Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

This is what we had. That the words “and that this study not take place until the committee makes a decision on the studies before it 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 specifying the manner in which the studies be undertaken”, be inserted between the words “rights globally” and the words “and that the committee report its findings to the House.”

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Ms. Gray.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, thank you for reading out what I originally read out at the start of my intervention. I think we're on the same page, because that's what I read out when I first started to speak. I am on the correct amendment.

Based on that, what I've been speaking about with respect to Ukraine, when you look at the order of what might be discussed, I'm laying the groundwork for the importance of Ukraine. If I'm understanding it correctly, as the committee decides the order of these various studies, I'm setting the stage to say how important Ukraine is, and how it's affecting Canada.

My points haven't been specifically about what's happening in Ukraine, which is a whole other discussion. I've been setting the tone as to what's happening in Canada, how it's affecting Canada, how important it is, and how it's affecting our citizens here. That's why this is such an important topic at the top of the line, while this committee looks at what order to follow in its studies.

I would hope I could continue with that conversation in that vein, because that's where I was coming from. After hearing from the chair, it seems that it's right where I set the tone, from the very beginning, and where I was going. I would like some clarification on that, considering we brought us back to the same point I started on, Mr. Chair.

May I continue?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, but bear in mind that I think members were provided with the scope of the subamendment. It was pretty clear that it's not only a sequencing exercise, but also an instruction to the subcommittee.

Therefore, please ensure that your comments fall within the scope that was determined, Ms. Gray.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Therefore, continuing with the importance of this particular topic—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Continue with the subamendment, Ms. Gray.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Right, with the subamendment—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I understand, if I'm not mistaken, that you were referring, again, to the amendment, not the subamendment.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

The subamendment refers to how the sequencing might happen—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Between the various reports this committee is—

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

—as discussed between the various reports. Based on that, talking about why one particular topic may be more important than another would be relevant in this discussion, I would believe, to say the rationale.

Would that be correct, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

The extent to which there is any argument as to the substance of these reports and which one should take precedence over the other is abundantly clear. Given the wording of the amendment and subamendment, it would fall to the subcommittee.

That is not the challenge before the members here today.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Right, so the subcommittee would be looking at—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I do not understand procedurally what is going on in this committee. Is this a discussion in the hypothetical between the member and the chair about what she can or cannot say, or is she using her speaking time at the moment to ask questions of you?

I am a new member and I do not understand the debate going on between the chair and the member. The member has the floor. She was instructed by the chair to remain relevant, because she was not. Now she is engaging in a lengthy debate about what she can or cannot say.

I would suggest that, if she has the floor, she should speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Ms. Bendayan.

I would have to agree. It's not for me to once again say what is debatable and what is not. I think all the members have been provided guidelines as to what the scope of the subamendment is. As to whether you feel you fall into it or not is a determination that you will have to make. We can't have this back and forth.

Ms. Gray, please, if need be, do read the subamendment and ensure that you fall within the scope of that subamendment.

The floor is yours, Ms. Gray.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, thank you for all of that clarification.

I know you had gone to the clerk numerous times to gain clarification and had let the committee know that. I think that, based on a lot of the questions that came here from a lot of the members, there needed to be some clarification. I'm not sure if we're still 100% clear, but it's good we've gone through some of that process.

Thank you for entertaining my questions. Perhaps each time I could do a point of order, but you were very accommodating there, so thank you for doing that.

As we're looking at bringing this forward to the subcommittee to have a look at how they are going to be reviewing this—if that is what's going to be voted on and what will happen—I guess the discussion is whether or not that is the appropriate place for that to be taking place. If my understanding is correct, that's what we're discussing here today. As part of that, the group will have to look at what the actual amendment is and whether the amendment should be discussed with the entire committee or whether it should be discussed with the smaller group.

I think if it's going to go in the direction where the subcommittee looks at this, the subcommittee needs to be aware as to what the thoughts are of the different members of this committee or those of us who are subbing in on some of those different topics.

