Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2022

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you. It's much appreciated, Madam Clerk.

I would like to begin by saying that in good faith, we agreed to the previous amendment proposed by the same member. At this point, it would seem that there is going to be a litany of new amendments at every turn.

I believe calculations have been made and it is now the 16th hour of debate on this same motion. We have all agreed on many occasions that the important work of this study is being deterred. I would urge all members to move simply to vote on this motion, which has dragged on in debate for far too long.

I would not be supportive of this amendment, as I mentioned on a previous occasion. I believe it was at end of the last meeting. Not only would there only be further amendments should we agree to this amendment—that is obviously quite clear at this point—but moving an amendment that would essentially defer the matter to after a report from the subcommittee is presented to this committee will only engender another endless filibuster on behalf of the Conservatives.

I am not supportive of this particular further amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Ms. Bendayan.

Mr. Genuis, the floor is yours.

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

Mr. Chair. I'm sorry to hear that we're not yet at a point where there is consensus. I had hoped we might be there.

Just to review the context and maybe clarify a few points from what Ms. Bendayan said, I think we were very clear, prior to the vote on the previous amendment, that we would be proposing one more amendment. I said as much. I said as much on the record. The record will show that.

The implication is, “Well, we accepted the amendment in good faith, and now here's another amendment.” No. I said, prior to the amendment that I want you guys to be aware that there will be another amendment coming.

The amendment we are putting forward to this motion is actually completely consistent with things that government members have said throughout the course of this conversation on this motion. We had a motion put before the committee, in the middle of three existing studies. At the time, I said that the expectation was that we would see two pieces of legislation come to the committee, in addition to the three studies we were already doing. Effectively, there were five things on the table, which is a very substantial agenda, probably more substantial than most committees deal with in terms of three ongoing studies plus two points of business the House has directed the committee to take up.

We said there were some problems with the motion as it was written. I think Mr. Chong identified those problems when this issue was first up for discussion. Fundamentally, then we said, let's make sure that the study proposed by this motion, if the motion passes, proceeds in a way that is prescribed by the special committee, and that it not proceed until the other work of the committee is finished. That's all the amendment says. The amendment says that we should focus first on completing the work we have to do on the issues of Ukraine, vaccine equity and Taiwan as well as legislation, and that the subcommittee should meet and prescribe the particulars of how the committee is going to undertake that study going forward.

In fact, members of the government have said precisely that this is their intention. “Oh no, we're not saying the study should take place right now. Of course, we think the committee's work on Ukraine should be completed first. We just want to pass this motion anyway to express some aspiration about something that we would study in the future.”

Well, we are putting what they have said is their intention with respect to the committee's agenda into the text of the motion. It's always a little bit suspicious when the government says, “This is what we're going to do,” but then we put it into the text of the motion and say that we're going to have this language in the motion to make sure this is what we're going to do, and then all of a sudden at that point, we have government members saying that this is somehow unreasonable.

I think the process around the conversation we're having on this amendment is important to clarify. Conservatives have repeatedly moved motions to adjourn debate on this or to proceed to other orders of business.

Our view is that the committee should get back to its work as soon as possible, get back to the important work it was doing prior to this disruptive motion being put forward. We should get back to that work right away. The best way to do that is to adjourn debate on this motion so that we can proceed with that work. There's plenty of time for further discussion on how this type of a study would unfold.

It's fairly obvious that even in the most hawkish scenario, we're not going to get to the content envisioned by the study, let's say, prior to the summer. Members could spend a substantial amount of time talking and figuring out what and if and the particulars of the study. That's why we've said let's adjourn debate on this matter and proceed with the work of the committee as planned.

The government has consistently voted against our proposals to adjourn debate. They've said that the only way they're going to allow this committee to proceed to something else is if we actually complete debate on this matter.

They're professing the same concern. We're saying that we should get back to the regular work of this committee and they're saying we should get back to the regular work of this committee.

On the face of it, you have two sides that are professing a desire for the same thing, which is the committee being able to proceed with its work. I guess the difference is that we've said the way for the committee to proceed with its work is for the committee to adjourn debate on this matter and to return to this matter closer to a time when we might actually proceed with a hypothetical study, when we've actually completed the five points of business that are already on the table for the committee to do.

