Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 13th, 2021

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to come back to Mr. Bergeron's very interesting comments. I would like to know if he has any additional information, somewhat along the lines of what my colleague Mr. Oliphant raised. We do not know if there will be a Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, and I would like to know if this has already been discussed among the opposition parties.

Personally, I would very much like to continue to look at the China issue in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I agree with Mr. Bergeron that there are some really critical issues that we should be discussing, and they are not limited to what is in this motion, whether it is Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong or Taiwan. I think we have many possible topics for discussion.

In my view, the motion before us is somewhat narrow. However, since we just formed a subcommittee this very morning, I agree that the subcommittee could look at this in the next few days and report back to the committee. I know we have a number of options for motions and studies to consider.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Ms. Bendayan.

Dr. Fry, you have the floor.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Look, I understand the substance of Mr. Chong's motion. I think it's an important one. However, we just passed our routine motions, which state that a 48-hour notice, interpreted as two nights, is required for any substantive motion to be moved in committee. I did not receive this, in both languages, with 48 hours' notice. I also think that as Mr. Oliphant pointed out, there are many of us who have motions. I think that to vote on this current motion right now presumes that this motion must automatically take precedence over everybody else's.

We have a subcommittee that we set up that's going to look at all of this. I think we should follow procedure, follow the process, and get that committee to look at motions that have given the 48 hours' notice, given the timelines we heard from the clerk. I think it's fair.

It's only fair and reasonable for us to do that, so I move that we do not vote on this motion, actually. I would not like us to vote on it right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Dr. Fry, thanks very much.

I see Mr. Ehsassi and then Mr. Chong.

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

No, on a point of order, Mr. Chair, I believe my motion is in order. Perhaps you could rule as to whether or not it is in order. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

It was received in committee business, so from that perspective, yes, it's in order.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

We have Mr. Ehsassi and then Mr. Bergeron.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First off, allow me to congratulate you as well on being selected as the chair of this committee. Let me say that I am new to this committee, unlike many of you, and that I very much look forward to working with each and every single one of you.

With respect to some of the issues that have been raised, the first issue I'd like to touch on is that this committee will not be meeting until February. This is something that Ms. McPherson brought up.

Yes, I share her frustration. I think all of us would like to roll up our sleeves and get to work, but I think it's important to highlight that this is not specific to the foreign affairs committee. It is actually something that all of our committees are working through.

The second issue I wanted to comment on is that I'm somewhat surprised by the motion that has been brought in. I had a motion myself. I'm sure other colleagues here did as well.

On that particular point, allow me to say this. As an observer to this foreign affairs committee in the past, I think it is important that members act in a collegial manner. That is what Canadians expect of us: that on issues as significant and as important as foreign affairs, international development and national security, they see each and every single one of us working together.

In my opinion, just all of a sudden coming up with this motion is not necessarily in that spirit, in the sense that each of us has a number of different priorities that we would like to focus on, and there should be a better process to make sure that the agenda of this committee reflects the issues that are of concern to most of us.

I would be very much in favour of the process or modality that has been identified by Mr. Oliphant, which is that we should take all of the motions, including the one that has been tabled by Mr. Chong, and refer them to the subcommittee so that we can make sure all of us continue to work together and continue to focus on those issues that matter.

Let me also say this. I agree that the China-Canada relationship is an important one. It's one that Canadians from coast to coast to coast care about. It's not about substance that I have any misgivings here; it is just about working out a routine that works for all of us.

Finally, if I could also comment on an issue raised by Mr. Bergeron, he did say that we have to plumb the depths of this mystery, which is part of the substance of what Mr. Chong has tabled here. Let me say that yes, Canadians want to know all these issues and they want to understand them, but they're not willing to do it at the expense of actually not doing it in a professional manner and not making sure that our national security interests are upheld.

On that point, I think it's important to also highlight the important work that the national security committee is doing. There are issues that they are fully apprised of, and it is a committee that consists of members from various parties, so it's not a partisan one. At times like this and on issues that implicate—possibly implicate, I should say—our national security, there are mechanisms. I don't necessarily think that dealing with “redacted” materials on issues that pertain to national security is necessarily the best process to adopt.

This is all to say that I very much look forward to working with all the members here, and I'm very much in favour of the process that has been outlined to make sure the various motions that we all have drafted are considered and we all can work together, hopefully, to set up the agenda for this committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ehsassi.

I have Dr. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to clarify something once again with regard to procedure.

As I said, I don't have a problem with the substance of the motion, but I do want to repeat that it is business under consideration. If you're going to take a substantive motion, it could be brought in without the 48-hour notice if it's under business under consideration. We're not considering China in this meeting. This is a motion that was filed, and it was supposed to be sent to be distributed to the offices of the whips of each recognized party in both official languages by the clerk on the same day that the said notice was transmitted. I am sorry, but as a member I did not receive it.

I've chaired committees in the past, and I would like to ask the clerk if the meaning of the words “business under consideration” is not as I've understood it to be. As Ms. McPherson was saying, let's say we were discussing vaccines, and then somebody gave notice and moved a motion about vaccines while we were discussing vaccines. That's what I thought “business under consideration” was meant to be. It's not that we were in a business meeting.

Could the clerk clarify this for me, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Dr. Fry, thanks very much.

I think we have a couple of colleagues here who are waiting for clarification on that front as well. It was the committee business portion of the meeting, and the motion was presented in both official languages.

