Foreign Affairs Committee on April 28th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

We will resume our discussion. I currently have a speakers list that has Mr. Oliphant, Mr. Ehsassi and Monsieur Bergeron.

Mr. Oliphant, go ahead please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My remarks will be brief.

I will assert very profoundly that, as Mr. Genuis said—I'm not quite quoting him—I believe in the supremacy of Parliament. I believe in the absolute right of parliamentarians to request documents, papers and other items to do their work, but I also am very much convinced that, in this situation, an elegant solution has been reached. I am hoping that the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois will avail themselves of the opportunity to both read unredacted documents and to understand the nature of the redactions, and then to deal with the process that will involve an independent judicial panel that will make a final determination. I think it respects Parliament. There is nothing in our tradition that says that parliamentary committees are paramount over parliamentarians, and there is flexibility. There is always movement and understanding within the tradition.

I heard Mr. Genuis earlier speak about a shadow minister. I would ask him, through you, Mr. Chair, at some point to tell me where, in our Standing Orders, that title exists. We accept it because it is a moving tradition that one party has chosen to use, but it's not part of parliamentary tradition, and it is not part of our Standing Orders. However, we suffer it, and we allow them to use that, though it isn't part of our tradition. Likewise, parliamentary committees are part of our tradition, but there is nothing in our tradition that doesn't allow for other things.

We are borrowing a page, frankly, from former prime minister Stephen Harper, who I think also found an elegant solution when it came to the Afghanistan papers. That was acceptable to the Conservatives of the day, in a very similar situation. I am hoping that they will see that this is a very acceptable and elegant solution.

It does two things. It preserves the right of parliamentarians, who are delegated. I am not at everything that happens in Parliament, but as long as there are parliamentarians sharing my views involved in it, I feel part of it. This gives a chance for Parliament to express its supremacy and to make that demand.

At the same time, it also honours the nature of public safety and public security. I would hope that the party of civil rights, which the Conservative Party has declared itself to be since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was made under a Conservative government, would also see that we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to uphold the good of the whole country. That extends us beyond partisan politics. It extends us into doing something that's good.

On our side, we will be voting against this motion, but not in a vacuum. We're voting against it knowing that there is a solution that's been proposed. We'll be voting against it knowing that, with hope, members of the official opposition will find a way to involve themselves. They've asked to see the papers. The papers are going to be available. This is a way for them to see those. I hope that they would trust their colleagues who are chosen to be part of that committee to do that work on their behalf.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Oliphant, thank you very much.

Mr. Ehsassi, please go ahead.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.

I have to say, after having listened to Mr. Oliphant, I think he's covered all the points. I have no further comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Okay. Thanks very much.

Mr. Bergeron, go ahead.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will try to be brief. I will vote for this motion. I have every reason to be favourable to it. First, I was initially among the members who asked that those documents be provided. Second, Bloc Québécois members were excluded from the talks between the NDP and the Liberal Party to strike that ad hoc committee, which is exempt from parliamentary rules.

That being said, I find the way our colleagues went about proposing this motion today extremely disgraceful. We were not informed of it. We did not know what would happen today. When it comes to cooperation among parliamentarians, at the very least, we should have been given a brief overview of what was going on.

I understand there is a relevant element that can explain wanting to proceed quickly. However, I must say that I found Mr. Genuis' virtue signalling a bit exaggerated, with him getting all worked up. He brought up the fact that it was unacceptable that this motion, which was moved in December, had never been adopted. I'm sorry to say so, but we had an opportunity to come up with a work plan. To my major surprise, the Conservatives did not come back with the motion on the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. I asked my colleagues whether there was a mistake or a reason why they were not coming back to that motion concerning the Winnipeg laboratory. Apparently, there were internal considerations that meant it was not the right moment to come back to that motion.

However, aside from the secret negotiations between the Liberals and the New Democrats, nothing justified this necessarily happening today and the cavalier way witnesses were released. They had prepared to come share their points of view with us and shed light on the important issue of vaccine equity.

I am extremely embarrassed. Although I am entirely supportive of what our colleagues from the Conservative Party have brought forward today, I am extremely embarrassed by the way they have done it and by the very cavalier and impolite way we have consequently behaved with witnesses. A few moments ago, we talked about the possibility of asking them to come back at a later date. Quite honestly, if I was one of those witnesses, I would say:

“Thanks, but no thanks.”

Those witnesses took the time to prepare. They were ready. Some witnesses were even calling us from abroad. I know what they are going through, because I was online for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe this morning. So I am in the exact same time zone as our European friends. I think it is unacceptable for us to have behaved as real cads toward them. If we want to claim that we can defend and properly represent our fellow Canadians, we are required, first and foremost, to show a minimum of consideration to them when we make the effort to invite them and they make the effort to prepare to enlighten us on a very important issue.

That is what I had to say, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.

Next up are Ms. McPherson and Mr. Genuis.

With one eye on the clock, I'm just wondering if we can keep in mind that we had a preference for finishing as close to 5:30 p.m. as possible.

Madam McPherson, go ahead, please, and then Mr. Genuis.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to echo some of the things that have been said by my colleague Mr. Bergeron.

What I was very much hoping to avoid in this committee was the filibustering, the shenanigans, the back and forth that prevented this committee from getting work done in the last Parliament. That was my goal. That was what I was hoping for.

Certainly knowing the time we are in, where vaccine equity is an issue that is affecting billions of people around the world, and with the fact that we are in the midst of a war and need to make sure that we have the time to examine what Russia is doing in Ukraine, the fact that there are conflicts in Tigray, the fact that we have to have opportunities so that we can actually look at what's happening with Palestine and Israel, with Afghanistan, I am so dismayed that the Conservatives chose to put their petty politics in front of all those issues, all those very important issues.

