Canada-China Relations Committee on April 12th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Okay.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lightbound.

Mr. Bergeron, you have the floor.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would actually like someone to clarify this so-called privilege that parliamentarians have to not appear before a committee. If this privilege exists, I would like someone to explain it to us. If it does not exist, the question is whether we should be more insistent with Mr. McGuinty, as we have been with former ambassadors, for example.

It is ironic that the representative of a parliamentary body that is intended to provide some civilian oversight of intelligence and national security activities refuses to meet with his peers to report on his work. I must admit that I find this peculiar.

So I would like to know whether we are in a position to put a little more pressure on Mr. McGuinty, or whether that is off the table from the outset.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Genuis was right when he said that members of Parliament have the privilege of not being compelled to testify before a committee. Only the House itself can require them to do so. Committees do not have that power. So Mr. McGuinty has the right not to appear in this case.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I agree with that observation. It's a privilege of members of Parliament not to be, I guess, cross-examined by committees, or required to appear before committees.

I put my hand up for another reason. I'm not sure that we clarified, after discussing that we wanted Ms. Bartholomew for an hour.... I don't know where we fit that hour in, or whether that hour was to replace Mr. Waterhouse and Alexander Bowe, or we just have her another time at some other place. Was that clarified at all by the committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I think the clerk indicated that she's replacing Mr. Bowe because she is his superior. He suggested we have her instead.

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

[Technical difficulty—Editor] decided to have him. I think the committee has decided to have her for an hour. I'm just wondering where the hour is being found, as we have Mr. Waterhouse during the same hour on the current schedule that's in front of us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Let me ask the clerk to clarify what the result of this would be.

[The Clerk]

Yes, of course. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Barthomolew could be instead of Mr. McGuinty in the third hour of April 19. We would choose an alternate to go with Mr. Waterhouse.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much for that clarification.

Mr. Paul-Hus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To come back to Mr. McGuinty, we would have to check the rules because, as chair of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, he submits his annual report and other reports to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, among others. Given that our committee is a special committee dealing with Canada-China relations and that the report that has just been tabled mentions security issues, it is entirely appropriate that Mr. McGuinty appear before the committee to report on the situation. I don't see any reason why Mr. McGuinty shouldn't be pressed on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Madam Clerk, can you explain the rules on that?

[The Clerk]

I can certainly clarify that. Let me refer you to pages 981 and 982 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

I have it in English here. It states that “certain limitations are recognized on the power to order individuals to appear”.

A little further down, it says:

“This applies...to parliamentarians belonging to other Canadian legislatures, because each of these assemblies, like the House of Commons, has the parliamentary privilege of controlling the attendance of its members and any matters affecting them.”

So the committee can invite Mr. McGuinty, but it does not have the power to compel his appearance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Genuis, is your hand still up, or is it up again?

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

It's up again.

Mr. Chair, I have two points. First of all, I think we should set aside the hour as planned to hear from either Mr. McGuinty or other members of that intelligence review committee of Parliament. There are other parliamentarians on that committee who may be willing to appear if Mr. McGuinty is not willing to appear voluntarily and if we're not able to find a workaround.

I would suggest that we send a follow-up letter to Mr. McGuinty, underlining the strong desire of members of the committee to hear from him. That doesn't violate any of the rules. At the same time, we extend the opportunity to the next appropriate...or to other members of that committee.

Further to Mr. Bergeron's comments and others in terms of this question of being able to summon people, it seemed from what the clerk has said and what I've seen in other cases that the House of Commons can direct a person to appear before the committee. It would be within the powers of the committee to, for instance, adopt a motion and refer that motion to the House, which then, if concurred in, would direct Mr. McGuinty to appear before the committee.

I just want to have some clarity on the rules. I'd be interested in the feedback of other members. Clearly it's not something I can do without the support of other members.

Madam Clerk, could you just clarify the formulation of that? If the committee were to adopt a motion like, “That the committee direct David McGuinty to appear for one hour before the special committee and report this motion to the House”, would that motion, if concurred in, provide the appropriate instruction?

[The Clerk]

Yes, I can confirm it would be a motion that would be needed from the House.

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

Would the procedure that I'm describing satisfy that requirement?

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It would, if the House adopted it, of course.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Who do I have next?

Mr. Lightbound.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't think we should make a big deal out of this. I think we can simply invite M. McGuinty back. We can offer him other dates. Since April 19 is fast approaching, I would suggest that we reserve the third hour for Ms. Bartholomew, so that we don't lose that hour in committee. Our time is limited and it is valuable.

For Mr. McGuinty, we can suggest other dates that might be more convenient for him than the night of the budget.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Harris, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to speak to that suggestion of Mr. Genuis's that a motion be presented to the House. I don't think that's a very wise thing for parliamentarians to do unless there were some extreme circumstances requiring a member to appear. Mr. McGuinty's not being asked to appear on some matter that he alone has knowledge of. The committee has issued a report. The report is available. My experience of Mr. McGuinty in front of committees is that he tells you what's in the report, and he doesn't tell you very much else. He talks about the report. He appeared before the public safety committee recently.

It would be a bad precedent to set that we would ignore the privileges of members of the House, because these are part of our privileges as members. We should be very loath to make it a common practice or even a precedent such as this where it doesn't appear to be crucial that Mr. McGuinty present himself to be examined by this committee on this matter. As a member of Parliament, I think it would be unwise to set a precedent like that.

Mr. Lightbound's suggestion is fine if he wants to be asked again—or other members of the committee. If the purpose of this is to have an opportunity to talk about the report and what's in the report, that's fine. We can have it on our agenda, and someone from the committee can come and lead us through the report or whatever, but I don't think we're going to hear anything that the committee learned through its report other than what's in the report itself.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I have two points to make.

First, I think that the matter is not as trivial or anecdotal as it initially appears. As I mentioned a few moments ago, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians was created to ensure a certain transparency and civilian control over national security activities. Consequently, it is peculiar, to say the least, that the chair of this committee refuses to demonstrate that transparency by appearing before his peers.

I understand Mr. Harris' point. I think we need to be careful before we set such a precedent. That is why I would be inclined to agree with Mr. Lightbound's wise suggestion to offer Mr. McGuinty another date to appear before us and to present his views and the views of the committee on Canada-China relations from a national security perspective. We could even offer him an in camera appearance, although I know that is not the preference of my colleagues. Before we go there, I think we need to provide another date. If he continues to refuse, we can look at other avenues afterwards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much.

Before I go to Mr. Genuis, who's next, I've been informed by the clerk that the act creating the committee in question does not provide for any vice-chairs.

Now we have Mr. Genuis, please.