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.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, what is this? It is neither an explanation of the member's motion, nor a point of order.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I haven't finished a sentence in the entire time I've been speaking.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr. Chair, my point of order is that Mr. Genuis is not addressing his motion, nor is he raising a point of order, so he no longer has the floor, in my view.
Mr. Chair, perhaps you would like to rule on that.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was speaking to this motion with respect to the Gazprom turbines. My belief, which has been consistent since the beginning of the committee's work on this matter, is that it is urgently required, for the security of Ukraine, to revoke the waiver of Russian sanctions that was granted by this government.
Mr. Oliphant believes that this is not the priority for Ukraine.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand clearly that Mr. Genuis has the right to speak to his motion, for which he said he gave due notice. Again, I'll refer to the point of order. Mr. Genuis just spoke of the security of Ukraine. Mr. Chair, I am saying, on a point of order, that part of that security of Ukraine has to do with the access of Ukrainian women—especially the refugees, and 90% of refugees are Ukrainian women—to prenatal care delivery, postpartum care and/or abortion following the rape by Russian soldiers, which we clearly heard about from the Ukrainian ambassador when she presented to us during our study.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Is this a point of order, Mr. Chair?
6 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
This is very relevant to what Mr. Genuis is speaking about. He needs to understand that security is more than guns, ammunition and energy security. It has to do with human security.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm happy to respond, in due course, to the substantive arguments being made under the guise of points of order. Before I do that, I want to clearly underline why I think it's important to move this motion.
We previously moved motions that, I believe, had the support of the committee on the urgent need to revoke the permit. Why is it urgently needed to revoke the permit? It's because this committee has heard, from various sanctions experts, that, when you have nations creating a kind of Swiss cheese sanction regime designed to advance their own particular economic interests by offering holes in some places and—
6 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, I'm concerned there is a disproportionate amount of time being taken, within this committee, by certain members. I wonder whether you could provide us with an accounting of the actual number of minutes each member has spoken over the past year, so we can get an estimation, even simply. It seems not all committee members are being given the same ability to represent their constituents and [Technical difficulty—Editor] this committee.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
I'm not quite sure whether that is possible, but I undertake to bring it up with the clerk and analyst after this meeting is over, in order to see whether that is possible, Ms. McPherson.
However, I would like to tell Mr. Genuis that, as we've heard from members here, there is some repetition.
I would like to refer you to page 1059 of the rules and procedure, which read as follows, Mr. Genuis: “the Chair may, at his or her discretion, interrupt a member whose observations and questions are repetitive or”—as has been pointed out by one of the members—“are unrelated to the matter before the committee.”
The floor is yours again, Mr. Genuis.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Chair, if this is a hack job, where you decided to interrupt me at a certain point, that's just going to happen, but the reality is that I have not been, in any sense, repetitive. I've been speaking specifically to the Gazprom issue, while you've allowed lengthy points of order, which are not even attempts at points of order, to repeatedly interrupt me.
I will continue to speak very precisely on the issue of Gazprom. I have no doubt you will do what you came in with the direction to do, regardless of whether or not I am on topic or repetitive.
Now, Mr. Chair, I'd like to—
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I would now like to speak to the issue of why it is important this permit be revoked.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. It is with respect to the motion being debated today.
I'm having trouble understanding the motion. I would like you to rule whether it is a motion that is, grammatically, actually presentable to the committee.
Look at the motion very clearly, if you have it in front of you. The first clause is “That the committee report to the House that”, then it continues on with some statements, and then it says “the committee calls on the Government of Canada to”. I'm not understanding the actual grammar of that sentence.
Are we reporting to the House that, and calling on the Government of Canada to, revoke the waiver, or are they two separate things? The actual motion does not make sense.
It may be correct in French, but not in English.
It does not make sense grammatically, because there are missing words in the motion. It really is a problem. You can say, “That the committee report to the House” those things and “the committee calls on”, but there is no “and”.
It seems to me that the motion is probably not in order as such, because it doesn't make sense. There's no conjunction. I am the grammar police and I've done it many times, because, if we don't present our motions with correct grammar, the House won't understand what we're actually doing.
Are we reporting something to the House, or are we calling upon the government, through the House, to do it? If it's both, the motion should be worked on. The member may need some time to work on the motion to get it to say what he would like it to say.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
If I could respond to the same point of order, Mr. Chair, I'll make a couple of observations.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Mr. Genuis, wait one second. I would like to consult with the clerk.
Would all the members agree that we dismiss the witnesses out of respect? Is everyone okay with that?
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
No, I am not okay with that. It is your decision, Chair, but I [Technical difficulty—Editor].