Canada-China Relations Committee on Feb. 25th, 2021

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I guess what we have simply as a work plan is just.... That is the complete study, I guess. Are we saying now that in what we have before us, the 10 meetings, we've just added the different witnesses? Is this what we're ending up with?

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I think what the subcommittee report provides for is the first two meetings, and my understanding is—

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I'm satisfied with the subcommittee.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, my motion was to adopt both the subcommittee report and the work plan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

That is correct.

Mr. Genuis has proposed the adoption of both; therefore, the work plan as written would be the one that....

Madam Clerk?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Marie-France Lafleur]

It's just to let you know that Monsieur Bergeron wishes to intervene as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you. I'll put him on the list after Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I just have a little concern that we're now saying it's the 10 meetings. Of course, the subcommittee had some doubts about all of that and we've never really decided it. We'll be deciding now that it's 10 meetings and that these are the 10 meetings and no others.

I just wonder whether we have canvassed what subjects are to be included, because it's not clear from the work plan. I'm not clear just from the names of the witnesses what areas of this study are being discussed. This is what we were talking about the other day, and we didn't reach any serious conclusion other than that we would have a work plan that we would talk about. However, it's not clear from the work plan, other than the list of witnesses, what areas of the notion of foreign influence we're dealing with. This is my problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you.

Just to be clear, Mr. Genuis's motion would have us adopt, of course, both the subcommittee report and the work plan. If that were not to pass and we only adopted the subcommittee report, that would leave open the question of the work plan. However, obviously that is not the motion before us. The motion at the moment is to adopt both.

The floor now goes to Mr. Bergeron.

He will be followed by Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, since we have decided to deal with the two documents together, I would just like to make a comment on the report.

The most recent comments from our Conservative colleagues led us to believe that they were submitting an additional opinion. I would like to let them know that I was disappointed with that. However, I carefully read the contents of their additional opinion and it did not surprise me. That's all I have to say, given that it is their privilege to present an additional opinion.

However, I thought we were going to submit a unanimous report, in a spirit of collegiality. Our Conservative colleagues did not clearly indicate their intention. We found it out afterwards. It's a little disappointing, but not really surprising, given that their most recent comments foreshadowed their intention. I have nothing more to add.

As for the work plan, I must say that I am quite happy today that we have a complete document to look at, unlike the last time. It seems very interesting to me. I really have no problem with the plan we have here. But I would like to make two comments.

I thought we had agreed to hear from Michel Juneau-Katsuya. Mr. Paul-Hus, who is up next, as I understand it, will be able to tell me whether I was dreaming again. I also thought that Ms. Porteous had drawn our attention to a UQAM professor who speaks French and Mandarin and is of Chinese origin, Professor Ting-Sheng Lin. I would agree with adding that witness to our work plan. However, since we would then have to remove a witness from the list, I don't know who it would be. I see the name Paul Evans, from the University of British Columbia.

I am picking Mr. Evans name at random, but could his contribution be more helpful or less helpful than Mr. Ting-Sheng Lin's?

Perhaps the analysts are in a position to enlighten us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much.

Let me remind the member that our meeting is not in camera and that it is still being televised.

You asked the analysts a question.

Ms. Porteous, are you able to answer it?

[Holly Porteous, Committee Researcher]

Yes and no. I don't feel very comfortable saying, among the potential witnesses who have been put into a block, whether one is definitely better than the other. Certainly, between those two gentlemen, I'm really not in a position to say. Remember that the library also has to go about this in a way that is fair and equitable to all the parties, and to have a proper balance there. I really have to leave that to the committee itself to make a determination in that respect.

However, I do have Mr. Ting-Sheng Lin as a potential witnesses. Just to advise, he has not been left out of the potential lineup, but that's for the committee to decide.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, if I may, I can propose something.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Okay.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

If I may, I will suggest a solution that could be acceptable for everyone.

At the moment, the 10th meeting has been scheduled. for one hour only. Perhaps we could add a second hour with Mr. Juneau-Katsuya and Mr. Ting-Sheng Lin. As a pair, they would be a little mismatched, but it would allow us to hear each of their points of view.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The effect of that would be to reopen the work plan. Our motion is to adopt the subcommittee report and the work plan too. It's not [inaudible].

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

So I will propose an amendment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Okay. We will debate the amendment.

Mr. Paul-Hus, the floor is yours to debate the amendment.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

It wasn't about speaking to the amendment, but I can do that at the same time.

I would like to go back to what Mr. Harris said. He mentioned that we had witnesses only. I would like to point out that we also have 10 topics at the start of the document and we can then see a table of the witnesses beside it. So our topics are very clear.

As for the Bloc's amendment to change or to add a witness, I have no problem. I had already mentioned to Mr. Bergeron that Mr. Juneau-Katsuya could be on the list of witnesses. Since his expertise is more in influence operations, we could hear from him when we are dealing with point 4, at the same time as Mr. McGuinty, or even when we are dealing with point 10.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus.

Mr. Fragiskatos, the floor is yours.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I suppose this is indirectly related to the amendment, if you'll indulge me here for a moment.

I see that we're straying away. We're now debating which witnesses are appropriate and which are not. That's the purview, as we all know, of the subcommittee. Can I suggest what I thought was originally the case, which was that we would have two meetings to begin with and then the subcommittee would meet to finalize a work plan? At that point, once finalized there, it would be brought back to the committee for discussion.

We now have two minutes left in this meeting. I don't think we're going to resolve anything. Can we at least—I put this to Mr. Genuis and maybe he'll consider amending his initial motion—agree to have the first two meetings and leave it at that for now, just so we can get on with things in a meaningful way here? I just see us descending into an endless debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fragiskatos.

I have Mr. Harris next, unless he prefers to ask Mr. Genuis to answer that question.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I would suggest that Mr. Genuis answer that question, because I was going to raise the same point as Mr. Fragiskatos. Sometimes Mr. Genuis acts very fast, and it takes a while to realize that he has actually hijacked the meeting.

This was, as Mr. Fragiskatos has said, a report, a work plan, that was supposed to go back to our subcommittee, which is supposed to deal with that, to have it go back there to discuss it. I think he's trying to bypass that entire process. I'd rather that we do what we had planned to do, which was to have the two meetings, have a discussion at the subcommittee as to the full work plan, and then carry on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you.

Mr. Genuis, I apologize. I should not suggest that you're required to answer, but if you wish to, please go ahead.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'm very happy to answer, just briefly.

Look, colleagues, I could go through and nitpick based on my own preferences one way or the other in terms of the work plan. The analysts are independent experts who provide us with a work plan that balances a variety of witness suggestions. My suggestion would be that we've had a lot of in camera meetings already this year, so let's move forward.

I'm willing to put aside all of the little disagreements I might have with the work plan and to say let us just adopt what we have so that we can move forward. I put a motion on the floor to do that. It's not hijacking anything. Members are welcome to vote against it if they disagree with it, but I put forward a motion that I think allows us to move forward quickly.

In terms of saying that something is the proper purview of the subcommittee or the main committee, I mean, everything the subcommittee does comes back to the main committee. All of the decisions have to be ratified by the main committee. I'm suggesting to let us try to maximize the time in the public interest, avoid more in camera discussion and just adopt the work plan. If people don't like that, they can vote against it, but that was my suggestion.

Thank you.