Canada-China Relations Committee on June 14th, 2021

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

There is a point of order.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, you have the floor.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

I wonder whether Mr. Oliphant needs a new headset. The Chair asked him six times to stop talking, since there is a point of order.

We have gone completely off the topic, as was the case when it was pointed out to me earlier. Mr. Oliphant is making a comment on my question and it is completely off topic. I would like to continue to address the subject before us this evening.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Mr. Dubourg, is this about the same point of order?

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

I have another point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Dubourg, you have the floor.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, I know that Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe is not a regular on committees, as he said himself. However, I don't understand why he is saying that the member's comments are off topic.

Mr. Oliphant is talking about the NSICOP, which is related to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe's comment about the fact that there are no Bloc Québécois members on that committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dubourg.

Mr. Harris, do you have a different point of order?

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

Yes, my point of order is a technical one, and I thought Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe was raising it, because I was unable to hear what Mr. Oliphant was saying. I think he was speaking through the English mike and the French and English were coming together and I couldn't hear either language. I thought Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe was having the same trouble. I couldn't get anything that Mr. Oliphant was saying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Madam Clerk, do we have an indication from the interpreters or the technicians that there's an issue they can correct?

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

Mr. Chair, it was my mistake. I was on the English channel and I was speaking French and I heard both languages at the same time. I moved to get rid of my English. It was my mistake.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant. Hopefully that will correct the issue with the language.

Earlier, I did read the section under which this meeting is being held.

I'll go back to Mr. Oliphant to proceed.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The point I was raising was about the irony. Earlier in the meeting, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe had raised the problem of the minister who proactively referred these documents to the NSICOP, yet he was concerned because there was not a member of the Bloc Québécois on that committee.

I wanted to raise the irony of that, because there was a member of the Bloc Québécois nominated by their party, appointed by the order in council on recommendation of the Prime Minister, yet this member, the member for Saint-Jean, quit the committee. That's a matter of public record. There is no longer a member on the committee. She was appointed in 2020 following the election. She's not a member.

Because I'm not privy to this, I have no idea what the situation is, but the reason there's not a member of the Bloc Québécois on NSICOP is not that we didn't appoint one as a government. The Prime Minister did appoint one, but she quit.

That was the point I was attempting to make. The criticism of the minister referring these documents to that committee was simply inappropriate if the basis was that the committee didn't have a member of the Bloc Québécois on it.

That was that second irony that I wanted to raise. That was all I wanted to do with those two points. The minister has proactively given all of the documents, even though, if demanded, she might have had grounds to refuse based on the legislation, but she chose to give all of the documents to ensure that a full hearing is made.

There was another issue raised. Because she referred them to NSICOP, that was absolutely taken as a breach of national security.

I want to ask the minister this. Did she refer the documents to NSICOP to request if there was a breach of security, and if so, was it handled appropriately? Would that be a reason to refer something to such a committee?

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

Thank you very much for the question.

Of course, I can't comment about what's in the documents, but the documents have items that are considered to be issues of privacy and issues of national security. That is why the documents are with that committee.

Of course, as you well know, probably better than I do, the process for that committee requires not only a specific security clearance but also adherence to a commitment to keep some of these details private.

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

Thank you.

Is that the end of my time? I still have a minute.

I have a question, really, for the folks from the lab and the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Am I right in understanding that the lab pre-existed before the Public Health Agency of Canada was formed?

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

That's a good question for probably Dr. Poliquin or President Stewart. I don't know the answer to that.

Dr. Poliquin.

[Dr. Guillaume Poliquin]

The National Microbiology Lab has evolved over time from previous organizations, including most recently in 2014, I believe, when a number of other laboratories merged in.

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

But the decision was made in the 1980s to develop a large, major secure facility in Winnipeg, and that was made by the Conservative government to establish a world-class lab.

Am I correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant, but that concludes your time.

We'll have to wait for that answer, I guess.

We'll now go on to the subsequent round, and to Mr. Chong for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you know, Mr. Chair, we are permitted to use the time allocated to us for questions or comments. Therefore, I'd like to let you know that I want to use my five minutes not for questions to our witnesses but for commentary about the matter at hand, which I am permitted to do under the rules.

There has been plenty of talk of NSICOP at this committee. NSICOP is not a committee of Parliament. Not only is it not a committee of Parliament, but MPs and senators on that committee actually give up their parliamentary rights.