The government, working with the NDP, have said they're not going to accept those kinds of adjournment proposals we've put forward, so we are left with saying that if the government insists that we have to hash this out now, then we have to hash it out. This means making the arguments and putting the amendments with respect to this motion that we think are appropriate.

We are only in this situation because the government is unwilling to adjourn debate or accept motions that we've put forward for the committee to proceed to other orders of business. That's unfortunate because usually that's the way things are worked out.

Again, we put this amendment forward. We were transparent about the fact that we were going to move one more amendment. We put forward this amendment at Thursday's meeting. At the time, Mr. Zuberi quite rightly asked if we could have some conversations offline and if could we give each other feedback on what we want to do so that we don't have to do all the wordsmithing and the hashing out on the floor here.

I moved the amendment verbally and I sent the text of it to our esteemed clerk, who ensured it was translated and distributed to the committee. My understanding is that members had it Thursday night, and if not Thursday night, certainly by Friday morning. They were able to see the amendment. They were able to look at it and consider it. I would have welcomed feedback and suggestions from members in terms of refinements or at least expressions of support or not going forward. We didn't receive those, unfortunately. Now I'm finding out.... I'm not entirely surprised. Usually when you don't hear from the other side, you kind of get an indication that they're not going to go with you on that.

We had this amendment that I would have thought we could have hashed out. Could we have tried to figure something out on it? That didn't happen and now we're just being told that actually, you're digging our heels in.

I'm going to assume that there's a reluctance to proceed in the way that we thought made sense, which is to adjourn debate. It's unfortunate because what we're saying on this amendment is quite specifically to emphasize the importance of the committee's work on Ukraine, on vaccine equity, on Taiwan, as well as on legislation.

I want to flag the importance of the legislative items and the need to get to those first. Generally, it's the practice of the committees of the House to say that they need to prioritize legislation ahead of other matters. We have two pieces of legislation that have been referred to the foreign affairs committee. Both are pieces of legislation for which debate collapsed after the first hour. Both are pieces of legislation that actually received unanimous consent of the House, so they clearly come with a strong consensus coming out of the House. As this amendment says, we should study that legislation ahead of engaging in other business.

One piece of that legislation is a private member's bill by MP John McKay on the government side. It has broad, all-party support. It's designed to tackle the critical issue of supply chain slavery, forced and child labour in supply chains. It does so through a transparency framework requiring companies of a certain size to be transparent about what's in their supply chains. I know that some folks on the committee want this bill to go further or to contain other measures. I think it's the sort of thing that does require a detailed study. We have to work to make it as effective as possible to realize the results that need to be there.

Personally, I would be supportive of including a targeted regional approach in that bill as well, to recognize that there are certain regions where there are high levels of forced labour coming out. On Parliament Hill today, we have Mr. Enes Kanter Freedom, who is an NBA player, highlighting issues of the Uighur genocide, and as part of that, forced labour issues.

I think we should consider, as part of that legislation, or separate legislation, something like the framework put in place with the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the United States that would actually recognize the significant risk of forced labour in East Turkestan and say that any product coming out of there will be presumed to have forced labour in it, unless there's proof otherwise.

These are things we need look at in the context of the committee's study of Bill S-211. I've also said that I think we should have an amendment to that bill to add in an entities list, to add in provisions that would say that the government should designate a list of entities that we know are of significant concern with respect to forced labour. Providing that entities list would ease the work that government entities need to do, and also ease the work that the private sector needs to do in terms of just being able to identify what the sources of forced labour are.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Morantz in a moment. I know he hasn't spoken yet during the debate on this motion. I will perhaps have more things to say later on in the debate, but before I give the floor to him, I just want to highlight the other piece of legislation that's before the committee now. It's a bill that stands in my name, although it comes from the other place—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just want to ensure that the chair is in charge. No one gives the floor to another member in a committee of the House of Commons.

I believe you will give the floor to someone. I just want to make sure. We have young people in the room who may not know the rules of procedure. If anybody could be misled, it would be a very dangerous thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

That's duly noted. Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

Mr. Genuis, the floor is yours.

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

Thank—

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I just want to clarify, and I do agree with what—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Morantz, could you wait until you've been acknowledged.

