Canada-China Relations Committee on May 10th, 2021

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support Garnet Genuis' amendment. I support it because we need the unredacted documents from PHAC. PHAC is telling us, and has been telling us and the media, that the termination of Dr. Qiu and Dr. Cheng had nothing to do with the emergence of the coronavirus late in 2019. PHAC has been telling us and telling members of the media that the shipment of Henipavirus and Ebola virus to the Wuhan Institute of Virology had nothing to do with the emergence of the coronavirus late in 2019, ostensibly in Wuhan.

There is no doubt about a couple of things. There is no doubt that Dr. Qiu and Dr. Cheng worked at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, Manitoba. There is also no doubt that in order to work there, you need secret level clearance, clearance that they must have had in order to work there. There is no doubt that the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg co-operated closely with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. There is no doubt that Dr. Qiu shipped Ebola virus and Henipavirus to the Wuhan Institute of Virology on March 31, 2019, only eight short months before the emergence of the coronavirus. There is no doubt that she trained technicians at that very institute of virology to establish a level 4 lab, the only level 4 lab in the People's Republic of China. There is no doubt that the coronavirus emerged ostensibly in Wuhan a number of months later.

There have been references in this committee about conspiracy theories. Let me quote Ian Bremmer, who is anything but a conspiracy theorist.

Today he said this: “China’s unwillingness to co-operate with the World Health Organization in investigating the coronavirus’s origins has made it impossible to substantiate how the disease came into existence, thereby obscuring the scientific response. Indeed, despite all the claims of conspiracy, the theory that COVID actually was inadvertently released from a Wuhan biolab remains both plausible and deeply concerning.

That's from Ian Bremmer. I might add that the former chief of staff to the Prime Minister has a colleague of his at his Eurasia Group.

There are two theories about how the coronavirus emerged. One is that it was zoonotic, and the other is that it somehow came out of this National Institute of Virology lab in Wuhan. It's not just Ian Bremmer who is saying this. It is people like Nicholas Wade, a well-respected science writer who was the former deputy editor of Nature magazine, a reputable peer-reviewed science magazine. He also worked at Science magazine, another peer-reviewed academic publication, and he worked for many decades at The New York Times. He wrote a piece just five days ago asking questions about where this coronavirus emerged from.

The reason I raise this point is that the Government of Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory closely co-operated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and the Canadian public has the right to know what the extent of that co-operation was, why these two scientists there were terminated, and what exactly happened with the transfer of Henipavirus and Ebola virus, as well as any other workings and goings-on between a Government of Canada institution and this virology lab in Wuhan.

That's why we need to get this information. In a parliamentary democracy, the public has the right to know.

I hope this committee, before it adjourns today, adopts the motion as amended and compels PHAC to produce this information, information that is not only required under precedents set by—

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Go ahead on a point of order, Mr. Oliphant.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I'm going to raise a point of order regarding relevance, because drawing together two threads that are completely unrelated is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. To do it passionately and to do it with quotes is irresponsible and has nothing whatsoever to do with the motion at hand.

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

This is debate.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

This is not debate. This is about relevance, and matters of relevance, under our Standing Orders, are absolutely appropriate to be raised, and raising this by drawing two threads together is absolutely irresponsible and should not be condoned by this committee, because it is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

We have asked for papers about a very specific incident. We could ask virologists to come before us and ask whether there is any relationship to the two viruses that have been discussed tonight with the coronavirus, and they are separate viruses. Anybody who knows anything about viruses knows that. This is cheap politics, and it should not be condoned in this committee, because of irrelevance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

As you know, yes, we have the rule of relevance. Of course, it is not strictly enforced. Members have the ability to bring themselves to the point, so I would ask Mr. Chong to bring it into the discussion we're having.

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

Mr. Chair, with respect, I don't take the floor very often in this committee, relative to many other members, and I'm speaking to a point that's very relevant to the amendment at hand and the main motion at hand.

The issue is this. Dr. Qiu trained people at the Wuhan Institute of Virology so that it could be registered as a level 4 lab, the only level 4 lab in China. Why is that relevant? It's because the State Department of our closest ally and trading partner said earlier this year that the standards at the lab were not upheld, that they weren't operating to level 4 criteria, that they were often operating with very dangerous viruses at level 2 or level 3.

That's why we need these documents. We need to know what the Government of Canada was doing through the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg with respect to co-operating with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China.

That's why we need these documents. We are a parliamentary democracy, and under two sets of conditions we have the right to these documents. As my colleagues have outlined and as the law clerk has outlined, there are precedent-setting rulings that Speaker Milliken issued in—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Fragiskatos, go ahead on a point of order.

