Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2022

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

On the same point of order, Mr. Chair, insofar as it was an urgent matter for the member to get clarification on that issue, I do think it should be noted that these are both Senate public bills. Neither of them are bills from the House. They're both Senate public bills, the bill by Senator Ataullahjan and the bill by Senator Dechêne.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you for that, colleagues.

I've been advised by the clerk that she will get back to us. As soon as she makes a determination, I'll share it with all of you.

Mr. Genuis, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Perkins just suggested that we might suspend in the middle of my remarks until we get the ruling from the chair. So following that suggestion, I may have to find someone to run for the Conservative nomination in his riding—but all in good fun.

Mr. Chair, the point I was making before.... He says, “bring it on.” Okay.

Before Mr. Oliphant intervened, though, I was speaking to the importance of committees completing work on one matter before proceeding to another matter. I was making the case that this is generally a good practice. It doesn't mean that committees can't then return to issues as there are emerging developments. I suspect that, following the completion of an initial study on Ukraine, there may be subsequent developments in future years over the life of this Parliament, depending on how long the Parliament lasts, that will lead us to want to return to that matter and perhaps do an update and make a statement in the context of that.

But the immediate issue of the completion of the study and of being able to produce a statement.... We know there's been some discussion about a statement or a report. We could get to that work right away, of course, if there is a willingness on the part of other parties to adjourn the debate or to proceed to that matter. But despite our efforts to do so, as members know, that hasn't been the case.

So we've spoken about the value of completing, as opposed to just making a decision on, the study on Ukraine. I do want to say that, with respect to the issue of Taiwan, obviously the committee began its study on Taiwan prior to the creation of the special committee on Canada-China relations. The issues that are being raised with respect to Taiwan are ones that could also be debated at the special committee on Canada-China relations. I think we can't necessarily take a decision at this committee before a decision is taken on what the appropriate actions are going to be by that other committee.

I don't think we can presume the special committee on Canada-China relations will be studying it. First of all, I know there's substantial overlap between this committee and that committee, and my understanding is that, based on the conversation that happened at Monday's meeting, the first meeting of the special committee, there was an interest in proceeding with consideration at that committee on the issue of Taiwan.

Therefore, I do think that if it's the will of that committee, it would be very reasonable for this committee to work with that committee on ensuring that it proceeds with the work that had been done here. I don't think the rules allow a subsubamendment, but I could certainly envision a revision to the original amendment that was not as, let's say, expansive as the subamendment that's before us, but that actually just sought to carve out something particular with respect to the dynamics around Taiwan—that is, that sought to say that in the case of Taiwan, we wouldn't require that the study be completed on Taiwan at this committee if it were taken up at another committee.

But I will just say, on the other hand, that with respect to Taiwan, the original language that is removed by the subamendment says, “and that this study not take place until after the completion of the committee's studies on Ukraine, Vaccine Equity and Taiwan”. I think one possible interpretation of that would be that the completion of the committee's studies could also mean the completion of the committee's studies by another committee. We would still, of course, want to see the completion of the committee's study on Taiwan, whether that be done by this committee or by the special committee on Canada-China relations.

I don't think anybody is speaking about not wanting to see the completion of that study. It's merely now, because we have this new committee that could potentially do work on that issue, that the question is whether that completion would move to another forum. It would still be the completion of the committee's study on Taiwan. It would be the committee transferring the study and the completion of that study in another place.

With respect to Mr. Bergeron's concern, when he moved this subamendment in particular he spoke about the Taiwan study perhaps needing to be considered in a different way in light of the fact that the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations may want to take it up. I don't think the language of the original amendment would actually have excluded the possibility of that work being transferred over, by mutual agreement, and proceeding to a completion at that point. Of course, the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations is welcome to take up the issue of Taiwan on its own, in any event, but I think it would wish to do so drawing from the work that has already been done by this committee, being able to take that up and continuing that going forward.

Regardless of how the Taiwan issue is handled, I think it's very clear that there is an urgency to the completion of the committee's work with respect to Ukraine and vaccine equity. The dynamics around access to vaccines are, of course, changing constantly. There are different circumstances—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

My apologies for the interruption, Mr. Genuis.

First, I want to respond to the point of order raised by Mr. Oliphant and by you, Mr. Genuis. I've been advised by the clerk that the answer to that question can be found at pages 1158 to 1159 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. The relevant part reads as follows: “Should a committee fail to report back to the House as required, the bill is automatically deemed reported without amendment.” That is thanks to the guidance provided by the clerk.

In addition to that, the clerk has advised me that we've heard that there are not resources available to this committee past 5:30 p.m., so this meeting is suspended.

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

Mr. Chair, may I move a brief motion? I have 60 seconds left prior to 5:30 p.m.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We already stand suspended.