I have to say as well that the idea that they have done everything they can to work with members of this committee is completely false. We were asked, with three days' notice, to be here on a Friday afternoon. I made it very clear to members of the Conservative party that it would not be possible.

First of all, I have House duty. I am a House officer. I can't give up that duty. I have an obligation to represent my constituents in the House of Commons.

I need to get back home to my constituency. That's what members of Parliament do on the weekend, so that I can be in my constituency, meeting with constituents. I make plans. All kinds of things are on my calendar so that I can reach out to my constituents on the weekend before flying back to Ottawa to be here next week to get to work.

I'm sorry, but three days' notice is not appropriate. To say you worked four months to get the committee to work together, and then gave us three days' notice on an emergency meeting, is completely inappropriate.

We have a solution here that would give parliamentarians the ability to see those documents. We need to find a way to work like adults in the room so that we don't end up in a situation where we're filibustering in this committee. Our work is too important. I'm deeply disappointed in the fact that we weren't able to bring our witnesses forward today. I will be bringing forward a motion to ask for us to have that returned. I certainly hope Mr. Bergeron's prediction that they will find it not worth their time to be incorrect. I certainly hope they will agree to join us again. It was an important panel. It was going to give us important information, and I would certainly hope that we can have them back.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Ms. McPherson, thank you very much.

Mr. Genuis, go ahead please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be brief. Very respectfully, if a particular member wants this committee to work well and in a collegial fashion, that member should not engage in secret negotiations with the government, with respect to the process of these documents allegedly being handed over, that do not include all the parties on this committee.

I agree that the work of this committee on many fronts is critically important. The right of this committee to access documents is also critically important. The rights of parliamentary committees and the conventions that are core to the rights of parliamentarians in our Constitution are also critically important.

We could have taken time tomorrow. We could have set aside time today. The reason this was necessary in particular this week, the matter of urgency, was the revelation of the secret negotiations that required this committee to pronounce on this issue.

My final point is that comparisons were made to the situation of the Afghan detainee documents. Let's remember that in the case of the Afghan detainee documents, Speaker Milliken made a ruling. That ruling said that Parliament had the right to access those documents but that he would allow time for dialogue between all parties. That dialogue occurred and it was done fully in accordance with the ruling of Speaker Milliken—Speaker Milliken who, ironically, was elected originally as a member of the Liberal caucus.

When Speaker Rota, who unlike Speaker Milliken was elected by the party of the government at the time, made a ruling, the government did not follow his ruling, and in fact subsequently took him to court. The way that the government of Stephen Harper acted towards Speaker Milliken and the way that this government acted towards Speaker Rota could not be more different: in one case, abiding by the ruling; in the other case, taking the Speaker to court.

The arguments are there and I'm prepared to proceed to a vote, but let me just say that of all the issues that we deal with as a committee, everything is ultimately downstream from our recognition of the rights of parliamentary committees, their ability to compel documents, to compel evidence, and the substantive role of those committees to act from those particular rights. That is our prime directive as a committee: the ability to use those rights to access documents and information and to inform government through that access in ways that other people studying the same issues don't have the powers to do.

We cannot cede that and we cannot accept the solution that takes as its premise that the government doesn't have to comply with the orders of parliamentary committees. On that point, we firmly stand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Genuis, thank you very much.

Colleagues, are there any additional interventions, from colleagues in the room or virtual, on the motion that's before the committee?

I'm going to take another look just to make sure there are none from anybody in the room or anybody online. Thank you.

Procedurally, there are actually two votes in front of us. The first vote would be to agree to resume debate and to agree to vote today. That was the motion brought by Mr. Morantz. Then once the original motion from Mr. Chong is before us, we need to vote on that motion.

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

That's if the first one passes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Exactly. It's if the first motion passes.

Is there any opposition to the first motion that Mr. Morantz brought, which was to resume debate and to vote on the motion today?

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

Let's have a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

There has been a request for a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Thank you very much. That motion carries unanimously. In theory and hopefully not in practice, there is now the motion in front of the committee that is again open for debate.

Is there any further debate on Mr. Chong's motion as moved today and is before the committee?

Seeing none, is there a request for a recorded vote on this one as well? Okay.

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

Thank you very much. That disposes of the motion.

Mr. Oliphant, wait a second. I just want to make a very quick point.

Colleagues, just before we close, I want to flag with you that a set of two proposals for travel has been circulated to you. I would suggest that colleagues review those two proposals over the weekend and that we come to a quick agreement and motion in support on Monday, before or after our panels. That would be much appreciated.

Mr. Oliphant.

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

I noticed that Ms. McPherson said she would have a motion after this. I just want to make sure that, on the screen, she has a chance. I don't know whether she had her hand up or still wants to make the motion, which I think could be unanimous—or I hope it would be.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would certainly do that if we could make that unanimous. I would certainly love to bring that motion forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

If we can draw a quick consensus, a unanimous consent motion, yes. If there is protracted debate, we're going to run into other issues.

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

Mr. Chair, maybe we could find out what the motion is before we agree to allow it to be moved by unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Okay. That's a very roundabout way of doing it, but yes.

Ms. McPherson, could you give us the gist of the motion before moving it?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes. The motion would be that we bring back the panellists, or invite the panellists from today who we were unable to hear from and unable to question to come back to the committee so that we have another opportunity to ask them questions and to hear the testimony from the second panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Okay.

Mr. Genuis, would you agree?

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

Yes, we would agree.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Genuis has agreed to consider that motion. The motion is therefore before the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

With that, we stand adjourned until the next meeting.