Canada-China Relations Committee on March 22nd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Okay, I'm afraid we'll have to [Technical difficulty—Editor].

Mr. Bergeron, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, a few moments ago, Mr. Stewart revealed something to us that demonstrates an unfortunately all-too-common practice in the government apparatus: senior officials are advised to tell parliamentarians as little as possible.

I do not have the reference in front of me, Mr. Chair, but as a former Speaker of the House, you will most certainly be able to enlighten me on the matter. I know that an important ruling by Speaker Milliken mentioned that the state apparatus has an obligation to deliver information requested by parliamentarians.

I can understand that security or confidentiality considerations would cause the witness to be somewhat circumspect. However, I invite the Public Health Agency of Canada to provide parliamentarians with the answers to the questions that have been asked, on a confidential basis. Witnesses, especially when they are senior public servants, have a constitutional obligation to answer questions from parliamentarians in the interests of transparency and accountability.

I understand that not everything can be said publicly, but I am offering Mr. Stewart the opportunity to send us a written response, in confidence, to the questions that have been asked. Otherwise, I am telling you, Mr. Chair, we will have to take action. We cannot tolerate such an attitude from senior officials to the parliamentarians who represent the people and who are entitled to answers from those officials.

As Mr. Fragiskatos did, I am using my time to make this point. I understand that some information cannot be released publicly, but it's imperative that it be provided to parliamentarians, however it is done.

Once again, I offer Mr. Stewart the opportunity to provide a response to committee members on a confidential basis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron. Your time is up.

With respect to the question you raised in your point of order, I can indicate that, when a witness says they cannot provide an answer for legal reasons, it is an answer that the committee will normally accept. Nevertheless, the committee may decide to report the situation to the House, as I mentioned.

Now we'll go to Mr. Harris, for two and a half minutes, please.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Chair. I think you are referring to me, but I can't hear you. That's not unusual, it seems.

I would like to ask Mr. Stewart a couple more questions about the operation of the Global Public Health Intelligence Network.

During the January and February period, they gathered continuous information that didn't seem to make it to the high levels in your department. Even up until the end of February, the chief public health officer told the House of Commons health committee that the situation was under control. We had controlled the virus. There were just a dozen cases in Canada. But that really wasn't the case, was it, Mr. Stewart? It wasn't under control. In fact, two weeks later, there was a public health emergency declared. We were all under a lockdown.

Why was the information that was being garnered by this public health agency, GPHIN, being ignored? Why was that not taken into consideration in making international alerts, for one, but also for Canada taking stronger action more quickly?

[Iain Stewart]

Thank you for the question, sir.

GPHIN is a notification system. It tells you when an event is occurring. As I mentioned in my opening remarks and in response to the other questions, the notice was provided, and it was responded to. Dr. Tam herself actually answered to that request—

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Excuse me, if I could interrupt you for one second.

They were also giving other information based on what was observed in China and what was happening there. These notifications were based on information that was gathered, which they had done for years, for more than a decade. They hadn't issued any alerts for the previous 12 months, because they weren't allowed to. That information could have provided—and did provide, if you had listened to it—the ability to detect what was going on.

You didn't do that, and it wasn't passed on to the Canadian public or to the world.

[Iain Stewart]

Mr. Chair, as I mentioned earlier, there are actually different streams of information that come out of GPHIN. Some, which are internal to the organization, like the daily reports, continued—and continue to this day. Some, like alerts, as the members have been noting, stopped being sent internationally—to international partners, for instance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Harris.

We now go on to Mr. Williamson for five minutes, please.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a number of questions. I'm going to return to Mr. Stewart.

My question is, why were the two employees of the National Microbiology Laboratory terminated?

Mr. Chair, I would move that the question be put to Mr. Stewart so we may receive a proper answer.

[Iain Stewart]

Mr. Chair, in response to this question from one of the members, I was led to believe that it's possible for me to seek to provide confidential and secure advice to you under certain conditions. That was what one of the members just said previously. If that's a venue that's open to me.... You have to understand that I don't normally work in security areas. I'm not familiar with this committee or its practices. There might be ways of responding to the question that you have that I'm not aware of.

I would like to have the opportunity to explore what is the appropriate legal way to respond to this request. Clearly, I am not able to orally answer the question in this public telecast venue at this time.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Chong, do you have a point of order?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Yes, it's a point of order.

According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, when a question is put to a witness, the witness is obligated to reply. Testimony in front of this committee is privileged. That testimony cannot be used against the witness outside of this committee in a court of law. It cannot be used in police investigations. It cannot be used against the witness by the Government of Canada, or by anyone else. It's privileged testimony. Mr. Williamson asked that the question be put. The witness has an obligation to answer the question.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chong. If you're asking me to examine the argument you've raised, I would need time to do that and consider the authorities, as you can imagine.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Chair, the question was asked to be put to the witness. The witness has an obligation to answer the question. You're the chair, so I ask you to rule on that, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Chong, what you read from the procedure book for the House of Commons suggests that the witness must answer. It does not talk about how a witness should answer. The witness has provided answers.

As I indicated earlier, and as the clerk will affirm to you, committees generally accept legal matters as a reason for not answering. The witness has given the reason that he is getting legal advice and there are legal reasons—an investigation is going on and so forth—for not answering the questions.

As I indicated, the committee has the power, if it should so decide, to report the matter, or some other matter, to the House of Commons.

Mr. Williamson, go ahead.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Stewart, am I to take it that you are committing to provide that information to this committee on a confidential basis and that a response will be forthcoming to the chair?

[Iain Stewart]

Mr. Chair, I will commit to explore with legal counsel and the appropriate people who understand the orders of procedure that you are following what is the venue to respond to your question. That's what I commit to, sir, to see what I'm able to do.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

All right. You gave us three rationales for not answering. There's a fourth one, and that is just bureaucratic butt-covering, incompetence, malfeasance in the department. The reasons you gave us are far from exhaustive. In fact, you're treating this committee as if we are members of the press who are looking for answers but don't have rights to these answers.

We look forward to your response. I'm not going to dwell on it, because our time here is limited, but I do hope that information is forthcoming. I think you'll see there's a consensus, at least among the opposition parties here, that answers are needed.

I will now turn to Dr. Poliquin. Your last answer to my colleague on assessing the letter from a Chinese entity.... You didn't provide an answer, because we ran out of time. Do you take these letters from China as the truth and nothing but the truth? What investigations do you do to ensure that the letter will be honoured?

[Dr. Guillaume Poliquin]

Mr. Chair, to complete the answer, when we received the letter from the director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology with respect to the intended use of the viruses, it stated they were to be used for understanding the pathophysiology—the nature of infection—as well as the development of antivirals.

Neither Canada nor the National Microbiology Laboratory has the standing to investigate or audit laboratories, but the request for an assessment is what is required under the HPTA and the TDGA.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

That's an astonishing admission. You're taking a request from a nation that has a history of theft and lies, and accepting that because it's what the law in this country says, that this is sufficient, at a time when our national security institutes are warning academia in general to be very careful. That's a remarkable testimony.

Is that what you're telling us here, that this letter goes into a file, the box is ticked and data is transferred based on the word of a government that is known to lie, not only to its people but to the world community?

[Dr. Guillaume Poliquin]

Mr. Chair, should I answer?

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Dr. Poliquin, please go ahead. I'll give you a few seconds.

[Dr. Guillaume Poliquin]

Mr. Chair, there is an extensive approach that is undertaken prior to the transfer of materials, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology is an organization dedicated to public health.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Williamson.

Now we'll move to Ms. Yip for the last five minutes in this hour.