[The meeting was suspended at 17:30 p.m., Thursday, June 16]

[The meeting resumed at 11:08 a.m, Monday, June 20]

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Welcome back to meeting number 21 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Today, we will continue the discussion that first commenced on Monday, May 16, 2022.

As always, interpretation is available through the globe icon at the bottom of your screen. For members participating in person, keep in mind the Board of Internal Economy's guidelines for mask use and health protocols. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you're not speaking, your mike should be on mute. Once again, this is a reminder that all comments by members should be addressed through the chair.

Just to provide everyone an update on the speaking list as it currently stands, we now have Mr. Genuis, Mr. Aboultaif, Madam Fry, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Genuis and Mr. Zuberi.

Mr. Genuis, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see colleagues back here on Monday morning. In anticipation of maybe getting a signal, I'll proceed with making some arguments here as that process continues.

I know that we're currently debating a subamendment put forward by Mr. Bergeron to an amendment that I had originally put forward. The purpose of the amendment was to establish some general parameters around the timing that governs the way this prospective study would proceed, recognizing that the committee does have greater priorities in front of it, or certainly perhaps issues that are ongoing and that we're in the middle of studying—the situation in Ukraine, the dynamics around vaccine equity and the situation of prospective security threats to Taiwan.

The amendment was designed to respond to what I think was not the way in which committees should normally operate. In the middle of existing studies, there was a proposal put forward to say, “No, we should ignore what we're doing now and we should instead raise this political issue.” We said, “Okay, let's at least have some timelines in place around that, and then also prescribe the way in which the subcommittee should be engaged for that process.” The subcommittee on agenda and procedure should meet.

I do want to share that certainly we are hoping for some kind of constructive engagement to come to an understanding on an amendment to this motion that would make it work for the committee. I think committees are at their best when they're able to work on a consensus basis. Certainly from our side there is a desire to come to an understanding and to meet partway on certain aspects of this. One of the proposals I've mused about is saying that we've set a timeline on the subcommittee reporting back to the main committee as a mechanism of ensuring that the process would move forward in a reasonable fashion.

This is the general objective of the amendment. I appreciate the subamendment as a constructive proposal and as something that maybe provides some basis for some dialogue in terms of how we come to a consensus as a committee. When you do have a motion from one party, an amendment from another party and a subamendment from another party, that can seem unwieldy, but I think it actually is potentially very constructive that you have different parties playing a role in trying to flesh out the appropriate wording around the motion.

That's what brings us to the subamendment. It removes the words “after the completion of the committee's studies on” and replaces them with “the committee makes a decision on the studies before it on”. There's a part two to the subamendment, which I'll speak to in a moment.

The initial section here is substantive in the change that it proposes to make. The existing amendment prescribes a path forward that involves the committee needing to complete particular studies on Ukraine, vaccine equity and Taiwan. The revised version prescribes not that their studies be completed but that a decision be made on those studies.

Again, none of this is impossible to go back and forth on and try to establish a constructive way forward, but I do think that for at least some of these existing studies, it would be very important to say that we should not just make a decision on them but actually complete them. We've done a lot of work in terms of hearings on the issue of vaccine equity. I think it's evident that the dynamics around vaccine equity are constantly changing. There are some similar issues that are consistent over time.

When we initially talked about undertaking this work, there were questions about there being enough vaccines. We realized, as the study went forward, that there were issues around delivery and that delivery was a big issue. It's worthwhile, I think, seeking to complete that work.

In the spirit of wanting to complete that work, of course that's why we have, at many points, sought to adjourn the debate on this motion so we can get back to that work. Members of other parties have accused us of dragging this out, but that accusation is hard to square with the reality that we are the ones who are saying let's adjourn the debate on this issue so we can hash out the dynamics of our agenda going forward and, really, be able to focus on completing the work that's before the committee right now. It would be creating a little bit more space for conversation around the path forward, but in the meantime, adjourning debate...and not in a final way, of course. As members know, or should know, the procedure around an adjournment of debate isn't to make an issue disappear. Something can be brought back very shortly after something has been adjourned, but it does create a space for some of that dialogue to happen.

Insofar as we have had, informally at least, quasi-adjournment of debate.... For example, we had an in camera opportunity to hear from certain witnesses. These are things we've been willing to do in some cases but not others. This, in particular, as I was speaking to the issue of vaccine equity and the completion of that, not just the making of a decision about it but the completion of it, is something that, I think, would have been worthwhile and would be worthwhile to do as soon as reasonably possible.

On the issue of Ukraine as well, the completion of our work on Ukraine or at least the completion of the immediate phase of that work.... Again, this is where I think we could wordsmith in between. I don't think the procedures allow for sub-subamendments. I think you just do those as subsequent subamendments. The fact that the committee should complete an initial report or an initial statement—ideally an initial report—that puts forward the committee's work up until now on that particular issue, I think, would be very worthwhile.

