Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2022

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Ms. McPherson, the floor is yours.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I will not be supporting this amendment because you don't get to decide which women have access to reproductive health. We should able to look at what's happening in the U.S. They are part of foreign affairs. They are part of our purview as this committee, and excluding that is insulting.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Does anyone else wish to comment on Mr. Chong's amendment?

If not, we will proceed with the vote, Madam Clerk.

We are voting on Mr. Chong's amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

We are now back on Ms. Fry's motion.

Are there any comments?

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a bit frustrating, clearly, because members of our party have done our best to try to work and engage in good faith here. The government has—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I'm getting heckled, Mr. Chair, which is something I admittedly have done at certain points in the past, as members are pointing out, so that's fair enough. I've been chastised when I've done it, though.

Mr. Chair, the objective we're trying to pursue here is to have a good-faith approach to the work of this committee by being able to establish what the work we're going to undertake is, and to do so in a way that respects all parties and gives due process of time. Instead we have Liberals putting forward multiple motions on different topics, saying that we're going to try to program by motion the work of the committee.

We're over time. I don't know what the timeline here is, Mr. Chair. I would appreciate it if we had an opportunity to have the subcommittee on agenda and procedure review this and have our vice-chair be a part of that discussion.

In the absence of that, let me try again with an amendment that will maybe help us be less prescriptive in our engagement with the subcommittee. It is to remove the words “that the committee hold no fewer than (5) five meetings”.

Removing those words would not be to prescribe a specific number of meetings. We might go on to hold five meetings. We might go on to not hold five meetings. We might go on to do something else entirely. It would to remove that prescriptive requirement around the number of meetings, so as to give the greatest possible flexibility to the subcommittee in its consideration of the matter. I would move that amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Is the amendment in order, Madam Clerk?

[The Clerk]

Yes

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

We will now debate Mr. Genuis's amendment.

Do we have any comments on the amendment?

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

Mr. Chair, I wasn't finished speaking. There may be others who wish to comment on it, but I have....

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Please continue, Mr. Genuis. No one has their hand up as of yet.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the agenda of the committee right now, we currently have three studies ongoing. We have a study with respect to the situation in Ukraine. We have not thus far made a decision around completing a report on that study. On that study, in the context of the work of this committee, we probably should do a detailed report on the situation in Ukraine.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Mr. Oliphant has a point of order.

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

It's with respect to relevance. It is in the standing order that it needs to be relevant. There is no statement in this motion about when this study would take place. It is to simply affirm the fact that we will do a study.

Mr. Genuis is arguing about work that we have to do or not do. That will go into a study, but it is not relevant to this particular motion. There's nothing in this about when the study will happen.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have a point of order as well.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

When considering the standing order on relevance, I note that the chair's interpretation has traditionally been as wide as possible, so I will allow the debate to carry on.

That said, I see that Ms. McPherson would like to comment on the point of order.

The floor is yours, Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I would just like to point out that I have heard the same things repeated three times from this member.

I'd like to call a vote.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Unfortunately, Ms. McPherson, the debate must continue.

You can finish what you were saying, Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With all due respect to the committee members, we have tried to work together. We have been reasonable and proposed accommodations so that the committee could find a path to move forward with its work.

We had plans today to look over a draft statement with respect to the situation in Ukraine. Regarding the question of whether this is impacting our agenda in other respects, it's clear that it's already impacting our agenda. The fact that Liberals wanted to talk about abortion today, instead of being able to move forward with the study on Ukraine, is already informing the conversation that we were intending to have.

For Mr. Oliphant to say, well okay, this could happen at any time and and that we have to set a minimum of five meetings to do it clearly can't help but impact the structure of this committee's agenda.

The committee is currently is studying the situation in Ukraine and my understanding was that today, we were supposed to have a discussion about that statement on Ukraine. I think it's a missed opportunity. There are some members in other parties who have said very emphatically that we need to be talking about the fact that there's a land war in Europe right now and that it has huge consequences for our strategic situation and our interests, as well as for human life and well-being. Instead, Liberals wanted to bounce that off the agenda, apparently, and have a discussion about reopening the abortion debate.

There was the Ukraine study. There's the COVAX study. We've given drafting instructions with respect to the report. We have a report coming back on the very important issue of vaccine equity, and that is something that I think the committee needs to look at and move forward on.

Recognizing the importance of all the topics we're working on, it's important that we work toward completing the things we start as a committee, and that we don't simply throw out a bunch of ideas and leave them half incomplete while we're throwing out a whole bunch of other ideas. The obligation of a standing committee is to be intentional about working through the study it's done when it has heard from witnesses, and that it should take what it has heard from those witnesses and turn those things into reports.

Frankly, I think there's a lot more we could be hearing on the issue of Ukraine, given that there are constant, ongoing developments. There's the situation in Taiwan—

I'm sorry. Ms. Bendayan, did you have a point of order or something?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, the member has asked whether I have a point of order.

How is our study on Ukraine relevant to the altogether different motion we are in the process of debating?

I want to point out that the member is actually jeopardizing the importance of our study on Ukraine, because he is choosing to speak for no real reason other than to prevent the committee from voting on the motion before it.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Thank you, Ms. Bendayan.

I told the committee my view on relevance a moment ago.

Mr. Genuis, you have the floor to wrap up your comments.

Mr. Chong and Ms. Fry are next on the speaking list.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect, it seems to be the position of the government, though, that if we only sort of resolutely rubber-stamp the motions they put forward, we'll be able to get back to other things. That seems to be an unreasonable request for members of the government to make of the committee.

Generally, if members want their ideas adopted quickly, there's an opportunity for discussion in advance of the meeting and broader programming around the committee's agenda. There is limited time we have.

I mentioned the issues of legislation. We have the COVAX study, we have the Ukraine study and the Taiwan study, which I think members have all said are important. Everything's important, but the fact that the Liberals are in multiple committees trying to displace all of the other items of business before this parliament—it seems—to push for a conversation about abortion is just very telling about their political approach to this. That's their choice, but it's our conviction that we could try to work together to try to identify some things that we can study in the framework that we normally do, which is through the subcommittee. That's why I proposed the framework that I have.

I'll leave it there for now.