Its members and its chair are hired and fired by the Prime Minister. Any minister has the right to refuse the committee information and to block a committee review, and the Prime Minister has the right, the power, to change committee reports before they are made public, so it's clearly the wrong committee to hold the government accountable for national security breaches. It's akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

It's also not the same committee, as was previously mentioned today, as committees in other countries like the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom's Intelligence and Security Committee is a committee of Parliament. Its members are confirmed by the House of Commons, not by the Prime Minister. It has substantial powers to compel the government to provide it with information, and it has full power to produce reports and to access information concerning national security.

The Minister of Health and the Public Health Agency of Canada are defying an order of the House of Commons, dated June 2, 2021.

That order said in clause (a):

these documents shall be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, in both official languages, within 48 hours of the adoption of this order;

That was to be have been completed by Friday, June 4. That deadline passed, and the government did not comply with the order. The Minister of Health and the Public Health Agency of Canada failed to deposit these documents with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel by the end of day, Friday, June 4, as the order required.

That order explicitly put in place provisions to protect national security and the details of any ongoing criminal investigation.

The order said in clause (d):

the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall confidentially review the documents with a view to redacting information which, in his opinion, could reasonably be expected to compromise national security or reveal details of an ongoing criminal investigation, other than the existence of an investigation;

A question of privilege has been raised in the House of Commons on this issue, and the Speaker has been asked to rule whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. The Speaker is expected to rule on this in the coming days. The precedents are clear, especially the precedent set in Speaker Milliken's ruling of 2010.

The Minister of Health and the Public Health Agency of Canada are defying an order of the House of Commons to produce information that Parliament has requested, just like the government did in 2011. In the 2011 case, the government was found in contempt of Parliament for refusing to deliver the documents requested.

I supported Speaker Milliken's ruling at the time, and publicly indicated this. While I maintained confidence in the government at that time, I supported the finding of contempt. That's unlike the current Prime Minister, who said one thing in opposition and does another thing in government.

The Minister of Health, the Public Health Agency of Canada and the government are violating a House order of June 2. I believe they all are in contempt of Parliament.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chong.

We will now continue with Mr. Dubourg.

Mr. Dubourg, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am really insulted to hear parliamentarians here in Canada, from the House of Commons and the Senate, say that other parliamentarians are not eligible to consider situations in which national security is threatened.

I hear that the Prime Minister has the power to do this or do that. Since when? Since that committee was created, has he interfered?

I said just now that that committee was entitled to manage its proceedings. So it does its work and produces reports. The reports we receive, that are tabled in the House, are necessarily redacted, because national security is in issue.

We are told that the parliamentarians waive their immunity. We have no immunity, that is true. It is important that we keep the information we analyze secret. Myself, and I am no longer a member of that committee, Mr. Chair, if I were to disclose some piece of information I had learned during the work we did while I was a member of the committee, I would be risking life in prison.

I am therefore being very careful when I speak today on the work of that committee. Even after my term in office, on whatever date it may be when I have to leave politics, I will still be subject to that law and I am still going to risk prison. Former parliamentarians and committee members always have that sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. Do you think that means nothing?

That is why I would like to ask the Minister, since she sent those documents, whether she really trusts the parliamentarians who sit on the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP.

What do you think, Minister?

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

Thank you very much, MP Dubourg. You've really explained the special nature of this committee—that it's not just a matter of now that they have clearance with the appropriate level of security to review these documents, but it is in perpetuity.

Of course, there are some things that need to be kept private, people's private information, for example. We've talked a lot publicly about the individuals, but, of course, they are individuals who have a certain degree of right to privacy, as all employees do, as all people do.

Again, it's very useful for you to explain the nature of that committee. That's why we've released those documents fully unredacted to that committee. The committee can review those documents with the appropriate clearance. It will, indeed, protect the privacy considerations; it will protect considerations of national security; and it will give confidence to Canadians that we will follow the appropriate processes to handle information of this nature.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Minister.

I would now like to ask Mr. Stewart a question.

I would also like him to answer publicly and for us to hear him. In his letter, he says that he can confirm that, to his knowledge, the transfer of the Ebola and Nipah viruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology by the National Microbiology Laboratory is not connected with the departure of the two employees.

What can you add to that, Mr. Stewart?

[Iain Stewart]

Mr. Chair, honourable member, that is exactly the case; there is no connection between the two.