Canada-China Relations Committee on June 14th, 2021

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I do not think it's unparliamentary to suggest to a witness that she or he is deliberately avoiding answering the question, because I think that was clearly obvious, I suppose. Maybe stating the obvious is a bit much in some cases, but it's certainly not unparliamentary to do so when you ask one question and you get another answer. You can point that out.

I think that the decorum has been maintained. The fact of the matter is that we did have a witness who was stonewalling—it's just an adjective that is well known and understood—and I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing that out to a witness. I don't believe the point of order is, in fact, valid.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Harris.

On the one hand, of course, we have the right of free expression of all members.

I see Ms. Zann on the same point of order.

Ms. Zann, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On that point of order, I would like to ask this: Is there a school where parliamentarians can go to learn how to be as rude as the ones tonight are being to this minister? As a female, I'm really offended by their attitudes and their mansplaining to our minister.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Ms. Zann.

Of course, members have the right of free expression, but they also know that there are rules of decorum. I expect them to stay within those rules and, as Mr. Oliphant points out, to show respect to all witnesses who come before the committee. At the same time, the House, of course, is an adversarial place, and there are differences of opinion. We try to express those while continuing to show respect.

Mr. Harris, your time is concluded if you don't mind, and I'm going to go on to Mr. Williamson for five minutes. We're going to the second round now.

Mr. Williamson, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Madam Minister, I do appreciate your being here tonight. I know it's a long night.

Some of the questions about policy aren't being answered as we'd like, so maybe you can tell us your philosophy about scientists. Is it your contention that scientists are scientists, regardless of where they come from? You have no concerns, say, if a scientist comes from France or China—as we're talking about this at the Canada-China committee—and you believe that these are people are working for the betterment of mankind, or humankind, and will do just that and there's no security concern?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Perhaps I'll start with, yes, there are scientists in every country. I'm sure there are good scientists and “less good” scientists, or bad scientists in every country.

I will say that the scientific tradition is one of collaboration. In fact, it's how we push the understanding of very challenging problems forward. The world has accelerated collaboration during this time to understand COVID-19 and the tools that we all desperately need to get out of this global pandemic.

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

Fair answer. I'm going to cut you off, because I only have a few minutes.

I think, based on your testimony tonight that it's your belief that the Winnipeg labs make decisions on foreign coordination based on protocols, as it understands those protocols. That seems to be your testimony tonight. Is that accurate?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Again, the lab has specific policies and procedures in place to protect the national security and health security of Canadians. Those procedures are in place and used in a rigorous way to do so. Maybe Dr. Poliquin can speak more thoroughly about those procedures.

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

I'll come back.

My next question is for Dr. Poliquin.

Dr. Poliquin, in an earlier appearance at this committee, you told us that when determining intent, your lab relies on the promissory note that you receive from the foreign institution. When I asked if any follow-up occurred if the letter came from a government that is not transparent, or that is suspect, you didn't confirm that was the case. You pointed back to the letter saying that you rely on the letter and that if good intent is written in that letter, then you assume good intent.

Do you stand by that characterization? Is that accurate? That seemed to be the testimony you offered to us some weeks ago in response to some of my questioning.

[Dr. Guillaume Poliquin]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We must be compliant with three essential pieces of legislation or standards—the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, biosecurity standards, as well as the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act—in our dealings with foreign laboratories.

It's important to note that there's no unified global accreditation body for high containment laboratories. Therefore, we have to operate in a context where we must be compliant with our own legislative standards. Similarly, other countries have their own legislative standards that when we are interacting with them we will operate within provided that they do not conflict with ours. It is under that framework that we engage in our collaborative endeavours with other laboratories.

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

And if you're suspicious, what do you...

Actually, no. I'm running out of time.

Dr. Poliquin, did your team know that the military scientist who worked in the Winnipeg lab was affiliated with the People's Liberation Army before or after his admittance?

[Dr. Guillaume Poliquin]

Affiliations are a complex system. Affiliations can be listed at the time of a publication in terms of where the initial research was done, as well as where the affiliation of the individual is at the time of publication.

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

We have a PLA scientist here who has done research in the lab and has produced a paper. I'm just asking if you knew you had a PLA scientist before he was admitted, or did you find out after the fact?

[Iain Stewart]

We can't comment on the people being referred to at this time.

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

Thank you very much. That's our answer.

You guys had no idea who you were letting into that lab and that is why we're seeing the stonewalling. That is why these documents have been referred to parliamentarians who are not a part of a parliamentary committee and have no teeth. That is why we are seeing this example and bureaucratic butt covering, because a serious, serious—

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Williamson.

We have a point of order. I'm trying to see who the point of order is by.

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

It was by me, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

If Mr. Williamson wishes to infer that answer, I suppose that's up to him, but I did not hear that articulated by the witnesses—and this is not a point of debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

We'll go on now to Ms. Zann, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to say, again, that this feels like people desperately trying to throw spaghetti at the wall and trying to make it stick instead of just sticking to the point of why we're actually here. It's for the health of Canadians and the safety of Canadians. That's why I am here, and I hope that's why every other member of the committee is here.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, if the government members are going to take offence when we question the minister, I will point out that it is only because of the probing of this committee that we have discovered that this is a national security matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Williamson, that is certainly debate.

We go back to Ms. Zann.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'm sorry that the members are trying to waste my time here.

I would like to ask the witnesses, especially the doctor—and I feel, again, like a broken record—whether the viruses in question have any relationship whatsoever to COVID-19?

Can you expand on the biological differences between these viruses and the SARS-CoV-2 virus?

Thank you.

[Dr. Guillaume Poliquin]

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

I would like to be categorical that coronaviruses are not at all related to the Ebola virus; nor are they related to henipaviruses. They are not in any way related, and one cannot be used to generate the other. That is a biological fact.