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.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I guess this can be substantive commentary as opposed to.... In defence of the linguistic structure of the motion, I would make two points.
Number one, even a badly drafted motion is still in order; however, I will not concede that it is a badly drafted motion. I think it's quite grammatically correct. The way you test the grammatical correctness of a motion with a lengthy subclause is you determine if the motion reads correctly in the absence of the subclause. In the absence of the subclause, the motion would simply read, “That the committee report to the House that...the committee calls on the Government of Canada to revoke the waiver to Russian sanctions granted for the export of Gazprom turbines by January 5, 2023.”
Insofar as it repeats the word “committee”, it might not be as poetic as Mr. Oliphant prefers, but it is entirely grammatically proper, and I think it reads more poetically in the presence of the subclause, which, of course, is part of the motion. To say, “That the committee report to the House...that the committee calls on the Government of Canada to revoke the waiver”, etc. is perfectly grammatically correct and I, of course, stand by it both as a piece of language and as a substantive proposition.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Does the committee have the authority to call on the government to revoke, or is it the House that could do it upon the recommendation of the standing committee? We are afforded a certain responsibility under the Standing Orders about what we do, and what we do is make reports to the House and call upon the House to do certain things.
I don't think the grammar works.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
This is consistent with the form used in most of the recommendations that our report has adopted.
One doesn't need power to be able to “call on”. Anybody can call on anybody to do anything. One needs power and authority to be able to order someone to do something or require someone to do something, but an individual member of Parliament can call on the government to do something, and certainly a committee can call on the government to do something. It doesn't mean the government has to do it, but this is the committee simply reporting to the House its exhortation to the government to take a particular action. Certainly committees are well within their rights to exhort governments or anybody else to do anything. They are more constrained in their power to give instructions.
Having said that and noting the consistency of the form of the motion with most if not all of the kinds of recommendations that I've dealt with when these matters have been considered before the committee before, those involved motions to consider matters, I will now, hopefully—
December 7th, 2022 / 6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
I have a point of order.
Mr. Chair, the motion that's put forward says that it's an urgent matter. The expiration of the gas turbine sanction waiver is January 5, which is under 29 days. Repairing or not repairing a turbine for a pipeline that has blown apart is, I think, less important than a study of the reproductive rights of women.
If the Conservative Party, members of the Conservative Party or this member thinks that the repair or non-repair of a blown up pipeline thousands of miles away that has a permit expiring in less than four weeks is more important than the reproductive rights of women, I think they should bring witnesses to that effect and say that officially, rather than going around and about in this long way to say that. Just be blatant and say that we're against sexual reproductive rights of women and that we don't want to study it.
I don't know why we need to go on a diatribe to belittle this while we have witnesses here. We've had a motion that was put forward in June. We have opposition parties and a governing party all wanting this. In fact, I think 10 out of 11—if I'm right—members have approved this study, so I think this is very irrelevant. The argument that it's urgent is also irrelevant, as I just said. There is no pipeline to repair. The waiver that was given is expiring in four weeks. In fact, if we did a study right now, it would probably not be published until the waiver is already done.
I think that we should go on to committee business and that this proposed motion should be put out of order.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Sarai, but he essentially concluded his substantive arguments against the motion by saying that he thinks it should be ruled out of order on that basis.
Motions are not ruled out of order by chairs on the basis of their merits. They're ruled out of order by the chairs on the basis of rules. They are perhaps voted for or against by committees on the basis of their merits.
We previously put forward a motion on the Gazprom issue. It was members of the Liberal caucus who filibustered that motion and prevented it from being brought to a vote. We sought to resume consideration on that motion, and we weren't able to do so because of the time. The Liberals and the NDP did not agree to resume consideration on it, despite the fact that we had heard directly from the Ukrainian Canadian Congress that they felt very strongly that we should return to this issue.
As far as the urgency, I have said I believe this motion is urgent. It's notable that the word “urgent” isn't used in the text of the motion itself. Do I think this is an urgent matter? Yes, I do. We are talking about an ongoing war. We're talking about the integrity of the global sanctions regime, and we're talking about the messages that are sent by exceptions to that sanction regime.
Everybody knows it's true that the turbine that was sent on the basis of the exemption is not currently in the pipeline, but that doesn't make the—
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I have a point of order.
