Evidence of meeting #16 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was health.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
I'm sorry for interrupting my colleague, but it seems to me that, as this is a motion of a member of this committee who is being replaced today by our colleague Mr. Godin, who is online, he should rather be the one to move the motion.
Do correct me if I am wrong.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Ms. Bendayan, thank you very much for this point of order.
The motion was submitted with notice, so it's formally before the committee and Mr. Morantz can move it on behalf of Mr. Chong.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This committee that your government has announced is to be governed by retired justices, not elected Parliamentarians. This, in my view, is an affront to this committee, which has been seized with the issue since December.
My motion is as follows: I move that we resume debate on Member of Parliament Michael Chong's Winnipeg lab motion of December 13, 2021, and that a vote on this motion be had by the end of this meeting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Mr. Morantz, thank you. I want to make sure that both components of that motion are in order. It's a motion to resume debate. I don't know if there are any conditions that can be attached to that or if it's dilatory and non-debatable. There's a second component, which is to land on a vote by today.
Mr. Morantz, the guidance that I have is that the second component—which is to land the motion today in the form of a vote—makes it a debatable motion. Whereas, if you were to move to resume debate right now, that would be non-debatable and would trigger a vote by members of the committee.
Is it the second option that you wish to exercise?
Conservative
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
I'm sorry. No, I want it to be debated now.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Yes, so with the condition added that it be voted on today, it becomes debatable because it's something in excess of just resuming debate.
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Yes.
The motion is before the committee. I would invite colleagues to raise their hands for interventions, both virtual and in person. We're trying to develop an integrated speakers list.
Mr. Genuis has his hand raised. For any other interventions, please signal. I see Mr. Morantz.
Do any colleagues online wish to speak? Not at the moment.
Why don't we start with Mr. Genuis, please, and then Mr. Morantz?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's important to underline the context for this motion as well. It's a bit frustrating because, as Conservatives, we've, first, wanted to protect the rights of Parliament to access documents, and second, also have a good, constructive working relationship with this committee. We don't relish the need to bring forward a motion like this in the context where we have witnesses, but the reality is that this motion was first moved in December. The government dragged it out at the time, and as my colleague has highlighted, we've been working and looking for opportunities to be able to bring this motion forward. We've continually been stymied and blocked in the ability to actually have that debate here at this committee on the issue of the Winnipeg lab documents.
As the foreign affairs committee, we have to take very seriously the fact that we're talking about issues of threats to democracy, about democratic decline around the world. Part of how we should respond to that is to ensure we are always consistent with democratic best practices, the rule of law and the rights of Parliament in terms of our own functioning and our own practice here in Canada.
We had a situation previously where a committee of this House, exercising all of its rights as a committee, ordered the production of documents. The government repeatedly refused to comply, and in the context of that, all opposition parties, Conservative, Bloc and NDP, were very firm about the point of the rights of parliamentary committees. Further, in fact, the initial request for documents was unanimously agreed to by all members of the committee, including by members of the government.
This is an important principle about access to documents. We've tried to bring this issue back to the committee to have the debate on it at this committee. Unfortunately, you have not responded to my colleague, the vice-chair. You have not seen fit to set aside time to actually schedule this discussion. I think we need to talk about this. It's not just about whether the government can create an opportunity for external actors, judges, to rule on what parliamentary committees can and can't see. Parliamentarians shouldn't presume to tell judges how to do their jobs, and judges shouldn't presume to replace the functioning of parliamentary committees.
I think this is a clear issue. We're saying, let's bring back this motion, let's have a debate and let's bring it to a conclusion and a vote. If we aren't able to proceed with that, then we will have really undermined the proper functioning of what committees are supposed to be doing.
Again, I just come back to the point that, as a foreign affairs committee, we have to think about democratic norms. We have to think about the example we're setting. We don't want to see a democratic decline here in Canada as we've seen in some other countries. That means defending and respecting the prerogatives of Parliament to order documents and not backing off or claiming that we're victims of some logjam. There's no logjam here. It's a matter of the government having just refused to adhere to their constitutional obligations.
I hope this motion from my colleague passes, and I hope we'll be able to move forward with this motion.
Thank you very much.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Mr. Genuis, thank you very much.
