Evidence of meeting #94 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 vote.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
No. Why wouldn't we just vote? We can vote and have it done in five minutes, and then we're good for the witnesses.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
I understand, Mr. Chair, that there are amendments to the motion at hand, and I anticipate that the debate on the amendments is going to go on for some time, and we risk not hearing from the two witnesses we agreed to in the calendar some time ago.
I think it would be reasonable to hear from the two witnesses who were scheduled to appear and who we prepared for, and then we can go to the consideration of the motion on the floor.
5 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
With all due respect, I want this to get resolved today. This is on the floor. I would like us to deal with it.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
My opinion, Mr. Chair, on this point of order is that this committee has struggled to meet twice a week over the last 12 months. Many meetings have not taken place because we have not had a calendar. We finally agreed to a calendar, and the meeting is about to be derailed because of consideration of a motion that was not on the notice of meeting today.
We are likely faced with the situation that, if we go to the consideration of the motion, the two witnesses will not be heard from today. Again, the committee is getting off its agreed-upon track, and that is a source of frustration for me and I think for a number of members of the committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
That's fair enough.
As I understand it, one of the witnesses came here from Toronto.
Go ahead, Madam McPherson.
5 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With all due respect, when we talk about how this committee has not been able to work effectively over the last year, there were a number of times when the Conservative Party would be responsible for filibustering many of the motions and much of the work we brought forward.
5 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
In fact, it was for four months, as my colleague Mr. Bergeron has pointed out.
That said, we put this on the notice paper on February 12. I read it in for the committee. This is a motion that has been there. I'm sorry that some members of the committee were not ready to vote on this.
We made it public. We told you it was coming. Then I tabled it according to the rules of our Standing Orders. This is exactly how it's meant to be done. I'm sorry if some members don't like that, but I would like this motion, which I brought forward using the tools I have as a member of this committee, to be resolved. I would like it to be voted upon.
Thank you.
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Mr. Chair, this is a motion that I put forward for the future of diplomacy. I had questions for the senator that are very important to me, because I want to do a comparative analysis. My colleague Heather prevented me from having more meetings on the comparative study of the future of diplomacy.
I'm in favour of the suggestion by Mr. Chong. I think we should return to the study and move quickly. We have two small amendments, and we shouldn't be wasting more time.
Thank you, Chair.
5 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Do I understand that, if it's already on the floor...? Do we not have to deal with the motion? Is that not, in fact, the rule of this committee?
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Someone can bring a point of order on that, but yes, you are correct. It is before the committee.
Does anyone else want to speak to this? No.
Are there any amendments?
Go ahead, MP Oliphant.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
It's on the floor and we are largely in favour of this. We think it's an important issue to be discussed.
However, we have two amendments.
One, where it says, “2020 and 2024”, we would back that up to “2006 and 2024” in order to make it a longer term in the motion.
These are two separate amendments, but I'm going to put them into one, which is a bit risky. You can decide on that once I've said them.
Following “to protect cabinet confidences”, add “respect privacy legislation and protect sensitive commercial interests”.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
That's right at the end. It's where it says, “without redactions except to protect cabinet confidences”. It's “respect privacy legislation and protect sensitive commercial interests”. That is standard language around export permits.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like the two proposed amendments to be considered separately, because I'm in favour of the first and against the second. I'm opposed to it because, before we decided to begin our study on arms sales to Turkey, when we heard from government officials, their all‑too‑easy defence was to invoke commercially sensitive issues to avoid answering the committee's questions.
Obviously, following this extremely frustrating appearance, we had to undertake our study, but we did so largely because we weren't given an answer, under the pretext of wanting to respect commercially sensitive information. I wouldn't want us to tie our hands at the outset by allowing anyone to use this excuse not to provide us with information, as has happened. We didn't make this up; it's exactly what we've experienced.
So I'd like to vote in favour of the first proposed amendment, but I'm strongly opposed to the second.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Like my colleague Mr. Bergeron, I support the first amendment. I think that is a strong amendment. I would take that as a friendly amendment.
On the second one, I think “respect privacy” makes a lot of sense, but protecting commercial interests when we are talking about weapons that have currently killed over 12,000 children.... I think we can go ahead and waive that.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
May I propose that we deal with the first one first, then move to the second one?
Regarding Mr. Oliphant's amendment concerning the dates, does anyone want to speak to that, or do we want to go to a recorded vote?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
I'll just say that I find it a little ridiculous that we'd go back all the way to 2006, but we're not opposed to it.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal