Canada-China Relations Committee on April 12th, 2021

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with much of what has been said by everybody else. By querying the procedural mechanism by which someone could be summoned before the committee, I did not mean to suggest that it should necessarily be the first option. However, since we're having this discussion in public, it's good to just acknowledge the options that the committee has available to it. Those are real procedural options. They're not inventing something that doesn't exist in the rules. There's a history. I believe it was used for a certain former NDP leader. There is a procedure by which the House can summon a person to appear before a committee, and that can happen for a member of Parliament if the House is acting, as opposed to the committee.

I agree with Mr. Bergeron's point. This is a serious matter, not because Mr. McGuinty's own conduct is in question here, of course, but because the spirit in which that oversight body was created was to be a committee of parliamentarians that would provide parliamentary review over security and intelligence activities.

In that sense, this is information that members of that committee, and that committee only, can provide. It's not as if we can just substitute a different expert here, right? This is a particular body with a legislative mandate to be a connection between parliamentarians and security decision-making. Therefore, it's important that the committee hear from members of that body, and to honour the mandate of that body, that we be a little insistent.

I support the suggestion of Mr. Lightbound to send a follow-up letter to offer some flexibility in terms of timing. It is perhaps still possible for the committee to meet outside its regular time slot. Maybe the whips' offices aren't that keen on it, but we can try to be flexible on our end to accommodate his schedule. Maybe we just communicate to him the seriousness with which members of the committee are looking at this issue, and that at the end of the day it doesn't have to be next week but we have set aside an hour to hear about the work of that committee, if not from Mr. McGuinty then from other members of the committee.

Theoretically I suppose we could extend an open invitation for members of the committee to appear, whichever ones wish to. I think it would be more orderly to hear from the chair. I hope we're able to do that, but we have other options whereby I think we can hear from and about the work of this committee in some way, shape or form.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Lightbound provided a very reasonable path forward, and I think Mr. Harris echoed a very reasonable point of view. In the interests of moving ahead here, because I see us going around in circles, I think you know where most committee members sit on this issue. However, I would add that I doubt there's a single member of the committee who has read the annual review that was just tabled in Parliament.

If I'm not mistaken, I think that was today. I could be wrong about that.

Let's first read the report of the committee—the national security committee of parliamentarians looking at issues of security—and then the committee can decide whether it's appropriate to move forward. On this idea that we would just automatically summons Mr. McGuinty through Parliament, I'm not sure what this is all about.

I think you know where most members of the committee sit on this. I see it's nine o'clock. I'm not sure if this is the last issue we're dealing with, but we keep going around in circles.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you.

Mr. Harris would tell you it's 10:30.

Monsieur Dubourg.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My colleague Mr. Fragiskatos said in English what I was going to say. I totally agree with him and with Joel Lightbound's proposal.

I would also like to add that we can invite members of the committee other than the chair. First, I would like to point out that the report presented today is redacted. As you know, all members have the secret or top secret clearance. So they will not be able to comment or analyze the elements that are not in the report. The report has been reviewed and redacted by a committee.

I will conclude by saying that this committee is made up of parliamentarians. It is made up of members of Parliament and senators from the parties represented in the House and it has a history of operating in a non-partisan way. We can always ask that another member of the committee be allowed to appear, but knowing the situation, I will be surprised if we get a positive response, because the same director will have to inform them. We can try, but if Mr. McGuinty doesn't show up, I'd be surprised if any other members would agree to appear before our committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dubourg.

I'm attempting to draw the consensus of the committee. Is it the wish of the committee that the clerk write to Mr. McGuinty again, indicating that the committee strongly desires to have him appear before the committee, or, if he's not available, that we'd like another member of the committee to appear?

Is that where we are? Does anyone object to that? Are there any concerns about that? Seeing none, that's what we'll do.

Thank you very much,

Madam Clerk, you may proceed.

Thank you.

Mr. Bergeron has asked me for some time to move his motions.

Mr. Bergeron, you have the floor.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know that we have already had this discussion at other committees and that some of my colleagues on this committee have also had the discussion at meetings of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. These are routine, housekeeping motions proposed by the Bloc Québécois. They are all identical. I know that we have made some changes to some of them in other committees and let me indicate from the outset that I am open to any suggestions.

I will read the first motion, if I may, Mr. Chair. All members have received it. It reads:

That the Clerk inform witnesses appearing before the Committee that the House Administration support team must conduct technical tests to check the connectivity and the equipment used to ensure the best possible sound quality prior to their scheduled appearance; and that the Chair advise the committee, at the start of each meeting, of any witness who did not perform or pass the required technical tests.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

We now move to questions from committee members about the motion.

Mr. Harris, please go ahead.

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

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

That was quick. I love those brief comments.

Are there any objections to that?

Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried.

Please continue, Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, the next motion reads as follows:

That all documents submitted for Committee business that do not come from a federal department or that have not been translated by the Translation Bureau be sent for prior linguistic review by the Translation Bureau before being distributed to members.

Mr. Chair, the objective of this motion is simply to make sure that we do not have to work with shaky, homemade translations that are barely comprehensible, either in English or French, and that members receive translations that can be easily understood.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Paul-Hus, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't think that this motion has been amended to include members' offices. All the committees that have passed these motions from the Bloc have included an amendment that adds members' offices, if I am not mistaken.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Speaking for myself, Mr. Chair, I have no objection to that addition. We can consider it a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Let me just ask if anyone objects to that amendment being included.

Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I know that MPs' offices.... Mr. Bergeron was open to that in terms of the amendment. What about departments? Can we put that in there as well, to exclude departments?

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

You want to exclude departments too.

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

It's already there.

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

Sorry for the confusion if it was there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

They are already there.

Mr. Lightbound, you have the floor.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I was just going to ask Mr. Bergeron to read the wording as it presently stands. When you say “include”, it implies including the exclusions. So documents coming from members' offices are excluded, if I understand correctly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

True, it is a little confusing.

Mr. Bergeron, the floor is yours.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I will try to read the motion in the way I understand it:

That all documents submitted for Committee business that do not come from a federal department or that have not been translated by the Translation Bureau be sent for prior linguistic review by the Translation Bureau before being distributed to members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much.

Are there any objections to the motion as submitted by Mr. Bergeron?

I see no objections, and therefore this motion is adopted.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

You may continue, Mr. Bergeron.