Foreign Affairs Committee on Sept. 21st, 2022

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I don't understand why we can't have two in this session—we understand how limited our time is—and then postpone two until the next session. Would the clerk prefer it?

Would you prefer, Mr. Chair, for us to have a separate motion brought forward at a later date to do that?

Why can't we have the four, as long as they're not interfering with our schedule? We would have two prior to it, and two post-holiday break.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I think the issue is that we didn't necessarily agree that we were going to have any particular study prioritized this session, so why would we agree to this study being prioritized?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm not saying that it needs to be prioritized, as much as it would have.... I want to deprioritize all four meetings. All four meetings don't have to happen right away. I think we want to have some of these meetings right away, but that's my perspective. The clerk will make the calendar.

I think it's a very big issue to try to fit into two meetings. Not all of it is urgent. Not all of it is emerging. I understand the need to put other, more emergent issues ahead of that, but it's important work that we are obligated to do.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I'm certainly willing to acknowledge that this is important work that we should do. I'm just concerned, given that we have already agreed to include in our Ukrainian report aspects of sanctions.... What is it that is to be done urgently in this particular session surrounding this study?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm sorry. We're having a conversation without the chair.

I think what we're talking about in Mr. Genuis's report is, in fact, the waiver on the turbines. There is a whole swath of other sanctions that are being imposed with regard to Russia and the conflict in Ukraine that will not be part of the waiver. It's a completely separate set of our sanctions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'd like to advise all the members that we literally have only seven more minutes remaining. We have been told that we have to vacate this room by 6:30.

On that particular issue, there is an amendment on the floor for two meetings.

We'll now go to Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I have a bit of a proprietary interest in Magnitsky sanctions. I don't want an inadvertent lapse. I'd like to get some clarification.

Mr. Morantz raised a specific date. On that specific date, does the ability to impose Magnitsky sanctions lapse, or is the committee under some specific legal obligation to proceed?

A sunset clause means a sunset clause. I'm not clear as to the implications of not proceeding on the specified date, whether it is the date mentioned in the legislation or the date of coming into force by royal decree. I think that's a point to be clarified.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Before we go to Mr. Morantz, I can tell you that the analysts were good enough to guide me to say it's not a sunset clause; it's actually a review clause.

Mr. Morantz.

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

Thank you for making that point. It's not a sunset clause. There is a requirement, though, that five years from the act coming into force, some committees of Parliament and the House—unknown at this point—conduct a review. The section—you can look at it yourself—goes into some detail as to what should happen.

I don't know if it would be appropriate to ask the analysts to do this, but perhaps they could have a look at the legislation and come back and let us know what the House actually needs to do with respect to this review. It's an important review, and I don't think any committee of the House or the House itself has taken it up yet. I think we're either at the five-year mark or very close to it.

I'm not sure if we have to have a motion to ask the analysts to do that, or if they would just do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We can just undertake to provide an update to every member as to, first of all, what those requirements are and what the dates are, and also to inquire as to whether any decision has been made with respect to which committee this would be referred to, but yes, we'll undertake to do that by Monday.

Thank you, Mr. Morantz.

Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I would like to put a question to the analysts because I don't fully understand the rules of procedure.

Since the Senate is doing the same work, can our committee, in its House report, incorporate the findings of the Senate or the testimony that it heard in its work? Are those two separate things?

[Allison Goody, Committee Researcher]

I would have to defer to the clerk on the procedural aspect of that question. We can certainly summarize and report back to the committee on the activities of any other part of Parliament. As to whether or not the actual testimony could be used, I would have to hear from the clerk.

[The Clerk]

Could you repeat that?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Of course.

I was asking if it's possible to incorporate in our own study—and eventual report on this issue—the testimony or the conclusions that the Senate legislative review might have before it.

[The Clerk]

You would have to adopt a motion in that regard.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I see.

To that end, could you also get back to us at the next meeting or whenever as to the dates of that Senate review so that we could see if it's even possible to incorporate some of those elements into our report?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Sure.

So that being the case, are you saying that your amendment is restricted to simply having two sessions devoted to this? You do have an amendment on the floor.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Yes, my amendment is still on the floor. We were just discussing with analysts, so I thought I would ask. You requested that the analysts get back to us with certain information, so I'm just adding to their list of things to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We have to vote on this amendment, so you're saying that next week we revisit this specific issue?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I'm happy to vote on the amendment today if you wish, or next week given that it is 6:29. Perhaps it should go to next week, but that is your call, Mr. Chair. I think my amendment is on the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Does everyone want to vote on this?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

The first vote is on the amendment that it be two sessions as opposed to the four. That's the amendment that is on the floor. Let's take a vote on that.

Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk]

The vote is on the amendment of Ms. Bendayan to the motion of Ms. McPherson.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

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

Mr. Chair, I'm next on the list, and I have a motion which I think we will get very quick agreement on. It's about the referendum issue. I move “That the committee condemns any attempts to hold “referendums” in Russian-occupied parts of Ukraine”—