves us four minutes. I think we've had a very informative exchange.

Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.