Mr. Morantz.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

It's on that point of order, though.

I just take exception to the use of the word “misled”. It's a good point of order that you recognize who has the floor, but to say that young people here may somehow be misled by my esteemed colleague here is inappropriate, and I would encourage the member to withdraw his use of that word.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Zuberi.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I'd just like to acknowledge that I'm a younger person, and I'm happy to learn.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Perhaps I can add something else while I have been given the floor by you, and thank you so much for that.

I want to ask again that all members focus their interventions in a way that is directly related to the issue at hand. Right now I'm at a loss for exactly what the intervention is specifically about. I'd ask that we stay focused and clear so that we can all follow this debate and conversation, which I believe has been happening for 16 hours, if I'm correct, on this exact same point.

We're all very educated—we should be at least—and able to put forth something in a concise fashion. I'm assuming the same point can be boiled down from 16 hours to about 16 minutes. I'm sure we all have the ability to do that. We're supported by great staff, who are behind us, and who oftentimes support us in writing our words to make them pithy, concise and to have meaning.

I ask that all of us here work with our staff to have pithy and precise interventions so that they do not last for 16 hours.

I didn't get my staff to write that for me either.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

I think we can all agree, having heard several of you, that it is imperative we maintain civility in this committee. Part of that civility, of course, is to ensure that we are adhering to process and that we are going about it in a rigorous fashion.

Just to reiterate, when someone does wish to speak, they first have to be acknowledged by the chair. Also, and this is a good reminder to all of us, we should keep our comments relevant to the amendment at hand.

Mr. Genuis, the floor is yours.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm tempted to tease Mr. Zuberi and say that wasn't a very concise intervention about being concise, but I appreciate his comments.

If Mr. Oliphant will forgive me, I'm a relatively new member to this place in terms of how procedure works. I always need a refresher so I appreciate him taking the time to ensure that I'm fully up to speed. I hope we'll get to hear from him about the risks of using Google Translate. I always find it edifying when he shares that information.

My intention in saying I will cede the floor to Mr. Morantz is, of course, not to imply that I have the power to give the floor to anyone but it's more based on what I thought was the speakers list. The chair is nodding so I assume that means that though I clearly failed in describing the procedures in the most formal way it is in fact Mr. Morantz next.

I'll wrap up my comments for the moment by responding to Mr. Zuberi's point with respect to the question of topicality and the amendment and then making a couple of comments about the piece of legislation that I was going to speak to.

The amendment we're debating is an amendment to the current motion. It says:

and that this study not take place until after the completion of the committee's studies on Ukraine, Vaccine Equity and Taiwan as well as studies on legislation sent from the House of Commons; and further that it not take place until the subcommittee on agenda and procedure submits a report prescribing the manner in which the study is to proceed;

In the context of this amendment it would be fully appropriate to make arguments about the importance of the studies on Ukraine, the importance of the study on vaccine equity, the importance of the study on Taiwan, and the importance of the pieces of legislation, because that is precisely what this amendment says. It says that those three studies, as well as the legislation, should be given priority over the content of this motion. Very clearly, there are five things: Ukraine, vaccine equity, Taiwan, Bill S-211, and Bill S-233, I believe. There's another bill, S-223, that has some folks very excited so I'm careful not to mix those up. Those are the topics that we're invited to discuss in the form of this amendment.

The other piece of legislation, S-233.... Is it Bill S-223? Okay, it's Bill S-223. It's my bill and I've forgotten the number. Bill S-223 is my bill and Bill S-233 is the controversial one. I'm sorry, it's not my bill. Again, we're being precise on a Monday morning after I've taken a red eye and that's good.

Where was I here? The bill would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ taken without consent. This bill is designed to combat the horrific practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking. It also contains a provision by which a person could be deemed inadmissible to Canada if they have been involved in forced organ harvesting and trafficking. We know that there's organ harvesting and trafficking sadly that happens in other countries and there are limits obviously to what we can do about human rights violations that happen in other countries. But one important step we can take is ensuring that we as Canada and that Canadians individually are not complicit in those violations of human rights that take place overseas.

One of the reasons we see forced organ harvesting and trafficking is demand for those organs. If people are coming from other countries to receive an organ that was taken from someone without consent that creates a demand for organs to be taken without consent. That's where we can try to intervene on the Canadian side and confront the issue of prospective demand.