Look, if the committee makes a decision to defer to another committee or set aside a study.... Obviously the work on Taiwan is important, but the work on Taiwan began before the special committee on Canada-China relations began. I think there would be an argument for continuing that work at either this committee or that committee. On the one hand, this committee has begun that work and there are many other issues at the other committee, but on the other hand, the other committee is there to specifically look at some of the issues around—among other things—aggressive action by the Chinese state. That work might fit well within the framework at that committee. This is where, I think, the issue of completion as opposed to making a decision about that work is important, but that completion could ostensibly take different forms.

I do think it's important to raise that the language of the subamendment does introduce some ambiguity where it maybe doesn't exist in the original version. The amendment uses the language of “makes a decision on”. I think I've been saying “making a decision about”, but it's “makes a decision on”. It does not necessarily specify that this decision would be carried out prior to proceeding to the next phase of it. I think that's an area of ambiguity that needs to be taken into consideration in terms of the vote around this.

For example, if we were to make a decision about the Ukraine study.... Let's say we made a decision that, in fact, we wanted—in the case of the Ukraine study—to complete that study or complete an initial report before moving to this other prospective study. That would be making a decision about the matter, but it wouldn't necessarily be making a decision about and carrying out that decision. Carrying out that decision would be to actually make the decision to complete the report, in this sort of hypothetical instance, and then to actually complete the report.

This is a different matter than just making the decision, so I would worry insofar as there is ambiguity in the language around this. Were we to make a decision about it.... Let's say we make a decision. Okay, we're going to complete the vaccine equity report, hypothetically. That would satisfy the conditions of this subamendment. Then we would proceed to this other study envisioned in the original motion without actually carrying out the work prescribed by that decision, which is the completion of the report. The “making of a decision on” is conceptually distinct from “making a decision and carrying out that decision” on the same point. I think we need to have a greater degree of clarity around it.

In terms of the path forward for the three studies currently before the committee—Ukraine, vaccine equity and Taiwan—we might want to make decisions about those studies. Personally, I would suggest the completion language be stronger, but we might want to make decisions and carry out those decisions about those studies. We could say we're going to complete two of them and transfer one of them, or complete one, do an interim report on one, and then continue concurrently while we set aside one. These are the kinds of decisions the committee might make on how to proceed with those studies. I think that was, broadly speaking, the process envisioned in the development of this subamendment.

I don't think it's an unreasonable prescription to say we would want to leave ourselves some degree of flexibility. The existing text of the subamendment is not quite explicit in terms of how we would want that to unfold with respect to the making and carrying out of decisions, before proceeding to the subsequent matter that would then be before the committee.

The second part of the subamendment makes further changes that are noteworthy. The previous language prescribed the manner in which the study is to proceed and replaces that with specifying the manner in which the studies be undertaken. Again, it's replacing “prescribing the manner in which the study is to proceed” with “specifying the manner in which the studies be undertaken”. I think the most substantive part of that change.... There are a few cases where the words are changed, and I think we need to note what's implied by the change in those words.

The most substantive part of that change is the shift from the language of “study” to “studies”. The original amendment envisioned that the study would proceed after a subcommittee report was adopted. This described how the study originally envisioned by Dr. Fry's motion would proceed. I think the meaning is then shifted by the subamendment to say the subcommittee should meet and prescribe the manner in which all the committee's work would proceed—looking at this new motion, as well as the proposals around Ukraine, vaccine equity and Taiwan. I don't think that's a bad thing, actually.

I think the shift from “study” to “studies” is probably constructive. Really what it does is it invites us to say that the subcommittee should get together, talk about what the foregoing agenda is going to be and come to some kind of agreement on how to proceed with respect to all of the studies. This is, I think, how this should have proceeded all along.

The reason we are in this situation of hashing out an agenda at the main committee is that a member decided to bring it to the main committee in the middle of other studies instead of doing that work at the subcommittee, which is the normal process. I don't, of course, dispute the right of members to do that, but it's not the most effective way of—

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, Ms. Michaud.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm new to the committee, so I don't know how you usually operate. As I listen to the honourable member share his views on the Bloc Québécois's subamendment, I wonder whether we couldn't vote on the subamendment at this point, so we can get back to discussing the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Ms. Michaud, I've had an opportunity to confer with the clerk. Given that we currently do have a speaking list, we cannot vote on it.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Could you add me to the speaking list, then?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Absolutely.

Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry. I didn't have my earpiece in for the entire time of that, and my French is not always at its best on Monday after a red-eye flight, but I think I got the gist of it so I will just proceed for a couple more minutes.

