Information & Ethics Committee on April 9th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Welcome to the public session of today's ethics meeting.

I want to thank everybody for the guidance they provided in the in camera part of the meeting.

The item we have to deal with is the election of a vice-chair.

I want to welcome Mr. Fisher to the committee.

We are now going to proceed to the election of the vice-chair. I'm going to ask the clerk to conduct that portion of this.

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Nancy Vohl]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the first vice-chair must be a member of the government party for this committee.

I am ready to receive the motions.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I nominate Darren Fisher as vice-chair.

[The Clerk]

It has been moved by Ms. Damoff that Mr. Fisher be elected as first vice-chair of the committee.

Are there any other motions?

Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I want to say congratulations, Mr. Fisher, on becoming the first vice-chair. I look forward to working with you on what is a very productive and very busy committee.

Do you have a speech written that you'd like to give?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

There's no speech today, sir.

I'm pleased to be nominated. I'm pleased to be the vice-chair. I'll do the absolute best I can.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Wonderful. Thank you.

Mr. Villemure, you had something to say.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair. I'd like us to resume debate on Mr. Chong's March 4 motion about the Winnipeg lab.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

Do we have agreement for Mr. Villemure to resume debate?

Mr. Green, I see your hand up. Is this on this?

Go ahead, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I would be happy to make sure there's consensus to resume the debate. I did want to speak to it if that's the direction that we're going.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, thank you, Mr. Green.

Right now I need consensus on resuming debate.

Do we have that?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Doesn't someone have to move the motion to resume debate?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

He's moved that already.

I'm seeking consensus.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to move an amendment to the motion. Everyone will get a copy, including the clerk. I'll read the amendment, and then I'll read the motion as amended in its entirety. The amendment is as follows:

That the motion be amended (a) by adding, after the words “undertake a study,”, the words “for three meetings,”; (b) by deleting the words “the collection and transmission of information and intelligence within the Government of Canada and”; (c) by replacing the words “reliance on its over-classification” with the word “reasons”; (d) by adding, after the words “findings to the House”, the words “and request, pursuant to Standing Order 109, a comprehensive response from the government,”; (e) by adding, after the word “appear”, the words “for one hour per witness”; (f) by replacing paragraphs (a) to (e) with the following: “(a) Anthony Rota, former Speaker of the House of Commons; (b) Philippe Dufresne, former Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons; (c) Iain Stewart, past president of the Public Health Agency of Canada;” (g) by deleting paragraphs (g) and (h); and (h) by adding the following paragraph at the end: “(j) and any other witnesses that the Committee deems necessary.”.

I will now read the amended motion in its entirety, for greater clarity:

That, in light of the February 28, 2024, tabling of the Winnipeg lab documents which contained the government's own findings concluding that the People's Republic of China and its entities infiltrated Canada's top microbiology lab, a national security breach representing a very serious and credible threat to Canada, and given that access to this information had been denied to Parliament and all Canadians by the government for several years, the committee undertake a study, for three meetings, pursuant to Standing Orders 108(3)(h)(vi) and (vii), of the government's reasons to deny access to it by Parliament and Canadians, provided that the committee report its findings to the House and request, pursuant to Standing Order 109, a comprehensive response from the government, and call the following witnesses to appear for one hour per witness: (a) Anthony Rota, former Speaker of the House of Commons; (b) Philippe Dufresne, former Law Clerk and Parliamentary Advisor at the House of Commons; (c) Iain Stewart, former President of the Public Health Agency of Canada; (d) the Minister of Health, the Honourable Mark Holland; (e) the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc; (f) any other witnesses that the committee deems necessary.

