Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 8th, 2020

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

Thank you.

Chair, I guess that's pretty close to my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

You're within 10 seconds of your time.

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

I don't think there's enough time for another question, let alone an answer.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Harris.

Colleagues, that takes us to the end of our scheduled time with the witnesses. I'd like to remind you all that you can avail yourselves of the opportunity to ask a question in writing if we've run out of time and if you feel there's something you'd like clarification on. You can do that through the clerk's office.

On behalf of all of us, I'd like to thank our witnesses from GlobalMedic, Humanity & Inclusion Canada and Islamic Relief Canada for being with us today, for their expertise and for their tremendous service in the name of humanity around the world. Thank you so much.

We will let you disconnect at the moment. We have some committee business in public, and then an in camera portion to follow. Thank you so much for being with us this afternoon.

We will suspend to allow our witnesses to disconnect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, all, for being on time. This was an excellent session. Our witnesses were connected and sound-checked well before 3:30, and as a result of that we had two very good rounds of questions, or one and a half.

Mr. Harris, the floor is yours for discussion of a motion you have brought to the committee.

I don't see Mr. Harris. Let's suspend for a minute and bring him back into the public forum. He may have thought we were going in camera right away.

Mr. Harris, apologies. Maybe I wasn't clear. We remain in public for this portion of committee business, and after that we will go in camera.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

The floor is yours with respect to the motion you have brought to the committee.

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

Thank you very much. I wasn't aware of that nuance, Chair. Thank you for that.

Yes, I have a motion that I gave notice of on Friday, and I have talked to some members of the committee regarding it.

It has to do with the ongoing discussions and negotiations between Canada and the U.K. for a trade agreement, which is moving apace, apparently, and the situation with Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement. I will read the motion for the benefit of those who are watching.

The motion is:

That the committee recognize:

(1) the longstanding cultural, familial, political and economic connections between Canada and the people of both the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom;

(2) the important role played by Canada in negotiating the Good Friday Agreement and in ensuring the commitments laid out in the treaty were implemented;

(3) that the decision by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union could affect the Good Friday Agreement and the provisions in it regarding the border between the Republic of Ireland and the U.K., and;

That the committee calls on the government to ensure that any post-Brexit trade deal between Canada and the United Kingdom be consistent with the principles of the Good Friday Agreement, and;

That the committee report this motion to the House and, pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

I won't say a lot about it, except to reiterate that we understand there may be some agreement taking place now, the details of which are not fully known, but the important point to make is that some concern was expressed very strongly recently that the disruption of that agreement may be possible. We wouldn't want Canada to play any role in exacerbating that or interfering with this agreement, which is extremely important to the future of the peace process in Ireland.

It's a statement of principle, not detail, other than to say that Canada should not do any harm in the circumstances and do everything possible to ensure the upholding of that accord.

I did it simply in that way. It is a foreign affairs matter in a general way and a principle, although it obviously reflects on a trade situation, but I think it's a matter of principle that our committee hopefully will be able to have a consensus and determination on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Harris, thank you very much.

I would encourage members to avail themselves of the “raise hand” feature on Zoom. For those in the room, you could signal to the clerk if you have comments you'd like to make, so we can put you into the sequence of people requesting to speak.

I see that Mr. Chong has raised his hand first.

The floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank Mr. Harris for introducing this well-worded motion.

I will be supporting it. I think it's a topical issue because of the recent announcement by the Government of Canada that it has concluded a Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement. We haven't seen the text of that agreement or the detailed legislation implementing that agreement, so I think it's a timely motion for the committee to adopt to make it clear to the government where we stand on the issue.

I think it's been a long-standing Canadian government policy to support the principles of the Good Friday Agreement. Canada was instrumental in helping negotiate and implement that agreement some 20 years ago. Obviously, Brexit has implications for the U.K.-Republic of Ireland border, and I think whatever trade continuity agreement or subsequent full trade agreements may be negotiated in the future should be consistent with the principles of the Good Friday Agreement.

I thank Mr. Harris for introducing that motion, and I will be supporting it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Chong, thank you very much.

Mr. Harris, just to clarify, this motion is currently also before the international trade committee. Is that correct?

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

Yes, a similar motion has been put there. Whether they're going to be dealing with it as efficiently as our committee.... I'm told that may not happen. I am not privy to all the details of that; it's uncertain.