Mr. Morantz, please, we'll go over to you.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to continue on with what my colleague has said, we have established—long-established—democratic institutions in this country, one of which is the system of standing committees in which we are participating right now. In this particular case, Mr. Chong introduced a motion that was passed by the House of Commons in the last Parliament. It is a very thoughtful motion and deals in a very reasonable manner with the idea of making sure there are redactions and that the documents are reviewed by the law clerk and parliamentary counsel and by this committee, which reports directly to Parliament. The ad hoc committee that your government has proposed is not responsible to Parliament. It really begs the question whether something very serious happened, whether there was a serious national security breach at the Winnipeg lab.
It's vital at this point that this committee, which has been seized with this motion since December, debate this issue, get these documents, discuss what needs to be redacted or doesn't need to be redacted, and that this idea of an ad hoc committee be dispensed with. As parliamentarians, we don't tell judges how they should decide their cases. Frankly, three retired justices shouldn't be telling us, as elected parliamentarians participating in this committee as a democratic institution, how we should be deciding this matter.
I urge you, to ensure the confidence of all Canadians in the integrity of our democratic institutions, that on an issue as important as this, where we've had a call for production of documents over and over again in this Parliament and in the last Parliament, to make sure this matter is handled in accordance with long-established historical systems that have been established specifically for this purpose. This motion is rightfully before the committee and I urge all our colleagues—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Mr. Morantz, if I can interrupt, you might be well at the end of this intervention, but we have bells.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
—to support the motion.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Colleagues, can I have unanimous consent? I don't know if colleagues wish to vote in person. I'm going to propose, as a starting point, 15 minutes of extended time into the bells. If anyone has contravening views to go more into the period, we can do that, but is 15 minutes okay?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
We have unanimous consent to continue for 15 minutes.
Mr. Morantz, we'll go back to you. I think you were just about to wrap up.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Mr. Chair, I think I've made my arguments. It's vitally important that this issue be considered by a standing committee—the foreign affairs committee—not by some makeshift, ad hoc committee that's outside of Parliament and that does not report to Parliament.
It makes no sense, and I urge all members of this committee to respect the integrity of the standing committees and of our democratic institutions and make sure that this ad hoc committee goes nowhere and that this is considered right here where it should be.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you, Mr. Morantz.
On the speakers list right now, I have Mr. Sarai, Madam Bendayan and Mr. Genuis.
Mr. Sarai, the floor goes over to you, please.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think it must be noted that the new committee that is being struck to look at this specific issue at hand, in regard to the very sensitive and secure nature of it, is an ad hoc committee of parliamentarians. This has been done before. We've had it done at the request of the opposition for all parliamentarians, to do that for Afghanistan and other issues.
The only particular difference in this case is that three retired judges, chosen by every party in this respect so it will be a consensus-based appeal to get those judges, will look at the redactions that are required in order to protect the security and sensitive nature of this report. That is where the judges come into play, so that partisanship doesn't come into play. It acknowledges our agreements with global Five Eyes and other agencies to protect the nature of our intelligence.
Those independent views are very important to have and it's an essential part in how we govern. As parliamentarians, we have our obligations, which would be accommodated in such a committee. We also have obligations from other commitments that we have, and to enforce that, people trust the nature of our justices and the integrity they have. Therefore, I think it's a very appropriate measure to have three judges who have retired and have an immense amount of experience in that to be responsible to ensure that what gets out in a public format is secure and protects the integrity of our security systems as well as the intelligence reports we receive from others.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Mr. Sarai, thank you very much.
Colleagues, just before we go to Madam Bendayan, we have a panel of witnesses, two of whom are dialing in from overseas. We have a number of colleagues on the speakers list and we're close to what would be our extended time with this panel. I wonder if we could have consensus to release the panel with our thanks. I'm grateful that they were able to give us their opening remarks. They're very free to send us additional comments or points in writing or to respond to questions from members in writing.
Would colleagues agree that we thank them and let them—
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr. Chair, with respect, I believe I was up next on the speakers list, and actually that was going to be what I would have requested. However, before releasing the witnesses, I would like to put on the record that we have before us Médecins Sans Frontières, CARE Canada, and I believe, Ms. Nicholls, another witness, all of whom, from the work I have read and the briefings I was looking at to prepare for this meeting, are working tirelessly in order to save lives and to support people who are vulnerable right across the world.
I think it is an aberration that we are releasing them without asking them the questions that they have prepared for and that they have come to this committee to discuss. It is extremely unfortunate that the Conservatives are playing politics.