Nicole Tobin, Dr. Ilhas Altinci, Adam Houston and Ana Nicholls made statements.

Marty Morantz moved, — That debate be resumed on the motion of Michael Chong moved on December 13, 2021; and that a vote on the motion take place by the end of this meeting.

Debate arose thereon.

At 4:35 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 115(5), it was agreed that the committee continue to sit.

At 4:55 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 5:20 p.m., the sitting resumed.

The committee resumed consideration of the motion of Marty Morantz which read as follows:

That debate be resumed on the motion of Michael Chong moved on December 13, 2021; and that a vote on the motion take place by the end of this meeting.

After debate, the question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Ziad Aboultaif, Rachel Bendayan, Stéphane Bergeron, Ali Ehsassi, Hedy Fry, Garnett Genuis, Joël Godin, Heather McPherson, Marty Morantz, Robert Oliphant, Sameer Zuberi — 11;

NAYS: — 0.

The committee resumed consideration of the motionof Michael Chong moved on December 13, 2021, which read as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study of Canada-China relations, including potential influence upon, and relationships with, institutions of the Government of Canada and its employees, and, accordingly, orders the production of the unredacted version of all documents produced by the Public Health Agency of Canada in response to the March 31, 2021, and May 10, 2021, orders of the former Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, respecting the transfer of Ebola and Henipah viruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in March 2019, and the subsequent revocation of security clearances for, and termination of the employment of, Dr. Xiangguo Qiu and Dr. Keding Cheng, provided that

(a) these documents shall be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, in both official languages, within one week of the adoption of this order;

(b) a copy of the documents shall also be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel in both official languages, with any proposed redaction which, in the government’s opinion, could reasonably be expected to compromise national security or reveal details of an ongoing criminal investigation, other than the existence of an investigation;

(c) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall (i) transmit to the Clerk of the Committee the documents, redacted according to the proposals referred to in paragraph (b), who, in turn, shall distribute them to the members of the Committee, and (ii) notify the Chair, who shall forthwith inform the Committee, whether he is satisfied the requested documents were produced as the Committee ordered;

(d) if the report referred to in subparagraph (c)(ii) indicates that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel is not satisfied, the Chair shall be instructed to present a report to the House, forthwith, which sets out the terms of this motion and the report of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel;

(e) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall discuss with the Committee, at an in camera meeting, to be held within two weeks of the documents being distributed, whether he agrees with the redactions proposed by the government pursuant to paragraph (b); and

(f) the Committee may, after hearing from the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, pursuant to paragraph (e), accept the proposed redactions, or reject some or all the proposed redactions and request the production of the unredacted documents in the manner to be determined by the committee.

After debate, the question was put on the motion and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Ziad Aboultaif, Stéphane Bergeron, Garnett Genuis, Joël Godin, Marty Morantz — 5;

NAYS: Rachel Bendayan, Ali Ehsassi, Hedy Fry, Heather McPherson, Robert Oliphant, Sameer Zuberi — 6.