Canada-China Relations Committee on March 26th, 2024

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm hearing my colleagues' comments, on the whole. It seems that we're reaching the point where we must decide whether it's important. It's indeed important.

We should remember that the Special Committee on the Canada‑People's Republic of China Relationship has a broad mission. The motion doesn't include one item that we might want to add. The item is the impact of foreign interference, in this case, on diplomatic relations with China. The motion doesn't include this, but it could be added.

In addition, I can confirm that other witnesses will be added. I think that it would be unwise to narrow the scope of the study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Mr. Chong, go ahead.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I have a couple of points.

First, in drafting this motion, I canvassed a number of members of the committee, and it was clear that members did not want to sit during constituency weeks. I'm happy to sit during constituency weeks. I think there are lots of House resources available during constituency weeks, so my initial proposal was that we sit twice a week during constituency weeks to deal with this matter because the House calendar this spring is so full of constituency weeks. However, members weren't in favour of that, so I took that into consideration in the drafting of the motion so that we would sit as a committee only during sitting weeks.

The second factor in all of this, Mr. Chair, is that if this motion is adopted, we will be calling nine witnesses to appear. Two of them are ministers. Ministers are normally accorded a full meeting. They normally appear alone as a witness. They don't appear with the witnesses enumerated in (i) through (vii) in the motion. That means two meetings would already be gone from the meetings we need.

In addition, we have seven departmental witnesses. That will take at least three, if not four, meetings. What we need for this study, Mr. Chair, is not two meetings; it's five meetings. That is in accordance with the amendment that was just adopted of “at least two meetings”, but two meetings is not going to be sufficient to hear from all the witnesses.

Just to get through the departmental security officer, the deputy minister of health, the vice-president of PHAC, the second vice-president of PHAC, the president of PHAC, the director of CSIS and the national security and intelligence adviser is going to take at least three meetings, because you're not going to have a panel of four or five witnesses in front of this committee on such an important matter. We need to hear from panels of one or two witnesses, so that means it's going to take at least three meetings to get through these seven witnesses from PHAC, PCO and CSIS. There will be probably two panels for PHAC, one panel for the director of CSIS and one panel for the national security and intelligence adviser.

Right there we're going to need four meetings. In addition to that, we have the two ministers who are being asked to appear. We're looking at five meetings, and if we stick to once a week, we're not going to be able to dispose of the business of the committee before we adjourn for the summer. That's why I think we should stick with meeting twice a week. Doing that would allow us to get through this study, to hear from witnesses and to also dispose of other matters in front of the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

I would point out that, generally speaking, when we invite a minister to appear on a panel, the minister is normally around for one hour. It's usually not more than that. They usually bring officials. I'm just speaking in general terms.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Normally ministers, when they're asked to appear, appear for a two-hour slot. A one-and-a-half to two-hour slot is dedicated. Normally the minister appears for the first hour. They do not appear alone. They appear with their support—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

That's what I was in the process of saying, Mr. Chong. Allow me to conclude.

A rule that we loosely follow is that we try to have no more than three people on a panel, because each has their five minutes, and that gives time for a couple of rounds. With the three-hour time slot, we will sometimes have an hour and a half per panel, which, in our experience, has provided more than sufficient time to question the three people on the panel. Your proposal to have five meetings to go through this might be a trifle generous in terms of our use of time, but I'll leave that up to the members to decide.

Mr. Naqvi, go ahead.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I just want to echo the point you're making, Chair. Again, I will reinforce the point that six hours at the outset, with the committee agreeing to at least two meetings, is sufficient time to go through all those witnesses.

I would just caution the members again on what I said earlier in my opening remarks. My fear is that this is all political posturing. This is all for a political show as opposed to being transparent and being coherent in providing findings for Canadians. This reminds me a lot of another committee that I've been a member of for over two years now, the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, dealing with the invocation of the Emergencies Act. It's ongoing. The world has moved on. We've had one public inquiry done within a year's time, but that committee is still not finished its work because so much time has been taken by political posturing. That does not serve Canadians. That does not serve this Parliament. That is not befitting of our job as members of Parliament.

I really urge the members. I think we have a really cogent plan here—two meetings, a regular schedule, three hours each—that will accommodate the ministers and accommodate the witnesses that Mr. Chong has presented so that we can be focused, we can be transparent, we can ask the relevant questions in the spirit of accountability and we can produce a report that will be of benefit to Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Monsieur Villemure.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With all due respect to my colleague across the way, I find it a bit odd that he should refer to political posturing. The government party went after its own Speaker to cover up the facts and took disproportionate action to keep things quiet. Under the circumstances, I think that political posturing is an inappropriate reference.

My colleague pointed out the need for efficiency and transparency. No matter the schedule, this should be the case. This mandate is serious and must be treated as such. I think that we shouldn't avoid trying to get to the bottom of things. This important issue has shaken the confidence of Canadians. I want the people who keep up with our work to know that we take it seriously and that we aren't avoiding meetings or avoiding getting to the bottom of things. In terms of political posturing, care should be taken when using this term. There has been quite a bit of it on the other side.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

With that, I think we will take the vote on removing item (b).

The amendment proposed is to remove item (b), which essentially, if I try to interpret what's been said, would keep us to our regular schedule of one meeting per week of three hours.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

What's next? The amendment goes down to section (d) and would remove the notion of the summons pursuant to Standing Order 108(1), considering that this always remains an option in any event.

