Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In light of Ms. Bendayan's comments, I'm wondering about the last part of Mr. Genuis's amendment. It says that the report will prescribe the manner in which the study is to proceed. I was thinking that the subcommittee's report would set out a proposed schedule or, at least, a work plan for the fall, since other study suggestions will certainly be made.

One of the issues I'm concerned about is the global food crisis that is emerging because of the conflict in Ukraine, including the challenges developing countries face in accessing grain from Ukraine. I'm also concerned about the inflation crisis caused by rising fuel prices, among other things. Those circumstances have created a perfect storm that calls for the committee's attention.

That is why the last part of Mr. Genuis's amendment worries me. My understanding is that the subcommittee's report would address only how the study on women's reproductive health should proceed, whereas the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development normally proposes some sort of work plan to the committee for the coming weeks. Unless Mr. Genuis amends his own amendment, I will have no choice but to move a subamendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Before going to Ms. Bendayan, I should say that we have been advised that, with respect to the allocation of services, we only have access to this room until 5:50.

We will now proceed to Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, I look forward to getting to a vote on this, but just to explain for the benefit of my colleagues, my current thinking is that I'm quite concerned that accepting a report from the subcommittee would mean we would engage in yet a second filibuster on a vote at that time. I am preoccupied and uncomfortable with that piece of the amendment.

I'm not sure if the member opposite would like to remove that piece from his amendment, but otherwise we're happy to proceed to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I just want some clarity as well.

What I'm worried about is that, as Mr. Bergeron has brought forward, when things come to this committee that are urgent, we need to have the flexibility to respond to those.

Will this dictate what other things this committee can study? Does it take away our ability to have the mobility to study things that may come forward that are urgent in matter?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Genuis.

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

Mr. Chair, we're trying to work and wordsmith a bit on the fly. I'm never strongly wedded to particular words in particular places. I hope we can work to achieve an understanding. I will say that I'm particularly aware that when we're working on the fly it's a challenge in terms of translation and nuance of language, so I apologize for not having the French ready. Ideally, we'll get this done before we have to wrap up, but if not, certainly we can have a tightened-up translated version distributed and maybe have some off-line discussion on just nailing this down.

Since the focus of the discussion has been on part two of the amendment.... First of all, maybe it's worth acknowledging, is there agreement on part one of the amendment? If there is, that's good, and if there isn't, maybe we can talk about that.

The second part is that it is the normal process for the subcommittee on agenda and procedure to submit a report to the main committee and that the report would then prescribe the work of the committee across a broad range of topics. At no point in the amendment does it say that particular report would have to be exclusively about the issue of this motion.

What I imagine would happen is that there would be a report from the subcommittee that would come forward and that would prescribe work on this as well as a number of other items. We might have motions on notice on other topics. There are other topics such as issues of access to food, which Mr. Bergeron mentioned. The subcommittee on agenda and procedure would take this motion, as well as those other motions, compile them, propose a plan for how many meetings in what order, build flexibility into that plan, which is what we always do, and put forward a plan, and then that report would come to the main committee.

I think it's important to proceed in that fashion, which is engaging the subcommittee to prescribe an agenda going forward, and it gives every party, then, the opportunity to say what it is they want to study, and then it all comes together. In terms of the possibility of filibusters at that point, a subcommittee report will define the agenda of the whole committee and, hopefully, will reflect the consensus of the subcommittee, which is in fact core to the mandate of the subcommittee and which is to work on the basis of consensus. Let's try to move forward in good faith and the understanding that it will be the job of the subcommittee to take this and take other items and build an agenda that follows our work on Ukraine, vaccine equity, Taiwan and the legislation.

I think the amendment achieves the things that both Mr. Bergeron and Ms. McPherson are seeking, but if either have a subamendment to propose that further tightens or clarifies the matter, that's fine. We can explore it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Oliphant.

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

I've lost track of whether or not a subamendment is possible, because I don't know where we are. We have an amendment, and this is just the first amendment. We have a motion and an amendment, so we could subamend.

My concern about the motion is the second part, because I think we could end in an endless loop, but I also have a concern about the first part, in that when we decided to do—and started—a study on Taiwan, there was not a special committee that the House had set up on Canada-China relations. It seems to me that we need some discussion about whether or not we can get that work over to the Canada-China committee. We can't dictate to another committee what work they do, but we can transfer to them our testimony that we've already done at one meeting with the suggestion that they do that work so that we could do work like food scarcity. Based on Mr. Bergeron's comment, I think there's some important work.

I just don't like the way this is tying things. It feels like our hands are being tied and we can't be nimble and do stuff. We know that we have work to do on two things. We have to finish the COVAX study, the vaccine equity study. We have to finish the Ukraine statement. We know that when those are done, we have 60 days—maybe an extension—to get two pieces of legislation done. That's what we know we have to do. I would like to focus on getting that done and leaving a little flexibility for something like food and energy coming out of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. I'm just worried that we're tying this down needlessly, because we have a motion to do a future study and that's all we've got.

I guess I'm now thinking against the amendment because it just ties our hands, and I'd sooner like us just to get rid of the motion, pass it and send it off. It will go into our hamper of work that we want to get done and, as we said, our work plans will come back to us.

Also, we may have other things. I mean, we have a notice of motion from Ms. McPherson. I think it's very good, on....it just left my mind—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It's on sanctions, a review of the sanctions.

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

Thank you. I had it in my head earlier.

There are several things I think we're going to have to do. That's all going to come back to us as a committee. I'd just like to get this done, get it out, and move this on so that we can approach our weekend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Go ahead, Monsieur Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I must admit, I have some doubts, Mr. Chair.

As I saw it, the problem basically had to do with—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry, Mr. Bergeron, but there's no translation.

I speak French, but not fluently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I understand that the problem is fixed.

Please continue, Monsieur Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I was saying that I have some doubts given what Mr. Oliphant just said. I thought the problem was only with the last part of the amendment. In light of Mr. Genuis's comments, perhaps it wasn't really a problem. Perhaps a language nuance is to blame for my thinking that the last part of the amendment referred specifically to the study on women's reproductive health.

Mr. Genuis seems to be saying that the last part of his amendment relates to any topic that comes to the committee for consideration or study in the fall. That wasn't how I understood the last part, so it might just come down to a language nuance, as I said.

What Mr. Oliphant just said about the first part, I find a bit unsettling. It's not that I don't think we should finish what we started, but we will need to decide whether to finish our study on Taiwan or recommend that the Special Committee on the Canada–People’s Republic of China Relationship continue that work.

I have to tell you, Mr. Chair, that, at this point, I'm not really sure where I stand on Mr. Genuis's amendment.

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

Can I make a point of order to propose a unanimous consent motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes.

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

Is there consent?

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

You have to have unanimous consent to do that.

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

We were told that we have until 5:50 p.m. with resources.

There are some questions around the amendment. We all want to get this issue resolved. Let's refer the amendment to the subcommittee. Let's use the next time slot we have to do a meeting of the subcommittee, and then the subcommittee can come back to the main committee.

Mainly what we're trying to do here, in terms of wordsmithing the amendment, is generally something that happens at the subcommittee. That's where we talk about how we want to do this.

I would propose that we refer this to the subcommittee, that the subcommittee meet and that the subcommittee report back to us on this matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Zuberi.

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

It's a request for UC.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes.