Canada-China Relations Committee on May 10th, 2021

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

I was going to propose that we give people the opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses in the final 15 minutes. Maybe you were going to propose that anyway.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It's up to the committee. I wanted to ask what the wish of the committee was.

The last person I had was Ms. Zann. She was two minutes into her five minutes.

Ms. Zann, if you have more questions, you may proceed. Then I will go on to Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Harris and Mr. Paul-Hus, if there's time.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Wow. I feel like we have gone all around the world and come back again.

First of all, I have to say thank you to the witnesses for their patience. I know it's a very long night while parliamentarians are debating and you're waiting to find out what we're going to do. I certainly hope that you will take our wishes, recommendations and requests back to the department and discuss sincerely with them and with your lawyers what to do. We would very much like to get the unredacted report if possible.

Mr. Stewart, could you explain to us again what exactly was being taken back to Wuhan, China, regarding the Ebola virus, etc? Can you please expand on upon that a little bit more?

[Iain Stewart]

Mr. Chair and member, thank you for the question.

I was wondering, because there was a discussion earlier, whether you would come back to this topic of the Henipavirus and the Ebola virus and the shipment to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

I was wondering, Mr. Chair, if the members would benefit or not from asking Dr. Guillaume Poliquin about the relationship among these viruses. It seems to have become something in the course of the committee this evening. In fact, Dr. Guillaume Poliquin is a world expert in this exact area. It might be helpful for background for members if that's appropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

If you're referring to him, Mr. Poliquin can go ahead for a minute and 15 seconds.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you.

[Dr. Guillaume Poliquin, Acting Vice-President, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, President Stewart.

Yes, the materials that were shipped to the Wuhan Institute of Virology included Henipaviruses as well as Ebola viruses. These are both in the order of mononegavirales. They are two different families within that order. It is important to note that coronavirus is part of the coronaviridae family and is in a completely different order and kingdom. They are not, in fact, at all related and would not have been relevant to SARS CoV-2, as was previously discussed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Ms. Zann, you have 20 seconds.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Stewart, with regard to the investigation, were you clear as to whether the provincial RCMP or federal RCMP were doing the investigation?

[Iain Stewart]

I don't know which arm or which group within the RCMP is conducting the investigation, to be honest. All I can say is that the RCMP is in fact conducting an investigation, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you.

That's the end of Ms. Zann's time.

Mr. Bergeron, you may go ahead. You have two and a half minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want the witnesses to know that, as they observed—except during the tail end of our discussion on the motion—parliamentarians unanimously agree on the right of committees to send for papers and information and that they are determined to move ahead.

I said before that we had given you an opportunity to find common ground. That opportunity stands. What I would like most is to not have to involve the Speaker, who would inevitably rule against you, placing you in a most awkward position.

I want to stress that we are reasonable people whose goal is not to publicly disclose personal information, information related to national security or information related to a police investigation.

Now that we, as parliamentarians, have given you those assurances and extended an opportunity to find a resolution through common ground, one that would save us from having to take a more radical approach, are you receptive to that or should we expect an equally unsatisfying response from you in the days ahead?

[Iain Stewart]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank the honourable members. There have been many warm words said about the Public Health Agency, and I underline that for a reason. One of the members noted that our area of expertise is medicine—in fact, nursing, public health, epidemiology, statistics and so on—which is to say that we're a public health agency. We're not expert in the topics here tonight. Listening, it's been constitutional law, Parliament, the relationship of the executive and the House of Commons. These are not areas that the Public Health Agency is expert in, so we're guided by experts, and we will be guided here by what the experts tell us to do.

Thank you for the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Stewart.

Mr. Harris, you have two minutes and 30 seconds.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would underscore what Mr. Bergeron just said in terms of the sincere attempt by our committee to formulate a way for the Public Health Agency of Canada to comply with the orders and requests for documents and at the same time serve to protect the necessary public interests in not having documents made public or information made public that should not be. We are, in fact, charged with that responsibility as part of our duties of Parliament.

I would urge legal counsel—Mr. Roy, if you're still going to be doing this, or anybody who's doing this—to have a very thorough look at the decision and the ruling of Mr. Milliken, the context in which it was made, the references it took, and the fact that they're dealing with parliamentary law, which is a branch of constitutional law from the U.K. on down. They don't even call it constitutional law in the U.K.; they call it administrative law. It's about decision-making, the powers of Parliament and the powers of the various branches of Parliament, which are adopted into our Parliament. The ruling of Mr. Milliken should be serving as a beacon to the rest of those parliaments that act like ours, with a constitutional set-up and responsible government.

I think it's incumbent for those thorough investigations to be made and to consult with people who are experts in parliamentary law. I think you will find that this is a very good decision and that our method of allowing the documents to be given to our committee is one that is well within that. I would urge you to take that very seriously indeed, and hopefully we'll be able to reach a conclusion that's satisfactory to the committee and that allows us to continue our investigation.

I won't ask you to comment on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

We have six minutes left, which Mr. Paul-Hus and Ms. Yip will split.

Mr. Paul-Hus, you have three minutes. Go ahead.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In three hours, this is the first time I have had a chance to speak, so I'm going to take full advantage of my three minutes.

My first question is for Mr. Stewart.

Mr. Stewart, does every employee at the National Microbiology Laboratory have to have security clearance?

[Iain Stewart]

No, there is a range. There are about 650 employees, and based on their duties, their classification relates to what their obligations and responsibilities are.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Did Dr. Qiu have security clearance? If so, what level did she have?

[Iain Stewart]

I won't be able to respond to that question about employees for the reasons we discussed previously. I'll just leave it at that.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Very well.

Mr. Stewart, the motion currently before the committee was adopted on March 31. It was a clear order issued by the committee, and you did not comply.

At the time, the Liberals voted against the motion. Only the opposition parties voted in favour of it. Still, the majority supported the motion, and it was an order.

I'm quite surprised today to see the Liberals bringing forward a motion calling on you again to provide the documentation. Are you going to comply with the unanimous order of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations?

[Iain Stewart]

Mr. Chair and honourable member, we actually invested a great amount of time and effort in gathering up all the documents available. Guided by experts, we redacted the materials for what we were not able to provide under our understanding of the law and provided the materials to you. We're very pleased to be here this evening to speak with you about this matter.

Thank you.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

You didn't answer my question, Mr. Stewart.

We just spent an hour and a half debating a motion proposed by a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, the governing party.

As you witnessed, the motion was adopted. Parliamentary counsel Mr. Dufresne is with us tonight, as is your counsel. I don't think there is any doubt as to what was said today.

Now, are you going to comply with the committee's order and send the unredacted documents, as you are being asked to do, yes or no?

[Iain Stewart]

Mr. Chair and honourable member, we will take the written question away and we will be guided by experts on the appropriate response.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?