These are two very important pieces of legislation, Bill S-223, and Bill S-211. I'm hopeful that the committee will be able to get to them and proceed with them as well as the other important items on the floor.

I did have a few other things I was going to say but I will finish my remarks for the moment. I suspect next we'll hear from Mr. Morantz and I'm looking forward to his intervention and the interventions of other members as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Morantz, the floor is yours.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to congratulate you on becoming the chair of this committee. I look forward to a collaborative relationship with you and with all parties on this very important committee.

I want to bring us all back for a moment to what it is we are actually debating currently. As we know, MP Fry introduced a motion on May 6, 2022. In our last meeting, Mr. Genuis introduced an amendment to that motion. His amendment simply states as follows:

and that this study not take place until after the completion of the committee's studies on Ukraine, vaccine equity and Taiwan as well as studies on legislation sent from the House of Commons; and further that it not take place until the subcommittee on agenda and procedure submits a report prescribing the manner in which the study is to proceed.

Those words would be inserted between “rights globally” and “and that the committee report its findings to the House”.

That is the subject we are currently debating. I must say that I am surprised that this amendment has not sailed through. I recall at the meeting on Thursday the members around the table saying that it's exactly what they wanted to see happen. Everybody wants to see us finish the study on Ukraine, on vaccine equity and on Taiwan. We have an obligation to study Bill S-223 and Bill S-211. Everyone seems to agree on that. So I'm somewhat confounded by the fact that we can't seem to come to an agreement on an amendment that everybody has spoken in favour of, from what I can tell so far.

One of the things that's extremely important about this amendment is Ukraine. I want to spend some time talking about my perspective. I'd appreciate some latitude on this, as I was not here the week Dr. Fry's motion was introduced. This is actually my very first time speaking on this subject.

Having the committee find itself in this unfortunate position, I just want to say that this committee is essentially on the front lines. We shouldn't underestimate our role. We're on the front lines of protecting Canada's foreign interests abroad. What we study here can directly impact decisions that the Government of Canada makes vis-à-vis our interests in Ukraine and around the world.

Now, we know that the world is a dangerous place, and it's even more dangerous now that Mr. Putin has taken the rash decision to invade our friend and ally Ukraine. Canada has over one million citizens of Ukrainian descent. Our ties to Ukraine carry a moral imperative. That imperative is to safeguard our foreign policy interests and to stand up for Ukrainian Canadians who are rightfully distraught over the carnage that their beautiful, peace-loving, democratic state has been subjected to. It's also to stand up for the principles of peace and democracy throughout the world. That's why we're here.

We have met these obligations. Canada has met these obligations over our long history. Former prime minister Lester Pearson stood up for these ideals when he assembled the first large-scale United Nations peacekeeping force to de-escalate the situation in Suez. He was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for the work he did. Mr. Pearson also played an important role in his career to establish the peaceful and democratic State of Israel, resulting in our most important bilateral relationship in the Middle East.

Former prime minister Brian Mulroney stood up for these ideals when he was alone on the world stage seeking to free Nelson Mandela and bring an end to apartheid in South Africa. Mr. Mulroney spearheaded an aggressive Canadian push within the Commonwealth for sanctions to pressure South Africa to end apartheid and get Mr. Mandela released after 25 years of unjust incarceration.

The day after his release from prison, Mr. Mandela spoke with Mr. Mulroney on the phone. According to the former Canadian prime minister's memoirs, Mandela told him, “We regard you as one of our great friends because of the solid support we have received from you and Canada over the years.... When I was in jail, having friends like you in Canada gave me more joy and support than I can say.”

In 2004 Mr. Mandela sent a letter in which he said that Mr. Mulroney had provided strong and principled leadership in the struggle against apartheid. He also said that this was not a popular position—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, as the member opposite knows, I am a long-time friend of former prime minister Mr. Mulroney. Nothing pleases me more than hearing stories of the discussions between Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Mandela, but that is not relevant to the amendment before us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Ms. Bendayan.

