Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2022

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

She is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Genuis, I would appreciate it if you would not interrupt.

Ms. Gray, as you can see, it's crystal clear that the subamendment has to do with the sequence of events, instructions to be provided to the committee and how studies are to be undertaken. I would ask—and as you know, there is precedence for this, there is ample precedence for this—if a speaker is debating, and they keep repeating themselves and there is absolutely no relevance to the issue at hand, that they cede the floor.

I'm asking you, in the interest of making sure that all members follow this proceeding and follow this debate, please ensure you are keeping your remarks relevant to the subamendment that Mr. Bergeron has put on the table.

Thank you.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, could you clarify your ruling? May I speak?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you very much. I wouldn't want to be accused of speaking when I didn't have the floor.

Could you clarify if comments about the situation in Ukraine would, in your view, be deemed relevant? It seems to me that the subamendment changes the requirements around the study in Ukraine. Whereas the previous amendment requires the completion of the study in Ukraine, the subamendment would eliminate the requirement for the completion of the study on Ukraine to proceed. It would seem to me that when it come to comments about the situation in Ukraine, although the subamendment doesn't add or remove the word “Ukraine”, it changes the words immediately before the word “Ukraine”, and it changes whether the completion of a study or simply a decision about the study would be required.

It would seem to me, based on that, quite obvious that discussion about the situation in Ukraine is relevant, and Ms. Gray is speaking about the situation in Ukraine. Could you maybe just clarify your ruling? Are comments about the situation in Ukraine relevant to the subamendment? I think they obviously are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I did hear your remarks, Mr. Genuis. Upon close reading of that subamendment, I think it's pretty clear that the subamendment deals with sequencing as to when those studies are to take place. It's not about getting into the substance of the amendment before us.

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

If I could further clarify—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

It's a procedural issue, and I think the question before all of us here, and every member who actually does speak, is to speak to that very narrow issue as to whether that is a good idea or a bad idea, not to delve into the substance of the debate about the economic ramifications of the war on Ukraine.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a follow-up to the point of order.

It's not entirely clear to me how we would ever make determinations about sequencing without consideration for the substance of the things we are sequencing. Isn't that relative importance precisely the basis on which you would make determinations about sequence?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

If you read the subamendment, Mr. Genuis, it says that the subcommittee would assume responsibility for that, correct?

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

The subamendment says that the committee—not the subcommittee but the committee—makes decisions on the studies before it on Ukraine, so it removes the requirement for the completion of the study on Ukraine and replaces it with a requirement for the committee to make a decision about the study on Ukraine.

It seems to me that the substance of the situation in Ukraine would likely inform whether or not members thought it was vital to complete or make a decision about that.

I completely accept what you're saying—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Genuis, are you challenging my ruling?

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

No, I'm just asking you to clarify it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I think it's pretty clear for anyone who does actually read this.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, Mr. Oliphant.

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

Could you let the committee know that there's no such thing as a point of clarification. There are very strict understandings of what a point of order is, and to clarify is debate. I think that the point of order I am making is about what a point of order is. However, there's no such thing as a point of clarification. It does not exist in our standing orders in any sense.

If people want to debate, the purpose of debate is for clarification, not a point of order.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Genuis.

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

Okay, with respect to the matter of order before the committee, I did not say, “point of clarification”. I was raising a matter of order that was a clarification of a ruling of the chair. Mr. Oliphant is correct, broadly speaking, that a person can't just claim the floor to make a comment expressing an opinion, which is perhaps what he just did, but as a matter of order, if the chair makes a ruling, members have to understand, as a matter of order, what the requirement there is.

I understand that the chair is directing us to make arguments about sequencing. Those arguments about sequencing obviously have to be informed by the reasons why we might or might not sequence in a particular way, and that makes sense, but that involves Ukraine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Perkins, you have a point of order.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm looking at the amendment that changes the motion, and I don't see the word “subcommittee” in reference to your ruling. I see “committee”. The committee makes this. This isn't a subcommittee issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Perkins. I had an opportunity to confer with the clerk. It's not specifically stated, but it's quite clear that it is a reference to the subcommittee even though it's not explicitly stated here.

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

Mr. Chair, I would ask where it's clear, because it's not clear to me, sorry.