We do have three very important topics. We have Ukraine, vaccine equity and Taiwan. I know this committee has looked at all three of these topics, although there's still a lot of work to do. I think that as that subcommittee goes away and deliberates—if that's the direction that this votes goes—it's really important for that subcommittee to know what the different thoughts are of all of the different members of this committee.

Based on that, Mr. Chair, I would like to express that I think that Ukraine should be really top of mind for that committee—or that subcommittee, I guess it would be, if that's the way the vote goes.

With a lot of what I've talked about already, I've just started to set the table as to why the topic of Ukraine is so important right now, especially to Canadians. We do have a lot of Ukrainians coming to Canada. We're seeing them come into every one of our communities.

Earlier today, I was looking at my constituency emails. Every day I'm getting emails from constituents who are either trying to help Ukrainians who are coming into our communities or maybe they want to help nationally. I think as that subcommittee does their deliberations, if that's the way that it goes, they need the tools to be able to confidently talk about the different members of this committee or those of us subbing on and where our thoughts are in order to prioritize which of the studies they are going to prioritize.

Based on that, Mr. Chair, I would like to bring up a couple of other points on why Ukraine would be a topic or study that subcommittee should really be considering as a top priority. We can look not even locally here, but internationally to other news articles and conversations.

For example, I will bring up The New York Times, and its article “Ukraine Invasion Threatens Global Wheat Supply”. I won't get into it because I know there were some members who had some issues with talking about wheat, but again, I'm just setting the tone as to why Ukraine is important for the subcommittee to be considering if, again, it does go in that direction.

There are a couple of points on that I just want to bring up because this is a national conversation, it's an international conversation, and of course at this particular foreign affairs committee we do need to look nationally and internationally. There was an article that was published on February 24, 2022, by The New York Times. It was updated on March 23, 2022, and it really does outline the Russian invasion of Ukraine and how it was threatening a lot of supply chains. This was back in February and again updated in March. Since then we've now had several more months go by and we've seen how this has become even much more serious than it was back then.

I'll read into the testimony some of this article:

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is threatening to cut off some international shipments of wheat, spurring shortages and pushing the price of a vital crop higher when supply chain disruptions have already sent food costs spiraling.

Wheat futures on the Chicago Board of Trade rose 5.43 percent on Thursday, outstripping gains by other commodities like corn and soybean oil.

Russia and Ukraine together export more than a quarter of the world's wheat, feeding billions of people in the form of bread, pasta and packaged foods. The countries are also key suppliers of barley, sunflower seed oil and corn, among other products.

In recent days, the price of agricultural commodities has fluctuated sharply as tensions around the Black Sea threaten to disrupt global shipments of wheat, corn and vegetable oil. Disruptions and rising prices for those commodities—as well as the cost of fuel and fertilizer, important inputs for farmers—could further buffet global food markets and threaten social stability, analysts said.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, Mr. Oliphant.

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

The honourable member mentioned that she wanted something read into the testimony.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Into the record....

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

I would very much ask the chair to remind members that members of Parliament do not provide testimony as members of the committee. They may be invited to testify as a witness if they have a private member's bill. Unfortunately, because of the Conservatives' filibuster, we may never get to private members' business, which we have two pieces of, and one of the members has a piece of legislation I think he would like to have discussed.

I just want to remind the chair if we could ensure that our members understand that we do not give testimony, as members of Parliament, at committee.

Also, which is a true point of order, I believe, reading into a debate a document that is not related to the subamendment at hand is truly—

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

This is a point of mansplaining and not a point of order.

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

—not appropriate.

Actually, to read into testimony, as it has been called, a document that is unrelated to the subamendment at hand is certainly not relevant to our discussion.

I think the member should be asked to move on if the chair would like to do that.

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

I have a point of order.

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

No. There is a point of order.

You can speak to my point of order. You can't raise a point of order with a point of order on the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Oliphant, I—