Information & Ethics Committee on April 9th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

To pick up on some points that Mr. Villemure has outlined, if the Canada-China committee is taking a lead, would it not make sense for us to let them complete the process. We could write to them to say, “Hey, we're here at your disposal to look at whatever issues you need to look at in the greater context of things.” We could then have them send a reference to us if they need it.

I really think that we can't just go with one-offs on the same issue and on different tangents to create different issues. We need to let the Canada-China committee take the lead on this issue, and if they feel that they need to give the ethics committee a reference on this issue, then let's follow their leadership and have them do it. It doesn't make sense for us to be parallel in the work that they're doing at the same time.

Again, Mr. Chair, I propose that we write to them and say that we're interested, and if they feel that there is this branch of information they think we should be analyzing, we're more than happy to receive that. If we do receive a request from them, then we'd be more than happy to follow it. I think we're being a bit too pre-emptory here with respect to this. We should let the Canada-China committee lead this issue and should let them give us a reference if they choose to do so.

I really appreciate the issues that Mr. Villemure has outlined, but we should be more judicious in terms of what we bring into our committee, running parallel studies, etc.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

On the amendment, I have Mr. Housefather, followed by Mr. Green.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to comment on this issue. I completely agree with Mr. Villemure that the amendment he moved is consistent with our committee's mandate. Of that I have no doubt whatsoever. I also understand his opinion that we should study why there were so many obstacles to obtaining these documents.

However, like Ms. Khalid and Ms. Damoff, I would prefer to avoid any duplication.

When I look at the motion that was adopted by Canada-China committee, it says "That pursuant to its order of reference of Monday, May 16, 2022, the committee undertake a study" of at least two meetings "of the matters revealed in the Winnipeg lab documents together with the broader concerns they represent in relation to Canada's national security, as well as the obstacles encountered in obtaining these documents".

To me, it looks like, “as well as the obstacles encountered in obtaining these documents”, the Canada-China study is indeed covering that question that we're now seeing needs to be brought here. If they weren't, and if it were only about the national security aspects, I would entirely understand and would agree that it would make sense to have this committee study the other part. Given that the Canada-China committee is also studying it and that the witnesses are essentially the same, we're making people come to two different committees to answer questions about essentially the same thing. I don't understand why we would be doing that.

How does the motion proposed here differ from the one already adopted by the Special Committee on the Canada–People's Republic of China Relationship? They seem the same to me on the subject of access to documents. Mr. Villemure may be able to explain it to us the next time he speaks. I believe he was actually there when the motion was adopted at the special committee, because I see his name in that meeting's minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

He's still on the list. Perhaps he can answer your question later.

Next we have Mr. Green, followed by Mr. Fisher, Mr. Erskine-Smith and Mr. Villemure.

Go ahead, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Look, we are creatures of our own domain. We do have the ability to pursue whatever studies we want, right? For me, what's most egregious about what happened is that the PM's office quite literally tried to sue the House of Commons to block this information. For me, this isn't just about the Winnipeg labs. This is about a Liberal government that has a culture of obstruction when it comes to our parliamentary privileges, quite frankly. The fact that this had to take a legal proceeding challenging the will of the House of Commons in a minority government is quite problematic.

That's my interest in this. My interest is the overarching theme of the power of the PM's office to keep information from parliamentarians. That is the mandate of this committee, and I think it's well within our parameters to do so. The clown show that Mr. Chong wanted to bring in here I'm not interested in, but I am interested in this. For that reason, I'll be supporting the amendments, and I look forward to hearing....

People can have a lot of opinions about Mr. Rota, but at the end of the day, he did the right thing here, I believe, in defending our parliamentary privileges, because it goes beyond this. If we allow any government in power, regardless of its party affiliation, to get away with that kind of wanton abuse, I would say, we're setting ourselves up for future governments that may be even more reckless. We have to safeguard these institutions and we have to protect our parliamentary privileges to be able to send for people, demand for documents and make sure that evidence is provided here. We just had an entire day of privilege yesterday for people who did not want to co-operate with committee.

That being said, that's my last statement on this. I'll underscore my deep personal disappointment in Michael Chong trying to turn what I think was a very important and salient aspect for this committee to study into a three-ring circus over the March break. I would regret if that were to happen again.

That being said, I will be supporting this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Fisher, go ahead on the amendment.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As this is my first meeting, I've been absorbing everything that's been said by all the speakers. I certainly appreciate all the comments made.

For me, MP Khalid was bang on. This study is being studied right now. Liberal members on that committee supported this study moving forward. I heard just 12 hours ago that this study was taking place.

I would say leave it to Canada-China. If something falls through the cracks, if something falls through the floorboards, and it's something that we need to look at down the road, I would support that, but at this particular moment, I wouldn't support the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Erskine-Smith, I know that you just stepped in here. Do you have a copy of the amendment?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I do, yes.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks, John.

I'm a member of the Canada-China committee, and we started this study last night. When Michael Chong did bring the motion to us, it received unanimous support, ultimately. The rationale was, one, a claim of delay in acting on national security considerations. Two, there was a concern around access to documents in a timely and fulsome fashion. Both of those matters are within the ambit of the study that we have already undertaken at the Canada-China committee.

We heard from Minister Holland last night. We heard from the director of CSIS last night. We heard from PHAC last night. We have witnesses scheduled for this Friday. We're doing two meetings a week.

Look, I'm just visiting today. You do what you do, but I would caution against just duplicating things that we're already doing at the Canada-China committee. If you are going to pass a study like this, make sure you're working hand in hand so that you don't have the same witnesses, you're not hearing the same evidence, you're not duplicating efforts for no reason whatsoever and you're not just spinning your wheels and wasting your time.

Again, do what you want to do, but if you do pass this motion, make sure there's co-operation between the chairs of both committees. Otherwise, we're all wasting our time here.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Wonderful. Go ahead on the amendment, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

I see that Mr. Villemure has nothing more to add.

[The Clerk]

The vote is on Mr. Villemure's amendment to the motion that was moved by Mr. Chong in February.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We have a tie, so I will vote yes.

[The Clerk]

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5])

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The amendment as proposed by Mr. Villemure carries.

Now we're on the main motion as amended.

I don't see any further discussion. Do we have consensus on the main motion as amended?

We have another tie. I vote in favour of it.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

I don't have any further business for the committee.

As I mentioned, we are going to send out a draft schedule, keeping in mind that this motion has passed, as well as part of our calculations on the future schedules.

This meeting is adjourned.