Evidence of meeting #43 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meetings.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Hear, hear, Dr. Fry. I have the same issue that she has, and add three hours of driving on top of it. It can be a challenge, but we'll do what we can to be there, for sure.
I want to hear the clerk read out how the motion would read with the amendment that's being proposed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you. Good call, Mr. Hoback.
Can the clerk please read out the motion that's being amended?
The Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The motion, with the amendment, would read as follows:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertakes to hold a maximum of three meetings to study the present situation of the blockade of the Lachin corridor, de facto isolating the Nagorno-Karabakh region; that the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada, the Ambassador of Armenia, the Chargé d'Affaires a.i. of Azerbaijan, representatives of the two communities in Canada, the Permanent Representative of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to the United States and Canada, and Gegham Stepanyan, the Nagorno-Karabakh Human Rights Defender, be invited to testify by Friday, February 3, 2023; that the testimony and materials gathered by the committee at these meetings be taken into consideration in the study of the security of the Azerbaijan-Armenia borders; and that the deadline to submit additional witnesses to the clerk be at noon this Friday, January 20.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Is it the will of the members to accept that unanimously?
Yes, Mr. Oliphant?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Is everyone okay with that? It seems like everyone is okay with that.
(Motion as amended agreed to)
That's excellent. I should say that we look forward to—
Yes, Mr. Genuis?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt your flow. It was just to come afterwards.
My understanding is that now that we've adopted the motion—the amendment and the main motion—I just want to suggest, if there's the agreement of the committee, that we invite our analysts to prepare revisions to the draft report on Ukraine that respond to emergent events in the intervening time, and that it be distributed so that the committee can proceed on that forthwith at the appropriate time.
We can discuss the order another time, but I think it will take the analysts some time to look at that. If there's agreement, we might want to give the analysts the mandate from the committee to prepare and distribute that revised version.
Liberal
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
I have no objection to what Mr. Genuis has just said. I wanted to speak to the motion that we just passed.
Correct me if I am wrong, but if I understand correctly, we adopted the amendment and the motion simultaneously. Is that correct?
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
All right.
Also, as I understand it, the objective is to have only two meetings, but the motion allows you, potentially, to add a third meeting to the schedule, depending on what witness list you finally decide on.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
It would be two meetings next week and then an additional one on the Tuesday following.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to clarify that the meeting next Tuesday has nothing to do with this motion. It was already scheduled by the committee to discuss the global geopolitical situation.
Here is my question. The consensus we have reached is that we should try to have two meetings on the situation in the Lachin corridor, but there are members who want to invite other witnesses, and that is what we have adopted. Because time is limited, we may have to hold up to three meetings to hear all the witnesses you will be asked to invite. The motion, as passed, allows us to have a third meeting if necessary. We may not need it, but we don't know yet how many witnesses the parties will propose. Therefore, you have this buffer of a meeting that you can add to the schedule to complete the Lachin corridor study, depending on the list of witnesses that will be submitted to you this Friday.
Have I clearly understood what we have in front of us?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
You're correct, Mr. Bergeron, in terms of the witnesses being submitted by Friday at noon. I would ask that you leave it with me and the clerk. We will endeavour to make sure that we manage to do this in two days and two sessions.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
That is what I'm saying, Mr. Chair.
It will be up to you, the clerk and the analysts to arrange the two meetings. The consensus is that we should hold this study...
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
May I continue, please, madam?
The consensus we had reached was that we would stick to two meetings. However, if the list of witnesses becomes too large, the motion allows you to call a third meeting.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
In that case, Mr. Chair, how do you interpret the motion? “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertakes to hold a maximum of three meetings [...]”
The informal consensus we have reached is that we should stick to two meetings with the list of witnesses we have here. There are now members who want to add witnesses. I don't know how many there will be on Friday at noon. You may have a list of 15 witnesses. Are you going to manage to have two meetings with 15 witnesses? I don't think so.
What I'm saying is simply that the motion, as passed, gives the chair, the clerk, and the analysts the latitude to call a third meeting, if they see fit.
Do we understand each other well?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
That being said, even if it provides that leeway, I'm asking that you leave it with us. We will endeavour to do it in a fashion that meets with the approval of all the members.
As you recall, one of the comments we heard was the need, for example, to hear from organizations that are following the humanitarian situation on the ground. However, I can assure you that we will not take licence to invite every single witness who is submitted. We will try our utmost to keep it restricted to two sessions, if that's okay with everyone.
Yes...?
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
It's Mr. Hoback.
I interpreted it similarly to Mr. Bergeron. You have your priority witnesses who are named in the motion, so they definitely need to be invited to the meetings.
What I'm concerned about is that we stack the meetings with so many witnesses that we don't give them quality time, nor do we get quality time to ask questions. That's my concern. I think that's Mr. Bergeron's concern too. I don't want to speak on his behalf, but I assume that's where he's going.
That's where the third meeting might be needed. If we see all of a sudden that there are six or eight witnesses presented, there's no way you can jam them into the two meetings. If you did that, I would be very disappointed, because you'd lose the spirit of the original motion, which was to hear the people who were invited in the motion and still allow the committee members, if they have one or two more witnesses, to add more.
If the committee members still think they're vital to the study, they should be given another meeting to have their witnesses heard. If we need to find another time in the day to do that, it can be three meetings in a day during a break week. If you want to stack the meetings on the Tuesday, starting at 11 o'clock until one, from two to three, and from three to five, you have that prerogative if the clerk and the administration can do that. You have some flexibility, if you decide to go down that path.
I do not want to see a whole pile of witnesses in front of a committee when we can't properly ask questions and get in proper rounds of questions. The priority should be what was mentioned in the motion about those witnesses and making sure they come to the committee first, before you consider anyone else.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Yes. I can assure you, Mr. Hoback, that all the witnesses who were identified in the motion will be invited. However, it could very well be, as was pointed out by the other members, that, for example, the minister is not available.
I think I speak on behalf of all members when I say we certainly appreciate the concern you've identified. None of us likes to do that to witnesses and stack it so that none of us have the opportunity to.... It puts them in a difficult position when we have too many people. We will endeavour to balance all those considerations.
In that vein, I would ask that the parties, as they are submitting their witnesses, not come up with a lengthy list. If each party provides one or two witnesses, that will allow us to make sure we hear from different perspectives. To Mr. Hoback's point, we don't want too many witnesses we will not have an opportunity to properly question.
Is that okay?
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Of course, Chair, if you have eight more witnesses, you can see the problem, can't you? You say even if you—