I'm listening to the member speak. I think none of us in this committee is fooled by the idea that this is not just a filibuster, but I wanted to speak to the issue of urgency the member brings up.
What is more urgent? Is it women, whose babies are dying and who cannot have access to reproductive health care and who are refugees from Ukraine, or a pipeline waiver, which, as Mr. Sarai pointed out, is going to expire within the next three weeks?
When I was in Poland, the Ukrainian delegation spoke to the urgent issue of sexual and reproductive health and rights as being one of the number one issues they wanted everyone to address.
That's just if we want to talk about urgency and about facts. Thank you.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In terms of what constitutes urgent priorities or not for the Ukrainian government, which is principally responsible for this ongoing war effort, this committee has certainly been asked repeatedly by the Ukrainian government, as well as by leading diaspora organizations, to revoke this permit. In terms of what is critical for the war effort, I think it's a misstatement of the issue to diminish this to being just a pipeline.
This is about the question of the integrity of the global sanctions regime. The sanctions regime is going to be foundational to the question of who actually wins this war at the end of the day. Ukraine has done well in the context of the war, but we should not presume that any outcome is inevitable.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I have a point of privilege, Mr. Chair. Did I understand that the honourable member has just impugned my integrity?
I was in Poland and I listened to the leader—the President of Ukraine—ask us specifically to deal with the humanitarian issue of sexual and reproductive health and rights as a priority issue. I am not making it up, Mr. Chair.
The honourable member was not in Ukraine. Never once did anyone talk about gas turbines as being urgent at that meeting and that meeting was two weeks ago.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was simply going to raise—as the member opposite attempts to paraphrase or speak on behalf of the Ukrainian government, as I understand him to have just done—that we also heard from the ambassador. In fact, the ambassador of Ukraine indicated that rape was being used as a weapon of war. That is directly linked to the study that we were supposed to be engaged in today on women's reproductive and health rights.
If the Conservative member would like to address some of the concerns that we heard in the testimony from the Ukrainian ambassador, I suggest that he make the full list of all of those concerns, which does include protecting women and protecting women's rights. I would urge the member opposite....
In fact, Mr. Chair, it's been now almost an hour that we've listened to the member present his motion. Could we vote on the motion that the member is using as a filibuster technique to avoid the topic of women's reproductive and health rights? I would be very happy to vote on his motion, so that we could get down to business.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you, Ms. Bendayan.
I would ask the member to make all the arguments he thinks are necessary, and then, should he agree, we can proceed with a vote.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I have barely spoken. I know that members will repeatedly say otherwise, but I have not been able to finish more than three sentences at a time without a member interrupting with a point of order—in virtually every case, a point of order that was not even claiming to be about matters of order and that went on longer than I did in the previous exchange making substantive arguments. I'm happy to respond to the substantive arguments that were made under the guise of points of order, as well as to offer a motivation as to why I think this motion is important.
The urgency of this motion responds to the regular appeals we have heard from the Ukrainian government, the Ukrainian government's representatives abroad and diaspora organizations about the urgency of ensuring the integrity of the global sanctions regime. Russia's economy is heavily dependent on the development and export of natural resources, a key part of which is the export of gas to Europe. Energy-related sanctions are the means by which we can and hopefully will starve the Russian war machine of the capacity to continue to enact its genocidal war against Ukraine. That is why we have been urging the government and at times supporting the government in the steps it has taken in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine as it relates to sanctions but also expressing extreme disappointment as it relates to the—
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
—decision of the government to grant a waiver—
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
I'm not actually sure if this is technically a point of order, but I would remind the member that he and his Conservative colleagues are the only ones who voted to lift sanctions against Russia. It was a Conservative motion in the House, an opposition day motion, that called on the government to lift sanctions on Russian fertilizer.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Chair, the case the member refers to is a case in which the government made a decision to impose a tariff on farmers for products that had already been purchased. Farmers made decisions to make purchases from Russia prior to February of this year and then they were, after the fact, charged a tariff on goods they had already purchased. That tariff was not paid by Russia. It was paid by Canadian farmers. This is transparently a case of the government punishing farmers in a way that had no effect on the war effort whatsoever. If the government were able in some way to impose—
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
—those spending requirements on the Russian government—
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, that is entirely incorrect. The Conservative opposition day motion made no mention of any—