Canada-China Relations Committee on April 19th, 2024

[Heather Jeffrey]

It's for exactly this reason that the investigation processes we conducted at the time were so thorough and relied on evidence rather than allegations. The processes that we have in place now to review research collaborations and affiliations are broad-based and not specific to particular individuals. All of our scientists must sign a code of conduct and are required to declare conflicts of interest and affiliations.

In this case, we had scientists who sought to hide undeclared affiliations, and that was the reason they were fired. Scientists who work in the full knowledge of their declared conflicts of interest and affiliations have nothing to fear from the processes that we have enhanced and put in place.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Lucas, Mr. Poliquin, or Mr. Sheppard, do you have any further comments on this issue?

[Dr. Stephen Lucas, Deputy Minister, Department of Health]

I would just note that the approach that Ms. Jeffrey articulated in terms of the research security of our labs is also undertaken at Health Canada labs, albeit with different functions and different biosecurity levels. Indeed, the approach is undertaken across the government, consistent with the policies that Minister Champagne and, most recently, Minister Holland have articulated in terms of research security.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you, Ms. Yip.

Now it's Mr. Villemure's turn, for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

Ms. Jeffrey, since I only have two and a half minutes, I'm going to proceed fairly quickly.

After reading the report tabled in Parliament, it seems to me that everything we read stems from incompetence or naïveté. In my opinion, PHAC failed to protect the public in this case.

During your recent appearance, you said the following about lab security:

The security screening process begins with reliability status checks that are conducted by the security department of the agency. They are then referred to the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service for security clearances.

Then you acknowledged that PHAC gives the final approval. We're talking in particular about the accreditation of scientists from the People's Liberation Army.

Did you base your reasoning on the advice of CSIS or the RCMP? Did you base it on something else, and if so, what? I'd ask you to avoid clichés and get straight to the point.

[Heather Jeffrey]

In the process that we undertake to provide security clearances, the Public Health Agency and the security branch of the health portfolio undertake the initial reliability checks, etc. All security clearances go through a process of verification by the RCMP and then are referred for secret security clearances to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, which conducts reliability assessments. It sends its assessments back to PHAC security, and the final decisions are made.

In the case of these clearances, for example, when indices were raised by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the deputy head of the agency took the decision to revoke the clearance.

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

You did say that these people had an undeclared affiliation with the People's Liberation Army. It's not the Knights of Columbus. You made your decision based on investigations. Were those investigations incomplete? Did you have all the information you needed? It was the People's Liberation Army, so it's no minor matter. We're not talking about a non‑profit organization.

[Heather Jeffrey]

I would say security clearances are periodically reviewed.

At the time the security clearances were granted, these were scientists who had long-standing work at the agency. None of the indices or events that subsequently emerged were evident. Indeed, in these documents, there is no evidence prior to this time of covert activities.

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

Okay. My take‑away is that policies don't work. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Ms. Idlout, you have two and a half minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.

My next couple of questions are regarding others' views on Canada and whether Canada's credibility has been impacted.

Do you believe that the Winnipeg lab incident has impacted Canada's credibility with the research institutions of our NATO and Five Eyes partners?

[Heather Jeffrey]

The national microbiology lab is a world-renowned research institution of high reputation. Our partners internationally also face similar threats of foreign interference and are adopting many similar measures.

The science of the lab remains well respected. The lab continues to be accredited, for example, by U.S. counterparts to the highest standards of biosafety and biosecurity.

No, I don't believe the lab's reputation has suffered, given the action that we took and the strengthening of the security protocols since that time.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Could you elaborate more on what you mean by the policies or the strategies that may have changed to make sure that we have greater resilience in the scientific institutions?

[Heather Jeffrey]

The measures that we took were in several different domains. There have been physical security measures and enhancements related to our protocols around shipping, physical security of the lab and access controls. We have more stringent policies in terms of the use of students at the lab. We have strengthened our intellectual property protocols. We have strengthened our cybersecurity measures.

We have a detailed program of co-operation with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Public Safety to ensure that we're abreast of any changes in the security landscape. We have enhanced our training and protocols for our staff, so that they're aware and able to flag any incidents that might be of concern for further investigation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

You're just about out of time. Thank you.

Dr. Ellis, you have five minutes now.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you very much, Chair, and thanks to everyone for being here.

Ms. Jeffrey, you talked about security clearances being reviewed on a regular basis. Can you talk about what the current policy is?

[Heather Jeffrey]

The current security screening process for security clearances at the secret level requires review every 10 years unless incidents arise that require a “review for cause” of that clearance, as was the case in this situation.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you very much.

Before this incident, when was the security clearance for Dr. Qiu last reviewed?

[Heather Jeffrey]

I'm sorry. I don't have that information at hand.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Can you please provide that to the committee?

[Heather Jeffrey]

Yes.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you for that.

Are there any health scientists of any nationality currently working for the Government of Canada who have participated in one of the over 200 PRC talent recruitment programs?

[Heather Jeffrey]

I'm not able to comment on that. I can comment on the processes at the Public Health Agency, where we require conflict of interest and affiliation declarations from all of our scientists and indeed from all of our personnel. I can say that participation in the talent programs of foreign countries, if declared, would be a significant conflict of interest and would not be accepted.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you for that.

Can you tell the committee, to the best of your knowledge, are there any employees working at labs in Canada now who are members of talent programs?

[Heather Jeffrey]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm unable to comment on labs across the country. I can comment only on the declared affiliations and conflicts of interest of the staff at the Public Health Agency, as I previously mentioned.