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

—2010 on this very issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'll come back to this point of relevance. I've worked with the colleague opposite. I've worked with Mr. Chong since the inception of this committee. I've had the chance to get to know him a bit over the years. I'm really surprised at what I'm hearing here. I consider him to be someone of substance.

At this moment—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Let me continue, Mr. Chair, if I could.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I'm listening to a point of order, and I'll have one person speak at a time.

Continue, Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Chong is proceeding to connect dots here. He is borrowing from some of the wildest theories on Facebook and other social media to make a point—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Come on.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

—here that is irrelevant to this committee. We were about to resolve—

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Genuis—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

—an issue that we were talking about all night. We had reached a compromise motion, and all of a sudden we have now proceeded into these...not even theatrics. I'm not sure.

This is a very bizarre moment in this committee. I haven't seen something like this since the committee was formed, and I've been here from day one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Fragiskatos, thank you. You've made your point and your view on relevance. I've indicated that the rules of relevance are not strictly enforced, but of course I've also asked Mr. Chong to ensure that he brings this within relevance to the discussion before the committee and subject to the committee's study.

That's where we are, and Mr. Chong has the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will wrap up quickly.

What I am raising is entirely relevant, and these are not conspiracy theory-driven questions.

Nicholas Wade published questions five days ago in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which is a reputable organization. Ian Bremmer is raising questions about the origins of this virus and the role that the Wuhan Institute of Virology played. Other people are raising questions. This is not in some dark part of the web, driven by conspiracies. These are reputable people raising very real questions.

Our question for us as Canadian parliamentarians is what role the National Microbiology Laboratory had in co-operating with this Institute of Virology in Wuhan. They trained them to a level 4 standard. They sent scientists and viruses over there. We need to know what the co-operation was and why Dr. Qiu and Dr. Cheng were terminated. We need to know what exactly happened in this situation.

Let me finish by saying this. We are a parliamentary democracy, and under two sets of conditions, we have the right to these documents.

As my colleagues previously mentioned, Speaker Milliken's ruling of 2010 was precedent-setting, not just in the Canadian House of Commons but in parliaments throughout the Commonwealth. That ruling made it clear that parliamentary committees in the House have the right to seek papers and other documents from the Government of Canada without restriction, which is exactly what we did in the motion we adopted on March 31, some five weeks ago. These are documents that we have not yet received in unredacted form, as we requested.

Statute law itself says that in respect of personal information, our committee, under paragraph 8(2)(c), has the right to have it, yet we are being stonewalled during a pandemic when the authorities of Parliament and its ability to hold the government accountable are already curtailed.

For all those reasons, I hope that by the end of this committee in half an hour, we will adopt the amendments and the motion that ensure that PHAC provides us with this information, because the Canadian public deserves to know.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

Mr. Oliphant is next.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I think we're in agreement on the fact that we want the papers. I am confused as to what that argument was about. We want the papers. I don't think anyone on the committee said that we don't want the papers. We want to exercise our parliamentary privilege. We get that.

I would say, having a Speaker's ruling—and it may be a question that Mr. Dufresne can answer for us, but I'm not even going to get in there.... I think there is an issue in that just because the Speaker of the House says the House has authority doesn't mean that the Supreme Court also said that. He has told us a couple of times that the Supreme Court said that. I've never seen a citation, so I'm not sure what that is.

I'd be happy at some point to see that Speaker Milliken's ruling was upheld in a court of law, because if one branch of government says it can get something.... Well, of course they're going to say they're going to get something, because that's their job.

That said, I don't think we're arguing about that right now. We all agreed that this is an important set of documents. We want to do it carefully. We want to do it judiciously. We want to make sure that there could be some way we could negotiate with PHAC, to find a way that they could exercise their authority and responsibility and we could exercise ours. We're not arguing.

What I am disagreeing with are far-fetched ideas that even hint at some association that makes no sense, that there is something embedded in these documents that's going to solve the world's question about where the coronavirus, COVID-19, came from. I think that's bad rhetoric. I think it's misinformation. I think it's drawing associations that should not be drawn together at a committee of Parliament, and I think it just seeds the oddest ideas in other people's heads.

Let's get out of this. I'm happy with this motion. I think it's going to be pretty hard to figure out exactly where we go with it and how it gets operationalized, but I can live with it. I can live with the motion. Get it done.

There's a certain vilification that's going on here too, that I think is very problematic. I'd just like us to get this motion done, and we'll figure it out.