Canada-China Relations Committee on March 26th, 2024

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

I'll make a last pitch to have two meetings a week.

We have, practically speaking, only six sitting weeks left for committees to meet. There are eight or so sitting weeks left, but the reality is that the last two weeks are not weeks where we can practically have meetings, because of the need to get estimates and other government legislative priorities through in the last two sitting weeks of June. What that practically means is that we have six sitting weeks in which a committee could meet. If we're only going to meet once a week, that leaves us with six meetings.

That's not a lot of meetings to complete the Indo-Pacific strategy; to hear from Minister Freeland, as she was previously scheduled to appear; and, on top of that, to hear from witnesses concerning the Winnipeg lab. I really think that going from one three-hour meeting a week to two two-hour meetings a week would allow us to complete all of the agreed-to studies in front of the committee before a summer adjournment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Mr. Villemure.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. Earlier, we agreed to study the amendments one by one, but now we're studying two at the same time. There is a lack of coherence. I would like us to look at point (a) first and then point (b). That would keep things clear, as we agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Yes, I think that's probably reasonable, because they are two—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Can you tell us what amendment we're on, then?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

We are on the amendment to remove article (a): “make this study a priority over its other business,” etc.

Voting for this means that we would, as a committee, need to deliberately schedule it for when we thought we wanted it, which could be right away, so basically fulfilling the spirit of (a). If the committee agrees that this should take priority over the other business, then that's what we would do. If, on the other hand, the committee wanted it to take its turn in terms of the other work the committee is doing, then we would vote for the amendment.

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

To clarify, I do not support this amendment. I believe the study should be a priority. We've waited three long years to get to this point, and it's time for us to expeditiously deal with this matter in committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

I won't call it a complicating factor, but one factor that needs to be considered is that there have been other committees meeting, including the special committee that Mr. Villemure and I believe Ms. McPherson were on. Part of the consideration is whether or not this has been examined enough so that, in total, the government is getting the kind of input it requires to make wise decisions, as we say, each day.

Let us then look at the motion—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, if I could—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Yes, Ms. McPherson, go ahead.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

On your last comment, I'd like to say that while René and I were on the ad hoc committee, the mandate of the ad hoc committee was not to look at improvements and recommendations for the government, so in fact that work has not been done.

I agree with Mr. Chong that we should prioritize this work. Our work was separate. I think we did some really excellent work together, but that was not what the mandate of that committee was.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

I appreciate that clarity. Thank you very much.

That makes clear what we are voting for or against. Let's look at the amendment to remove paragraph (a) with the understanding of what a yes or a no means on this particular amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

We will now go on to the second amendment, which is to instruct the chair and the clerk to take the necessary steps to arrange for two meetings of the committee each sitting week. Mr. Chong has clarified this to be two two-hour meetings per week. The amendment suggested is to remove this particular part of the motion.

Again, is there anybody speaking to that?

Mr. Chong, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The reality is that there are nine sitting weeks left. During the last two sitting weeks it will not be possible, practically speaking, to have meetings, so that means eight weeks remain. Because of House votes, our track record on this committee has been that one out of three meetings has been cancelled. That means that within the eight sitting weeks, if we stick to potentially once a week on Monday evenings, likely we would have only five or maybe six slots for meetings. In my view, that's not sufficient time to deal with all the matters in front of the committee, including this study if the motion is adopted.

I think going to twice a week would ensure that we would have sufficient time to complete the business of the committee. It's only one extra hour a week—going from three to four hours a week. It's what every other committee on the Hill does—two two-hour meetings a week.

I encourage members to defeat this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Mr. Naqvi, go ahead.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

This amendment really makes sure to build on Mr. Chong's point that this issue is a priority and that we need to deal with this issue as quickly as possible. To stay with the regular schedule of this committee, which is a three-hour meeting per week, we have just all agreed that there will be at least two meetings to study this matter. That's six hours. We're of the view that this is sufficient time to go through all of the witnesses who are listed in the motion, and that will allow the committee members ample to time to appropriately review the depth and scope of this matter.

Given everyone's schedules, given the resources of the House of Commons and given the fairly generous schedule that this committee has of three hours per week of meetings, having four hours of meetings per week is unnecessary.

Again, it's coming from the spirit of ensuring that this matter is dealt with as quickly as possible and that there's as much transparency as possible. That's the stated purpose for which Mr. Chong brought this motion. This amendment makes sure that we continue with our regularly scheduled time, which fits in everybody's schedule for members of this committee, and deal with this matter over the next two meetings expeditiously.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you.

