Evidence of meeting #1 for Canada-China Relations in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you.
Before I go to Mr. Harris and Mr. Bergeron, I want to check with the clerk on what the procedure is for us. If the committee wishes to, does it need to adopt the previous testimony on these topics?
October 9th, 2020 / 2:40 p.m.
The Clerk
No, that was all covered by the motion that was adopted in the House on September 23. All evidence and all documents that were presented to the committee in the last session will carry over, so that's already been dealt with.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
2:40 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I'd like to add to what was provided by the analyst. I'm looking at something in front of me that proposed nine meetings beyond the date on which the House was closed down because of the COVID situation, with a priority for future meetings listed as well. There are four items. I think there was a fairly robust work schedule that was not completed, and I see that only one or two of the witnesses listed here have actually testified to date. We may have to revisit some of that, but there is quite a hefty schedule here that still applies.
I may be corrected by our analyst, but I'm looking at the February 27 report. The eventual one was adopted on March 9, which I don't have in front of me. Maybe not all of this was adopted. Maybe it was just the first parts of it, but a fairly large document was prepared for what the work of the committee might be. I believe it's in order, given the passage of time, for the subcommittee to look at this and come back with recommendations for the full committee.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
The analyst raised her hand.
Mr. Bergeron, I'd like to have the analyst respond to Mr. Harris's comment.
Ms. Goody, the floor is yours.
2:45 p.m.
Committee Researcher
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Harris, you are correct. There were two separate work plans that the committee considered and adopted. There is the larger work plan on the global study that the committee is undertaking, with the date that you mentioned. As you correctly stated, there's quite a bit left on that document to still undertake. Then there is the specific work plan on the Hong Kong meetings that the committee had been working its way through as well.
2:45 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Mr. Chair, I have nothing to add to what Mr. Harris just said. I only want to clarify one thing.
Mr. Genuis referred to the consul general issue, and our analyst confirmed this. We had a discussion because there was a proposal to invite the consul general from Vancouver, I believe. I said that the consul general from Montreal had also made comments and that, as a result, rather than inviting the consul general from Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal, it might be better to invite the ambassador of the People's Republic of China. We agreed to invite the ambassador of the People's Republic of China, who incidentally expressed an interest in meeting, in one form or another, with the committee members.
I suggest that we meet with the ambassador of the People's Republic of China instead.
2:45 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
I don't know whether it's necessary to move a motion, since we agreed to meet with the ambassador of China instead.
I just wanted to refer again to our discussion where we spoke about leaving out such and such a consul and focusing first and foremost on the ambassador of the People's Republic of China. As I was saying, he expressed an interest in meeting with us in one form or another.
2:45 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to add a different point in relation to our going forward.
Mr. Genuis suggested that the analysts be asked to start preparing a report on Hong Kong. I would say that such an item is premature, keeping in mind that it's an interim report and we're probably only talking about things that might be important for the government to do or to recommend for today and that the larger questions may be left until the end.
Perhaps it has already been done—but maybe it didn't happen because of prorogation and the committee didn't exist—but perhaps we can ask if the analysts are able to provide, or work on at least, a summary of the evidence so that we can have something to review. Particularly, there are new members on the committee. I wouldn't want them to have to read through the entire transcripts of all of the meetings that we've had. I think that would be a bit onerous. Since we are bringing forth the evidence—the evidence is before us—if there were a summary of it from the analysts for the use of the full committee, that might make the process move along a little more quickly and smoothly.
Given the fact that there's a constituency week coming up, if that process were started now, that would at least save us a week of waiting or a week before we ask such a question. That's up to the chair and the committee to advise, of course. If that's compatible with the analysts' work schedule, then that would be great.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Before I go to Mr. Genuis and then Mr. Oliphant, I'll ask the analyst.
Allison, would I be mistaken to think that you'll probably do that as we go along, and that it may exist and be available for members in fairly short order so that members could review it?
2:50 p.m.
Committee Researcher
An evidence summary has been prepared and has been sent to the clerk, if it is the committee's will to have it distributed.
Thank you.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you very much.
Is there any debate on the idea of having it distributed? Is it agreed that we have it distributed?
It's agreed. I'll direct the clerk to distribute it, and then I'll go to Mr. Genuis and then Mr. Oliphant.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
I have a point of order.
With regard to the distribution, is that considered an internal document? Can we just clarify that? I assume it is.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
In my view, it is considered an internal document, so I'd ask the members to keep it in confidence, yes.
Thank you.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Chair, I just want to briefly clarify two points that were raised.
In terms of Mr. Bergeron's latest intervention—and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about this—what I had meant to refer to was having the consul general of Canada to Hong Kong, our representative in Hong Kong. That was a separate discussion from inviting a representative of the PRC in Canada, which I agree is also worthwhile, and I agree that the appropriate person to extend that invitation to would be the ambassador.
Mr. Harris was talking about, essentially, the two different work plans. I definitely think we should be guided by the work plan with respect to the Hong Kong study in particular in the short term as we complete the Hong Kong study. The longer-term work plan will probably be something we want to revisit in the subcommittee and have a wider conversation about, recognizing that a lot has changed, that there's a lot new in the context of the relationship between Canada and China since we previously discussed that work plan: all of the circumstances around COVID-19, around.... I don't need to list them; everybody knows. A lot has changed. I'm not saying that we might not want to be guided to some extent by that as well, but what I was proposing in particular is the Hong Kong work plan and that we use that as a guide for the Hong Kong study, but then maybe have a separate conversation at the subcommittee about the global work plan.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I note for posterity that I agree with Garnett on this.
I have two points.
As a federal Parliament, our most appropriate invitation would be to China's ambassador to Canada, not a consul general. If the ambassador wanted to include one of his consuls general from Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver or wherever, that would be fine. I want to make sure that we are on the same page on that. I am also supportive of having Canada's consul general to Hong Kong.
The second point is that I think it's appropriate to finish our work plan on Hong Kong. I think we then need to have a subcommittee on agenda and planning look at what we do after that. There are important issues around world events, COVID and security, etc., and we need to rejig that a bit. If this means the subcommittee needs to do a little extra work so that we don't lose too much time, I think we'd all agree to that.
I just don't want to assume we're back exactly where we were before, when we were finishing the Hong Kong report.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
I don't think we have any motions before us. We've had a discussion about where to go from here. We have a pretty clear direction, I think.
I see Mr. Genuis raising his hand.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
The next matter, which is when we want to have our meetings again, is another thing I think we need to discuss. I'm bringing this up on the assumption that we've already established a path forward vis-à-vis the Hong Kong study. I think we have. Is that right?