Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to comment on this issue. I completely agree with Mr. Villemure that the amendment he moved is consistent with our committee's mandate. Of that I have no doubt whatsoever. I also understand his opinion that we should study why there were so many obstacles to obtaining these documents.
However, like Ms. Khalid and Ms. Damoff, I would prefer to avoid any duplication.
When I look at the motion that was adopted by Canada-China committee, it says "That pursuant to its order of reference of Monday, May 16, 2022, the committee undertake a study" of at least two meetings "of the matters revealed in the Winnipeg lab documents together with the broader concerns they represent in relation to Canada's national security, as well as the obstacles encountered in obtaining these documents".
To me, it looks like, “as well as the obstacles encountered in obtaining these documents”, the Canada-China study is indeed covering that question that we're now seeing needs to be brought here. If they weren't, and if it were only about the national security aspects, I would entirely understand and would agree that it would make sense to have this committee study the other part. Given that the Canada-China committee is also studying it and that the witnesses are essentially the same, we're making people come to two different committees to answer questions about essentially the same thing. I don't understand why we would be doing that.
How does the motion proposed here differ from the one already adopted by the Special Committee on the Canada–People's Republic of China Relationship? They seem the same to me on the subject of access to documents. Mr. Villemure may be able to explain it to us the next time he speaks. I believe he was actually there when the motion was adopted at the special committee, because I see his name in that meeting's minutes.