Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2022

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

I know that you have been very lax and liberal with respect to relevance. However, we are on a subamendment to the amendment to the motion, which very specifically does two things. It deletes a reference to the completion of a study and it furthers the thing. I have no idea how anyone on this committee, in this room or in this world could possibly find relevance between what the honourable member is saying and the subamendment that is before us at this time.

I know that you give lots of latitude on that. However, I think there is some time when you can rule it out of order and either ask the member to move on and speak to the subamendment or actually end the member's time. It has been done by some chairs at times, notably me, to say it's time to move on. That can be done and I think that's very important because I think we want to show that Parliament is relevant. If Parliament is not relevant because a conversation is completely irrelevant, then we don't have that ability.

I know you have latitude to do that, but I would hope you'd at least remind the member to try to focus on the subamendment, which Mr. Bergeron has presented in good faith, to attempt to move this committee from something that has gone on from May 16 until now.

As you know, we'll be supporting that subamendment if we ever get it to be voted on.

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

I'd like to speak to the same point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, Mr. Genuis.

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to note that, as you have said in the past, one committee doesn't provide a precedent for another committee. Mr. Oliphant has cited actions he may or may not have taken as chair in a different committee. Those do not provide precedent for the actions of this committee.

I also just note that the amendment removes the language “after the completion of the committee's studies on” and replaces it with the language “the committee makes a decision on the studies before it on”. Discussion around whether the completion of studies related to Ukraine, vaccine equity and Taiwan, as opposed to just decisions being made about those studies and therefore the importance of the matters raised in those studies on Ukraine, vaccine equity and Taiwan are certainly relevant. In fact, they're not only relevant, they're central to the very question of whether the study should be completed first or whether simply a decision should be made about those studies.

Finally, I'll just again mention that the precedent at this committee from the House—the long practice of all committees of this House—is that members are able to speak to the issue at hand while providing context and arguments around it. It is very unusual for people to be interrupted every couple of minutes saying that this sentence and that sentence don't apply. I just make note of those precedents as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, Dr. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I would like to speak to the issue of relevance.

I think that we are discussing a subamendment to an amendment brought forward by Mr. Genuis, which is an amendment to a motion I brought forward.

I fail to see how discussing South Africa and what went on in a particular government during that time has anything at all to do with Taiwan, Ukraine, vaccine equity and the subamendment. Indeed, it is a rule of committees that relevance and repetition are two issues that can cause a chair to ask a speaker to stand down and move to the next speaker on the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Dr. Fry.

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Aboultaif?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Yes, if I may.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Go ahead, Mr. Aboultaif.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

I have a couple of things.

First of all, I think the historic background that Mr. Perkins was giving is very relevant to the topics that we're discussing, and I know that Mr. Oliphant knows that. The one concern I have is not just about this but about how it seems like Mr. Oliphant is trying to suggest to the chair to change the way he does things or to do his job, and I don't think that should be the case from any of us as members of this committee. I think the chair knows his job. He knows his options, and he has been doing a good job.

I believe that, if I were Mr. Oliphant, I would avoid making suggestions to the chair about what he should be doing and how he should be running this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Aboultaif.

Mr. Morantz, I understand you have a point of order.

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

I'm on the same point of order, Mr. Chair.

I do note that in Mr. Oliphant's intervention, he said that you were being lax in your enforcement of the idea of relevance, and I would just point out that I think that you're the master of this committee, and you will decide what is relevant or what isn't and apply your own standards to that, and Mr. Oliphant shouldn't be telling you whether you're being lax, too strict or just right.

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

Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, Mr. Zuberi, go ahead.

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

I'm sorry to say this, but clearly, you were given a very rough ride when you assumed the chair and others were trying to tell you what to do.

We need to also note that we are all equal members of this committee. If one of us, whether on the opposition side or the government side, is asking that we remain focused in terms of our interventions, which makes complete sense, so we can move ahead with our work and not continue on for weeks and weeks and weeks on the same exact point of debate and conversation, getting nowhere.... They're just trying to nudge us along and help us to get to where we need to get.

Again, I'm just pleading with all members to be focused and on the issue to help us move along so we can make some decisions, because at this point, that's not what's happening—very far from it. Long speeches are being given along with long interventions, history lessons, personal bios, etc. I'm really interested in that stuff. I'm not going to say I'm not interested in learning about people and colleagues, but I'm just asking that we stay focused so we can make some decisions and get to the actual work here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

Mr. Oliphant, do you have a point of order?

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

Mr. Chair, on my original point of order, I would never presume to tell the chair what to do; however, by definition, a point of order is exactly what Mr. Morantz was arguing it is not. A point of order is exactly suggesting to the chair that we follow the standing orders of the committee. It has been done by Mr. Genuis numerous times when he suggested that the chair should be doing something.

I want to be absolutely clear about that. That doesn't mean I won't contest the chair at some point, because every member can always contest the chair's ruling to see if we have majority support.

At this point, I'm simply reminding the members of the committee that relevance is required. It is in the standing orders, and I would hope that the chair would acknowledge that and either ask the member to move on or to rule the member out of order at some point. That can be done in any committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

I would like to remind all the members that relevance is obviously important. I think we can all agree to that; however, that having been said, I think we can all agree that relevance is something of an elastic concept. Context is important, but, as was noted, Mr. Bergeron introduced his subamendment in good faith, so I would ask the members to do their best to bear in mind the subamendment before us and to keep their comments relevant to the subamendment.

Mr. Perkins, the floor is yours.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, members. I thought at the beginning I'd laid out the relevance about what I was about to say. It has to do with the sanctions that have been imposed on Russia and individual Russians as a result of their illegal invasion and war against Ukraine and the method with which the government is doing that, namely, the Special Economic Measures Act.

The context for that Special Economic Measures Act is important. I'm not sure if there are members around here who know how many times it's actually been used. There are 21 cases currently of existing sanctions that Canada has ongoing, and seven previously that have now ended. One of those seven is the reason that the sanction power exists, so that Parliament is not the individual arbiter every time there is a sanction proposed by the Government of Canada. So the debate and discussion.... It is the Governor in Council who gets to set those.

Part of the study, in the motion, is about whether or not we should be getting on with the important things on the study of Ukraine. We've just heard from witnesses from the Ukraine government. While it was in camera, they spent quite a bit of time...and even the government members were asking questions of those witnesses relative to sanctions.

So in terms of the relevance of what I'm saying, it's related to those things that clearly members have—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I would ask the chair to be very mindful that with an in camera meeting it is parliamentary privilege.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

My apologies.

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

Nothing—not anything—about that meeting should ever be said in a public meeting. It is a breach of the rules of Parliament. It is a very, very serious breach of the rules of Parliament to even say “even though” it was in camera.

I would ask the member to withdraw those and make sure they're not put into the record of this meeting.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I certainly will. I thank you, Mr. Oliphant.