Mr. Chair, I am very open to the idea of studying the issue of China's interference in the 2021 election. I would probably be the first person to support the motion of my honourable colleague Mr. Villemure.
However, I should point out that this is already being studied by another committee. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and we are currently studying this issue. We have already heard from witnesses, including the Chief Electoral Officer. There is a long list of witnesses. It isn't recommended or advisable to do the same study twice on the same subject and with virtually the same parameters.
I sincerely ask my colleague how the study he is proposing in his motion would be different from the one that another committee is doing right now, for which the following motion was tabled. It's much longer and much more complex, but it certainly encompasses what we're studying here.
It reads:
That the Committee, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi), conduct a study concerning foreign interference in Canadian elections, provided that:
(a) the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections be invited to appear jointly for two hours at a televised meeting at their earliest opportunity;
(b) the Chief of the Communications Security Establishment and the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service be invited to appear jointly for two hours, at their earliest opportunities, provided that one hour be televised and the other hour be in camera; and
(c) the parties represented on the Committee submit their lists of proposed witnesses, in order of priority
I can continue.
Mr. Chair, we're doing this, and it would just be a really inefficient use of our time if we were to take this on. I look to my colleagues to explain how this differs from the other one, and if that's the case, then fine.
That said, I don't think there's a relevant difference between the two.