Evidence of meeting #6 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you very much, Mr. Oliphant.
I have Dr. Fry and then Mr. Chong. Colleagues, since we're now in a discussion that involves substance other than that on which our witnesses have come to testify, and in the interest of their scheduled time, I'm wondering if the committee would agree that we can release our witnesses at the moment, with our thanks for their service and for their expertise and testimony.
Is there any objection?
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Yes, I object. I have a quick point of order after my intervention.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Does that relate to the witnesses, Mr. Chong? In that case we will ask them just to stand by.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you very much.
We have Dr. Fry and then you, Mr. Chong.
Dr. Fry, go ahead.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Thank you very much, Chair. I want to also agree with my colleague Rob Oliphant in saying that I do not and cannot support this motion.
We have what everyone, every day, is saying could be, at any moment, war in Ukraine. We have Taiwan, on which also we've been asking the questions and hearing the answers. Is China going to take a page out of Russia's book if they get...?
These are important and urgent issues. I agree with Mr. Oliphant as well that this is not a state-to-state issue. It's not the United States of America's government that has people running around in our country, GoFundMe and getting all kinds of money, etc. I think these are things that may be done, if they need to be done, in a bilateral manner with FINTRAC and all of that, getting our government to say, “Can you check where the money's going? Can you follow the money for us?”
This is not an urgent issue. We have too many more urgent things. I will therefore be voting against it.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with everything Mr. Oliphant said in respect to this motion.
If I may, Mr. Chair, since I wasn't able to have my five-minute round, on a point of order I'm wondering if I could just read a question quickly into the record and ask the witnesses to respond to the clerk in writing to that question after the meeting has concluded.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Yes. I was going to suggest to members that that option is available at any point, really.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
I'll just quickly read my question into the record.
Canada as a signatory has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a legally binding treaty, as has the People's Republic of China. Under this convention, the United Nations appointed a tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. In a clear and binding ruling, the tribunal ruled on July 12, 2016, and found that the People's Republic of China's claim to the South China Sea and its nine-dash line are invalid.
Does Canada support and agree with the tribunal's ruling, which renders the People's Republic of China's claim in the South China Sea null and void?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you very much, Mr. Chong.
I see that Mr. Hamilton has his hand raised. If he wishes to comment.... I'm mindful of the timeline that the witnesses are under with respect to other obligations they may have, so if that will settle the remaining point outstanding to them, let's tackle that now.
Mr. Hamilton.
Director General, International Security Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Thank you, Mr. Chair. With your indulgence and with my apologies to Mr. Chong for my first answer to his questions, he asked at that time about transit at the Taiwan Strait. I answered that accurately, I believe. He asked a question about maritime claims in the South China Sea. I answered that mostly accurately in saying that generally, Canada does not take a position.
However, as he's just read out for the record, he also asked that very specific question about the tribunal's ruling in 2016, on which we do have a view, and I'm happy to provide that in writing or to defer to my colleague Stephen Randall, who is on the panel and is director of our oceans law division at Global Affairs Canada.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
In the interest of time, Mr. Hamilton, if it could be provided in writing, that would close out the panel discussion of today's meeting. We have a motion on the floor, but I want to make sure you and your colleagues are able to get on your way with the rest of your day.
Thank you, Mr. Chong. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
We will allow our witnesses, then, to disconnect, and again with our thanks, particularly to Mr. Reeves, for whom it's now very late. Thank you again for your testimony this afternoon.
We will now go back to the motion under discussion. I don't immediately see any speakers. Is anybody else wishing to speak on the motion that was put forward by Ms. McPherson?
Dr. Fry.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Chair, I have to go. I have a committee meeting and I'm sorry. I have to say that I would move that we adjourn.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Okay. There's a motion to adjourn on the floor.
Madam Clerk, procedurally is that dilatory and does it supersede any other motion?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
One second, Ms. McPherson. I just wanted to check with the clerk what, procedurally, happens now. Does that supersede the motion under discussion?
The Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes it does. You should proceed immediately to a vote on the question of whether the committee should adjourn.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Okay. We have a dilatory motion, Ms. McPherson, to adjourn. There is no other margin to engage in debate, so we will put that to a vote. Is there any objection to adjourning?
There's at least one objection, so why don't we do a recorded vote?
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Yes, I am objecting to adjourning. I would like to move to a vote on Ms. McPherson's motion and adjourn after that, so I'm against it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Let's call the vote on adjournment.
(Motion negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)
The motion to adjourn is defeated.
We are back to a discussion on the motion, and I invite colleagues to once again raise their hands.
If there's no further debate, we will go to a vote on Ms. McPherson's motion.
(Motion negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)
The motion is defeated.
We are at one o'clock. That's the time scheduled for us. We've concluded our work with the panel.
Colleagues, with your agreement, we stand adjourned until our next meeting. Please keep safe. Thank you.
