Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes.

Please read it, Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk]

Currently, the amendment is to delete the words “that the committee hold no fewer than five (5) meetings”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

That is correct.

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

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

Mr. Chair, do I have the floor?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

You do have the floor. That's correct.

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

Okay. Thank you very much.

This is great. I can speak to the motion without other members speaking at the same time, maybe. We'll see what other practices of the committee are evolving in light of the change in leadership.

Notwithstanding some points of disagreement, I do want to congratulate you, Mr. Chair, on the position that you have ascended to.

Returning to debate on the question of the committee's forward agenda, the circumstances that have led us to debate the committee's foregoing agenda are that we are in the midst of three different studies on clearly pressing global issues. In the midst of a study on the horrific ongoing further invasion of Ukraine; in the midst of a study on vaccine equity, on COVAX and intellectual property issues related to that and other issues around health systems in the developing world; and in the midst of a study on Taiwan and potential security threats to Taiwan, a member of the government decided to go outside the normal process for setting the agenda of the committee. That member chose to try to move a substantive motion, effectively resetting the agenda of the committee to move that substantive motion at committee.

Members on our side did our best to be reasonable and to say, look, instead of trying to insert another item of business in the midst of these three ongoing studies, it would make more sense for us to refer this matter to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. As members know, the subcommittee on agenda and procedure is specifically set up for the purposes of reviewing the agenda of the committee. It has a mandate to operate in a collaborative manner.

The usual way that this committee sets its agenda is that questions of the way a debate is unfolding and questions of the committee's agenda are discussed among parties in the context of the committee on agenda and procedure. The committee on agenda and procedure considers those matters, reviews those matters, and therefore proceeds with a recommendation that is generally adopted by all members.

That is a very effective way to proceed. It prevents the need for lengthy debates about agenda on the floor of the committee, and it presents a kind of perverse majoritarianism. You could imagine a situation in which a majority of members of the committee sets the entire agenda of the committee and decides all of the studies that happen at that committee. That has generally not been the way this committee has worked. It's made more sense for us to bring ideas to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure and then to be able to define an agenda that is respectful of the different issues that different parties are raising. Certainly, there are many important issues.

This was how we set our initial agenda. It was to say that we would focus on these three urgent issues—the situation in Ukraine, threats to Taiwan and COVAX. I think the ability to have all parties engaged in that process led to a consensus around an agenda that would be substantive and non-partisan and avoid the kind of politicized aspects that happen sometimes at other committees but that generally we wanted to avoid at the foreign affairs committee. We wanted to see this as being an effective multi-party forum for proposing collaborative work on important global issues that Canada has to respond to.

In the midst of that, we had a motion that was put forward on abortion. I think it's in a context where we see many motions on abortion being put forward at many different committees. Different aspects of that motion implied that—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Ms. McPherson has a point of order.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm looking for some clarity.

The motion that I believe we are talking about is not a motion on abortion. It is a motion on the reproductive health of women and their rights around the world. I'm wondering if you could read the initial motion, because I don't believe that's what it is solely about. I know there has been a lot brought forward in this committee where we've heard testimony from the Conservatives saying that it is something that it very clearly is not.

Perhaps you could clarify what the motion is, because I don't believe that's accurate.

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

On the same point of order, Mr. Chair, I wonder if you could clarify if questions of accuracy are matters of order or matters of debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Ms. McPherson, you're absolutely correct. We should all attempt to the best of our abilities to ensure that the debate is relevant to the issue at hand.

Insofar as the amendment is concerned, it relates to one issue and one issue alone. The scope of the issue before our committee currently is whether, and this is in accordance with the amendment, several words in the original motion should be deleted or not. The words I am referring to are “that the committee hold no fewer than five (5) meetings”. That is what we are currently debating. I would ask all members to ensure that to the extent they are engaging in this debate, they keep their remarks relevant to that very limited scope.

Ms. Bendayan.

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

I had the floor still, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

You did. My apologies.

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

Thank you for returning the floor to me, Mr. Chair.

I had actually raised another point of order, which you didn't respond to. That's your prerogative and that's fine. I won't make a big issue of it.

The issue was, of course, I was debating aspects of this motion and Ms. McPherson raised a point of order in the context of that saying that she thought I was describing the motion in an inaccurate way. She was allowed to complete an alleged point of order that was not in fact about order at all. It was about her interpretation of the substantive qualities and merits of the motion. I think in the interests of consistency, it's important to say that matters of order are about the rules of the committee and they are not about whether you think somebody is characterizing the motion in an accurate way or not.

Having said that, I think respectfully that Ms. McPherson is incorrect in her comments. Again, it's not a matter of order that she's incorrect; it's simply a matter of debate that she's incorrect.

The motion uses the word “abortion” four or five times, so it would be odd to contend that the motion is not about abortion. That's fine, but just suffice it to say that this is the foreign affairs committee and motions respecting the same issue have been brought forward at many other committees. We know how much our friends in the Prime Minister's Office want to bring in debates that are happening in the context of American politics. In fact, in the case of the foreign affairs committee, it seems that this motion directs this committee to study developments in American politics, which is quite interesting. However, our view is that there are certain matters before the committee. This is why this amendment is important, because at the very least, a reasonable step—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have a point of order.

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

Here we go again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It seems incorrect, but the member has suggested that the PMO wrote this motion. I would just like to ask whether or not that would be accurate and whether or not he would be suggesting that the PMO wrote the motion that I brought forward at the human rights subcommittee on a very similar topic, because, of course, I'm not part of the government and I have a very big interest in the rights of women. I'm just wondering whether or not he would like to retract that.

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

If we're doing points of order for inaccuracy, I don't know if I agree with the member's statement that she's not part of the government at this point.

Can I proceed with my comments, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you.

Would you be prepared to rule that the member's point of order was not, in fact, a point of order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, my understanding is that was not a point of order.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is my favourite ruling you've made so far in this committee, and I think it will go entirely unchallenged. Thank you for your display of wisdom on that point. I appreciate it very much.

This brings us to why the amendment that is before the committee is important. The amendment deals specifically with the question of how much time is going to be allocated to this study. Transparently, my goal with this amendment is to be consistent with the general belief that most, if not all, of the matters of the agenda of the committee should be evaluated by the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. That is the proper and appropriate place for these conversations to take place. We should generally be reluctant to pass motions at all on programming the committee's agenda without first allowing the matter to be considered by the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, but at the very least, we should seek to be minimally prescriptive. Being minimally prescriptive creates that opportunity for the subcommittee on agenda and procedure to at least weigh in to some extent, and for us to be able to be a little more nimble and a little more responsive to the emerging circumstances that are in front of us.

It's my belief that the problem with prescribing the five meetings as proposed in this motion is that there are other urgent matters of ongoing study before the committee. One of those matters is, of course, the war in Ukraine. Notably, this committee began its work at the time.... Well, the Russian invasion had started. There was the occupation of Crimea and other areas, but it was, in fact, prior to the further invasion that began at the end of February that this committee began its work on Ukraine.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I have a point of order on relevance, Mr. Chair.

I believe the amendment is quite clear. You read it into the record. I would argue that this is not relevant to the amendment. I look to you for a ruling on that.

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

I'm happy to respond on that point of order, Mr. Chair, if you would like to hear my perspective before making a ruling.