Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2022

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

—is flagrant at this point, Mr. Chair.

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

This isn't a matter of order. You're welcome to argue it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

I think we're getting into a question of debate. I'm sure Mr. Genuis will establish the relevance, so we'll let him go, with the message generally being to stick as closely as he can to the thrust of the motion.

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

Thank you.

I do think it's revealing when a member says they have a point of order and they use the words “I would argue” in the context of a point of order. That should maybe indicate that it's not a point of order.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I apologize. The point of order was on relevance. Please stick to the motion. That's the point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Let's keep order, colleagues. Instead of talking over top of each other, let's keep order, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have sought to adjourn this meeting and to proceed to allow the Afghanistan committee to do its work. In fact, this is why we said, prior to six o'clock, that we would be prepared to let the debate collapse on this entirely, and it was Liberal members.... The record will show that at six o'clock it was Liberal members that talked this through past that time and therefore ensured that the Afghanistan committee would not proceed

Regardless, the important point is to respond to the arguments made directly by Ms. Bendayan and by Mr. Oliphant, who said, essentially, hey, this committee can do lots of things at once, that we can “walk and chew gum at the same time”.

Let's just reflect on that metaphor a little bit, because the reason people say that you can walk and chew gum at the same time is that you can. Those are activities that don't involve the same organs. Chewing gum involves your teeth and walking involves your legs, right?

But a committee cannot simultaneously study two different issues in the same meeting. It cannot. Of course, it can study one issue at one meeting, one issue at another meeting and go back to the other meeting, but it very clearly can't do those things simultaneously. We have to weigh out....

Some colleagues are speaking to me. I invite them to get on the list or raise points of order, or we can suspend and have a side conversation about this, but otherwise, I'll just continue. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

If members of the government believe that there isn't such a thing as scarcity of resources, well, I'm sorry, that's just missing out on the reality of how this place has worked. The fact is that, today, if this motion hadn't been moved, or if there had been agreement to take a step back from it and have discussion on the side about it, we could have in fact been having the conversation that we should have had on the statement with respect to Ukraine. We might well have adopted that statement, we might have released that statement and we might have tabled a statement in the House.

I would have been in favour of us giving analysts some direction on developing a report on Ukraine, because we're in the middle of a study on Ukraine, and what I'm saying is, let's get back to the vital work that we need to do on Ukraine.

For members across the way to say, well, we can do all these things simultaneously and we can be on this half of the room doing Ukraine and on this half of the room doing something else.... Well, no: That's just not how it works. We need to set priorities. We need to say what we are going to prioritize as a committee. If we're going to prioritize the issue of Ukraine, then we need to set aside a time to hear from witnesses; to renew our information, as there are new developments on the ground; to discuss the many other emerging issues that we have not discussed; and then to move from there to the question of releasing statements and of writing reports—interim report, final report. We can make that decision as a committee about how we move forward.

On the other issue, there were some other statements that were made by government members in response to our conversation on this that I think are—I don't know if I can say “misleading”—inaccurate: I'm sure well intentioned, but inaccurate. This motion was characterized as an idea for a future “work plan”. This isn't an idea for a further work plan. This is a highly prescriptive motion that says we are going to study a particular thing. That is the nature of the way the world works. Parliamentary committees study one thing at a particular meeting at a particular time. This says that in the midst of Ukraine and everything else that is going on, we should study, they are saying, abortion, and we're saying, and saying in the context of this adjournment motion in particular—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Genuis, there is a point of order.

Once again, colleagues, we have bells. It's a 30-minute bell that would take us on this clock until about 9:10 to even get to the vote. We have resources until 9:30 with an absolute hard stop, so that would leave us at best 10 minutes after we come back from this vote.

If colleagues agree.... It's clear that there is going to be more discussion on this. If colleagues agree, I would suggest that we suspend for the evening until our next session, whenever it is, and maybe as early as tomorrow—it may be on Thursday—and that we resume with the speakers list that we have now, which is Mr. Genuis, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Duncan and Ms. McPherson. Is that agreeable?

