Foreign Affairs Committee on April 18th, 2023

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

Chair, on a point of order, I haven't spoken to it yet—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

So you haven't moved it or you—

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

I want to confirm that we were proceeding to that section. I would like to say a few words about it before....

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Absolutely. Fair enough.

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

Really briefly, Chair, this amendment is designed to allow a parliamentary committee to call for a state to be added under the State Immunity Act. Having it listed among the states would then allow action to be taken in terms of a state that's a state sponsor of terror. Many would argue that there are states that are sponsors of terror that have not been thus listed, so this would create a mechanism for a parliamentary committee to call for that listing, and it does align with other provisions of the act that involve similar accountability.

That is the amendment. It's long. I won't read it, but that's what the amendment is about. It is important and relates to the other provisions of the bill around accountability to Parliament on human rights issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Given that you have moved clause 2, clause 2 of Bill C-281 amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, to add an obligation to publish a report outlining measures taken by the minister to advance human rights internationally as part of Canada's foreign policy and lists seeing the names and circumstances of prisoners of conscience detained worldwide for whose release the Government of Canada is actively working.

The amendment seeks to add a new obligation on the minister in the case of a motion adopted by a committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament recommending that an order be considered or made under subsection 6.1(2) of the State Immunity Act in relation to a foreign state, to prepare a response advising the committee as to whether or not the order is to be made and setting out the reasons for the decision to the minister to consider or make an order.

This is a new concept, not envisioned in the bill when it was adopted by the House at second reading. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair and for the above-stated reason, the amendment is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Thank you.

Do you want to challenge it?

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

You're eager to be challenged, Mr. Chair.

Actually, I would be happy to proceed to move CPC-3.

(On clause 3)

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Okay. That's fair enough. Thank you.

We now go to CPC-3.

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

The bill as written says that if a committee passes a motion calling for an individual to be sanctioned or for the government to report on an individual being sanctioned, if that committee is a committee responsible for matters related to foreign affairs, the minister has to provide a response in the format prescribed.

What we're proposing to do with this amendment is remove the requirement that it only be a committee dealing with foreign affairs. It has come to our attention since the original drafting that there are other committees that may deal with sanctions issues, and they want to make a recommendation like this. I think the most obvious one would be the justice committee. The justice committee is not responsible for matters related to foreign affairs in particular, but it would look at issues related to sanctions. There might be other committees in the course of their work—perhaps status of women and finance, etc.—that want to make recommendations for individuals who would be sanctioned. We propose to broaden the section to allow any committee to make that recommendation.

I know there were some other proposals for amendments to this section. We have another amendment to propose, but for now this is the amendment that we're moving.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.

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

We have concerns about this amendment. The concern would be, generally, that we think sanctions are not a stand-alone item but are put in the context of foreign policy, and they should be integrated into everything we do. They should really be considered by the committee that has the mandate and responsibility from the House of Commons to do foreign policy.

We can live with this. We don't think it's advisable and we don't think it's a good thing, but we recognize that we can go with it. We think it should be here, at this committee, where we have a robust and comprehensive view on foreign policy and put it together, but we will be able to support this as a measure of goodwill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Does anyone else want to speak to CPC-3?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to now move CPC-4.

CPC-4 is mainly a cleanup-oriented amendment that reflects some issues that were raised by government members in questions. This is my turn to have a show of goodwill for Mr. Oliphant.

It makes two changes—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Genuis, if I may, there is a G-1.1 amendment, as well, prior to CPC-4.

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

We haven't received that in our package.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

It was sent this morning.

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

Do you have copies to distribute? Okay.

Even though I had the floor and tried to move it, I can't move it if it's out of order. Is that the way this works?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes.

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

Chair, my view would be that I had the floor and I moved the amendment. I wasn't aware that there was a last-minute one here. However, I think that since I was given the floor and I moved my amendment, then my amendment is on the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I am advised that you should not have moved it in the first place, so we have to go by the order that was originally indicated.

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

Maybe I should not have moved it, but I have moved it. That has now occurred.

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

I have a point of order.

The chair could rule that as inadmissible because he—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, that's inadmissible. Let's go back to G-1.1.

Go ahead, Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I just need you to explain why this new, last-minute, amendment takes precedence over the amendment the member was trying to move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.