Evidence of meeting #26 for Canada-China Relations in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
At the beginning of the meeting, you brought up security in relation to the documents. You mentioned the RCMP investigation.
You said there was no connection between the redacted parts of the documents and the RCMP investigation.
Seeing as you're not an expert, how did you come to the decision that this was a matter of national security?
9:25 p.m.
President, Public Health Agency of Canada
Mr. Chair, first of all, just to clarify, I made no connection of that nature with respect to the RCMP. I just noted that there is a separate RCMP investigation under way, and we can't speak about that.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus.
Ms. Yip, you have three minutes, please.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jean Yip Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Thank you.
Thank you for staying right to the end.
Mr. Stewart, it's my understanding that in cases of a transfer in material, certain steps can be omitted for the sake of fostering relationships and collaboration. Is that correct? In what circumstances would a material transfer agreement be required? Can you explain why it wasn't appropriate in this transfer with the lab in Wuhan?
9:25 p.m.
President, Public Health Agency of Canada
Mr. Chair and honourable member, I will turn to Dr. Poliquin to talk about making adjustments to the MTA, the material transfer agreement. I would just note that predominantly it's an intellectual property document.
9:25 p.m.
Acting Vice-President, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada
Thank you, President Stewart and Mr. Chair.
In fact, material transfer agreements are used as part of the transfer of materials under a set of circumstances when they are warranted, which includes the protection of intellectual property rights.
There are additional considerations with an MTA as it pertains to the use of the materials, but it is important to note that under the provisions of the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, as well as the Canadian biosecurity standards and the transport of dangerous goods, there are additional legislated requirements in order to proceed with the transfer of these types of viruses that in and of themselves must be met. Therefore, in this case an MTA was not deemed to be necessary, since the provisions on the use of the material were covered in other documentation and there were no intellectual property rights arising.
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jean Yip Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Xiangguo Qiu and her students from China were removed from the lab in July 2019 over what was described as a possible “policy breach” and “administrative matter”.
What has happened to the students from China? Have they also returned to China? Are they being investigated?
That's for Mr. Stewart.
9:30 p.m.
President, Public Health Agency of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair and the honourable member, for the question.
I am not able to speak to those matters. Thank you.
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
9:30 p.m.
President, Public Health Agency of Canada
Yes. The investigation at the National Microbiology Lab has been completed.
9:30 p.m.
President, Public Health Agency of Canada
I can tell you it's completed, and that's all.
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jean Yip Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Have there been any policy breaches in recent history similar to what has happened with the two scientists, and what's been done?
9:30 p.m.
President, Public Health Agency of Canada
I don't know how to answer that question, Mr. Chair and honourable member.
Do you mean with respect to—
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Ms. Yip, I'm afraid the time is up.
Before we conclude, I have to ask the members this. The clerk is asking me about the redacted documents that we have received and whether it is the wish of the committee to make them public.
Now, I certainly don't want to have another long discussion; in fact, we have the interpreters and the staff for not very long.
Is anyone opposed to making public the redacted documents that we have received?
Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I just have a question to ask here. What purpose it would serve? We are engaging now in another process. I actually think that I would like to, in good faith, give the Public Health Agency an opportunity to hear our second request and do that.
I would hope that this committee could understand that it would build some good faith, and we could engage in a conversation with the Public Health Agency of Canada. As the president said, they will be thinking now about our discussion, I would sooner just do that. They're redacted documents, so I'm not worried about the security, but I would like us to give them a chance to bring us new documents.
9:30 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, I have Mr. Chong in the room.
9:30 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I support releasing the redacted documents.
Thank you.
9:30 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I do as well.
Just to respectfully respond to what Mr. Oliphant said, it's not in any way bad faith or contradictory to the process that we've already established to say that in the midst of ongoing discussions about the unredacted form of the documents, we have already received some information.
We've had a chance to look at that information. I think we should make that information public, just on the basis of government open by default. There's nothing problematic in making that material public. I've reviewed it. Let's start informing the public with the information we have, in the midst of seeking more information.