Mr. Chong, did you wish to speak to this?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Yes. I think we should leave the summons in the motion. I do not support the amendment, and here's why. The actors involved in this national security breach of the Winnipeg lab do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. When we examined this matter in the last Parliament, we did so in good faith as a committee. At every step along the way, the individuals involved in this matter obstructed, obfuscated and delayed the release of these documents we finally got.

Initially, they told us that we could not get the documents because of privacy concerns, which was not true. The Privacy Act exempts judicial proceedings and other proceedings, such as parliamentary committees, from the provisions of the Privacy Act. When that argument didn't work, they then resorted to hiding behind “national security”, which we now know was not a legitimate reason for withholding the documents. They then defied four orders of the House of Commons—including a summons to the bar—for these documents.

I don't support removing the summons from the motion. The motion is worded in a way—I drafted it in a way—that doesn't compel you to use the summons, but it gives you the option to use it if necessary. We need to hear from these witnesses. I don't want to waste more time than this meeting in having another meeting where you are telling us that departmental officials who have been requested to appear have refused to appear. I don't want to have another discussion about that. I'd like us to adopt this portion of the motion as is, so that if a witness says to you that they're not available, then you can actually issue them a summons so that they will appear. It's high time that we get answers on these matters.

I don't support the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

I'm looking for a bit of clarity here, Mr. Chong, because I take your point. If we invite them and they're unavailable, we would, under normal circumstances, follow up with a summons. Are you suggesting—I don't want to put words in your mouth here—that we go with the summons right off the top?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

No. I'm saying that you invite them to appear, as chairs normally invite witnesses to appear, and you extend them the courtesy of being flexible about when they might appear, as chairs normally extend that courtesy, but if a witness refuses to appear, then you have the threat of telling them that you are empowered to summons them. I hope that you would not have to use that threat, but if you do need to use it, the motion empowers you to do it.

You begin with the invitation, but if witnesses refuse to appear, you are empowered as chair, if this motion is adopted, to summons them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

That's essentially formalizing what we would do anyway.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Yes, but without wasting any further time on this matter, because I think we've wasted a lot of time—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Okay. Fair enough.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

—on procedure to get to this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Mr. Naqvi.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I think Mr. Chong just admitted the fact that this part is redundant, because that power already exists. You don't need to state that in the motion. I remember in the past debating with members on whether or not we should have a line about taking oaths before they appear before the committee. This is not the United States of America. There are certain conventions and certain rules that are already in place in our parliamentary procedure. The power to summons if a witness refuses to appear lies with the chair and is within the Standing Orders. You do need not to state that in the motion.

I think the functions of this committee, like all committees, will continue to function appropriately with or without this in the motion. With this particular clause, I think it's quite redundant, and we should not have it in the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Mr. Villemure.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, the current rules provide for this. However, I gather that Mr. Chong would rather that the motion call on the chair to act in all cases, rather than having to negotiate on a case‑by‑case basis. If a number of witnesses don't want to appear and we must vote on the summons each time, it isn't productive. I think that we can save time here.

Including this in the wording of the motion will also affect some witnesses, who may think twice before declining to appear. I'll support Mr. Chong's view on this. It seems reasonable. I completely agree that the opposite argument wouldn't take anything away from the motion, since it's in the Standing Orders. However, we shouldn't need to reopen the debate for every refusal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

As chair, I'm looking at the practical application of this. Let's look at the scenario. If we make an invitation and the response we get is inconclusive and they're not sure whether or not they're available, I guess I would look for a bit of advice from the committee as to what would then trigger the summons—which, as Mr. Naqvi pointed out, exists anyway. Help paint the picture for me as to when I would actually take that step.

Mr. Villemure is first and then Mr. Chong.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wouldn't want to usurp your power in any way, but here's how I see things. The witnesses are invited to appear. For their own reasons, some refuse to do so. At that point, the committee will certainly consider the circumstances. For example, if we invite a woman who is due to give birth, she won't be able to appear.

However, I wouldn't want to hold a discussion with a vote every time. We would leave it up to you to decide whether to send the summons, taking into account the circumstances and the fact that we obviously want the person to appear. This isn't a rehash of the Standing Orders. We're announcing this in advance while giving you some leeway and hoping that the witnesses appear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Mr. Chong, go ahead.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I agree with my honourable colleague. An official may claim to be unavailable to appear before the committee, or provide some other excuse. In these types of cases, under this motion, you will have the power to require the witness to appear before the committee.

I agree with my colleague. In your time as chair, Mr. Chair, there have been witnesses who have indicated that they were not available to appear or that they didn't want to appear. This empowers you to use the power that you have, when so authorized by the committee, to issue a summons for a witness.

If we don't adopt this summons in the motion, if we don't adopt this language in the motion, we are going to have to have another meeting to move a motion to empower you to summons a witness. As you said at the outset of this meeting, we're here discussing the procedure and the mechanics of how this study will unfold. This gives you the option of issuing a summons so that we don't have to go through this process again at some future date because the witness has decided they don't want to appear.

Often departmental officials will say that the DSO is not going to appear but the president of PHAC is going to appear in their place. We don't want that. We have enumerated a list of seven departmental witnesses whom we would like to hear from. We want to hear from each and every one of those witnesses, and we don't want to hear from another witness in lieu of one of those witnesses, so this motion makes it clear that you are empowered to invite those witnesses. If they don't want to appear, you are empowered by the committee to issue a summons.