Mr. Chair, this motion is being moved at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to address this issue from an access to information angle. I am aware that the Special Committee on the Canada-People's Republic of China Relationship is already studying the situation at the Winnipeg lab, but it is doing so from a different angle focusing on the public health implications of Chinese scientists' access to the lab. What interests our committee, however, is access to information, a subject that is right there in our mandate. There was an access to information problem. The committee must therefore investigate and make recommendations. Ultimately, the goal is to prevent such situations from reoccurring, which could happen if we were to do nothing.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Mr. Villemure has moved an amendment to Mr. Chong's motion. My understanding is that committee members have the amendment in both official languages, so I'm going to rule the amendment in order.

I have started a speaking list. I have Mr. Green, Ms. Damoff and then Ms. Khalid.

Mr. Green, please, go ahead on the amendment, sir.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd be remiss not to note that it took our having these amendments to have a real discussion about what had transpired prior to the March break. It's with quite deep disappointment that the Conservative caucus has this tendency to bring the same motion to every committee, across all of our standing committees, in a very theatrical way.

I had a conversation directly with Michael Chong. There was a time when he was a reasonable and a practical guy. Some would even call him a progressive conservative. I believed him to be a man of his word. I recall having a conversation directly with him prior to the Standing Order 106 meeting that was called by our Conservative colleagues here, where he understood that this was going to go to the Canada-China committee. If the study were to be duplicated that way, I told him quite frankly that there was no willingness on the part of our party to see the same study happen, to be rolled out across all of our standing committees. Yet, in whatever way he thought was appropriate, he brought this as a Standing Order 106 motion to this committee, stood in and basically presented this for the news cycle.

I want people to know, people from his riding, practical conservatives that are out there, that there are lots of conversations had at committees, and prior to committee meetings, about organizing our time, about the value for taxpayer dollars and the way in which we do our work. When it comes to Standing Order 106 meetings, it needs to be made very clear that those are for emergency situations. They have to be very pertinent to the mandate—at least in my estimation of the committee.

To see and to know that he knew this was going to the Canada-China committee, and to still bring it here for the theatre of that one-week news cycle, I think is despicable. It's disgraceful. We always support access to information—at least I do, as a New Democrat—yet on principle, I couldn't support what they were trying to do because I knew it was duplicitous. I knew it was deceitful. I certainly wasn't going to support it, which is why I supported the adjournment.

I do support the clarity provided by this amendment because it's pertinent and relevant to the work we do at this committee. It's within our mandate. I think it is within a timeline that is acceptable for all the other work we have.

Mr. Chair, you'll know that, for quite some time, this committee seems to be a "tail chasing the dog", and not the other way around.

I'd like to see some focus in this committee. I'd like to see open and honest dealings with the opposition side, with the government, and when you say you're going to do something, you stick to it. You don't come out pulling the rabbit out of the hat with some kinds of surprises so that you can score a short-cycle news cycle, a fundraising letter or whatever the heck Michael Chong's agenda was when he came and visited this meeting. I certainly wasn't here for it, and I wasn't about to disrupt the work of this committee to make a precedent out of something that he already knew was already going to the Canada-China committee.

I would say this to the opposition folks and to all folks on this committee: If you're serious about operating within integrity and about following the courtesies that we have, even though we might not always agree on things, I'm for it, but if you continue with the procedural shenanigans to try to disrupt every single committee across the House of Commons so that you can then point at it and say, “Look, it's broken”, when you're the one who is intent on breaking it, just know this: For all the Conservatives watching this, for the media who wrote stories and who didn't even have the courtesy to call, to reach out and to try to get my rationale for it, shame on you.

I will be supporting this, but if you all are going to continue to bring pinch-hitters into this committee to disrupt it, then I'll meet your belligerence with belligerence. That's all I have to say.

I'm looking forward to having a discussion on the amendments that Mr. Villemure put forward. I'm looking forward to working as a committee to hold government accountable, to make sure our departments are held accountable and to protect our parliamentary privileges. I'm not here for your theatre or your shenanigans, and I'm not here for the circus.

