Foreign Affairs Committee on Jan. 31st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

In my understanding, we are now in a discussion that has taken us completely past. If the subamendment passes and Madame Bendayan's amendment passes, we would no longer be in a discussion about the appearance of Ambassador Rae. That would have to be reintroduced in the form of a new motion.

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

My understanding is that's not the case. That's why I'm raising this point of order.

My understanding is that Ms. McPherson is proposing in her subamendment three things: a) the wording that the clerk has outlined; b) to get rid of in camera; and c) that we add the Ukraine hearings to Ambassador Rae's appearance rather than replace Ambassador Rae with the hearings.

That's my understanding of what Ms. McPherson has just introduced as a subamendment. Perhaps she could clarify it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Ms. McPherson, did you want to clarify?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes, that was my intention. Thank you for being much more articulate than I am this morning, Mr. Chong.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Madam Clerk, that's certainly in order in terms of procedure and substance. [Technical difficulty—Editor] the Bob Rae motion through a subamendment.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, if she would like to change the nature of the amendment from “replacing” to “adding”, then that would be fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

I think we are all on the same page.

Is everybody clear what the subamendment now entails?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, that is certainly not the way I had understood Ms. McPherson's subamendment, when she was literally reading it out loud. I had understood something quite different. In particular, she was removing the in camera meeting and was adding the Ukrainian Canadian Congress as a witness.

There was no mention of—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Bob Rae, no.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

—Ambassador Rae, so I would seek clarification directly from the member who moved the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Ms. Bendayan.

She has clarified that she is reintroducing the appearance of Bob Rae into the subamendment. Procedurally, that is in order.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I would like to hear her on how that operates. In effect, she's requesting a delay of the Ukrainian study?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

In terms of the timing of this, let's ask her to clarify, because that does matter. One of the points she had made was that the briefing, at least, should be in the shortest possible order, as early as next week.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I would like to call the vote on Ms. McPherson's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

That's not a point of order, Mr. Aboultaif. There's still debate. You cannot call a vote. There's still discussion that needs to go on first before people are ready to vote on it.

Ms. McPherson, in terms of, and this is important, the timing, your subamendment would launch us into the Ukraine study imminently, and would then bring in, with the understanding that you've clarified, the appearance of Bob Rae.

What chronology do you have in mind, or do you leave that to the analysts or the clerk to figure out, or is there additional guidance that you would put in?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

The only thing I would add, Mr. Chair, is that we recognize that the ambassador has a schedule that we would be working with. His availability would also be part of that conversation.

My expectation is that we could very quickly turn around a briefing with experts from Global Affairs. I assume we could even get some potential witnesses from the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. Those things could happen very quickly. I would like to see that happen at our next meeting this week, to have that meeting as fast as possible and get that briefing. I think that's very doable and seems very reasonable.

Ambassador Rae would then come when he can, and as quickly as he can, but we would have already had the briefing this week. Potentially, I would be envisioning that Ambassador Rae would come next week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

We may need some additional clarification in the text of the amendment, because the clerk and analysts would have to ensure that this is workable in terms of timing.

Do you want to reread, for the sake of clarity, the three elements that you and Mr. Chong talked about?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, we often say that we'll invite the ministers and the ambassadors, and they come based on the schedules that we can arrange with them. We rarely say that the ambassador comes on February 5. We say that the ambassador will be invited to testify at committee.

What I'm bringing forward is that we would like to add to the work. The subcommittee did an awful lot of work to bring forward a number of things. We weren't able to land on anything but the fact that we wanted to bring Mr. Rae, so I certainly don't want to lose that. I want that to be the very least we can do to achieve that piece of the work we did in the subcommittee.

I would suggest that we don't have to clarify timing. We can make sure that the Ukrainian study is started, that we have that first meeting as soon as possible, this week. I can't see any reason why it can't be. We could then bring Ambassador Rae in when it's possible. I'm sure the clerk and you, Mr. Chair, can work on finding a schedule that will work for that to happen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Let's perhaps hear the subamendment in its entirety again, Ms. McPherson, if you could do that.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Certainly, and again, I haven't worked on the wording. This is always something I lean so much on our very skilled support team for. We would be looking to ensure that we could have a Ukraine study; that the study would start as soon as possible, with representatives from the government and representatives from UCC; that that would happen in addition to bringing in Mr. Rae to our committee, or inviting him to come testify before our committee; that there would be no need for in camera; and that we would have subsequent meetings as needed as the situation in Ukraine evolves because of the fluidity and because of how fast it's changing.

Outside of the motion, to clarify, realistically we could do three full days of study on Ukraine, and it could all change the next day. That's just the reality of the situation we're dealing with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Ms. McPherson.

I think it's now time for members to have an opportunity to debate the subamendment. I have a list. I think some of this is still from the original list for debate on the amendment that Ms. Bendayan had proposed. I have Mr. Sarai, Dr. Fry, Mr. Oliphant, Mr. Aboultaif, Madame Bendayan and Monsieur Bergeron.

I had Mr. Chong on the list at one point.

Mr. Chong, are you still on the list, or have you withdraw your name for the moment?

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

I've taken my hand down because I want to get on with things. We have not sat as a committee since last June. Parliament has sat for four weeks, and we seem to be dragging here on getting an agenda set for this committee. I hope we can expeditiously deal with this subamendment and expeditiously deal with the amendment and then get to what other committee business we want to in the upcoming weeks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's why I've taken my hand down.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you.

I had invited Mr. Chong to respond to the fact that his hand was no longer up.

There's a point of order.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It was to say that the member did not have the floor, but I understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

I had given him the floor, because I wanted him to clarify that he was no longer on the list. It was my prerogative to invite him to speak.

Was it on anything else, or just his intervention?