I don't have that much more to say other than just to wrap up some of these thoughts around some of the distinction that's envisioned by the subamendment and trying to understand it and respond to the issues that it raises.

With respect to the issue of part two of the subamendment, the difference between “study” and “studies”, I'm saying that I view this part of the subamendment as being constructive in the sense that it directs our attention towards the subcommittee to prescribe the manner in which the foregoing work or the studies of the committee would proceed. Then we can go from there.

This is why the very first time this was discussed, within the first hour of this being discussed, I know we had put forward a motion to just refer the entire matter to the subcommittee. Again, we could have done it. It would have made much more sense to have the subcommittee define an agenda going forward. Instead, a situation was created because other members of the committee insisted that, no, we can't adjourn the meeting, we can't adjourn debate and we can't do anything else until this matter is dealt with, which I don't think made sense and created a situation that is not really consistent with the professed desire of any members of the committee. However, we continue to move forward with some of these other proposals and they continue to not proceed.

I think that's important, but the idea envisioned through the subamendment of the subcommittee process moving forward is, I think, again worthwhile.

In terms of some of the word substitution the subamendment involves, it effectively replaces the word “prescribing” with “specifying.” I looked the words up to get specific clarity around trying to understand what the difference was, because sometimes you have a subamendment or an amendment that changes words and you wonder if something different is being meant by those words. Clearly, this is an important committee. It's important to make sure that the words we're using are precise, or at least that when we are adopting measures with respect to a particular wording we understand what the wording is and what the meaning of those words are.

The word being removed, “prescribing”, means to lay down in writing or otherwise as a rule or a course of action to be followed, appoint, ordain or enjoin—at least from Dictionary.com. Mr. Oliphant probably has opinions on whether that's the optimal linguistic source or not, but that's the one I used this morning. It's proposed to replace it with “specifying”, which is to mention or name specifically or definitely to state in detail.

In this sense, I'm not sure why the preference was made for the word “specifying” as opposed to “prescribing.” “Prescribing” seems more appropriate in that it's more definitive to the practice of a committee to lay down, to say this is what we're going to do. “Specify” has the nature of explaining in more detail, but not defining. Although it's not a hill to die on, I do think the word “prescribing” is more precise in the original formulation as opposed to the word that was put forward in the subamendment.

Then, also, in the second part of the amendment, it is replacing the word “proceed” with “undertaken”, “proceed” being to move or go forward or onward especially after stopping, and “undertaken” being to take upon oneself as a task performance. Again, it does seem to me looking at the change in language there from “proceed” to “undertaken” that both words could be appropriate. At least the implication is that “proceed” means after stopping might be appropriate, especially given, I think, the challenges we've had, but really either way “proceed” or “undertaken.”

In general I'm trying to sort through the subamendment and ask if there are some things that make sense. Are there some things where words are being substituted where it's not entirely clear to me why? Sure. Are there other issues that are raised in terms of changing this?

I think the biggest substantive difference is this question of “makes a decision on” versus the “completion” of studies. We've made the case precisely because of the importance of the work we're doing and what constitutes good operating procedures for a committee to be able to finish one thing before going to another, or at least finish a package of things before going to another.

I would make the case that, with what we're doing, the idea of finishing or at least making a definitive decision and carrying out that decision with respect to the existing work of the committee is a better way for us to proceed than the other, of simply making a decision about.

I hope I've suggested in this intervention that we are looking to work collaboratively to establish a path forward here. We believe that committees have a mandate to try to work in a consensus way to whatever extent possible and that there's a need for us to do that. There's a value in us doing that, instead of people just dropping in and saying they want to upend the committee's agenda and do something different because there's a political imperative that's pushing them to do so.

We want to get back to the work of studying the horrific Russian invasion of Ukraine. We want to get back to completing the committee's work on vaccine equity and completing the work on Taiwan as well as proceeding with the legislation. That's what we've said all along. That's why we've moved motions to proceed to other matters, and that's why we've moved motions to adjourn debate. It's just, at the end of the day, pretty rich for folks to say, “We want the committee to get to other things too,” but then to vote against those motions that are precisely about doing that and that say this is what we're going to do now.

Mr. Chair, in the spirit of that, I will move that the committee proceed to consideration of next steps on the study on Ukraine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Genuis if, before we take the vote, for the benefit of all members, you could read out the revised subamendment one more time, I think that would be helpful.

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

I'm sorry. It's not a subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

It's a motion.

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

I moved a motion.

It's a motion that we proceed to the discussion of next steps on the study on Ukraine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Okay, absolutely.

Is there unanimous consent for that?

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

No, I'm afraid not.

We next go to—

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

It's a dilatory motion, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We'll call a vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

Thank you.

We now go next to Mr. Aboultaif.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

I would like to offer my time slot to our colleague from the Bloc Québécois.