Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good morning colleagues. It's a pleasure to join you here this morning in Ottawa.
I want to start by saying that this is a very important issue. That is why the government has been quite diligent in making sure that there is utmost transparency when it comes to these documents so that Canadians can understand what exactly happened a the national microbiology lab.
I find it quite unfortunate that it was the official opposition that dragged its feet in terms of participating in a process that would have allowed for the disclosure of these important documents. First, at NSICOP, by withdrawing their own members and not engaging in a pre-existing process to deal precisely with such issues by members of Parliament from all political parties and the Senate.
Given the seriousness of this issue, the government took another step, which was to create the ad hoc committee that allowed for members from all political parties to work together and be able to then disclose those documents in a manner that maintains important aspects of national security and also provides for the transparency that is important.
Foreign interference is an attack on democracy and on each and every member of the House and of this committee. That's why it's important that we deal with this issue in all seriousness. This cannot turn into a political show. This cannot turn into a process where members are trying to just score political points. This is about foreign interference. This is about national security. All of us have an important and a serious obligation to treat all of these matters very seriously.
I can tell you from my experience that, just last week in the health committee, theatrics were at play from the opposition. Official opposition members accused the Minister of Health of treason and engaged in name-calling, which was highly unnecessary and undermined the seriousness of this process.
Therefore, Mr. Chair, I would like to move an amendment to the motion. It does two things.
First, it scopes the duration of this study to two meetings, while requesting all the witnesses that have been outlined in Mr. Chong's motion. All witnesses named in the motion, we feel, could fit easily into two regular meetings. At the end of the day, if the committee determines that more meetings are needed, as usual, we can schedule more meetings at that time or add more witnesses. That's the first aim of the amendment that I will be proposing shortly.
Second, we're proposing to remove the summons aspect that's been outlined in this motion. As typical, our process is to invite witnesses as a first step. If a witness refuses to appear, then a summons can be issued. There is no need to have that in place in the motion. We expect that witnesses will appear willingly given the seriousness of this issue.
Chair, with this in mind, I would like to move the following amendments. They are not too extensive, so it should be easy to follow for all members.
Number one is to insert the words, “two meetings” after the words the “committee undertake a study of”. Number two is to delete clause (b). Number three is to remove the words, “and, if this invitation is not accepted, summons, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)” from clause (d). Finally, number four is to remove clause (e)(iii).
These are the four simple changes that we are proposing in this motion. If the chair and members like, I can read the entire motion as it would read with the amendments, or I can repeat myself. I also have copies in English and French, if you'd like me to provide them to you, which may make things a bit easier.