I thank you for putting it on the agenda in the public meeting for this purpose. I think we can do this independently. They may be more caught up in process and other issues, as Mr. Chong pointed out, looking for details as to what Canada is doing. This is separate, and I think we should do it on our own, regardless of what happens in the trade committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Mr. OIiphant, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Similar to Mr. Chong, I am predisposed to support this motion. I just want to make sure we are not out of step with the trade committee. I recognize the difference between the trade committee and their role in wanting to make sure that it is...the process and procedures and those sorts of things, and how it could affect Canada and our continuation agreement with the U.K.

We have a foreign policy perspective, which Mr. Harris has rightly indicated is our role. I recognize that we were witness to this—to steal Mr. Chong's wording from another committee—but more than witnesses, with Chastelain's involvement in this, we have a real Canadian stake in the accord, which was brokered by a Canadian, and we understand that.

We're predisposed to be in favour of the motion. However, I have heard that it is being discussed at the trade committee today. I think it would be a little awkward if one committee said yes to something in public, and one committee said no to something in public. I like being on the same page. When something goes to two places at the same time, it is just a bit awkward.

I wonder if our clerk has any information on the trade committee—I don't follow their schedule—whether they are meeting today, whether they have met, whether they have dealt with this or not.

That being said, when it comes to a vote, I suspect our side is predisposed to support the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Oliphant.

Let's turn it over to our clerk for a brief intervention on the dynamics of this, and what options there might be for us within the parameters of this week to act in accordance with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Oliphant and Mr. Chong.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Erica Pereira]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do not know if the trade committee has dealt with the motion. I will reach out to the clerk. Their next meeting is on Friday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Either way, unless we get a signal from them, informally, on how their dynamics are going, we would not get their answer prior to ours or with ours.

Are there other views?

I have Mr. Chong and Mr. Harris in sequence here.

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

Just to help the debate along, I note that this motion is consistent with what the Prime Minister said to his Irish counterpart about a year ago when they were discussing Brexit. In the readout, the Prime Minister noted the implications for Ireland of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union, and they agreed on the fundamental importance of protecting the Good Friday Agreement, so it was clear they discussed that matter.

I think this motion is consistent not only with the Liberal government's position on the trade deal, but with its belief in adhering to the principles of the Good Friday Agreement. I want to make sure that everybody is aware of that comment made by the Canadian Prime Minister almost two years ago.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

Mr. Harris, go ahead.

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

I'm in favour of moving on this today, and to have a vote as soon as possible, because, first of all, we want to report to the House. If we leave this until Friday, obviously we won't be able to report to the House. We would like to make a statement that can be tabled in the House as quickly as possible, so that the principle is on the table.

People in Ireland have been nervous about what's been going on for the last while with the Brexit situation and the concern that it might undermine this very important agreement. As was pointed out, General de Chastelain was extremely involved in brokering an important part of the deal and was very active in the implementation of decommissioning the weaponry, which was extremely important in achieving the lasting peace that we seem to have had up until now.

This would provide some reassurance to the process that Canada wants to make sure and affirm that the principles should not be interfered with on the trade deal or any arrangement. That would be a positive thing.

As for what the trade committee is doing, I think we can certainly take the lead on principle. In terms of trade, they may want to make some specific Brexit reference to that particular deal, but this is really about making sure that the principle we are espousing here is consistent with Canada's position. The fact that the foreign affairs committee has this view and presents it to the House is a positive thing, and we should be there.

I know it's kind of the 11th hour, in a sense, but if we don't do it now, I don't think we will be able to do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

We have Dr. Fry, and then Monsieur Bergeron.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to echo what Rob said. I am really concerned that we might come up with something and put the trade committee in a difficult position in case we overreach, or whatever. Is it possible, perhaps, to find a way to resolve this?

The clerk can find out from her counterpart at the Standing Committee on International Trade whether it intends to say anything or do anything with regard to this, or whether it minds if we say or do something in this regard. Then we clear it up and we don't have two standing committees saying and doing different things at the same time. It's just for clarification.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Dr. Fry.

Mr. Bergeron, go ahead.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, this seems to me to be another one of these sort of strange situations where the debate goes on and on, even though we all seem to agree. So I call the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.

Madam Clerk, is that dilatory at this point?