Ms. Yip.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Given that (a) is still in the motion to make this study a priority over its other business, I don't think we need to have (b) because the motion is already prioritizing these meetings. We don't need to take on extra meetings. I think that having three hours at a time really gives us a chance to delve into a subject in terms of its time frame, with three hours straight of looking into the matter, whereas breaking it up into more meetings may lessen that intensity.

I just feel that (a) does address it. As Mr. Villemure has suggested, there are still other studies. We have to finish the Indo-Pacific strategy, as well as the Taiwan study.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Mr. Villemure.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the words of my colleague opposite, Mr. Naqvi, I agree that we have to do this expeditiously, but we still have to do it properly. Mr. Chong's proposal seems reasonable to me. There are so many things to look at, and saving time is the least of our worries given the need to restore the public's trust in government institutions. Having read the report in its final form, I think there is a major concern. It is completely pointless to waste time debating whether we should take an hour more or an hour less for this study given the current level of trust in this government. Therefore, I support Mr. Chong's position.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Go ahead, Mrs. Lalonde.

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

Mr. Chair, I thought of something. I must say that I'm confused about the options.

Having sat on this committee since September, I must admit that it isn't always pleasant to attend meetings on Monday evenings from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., given our long working hours. However, I would like to pick up on what my colleague Ms. Yip said. Three‑hour meetings give us the chance to establish a great dynamic and to meet with a number of witnesses and refer to them.

I also want to note that we're in the middle of a study. We have started and almost completed the Indo‑Pacific study. I would like to remind my colleagues that, since the start of my parliamentary life, there have been votes in the House on Wednesdays. We often hold one or two votes, and sometimes as many as ten. As the member representing Orléans, I'm delighted to take part in these votes. However, this means that committee meetings scheduled for 3:30 p.m. or 4:30 p.m. on that day must often be postponed until 6:30 p.m.

Our committee already meets on Mondays. It's on the parliamentary calendar until June. We can look at this again in September, but it's on our agendas. There seems to be talk of adding a meeting on Wednesdays. I'm trying to understand Mr. Chong's goal. Is it to not have meetings on Wednesdays? We already know that votes are scheduled on Wednesdays in the House. As a result, committee meetings will be postponed and we'll hardly ever be able to meet. Instead, we should keep our Monday meetings, since we can hold them most of the time.

Mr. Chair, as part of our Indo‑Pacific study, we have met with some outstanding witnesses over the past few weeks. I applaud this. It has been a real pleasure. We finally started this study and we were hoping to finish it. I'm not discounting the significance of Mr. Chong's motion. I agree that we need to look at this topic. However, in my opinion, a motion to deviate from the parliamentary calendar is tantamount to saying that we don't want to complete any study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Before I recognize Mr. Smith, Mr. Villemure and Mr. Chong, who are wishing to speak, I should also mention that, at this point, it isn't guaranteed that we would have the House resources. Notwithstanding the fact that the original motion setting up this committee gave it priority over just about everything else—not over votes and other things, of course—we're not guaranteed that we'll actually be able to have those Wednesday meetings.

Again, next I have Mr. Smith, Mr. Villemure and Mr. Chong.

Mr. Smith, go ahead.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

As I said earlier, I'd be interested in others' thoughts on this. At the end of the day, when I look at the list of witnesses in the motion, six hours will accomplish those witnesses and then some. If there is a long list of additional witnesses pursuant to the basket clause there, then so be it. Maybe you can correct me and say that you're expecting this to be 12 hours or 18 hours, but at the end of the day, it looks to me like two meetings, as currently scheduled, gets us through that list of witnesses.

As I said before, I don't really understand what the rationale is for expanding it further. I recognize the importance but not the urgency here. To my understanding, in terms of Michael's initial explanation of the importance of this motion, his point is taken: We are to question the reason for the delay, when there was a red flag in 2018 and the administrative investigation was initiated in 2019. That's worth looking at, for sure. That's important. It's not urgent, though. Then we are to address the delay in document disclosure. I was one of the Liberals to vote in the House for disclosure. I value transparency and getting to the bottom of that, but again, it is important but not urgent.

Why are we jamming our scheduled House resources...and for what? I don't see it at all. We do two three-hour meetings. Then we can have a conversation. If we need more, we add more.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you, sir.

We'll go to Mr. Villemure.