Madam Clerk, the implication of—

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

It's the business the committee is dealing with.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Right now the rubric for the committee is committee business, which means that anything that the committee decides to consider at this time is admissible. If you were considering vaccine equity, a motion not related to vaccine equity would not be in order at that time and you would need the notice. Because we are in committee business, any motion that any member chooses to bring forward at this time would be admissible.

On a point of clarification, I have sent the motion to your email account.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

It is my understanding that a number of other colleagues also have motions to bring forward and discuss to see how we get ourselves into the starting blocks for the 44th Parliament and what the priorities are.

The Standing Committee on Agenda and Procedure was referred to as an option for members to consider to see in what sequence and with what priority the committee should consider this. I would encourage colleagues to follow that thought to see who else has things that they wish to bring forward today.

On the motion of Mr. Chong and how the committee wishes to dispense with it this afternoon, are there further comments and discussion?

Mr. Bergeron and then Mr. Sarai.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to raise two points.

First, to address Mr. Oliphant and Ms. Bendayan's legitimate concerns, as far as I know, there are no negotiations or anything else between the opposition parties on the issue of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. I simply drew a conclusion—some might say a hasty one—from the fact that our Conservative friends, following the 2019 election, had put forward a motion in the House at the very first opportunity given to them on an opposition day to pass the motion creating the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.

Based on informal discussions I had had with some of my colleagues, I thought they were going to do exactly the same this time. Instead, to my surprise, without having discussed it with anyone beforehand as far as I know, they came to us with a motion calling for a committee on what happened in Afghanistan. I had the opportunity to speak on this issue in the House and to say that it seems the Conservatives lost interest in the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations; perhaps because they felt that there were no more partisan gains to be made from it and that they had found a new and more politically and partisan plaything, which was a committee that would look at what happened in Afghanistan.

At that time, Mr. Chair, you will recall that in the House we said that we would not support the motion of our Conservative friends as proposed if there were no amendments. We wanted amendments that would allow us not only to examine what happened this summer, but also, and more importantly, to see what would happen to the Canadian nationals who are still trapped in Afghanistan, to the Afghan allies who are risking death every day, and to the Afghans themselves, of course, who are reduced to starvation, and to the girls and women of Afghanistan, who are once again in the grip of an Islamist government.

That said, I understand there is less appetite from our Conservative friends to recreate the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. I simply concluded that this committee would not be revived unless our Liberal friends tell us that they intend to do so. That's all I meant. Now, if there is anyone at this table who knows anything or intends to re‑form the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, please tell us, so that we can stop wondering.

In the absence of any expressed intent on anyone's part, I simply assume that this committee will not be restruck. I think the motion before us from Mr. Chong this morning illustrates precisely the fact that the Conservatives have no intention of reconstituting the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, since they want to have the work done by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. So I have no hope on that front. If our Liberal friends intend to do it, let them tell us. Otherwise, I see no indication that this committee will be recreated. So let our Liberal friends stop suggesting that there might be one in order to avoid dealing with this motion, which was submitted by Mr. Chong this morning.

Now, on the motion itself, frankly, I see great merit in the fact that all motions from all political parties can be referred to and discussed in the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, as is the usual practice. However, the fact is that there is a motion on the table which you have ruled to be in order, and I do not sense any intention on Mr. Chong's part to let this vote go. I am sorry about that, because I would prefer, quite frankly, that we go to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure with all our motions to see if it is possible, as we did on the issue of vulnerabilities exacerbated by the COVID‑19 pandemic, to amalgamate, if I can put it that way, the concerns of the different political parties.

I expressed my concern about Taiwan to Mr. Chong, and he was receptive. Of course, if we only vote on this one motion today, mine will take a back seat. So you will understand that I am not particularly enthusiastic about this idea.

However, may I repeat that you have just ruled on the admissibility of Mr. Chong's motion. As I do not sense any intention on his part to let the motion be set aside, I do not see how we can avoid voting on this motion today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.

The next speakers will be Mr. Sarai, Mr. Oliphant, Ms. McPherson and Dr. Fry.

Mr. Sarai, you have the floor.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we've spoken about the length. I think the gist of it is that if we can refer it to the subcommittee and if we can have a subcommittee meeting perhaps in January, then this motion could be discussed there. January 7 might be a good day if somebody wants to work that out.

My motion will be to refer this to the subcommittee, and in the interim I move that the debate be now adjourned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sarai. I don't think that motion is in order. There's still debate on Mr. Chong's motion that needs to continue. I will confer with the clerk.

My apologies, Mr. Sarai; the motion is in order. It's dilatory, and the committee will proceed to a vote on adjourning the debate.

Madam Clerk, would you take us through the vote?

[The Clerk]

The motion adopted on November 25 in the House specifies that any votes in committee must be by recorded division, unless they're unanimous or on division.

May I proceed, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Yes, please.

[The Clerk]

The motion is that the debate be now adjourned.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

The motion is defeated.

Thank you, Mr. Sarai.

We will go back to the speakers list that we had in place. We have Mr. Oliphant.

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

As I said earlier, I would like to put into a motion what my proposal was. To be fair to the work of all the committee members, I would move that we refer this motion to the subcommittee on agenda and...whatever it's called. What's it called? I used to call it the steering committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

It's the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.