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

Mr. Chair, I would suggest that we adjourn as opposed to suspending.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

No, I don't think we have consent for an adjournment.

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

I'm happy to suspend for the night, as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

We will suspend until our next session.

Colleagues, the meeting is suspended until the next session.

[The meeting was suspended at 8:41 p.m., Monday, May 16]

[The meeting resumed at 3:37 p.m., Thursday, May 19]

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Good afternoon, honourable members.

I am back as committee chair in these unusual—to say the least—circumstances. Please be kind and indulgent.

Welcome back to meeting number 21 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Today we will be continuing the discussion that began on Monday.

As always, interpretation is available through the globe icon at the bottom of your screen, and members participating in person should keep in mind the Board of Internal Economy's guidelines for mask use and health protocols.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind all meeting participants that screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute. A reminder that all comments by members should be addressed through the chair.

We were debating Ms. Fry's motion, and we had an amendment from Mr. Genuis.

We are still debating Mr. Genuis's motion, which I will recap for you.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair—

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

I assume you have a point of order, Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

No. I wanted to say something before we hear from Mr. Genuis, if I may.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

In the spirit of co‑operation, you may go ahead.

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

I'm sorry. The member wants the floor but not on a point of order. Is that what I understood?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

You understand correctly, Mr. Genuis.

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

Then, no. That's not consistent with the rules. If the member wants, she can raise a point of order to suggest some aspect of process, but if the member has the floor without a point of order, the member has—

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

I will ask you again, Ms. Bendayan. Do you have a point of order?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I just wanted to acknowledge the work of our former chair, Sven Spengemann, who obviously isn't here today. The role of chair certainly suits you, Mr. Chair, but as members of the committee, we can recognize the hard work of our former chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

I think every member of the committee would agree that Mr. Spengemann is to be thanked and commended for his hard work, both as the member for his riding and, especially, as chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Thank you, Ms. Bendayan.

The floor is yours, Mr. Genuis.

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

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations on your role as chair today.

If I may, I want to briefly add my own thoughts to what Ms. Bendayan said.

After Monday's meeting and on seeing the resignation of the chair, I thought, “Oh, wow”, but he was clear that it had nothing to do with what took place at this committee. I know he's very committed to the work we've done and to continuing work that he cares deeply about. It's been a pleasure to work with him. We won't have a chance formally to see him at the committee before he leaves if he's not able to be here today, but who knows? Maybe we'll call him as a witness one day and get him to report on whatever his new role is. I want to join my voice to those thanking Mr. Spengemann for his work here.

We're having a discussion about an adjournment motion that we put forward. The context of that was very simply that this committee has multiple studies going on that respond to emergent, urgent, time-sensitive issues going on in the world right now. We're concurrently working on a study on vaccine equity and COVAX, a study on Taiwan and, of course, a study with respect to the invasion of Ukraine by the Putin regime. In the midst of that ongoing work, a motion was put forward by a Liberal member that said we should prescribe a certain number of meetings to a new study on the issue of abortion abroad, with a clear implication that this study would include a discussion of what's happening in the United States as well as other countries.

This is in a context that I think members know. There seems to be a strategy among Liberal members and some NDP members, across a broad range of committees, to try to reopen the abortion debate and have a discussion about abortion. This is not just at one committee, but at many committees. There have been motions with respect to it at three or four committees, and I think it's likely that there's a political strategy here whereby the government wants to reopen the abortion debate in as many committees as possible because it has decided that it's in its political interest to do so.

As part of that context, as we know, I read a quotation from the former minister of justice and attorney general, Jody Wilson-Raybould. She was explicit about saying that there was a tactic on the part of the government to try to look for opportunities to reopen the abortion debate because it believes this is in its political interest. My humble encouragement to this committee is—

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Sorry, Mr. Genuis, but I believe Ms. McPherson has a point of order.