Canada-China Relations Committee on March 26th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you. I appreciate the clarity.

Mr. Berthold, go ahead.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, the impact of this motion will be twofold. First, it gives you the permission and authority to act at this time. Second, it's time for the witnesses to understand that the committee business is serious. The witnesses will know that, if they don't accept your kind invitation, they will be summoned to appear before us.

In another situation, the House now has before it a question of privilege to call a witness to the stand, because that witness refused to answer the parliamentarians' questions. Parliamentary committees are serious business. I think that, by passing this motion, we'll be sending two messages to the witnesses. We want to hear from you, and we will be hearing from you. That's what matters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Mr. Naqvi.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I don't want to belabour the point. I think it's just a bad precedent from a parliamentary procedure perspective to have something like this in a motion when something exists in the Standing Orders. There are bad optics in telling potential witnesses that if they don't show up they'll get an arrest warrant against them. I mean, it's just not how we function in our system, in our Parliament.

I'm looking beyond this particular study. I just don't like the precedent, just as I stated about the precedent of requiring the witnesses to take an oath. I mean, that's not the message we send when they're appearing before a parliamentary committee.

In any case, I just wanted to get that off my chest. I've made my point. I suggest that in the interest of time—it's taken up almost 90 minutes now—with only two votes left, if we could take the two votes together, we could move on with our day and start preparing for the study.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Mr. Villemure.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I agree with my colleague that this motion would set a precedent. I'm not a regular member of this committee. However, I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics for a long time. We're noticing a trend. Some witnesses don't want to appear before a committee, or don't say anything when they come. This wasn't the case before. We didn't need to resort to this. That said, it seems to have become necessary today. It's sad, but if we must set a precedent, let's do so. The situation has changed and the circumstances are different.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

I have seen, just as a participant in other committees and occasionally sitting in, that there is a sentiment out there, just to sensitize you all to this, that sometimes the treatment of witnesses at committees has probably created misgivings about attending. We'll take the vote on this one, but I would suggest that we deposit right now the notion that, whatever form these hearings take, they do be respectful. That is critical, I think.

The last word is with you, Mr. Villemure. Then we'll take the vote.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I completely agree with you. In some committees, witnesses have been treated like defendants. That isn't right either. We all agree that both sides may have shown a lack of respect. In our work, we still need a certain level of decorum to ensure that the committee operates in a way that respects individuals. To that end, I remain in agreement with Mr. Chong.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

I don't see any other hands up. Let's take the roll vote on this one.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

The next amendment is to remove the departmental security officer, executive director of security, Public Health Agency of Canada, as a witness.

Mr. Naqvi, I understand that your amendment would be to remove this person as one of the individuals identified as a witness.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Chair, we'll withdraw that amendment and the amendment dealing with the deputy clerk of the Privy Council and national security and intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister.

The only one left to vote on, I would suggest, is (e)(iii): “other witnesses whose names shall be provided by the parties to the clerk of the committee within one week of the adoption of this motion”. I would take that one out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Are you taking out the last two amendments, then?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

It's the first two.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

All right. Those are gone.

Now we're down to section (e)(iii). You're proposing an amendment to remove “other witnesses whose names shall be provided by the parties to the clerk of the committee within one week of the adoption of this motion”. Do you wish to speak to that?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Absolutely. Again, I will say what I said earlier. This is to provide some definition and scope to this study. The list of witnesses is exhaustive. We're agreeing to that list. We've agreed now to have at least two meetings. We will be meeting twice a week as per what has been adopted in the committee.

I think this list allows us to get to the bottom of the issues that we all want to discuss. There is no need to have this catch-all provision with our witnesses. When the end of the questioning is done, if we feel that more witnesses are needed, then more witnesses can be added at that time, but by Mr. Chong's own admission, it will require about five meetings to go through all these witnesses, which I think is ample time. Then, at that time, we will assess as a committee whether we need more witnesses or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

We'll go to Mr. Chong and then Mr. Villemure.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't support the amendment. I think this clause in the motion gives you, Mr. Chair, the flexibility to invite other witnesses as may be necessary. I know that other members on the committee have ideas for additional witnesses who are not captured by the motion. This clause would allow you to entertain the invitation of those other witnesses.

Finally, in hearing from the seven witnesses and two ministers, during the course of those nine different witnesses and ministers appearing, we may hear testimony that may reveal other individuals the committee has to hear from, so I think we should keep this clause in the motion. That's why I don't support the amendment. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

I have Ms. McPherson and then Mr. Villemure.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also, like Mr. Chong, don't support this amendment. I don't understand why we would want to limit the ability for other members to bring forward names. This was a well-drafted list of witnesses from Mr. Chong, but all members of the committee should have the opportunity to submit names, to submit suggestions to the clerk for this study, and I don't understand why any member would want to limit our ability to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you.

Mr. Villemure.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that I speak for all opposition members in saying that I don't see the need to limit the number of witnesses at this point. Personally, I would like to invite certain witnesses whose names aren't on the list. I won't be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

This then raises an issue that wouldn't ordinarily come up at the beginning of any study: Notwithstanding the list that Mr. Chong has included in his motion, should we then entertain submissions from members as to other people they would want to invite?

Again, we have to go back to the point that Mr. Chong made very clearly. Even with two meetings a week, really, in adding an extra hour of witness testimony, we're looking at the prospect of having this particular subject, which is litigating things that have happened in the past, consume a lot of the capacity we would have to look at things like the Indo-Pacific strategy, like Taiwan, like others, which have ramifications going forward, especially in terms of government policy.

As chair I would just issue a caution that we manage our expectations as to what we hope to accomplish here, versus what we've already taken on in terms of the work that the committee has decided it wants to do.

Mr. Villemure.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Chair, thank you for that wisdom. In my experience on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, when we start too many things at once, we don't finish anything. I agree with you there.

However, in keeping with this committee's mission, we need to discuss diplomacy and the People's Republic of China's actions to destabilize Canada. I think that we need an opinion outside the public health field. From a diplomatic perspective, the committee must address this aspect of its mission. That's why I don't want to limit the number of witnesses, even though I understand that we shouldn't invite 14. If we limit the number of witnesses, we won't meet with any. Yet there are ways of meeting with a few more.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Mrs. Lalonde, go ahead.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

I'm just trying to rationalize all of this, because what we are proposing is that we would be removing the (iii). Then Mr. Chong said that we could add them later. I think this is always something that can be done, but the point he is making does also have a counter-effect, because we're also saying “within one week of the adoption of this motion”, so unless....

I read it in French and I'm reading it in English. I'm just trying to understand what Mr. Chong is saying about how well crafted this motion is. He is actually saying the opposite, because if we're going to be adding more witnesses later, through (iii) he is limiting that to seven days. As I said, I know I'm French and I'm trying to understand. I'm saying this in English because it makes no sense with respect to what my hon. colleague is saying, that down the road we'll be able to add witnesses, when he has actually, in his well-crafted motion, put seven days from the date this is adopted.

I'm very sorry, Mr. Chair, but I'm very confused here this morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

The chair does note that it is pretty common practice in committees to set a timeline for the identification of witnesses. I kind of interpret this as doing that, but we'll go to Mr. Chong and then back to you, Mrs. Lalonde.