Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2022

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, now we seem to be discussing Line 5, and what we are supposed to be discussing is a motion on the reproductive rights of women and the amendment that has been put forward by our Conservative colleague.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Madam Bendayan.

Mr. Chong I think is—

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

On that point of order, Mr. Chair, respectfully, we're hearing a lot of points of order from that member when people are making comments that are relevant to the motion. I do notice that there's a lot of discussion happening on the Liberal side concurrently while people are talking, so I do want to respect the fact that maybe it does create some issues in terms of people being able to hear what speakers are saying. Mr. Chong's comments and Mr. Duncan's comments were highly relevant to the question of whether the adjournment should proceed. I hope that members will listen to your rulings rather than continually repeatedly bringing up the same issue.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, in response to that colleague's intervention, I was speaking to absolutely nobody. I was listening to the intervention of Mr. Chong.

This is my third point of order on relevance after hours of filibuster on a very important motion. The two points of order on relevance in relation to McDonald's were valid and the point of order in relation to Line 5, in my opinion, is valid.

Of course, Mr. Chair, you're free to rule as you see fit, but neither of my points of order earlier nor this one right now are in any way out of line.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, both of you, for the comments.

I think the members are free to raise points of order and to question relevance in the context of a discussion, any discussion. I think Mr. Chong had a point that was tangentially relevant. He was maybe trying to establish how it is relevant; that motion before members, as you all know, is that debate be adjourned until completion of Ukraine. I think he was trying to make a point with respect to the original motion that dealt with the U.S. If he can show how that's relevant directly to the motion before the committee, I will allow it.

Just in terms of the dynamics generally, I think it's healthy for members to raise a point of order now and then just to make sure the direction of the committee and the discussion really stay focused on the motion that's before the committee. I don't want to necessarily have that discussion be too truncated by points of order that are just there to change the flow, but it's completely within members' discretion to raise a point of order as they see fit, as it is for members who are speaking to defend how their points are relevant.

My own ruling in any particular case could go either way and could be challenged. I see my role more as guiding the general discussion onto the subject of the motion.

I have Mr. Oliphant.

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

On that point of order—and I may have forgotten now—it seems to me that we dealt with an attempt to change the motion. There was an amendment to cut out the whereas clause per se. Did we not vote on that already? There was a motion—an amendment—made to strike the first clause with the argument made that it was inferring the United States, and Mr. Chong wanted it out. He is now trying to raise an issue that has been dealt with by this committee. Therefore, I would ask the chair to absolutely rule it out of order as something that the committee has dealt with not in the recent past but in the last several hours.

That's the point. It's not relevance. It's actually against the rules of the committee to try to relitigate an issue that has been dealt with in the very recent past. You might want to check with the clerk, but I think I'm right on that.

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

On the same point of order—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

I appreciate that point of order, Mr. Oliphant. It is a different point of order. It is more focused.

I wasn't part of the discussion when that vote took place, but we can certainly verify whether or not that point was effectively extinguished by the committee having pronounced itself on that very issue.

I'll take a comment on that same point of order from Mr. Genuis.

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

Mr. Chair, just as a matter of procedure, I'm not aware of any rule by which the fact that the committee has previously voted on an amendment to the main motion somehow renders arguments in relation to the main motion that are derived from that same point as no longer acceptable. I'm not familiar with any precedent—and again, I'm happy to hear from the clerk on this—that would say because the committee voted against an amendment from Mr. Chong previously that dealt with one section of the main motion somehow he's not able to discuss that section of the main motion.

What we're discussing right now is a motion to adjourn debate around the motion, so the question of whether or not to adjourn the debate means that questions of the adjournment motion itself, as well as the original motion, which the motion seeks to adjourn debate on, are all relevant.

The implication that you can't reflect on a matter that has previously been voted on by the committee...that's just not a rule. It just isn't.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Genuis, thank you very much.

I think one of the points would be to argue that this goes to repetitiveness, in the sense that if we're within the same line of discussion, the same arguments should not be made. You raise a good point, because that was procedurally done under a different motion at a different time at the committee.

I'm going to do two things. I'm going to check, first of all, if the committee did in fact vote to settle that point, and then what the implications of that decision would be with respect to the motion that's currently under discussion.

Please stand by for a moment....

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

I hope I'm able to provide some clarification. The committee did vote on this point that was brought by Mr. Chong earlier, and voted against the amendment. That took care of the issue. What that would do is foreclose the opportunity for a member subsequently to resurrect that same amendment or same argument in the form of a new motion to try to do again what the committee has already pronounced itself on.