You can tell I'm fired up because I thought I was dealing with Michael Chong, whom had, at least I thought, some good faith in his negotiations, and then he tried to come in here and pulled a fast one. Let this be a message to anybody else who wants to try to do the same. When you do that, no matter what, I'm going to shut it down.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

Ms. Damoff, you're next on the amendment.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I have a lot of respect for the honourable member from the Bloc and I appreciate his bringing these amendments forward. That being said, last night, 12 hours ago, the Canada-China committee started their study on this issue, and one of the things in that motion at the Canada-China committee was looking into the obstacles to obtaining the documents.

Mark Holland, the Minister of Health, appeared last night and he talked about this very issue and why the ad hoc committee was so important. While I appreciate his wanting to bring these amendments and bring this study to the ethics committee, I think it makes more sense for the Canada-China committee to continue their study. The Bloc can certainly put forward to the Canada-China committee any of the witnesses Mr. Villemure has brought forward, and once they've completed their study and done their report, if we're not satisfied with what they've produced, we can always do a further study on it.

I don't think this right now is the right place for it to be and for two committees to be doing concurrent studies, so we won't be supporting your amendments. Perhaps we will support something later on, but I think the right place for this right now is at the Canada-China committee. I think there's good work that could be done there on this very issue.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

Ms. Khalid, your hand is up. Go ahead, please.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

First and foremost, I want to express my gratitude to Mr. Villemure. He and I served on the Winnipeg labs ad hoc committee, did the important work and spent many, many hours together in a room. Ultimately we're trying to make sure the processes that happen are as open and transparent as possible.

I do tend to agree with some of the things Mr. Green has said with respect to duplicating work in various committees in order to have theatre and so on. While I do realize that important consideration must be given to some of the issues Mr. Villemure has raised, at the same time I don't think it's appropriate for the Canada-China committee to have a study and then for our ethics committee to have substantially the same study. Chair, as you would know, we can only move amendments that make little changes and not substantially change the report or what is being asked with the study.

The Canada-China committee is studying this. In fact, there is a difference of only three witnesses between their witness list and ours. I propose that those three witnesses go on and testify at the Canada-China committee and that we then come back and look at their study once it has been concluded. Then we can see where the gaps are.

Right now, I would prefer that we spend more of our time dealing with what Canadians have told us are the substantive issues at hand. I receive emails every single day asking for updates on the social media study that our committee has undertaken, and I would love for that to be prioritized. I would love for us to be more efficient in how we do things in the House. If the Canada-China committee is looking at an issue, perhaps the best thing for us to do, Chair, would be to write to the Canada-China committee and ask whether, while they are talking to exactly the same witnesses we're proposing here minus three, they can also perhaps ask them these questions—we'll send them a list of our questions—instead of our doing it all over again here in the ethics committee. Doing that would make more sense to me. That's just one option.

The other is that we wait until the Canada-China committee study is concluded and then we pick it up. We haven't started the study yet at all. I think it would be best for us to understand the context we're coming from before we start any study here in this committee.

I do prefer option one, in which we send our list of questions to the Canada-China committee and ask whether, while they are at it, they can also look at this angle because they will be dealing with exactly the same witnesses and substantively exactly the same issue. Let's be a little bit more efficient in this regard.

I'll park my comments there, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

Go ahead, Mr. Villemure.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my colleague for her comments.

Members of this committee specialize in access to information. That's about all we hear about in a given year. We may be in a better position to deal with this aspect than the Special Committee on the Canada–People's Republic of China Relationship. I have no desire to cause duplication. Perhaps the other committee should hand the access to information part over to us because we are more familiar with the subject.

Again, we're definitely not talking about Chinese citizens having access to the lab or anything like that. What I am proposing is directly related to this committee's core mission. My colleague, Ms. Khalid, is suggesting that the other committee should deal with this matter, but I would turn that right around and suggest that we should deal with this matter while the other committee focuses on the other subjects of its motion. I firmly believe that the amendment I moved is entirely consistent with our committee's mission because we specialize in these matters and should study them here.