Evidence of meeting #111 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
This is what I would say, just from a strategic point of view. I happen to think that allowing that study to happen would actually give us a lot more context for questioning, for filling in the gaps, for cross-examination. It's a process that's been going on for quite some time, so in terms of the urgency, whether it's next week or three weeks from now doesn't seem to be a burning question, which is why I never supported the Standing Order 106 meeting, for that reason.
I think it's important. I'm not sure that, strategically for us as a committee, we would get as much out of studying it concurrently with the other committee. I have found, in my position in opposition, that it's quite useful to refer to the Hansard and the testimony of ministers and the evidence provided by people from other committees to be able to provide a more adequate cross-examination.
If I had the privilege of sitting on both committees, it wouldn't matter to me, but I don't. For that reason, I would say that we should probably prioritize the misinformation/disinformation, and see what happens on the Canada-China committee. At least they would have another couple of weeks of testimony provided there. I'm of the opinion that the more is on the record officially, the better for us. I'm sure members in opposition could appreciate the ways in which people tend to get their stories tangled up over time. I would much rather have them do their full testimony there, and then have their testimony to reference in our own lines of questioning when it comes to that point.
That would be the only reason why I would support the misinformation/disinformation study first. It's simply one of strategic and logical sequence.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you for that, Mr. Green.
Mr. Villemure, the floor is yours.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I find Mr. Green’s position very interesting. It's true that, though the Winnipeg file is important, it isn't urgent. I completely agree with what my colleague has said. However, I need some clarification.
We were previously examining the aspect of the file on access to information, a topic on which we are experts here at the committee. I had asked, not knowing whether it would be possible, for this part of the study to be sent to us from the Special Committee on the Canada‑People's Republic of China to avoid the same study being done twice. Since we're more specialized on the subject, I was wondering if we could make this request. My answer would change because, similarly to Mr. Green, I also enjoy hearing what others have said. It allows us to detect potential contradictions. Regardless, I will follow the will of the majority.
That said, it's an important, urgent and troublesome topic. If we put this back to the fall, it might fall by the wayside. This is one of my concerns.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Villemure.
Just for clarification, we cannot compel the Canada-China committee to send us information. That's something that, obviously, we'd have to be following.
The thing I'm looking for right now is just an issue of priority.
Mr. Green, I see your hand up on the topic. Go ahead.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
We're just in April now. I'm not suggesting that this would go to the fall. I'm suggesting that we would do a week and a half of this, and then we would get to it. Even if it is two or three weeks, we have until June. It's about an eight-week stretch.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
When I talked about referring it to the fall, perhaps the report and the drafting of that report might happen in the fall. I see us in a situation where we'd end up dealing with these two issues. I just needed to know which one was first and which one was second.
We could, if we wanted, start on April 30 with either one of these and continue on May 2 and May 7. That would take care of three meetings, either on this one or on the other one. I just need direction from the committee. I don't think we have consensus at this point, but I'm looking to get some consensus.
If you want to do the disinformation and misinformation study on the three dates that I just proposed, and then come back on May 21, 23 and 28 with the Winnipeg lab study, we could do that.
Do you agree with that, Mr. Villemure?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay. We're good. That gives us clear direction. On April 30, May 2 and May 7, we will do the disinformation and misinformation study. We will do the Winnipeg lab study on May 21, 23 and 28.
That's just so everybody is clear. We have consensus. Thank you for that.
Mr. Cooper, I saw that you had something you wanted to discuss with the committee.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I will be moving a motion in light of the shocking report in The Globe and Mail of the criminal leak of classified information by a top Liberal connected to the Prime Minister that resulted in the member for Don Valley North being tipped off that he was being monitored by CSIS.
I will now read the motion, after which I have some comments to make with regard to the motion.
The motion is as follows—
Liberal
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
My apologies. I'm subbing in. Is it possible to receive a copy in both official languages so that I can follow along?
Thank you.
Conservative
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
This is on the point of order, Chair.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
We have some parachutes that have just landed in the room, and it's customary for members—
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Excuse me. Are you referring to me as a parachute? That is very disrespectful.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
So is interrupting people, Sherry.
It's customary for members—
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
You do not. You do not have—
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
I have a point of order before the chair, asking for a copy of the motion.