Yes, I would like to caution all the members to try, to the best of their abilities, to remain focused on the issue at hand. Mr. Morantz asked for some latitude, but we ask that you try to keep it relevant to the topic at hand.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm sure you appreciate as a lawyer, as I am, that it's important when you're formulating an argument to be able to set the stage for that argument, and that is what I'm doing with my comments about many former prime ministers, including Mr. Pearson.

I ask my colleagues to have a little bit of patience, and I'll continue with my argument, if that's okay. I'm sure that they will soon see the relevance of why I am revisiting this important history of our country.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. Bendayan, for your intervention through the chair.

In 2004 Mr. Mandela sent a letter in which he said that Mulroney had provided strong and principled leadership in the struggle against apartheid. He also said that this was not a popular position in all quarters, but South Africans today acknowledge the importance of his contribution to their eventual liberation and success.

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien stood up for these ideals when he recognized that it would be wrong for Canada to get involved in the conflict in Iraq.

Prime Minister Harper stood up for these ideals when he committed Canada to the defence of Afghanistan.

Now the NDP-Liberal coalition seems to be asking us to abandon our work on Mr. Putin's bloody invasion of Ukraine to study something else entirely.

I'm not saying that other matters aren't important, but the most important foreign policy challenge of today is Ukraine.

I'm sure now my colleagues are starting to see the relevance of the comments I made in the preamble, because I'm making a direct analogy to how those prime ministers behaved and how this committee is now behaving, presumably under the direction of the Prime Minister.

I'm not saying that other matters aren't important, not at all. I think there's merit in the motion that's been proposed by Dr. Fry, in fact, but the most important foreign policy challenge of today is Ukraine. It's Ukraine. Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine. That's what it is. This committee must be laser focused on pushing back on Mr. Putin's madness, plain and simple.

The pushing back must include a concerted, sustained and unrelenting focus on Ukraine by this committee. We cannot underestimate the importance of this committee in our machinery of government and how it influences our foreign policy. To try to change the channel in the middle of that is just wrong.

Let me ask this rhetorically. What would our NATO allies say about this committee changing its priorities away from Ukraine? More than that, what would Ukraine Ambassador Kovaliv say about this committee trying to change its priorities away from Ukraine? We all heard her. She just appeared before this committee. I think if we all asked her about Dr. Fry's motion, we know what she would say.

She just appeared before this committee pleading with us to do more, not to study something else, but to do more about Ukraine. She described in detail the horrors Mr. Putin has inflicted on her beloved country. I recall the end of her remarks, and I'm sure all of us here do as well. She spoke of a young mother who the Russians taped together with her living child and a mine that they detonated. This is what we should be studying, not something else.

Frankly, it's upsetting to me that we are even having this debate right now, because I thought all of my colleagues on this committee agreed. I heard what they said in the Thursday meeting. They want to study Ukraine. Mr. Genuis's amendment to the motion says exactly that, that we'll study Ukraine and then we'll get to Dr. Fry's motion, so I'm not sure what the problem is here.

In any event, let me ask this rhetorically. What would President Zelenskyy say about this committee changing its focus away from Ukraine? I think we know what he'd say. He appeared in Parliament begging us to do more. Shame on this committee for trying to change the channel right now. Shame on this committee. We need to get back to studying Ukraine.

I know my Liberal colleagues will argue that's not the case. I heard Mr. Oliphant and Ms. Bendayan trying to make the case that we want to study Ukraine, yet they continue to push a motion on another issue that's completely different.

This is another thing that I want to mention, Mr. Chair. Putting Dr. Fry's motion on notice, that's one thing. We do that all the time. There are many motions in the queue and that's fine, but to move it, to actually activate it, in the middle of the most important foreign policy work, the most important issue and the most important study this committee will likely ever do in this Parliament, and that many of us will do in our political careers, is just wrong. It should be withdrawn and we should get on with our work on Ukraine.

At the very least, we should pass Mr. Genuis's amendment so that we know what the order of business of this committee will be, but that's not what the Liberal members of this committee want. Instead of continuing to study, they want to turn the page. They want to talk about what's going on in the United States. I'm not saying that this isn't an important issue, but Liberal members apparently don't understand that U.S. jurisprudence is not stare decisis in Canada. In fact, there is no decision out of the U.S. Supreme Court. There's a leaked decision—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. There is no—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, Ms. Bendayan.