The repetitiveness point is one that members generally should keep an eye on in the conversation, but it generally extends only to the line of discussion that is under the motion before the committee. If Mr. Genuis, Mr. Chong, Mr. Oliphant or anybody else were to make arguments under that same motion repeatedly, that could be challenged by members on a point of order, because repetition in that case would be against the rules.

I hope that's helpful—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a follow-up point of order.

I respect your position, so I don't want to come across as questioning it, but I'm more seeking clarification. What I understood you to say, and this is consistent with my understanding of procedure, was that the fact that the amendment was defeated means that the same amendment cannot be moved again.

Mr. Chong is, of course, free to point out the fact that his amendment not passing is a primary reason for him continuing to have concerns about the motion, and therefore not wanting to support it in general. Of course, it's fine to make that argument; it's just that he cannot move an amendment identical to his previous amendment. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

That is correct.

Again, members are free to raise points of order that challenge the speaker. We're free to review and assess them. I would just encourage all members to stay focused on the motion under discussion.

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

Yes. Thank you. That's consistent with my understanding of the rules. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

With all of that said, it's back to you, Mr. Chong. Go ahead, please.

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

Mr. Chair, just to clarify, were my remarks, or were they not, in order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Yes, Mr. Chong, they were in order. I would just encourage you, as you're in the threshold of tangential relevance, to just stay focused as much as you can on—

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

Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.

As I was saying, I don't support this committee studying access to abortion in the United States, which is why I support Mr. Genuis's motion to adjourn debate on this motion so that we can, hopefully on the sidelines outside of this committee, sort this out.

As I was saying, there are many more issues more important in the Canada-U.S. relationship than abortion. I mentioned Line 5, which supplies half of the energy to Ontario and Quebec for some 24 million consumers in these two provinces. It's at risk of being shut down at any point in time because of what's going on in the U.S. federal court. We have the issue of dairy imports. That continues to be an ongoing issue for many, many dairy farmers in both Ontario in Quebec. We have “buy American” issues. We have the entire modernization of NORAD, which could cost upwards of $10 billion U.S.

So I don't support this committee looking at access to abortion in the United States. I don't think that's within this committee's remit. I support us taking a look at women's reproductive and health rights, including access to reproductive services in the global south, because that is within the remit of this committee. Canada funds a lot of foreign aid, much of it in the global south. I think it's well within our committee's responsibility to take a look at that, which is why I tried to move that earlier amendment that was not passed.

To finish, Mr. Chair, the reason we should adjourn debate on the motion introduced by Dr. Fry is that I don't believe this committee should be studying access to abortion in the United States. For that reason, I support the motion in front of us. For that reason, I do not support the motion introduced by Dr. Fry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

Mr. Genuis, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to join the debate again and to make some follow-up remarks with respect to some of the things colleagues have said. I will start by reflecting on that.

The main thrust of my remarks was to say, look, this committee has a finite amount of time. The House of Commons has a finite amount of resources. We deal with scarcity in all areas of life, and one of them is the work of parliamentary committees. That means we have to make choices about priorities. We can't just say we're going to do all of it and there's no such thing as scarcity.

I'll share with members that I sometimes have questions about the way in which the scarcity of House resources seems to be selectively used in certain situations. I think members of Parliament should have access in the form of committees to be able to sit when and for however long they want to be able to deal with issues, and to be able to add extra meetings and so forth. But that is just not the reality of how this place is operated. We do have to make choices in the face of these scarce resources between different topics that are up for consideration. That's not even about constraints that exist on our schedule. That's about constraints that we are told are just a function of the structure and the way in which the House of Commons is operating right now.

Over the course of this debate, we have therefore made the argument that the priority of the Canadian foreign affairs committee should be the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and that we should not replace the possibility of further discussion of the invasion of Ukraine with discussion that reflects the desire of some interest in the PMO to reopen the abortion debate in every parliamentary committee, or at least in most.

We are already seeing the impact of that scarcity. Even today our position was that we should adjourn debate and that we should have discussion in the subcommittee about how this and other priorities of the committee should be scheduled to proceed. The government consistently refused to support that. The consequence was the whips of other parties deciding that the Afghanistan committee that was supposed to meet tonight and hear from interpreters would be cancelled.

That is a mighty shame, given that interpreters who served Canada were going to be here to have their voices heard. We repeatedly tried—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

One second, Mr. Genuis.

Madam Bendayan, please go ahead.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I too find it extremely unfortunate that the Afghanistan committee was cancelled this evening—

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

That's not a point of order.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

—but it was due to the filibuster engaged in by that colleague. I would argue that the lack of relevance to the motion and the amendment that we are now debating—

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

If you would like to argue it, get on the speakers list.