Evidence of meeting #39 for Canada-China Relations in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was csis.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:10 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Of course, I will gladly call our witness by the proper name of Dr. Gilmour.
My apologies, Dr. Gilmour, for not saying "doctor" in my first round of questions.
Dr. Gilmour, I'm not sure, honestly, if my colleague had a chance to ask you this or not, but I do want to know why you left your role as the scientific director general at the Winnipeg lab. What was the reasoning behind that?
9:10 p.m.
Research Scientist, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, one, I have no concerns at all about the salutation. It's even later than you can imagine for me with a little bit of jet lag. I did not notice what you called me, but the question was asked and answered in terms of my departure.
The short answer, just for your own benefit, is that an absolutely dream opportunity came available to me with colleagues whom I already knew and respected. It was the right fit for me personally and professionally.
9:10 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you; that helps me.
I'm wondering if, in your time in your position, you felt that you had the proper tools to be able to prevent foreign interference. I know you spoke a little bit in previous rounds of questions about whether there were any regrets, and I'm wondering if you felt that you were equipped with the proper tools to be able to identify concerns and to be able to respond accordingly.
9:10 p.m.
Research Scientist, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, that is probably the most powerful question I've heard tonight.
I want to go back to Ms. Yip's question on whether I had any regrets. I think I answered maybe we needed more conversation with CSIS.
In terms of whether I was equipped or not, that's a challenge to answer, but certainly, going back in time, yes, there absolutely should have been more briefing, more planning and more conversation among me, CSIS and the departmental security officer, yes.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
We'll go now to Dr. Ellis followed by Mr. Fragiskatos, and that will wrap up this panel.
Go ahead, Dr. Ellis.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Dr. Gilmour, for being here.
My colleague started talking a little bit about the time frame between the end of March 2019, when the infamous shipment happened, and then the administrative action that happened to doctors Qui and Cheng in July 2019. That's three months or so. As you said, there didn't appear, in your mind at least, that there was more information available, but you were having conversations about what to do with these individuals. Whom were the conversations with?
9:15 p.m.
Research Scientist, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, those were conversations with the senior executive of the agency. In my case, I can recall conversations with the vice-presidents of the infectious disease prevention and control branch and conversations with probably at least one other VP within corporate services. I don't recall if there were conversations with the president. That's just my own fallible memory.
This, again, is an agency that found itself in a relatively unfamiliar and probably remarkable territory in terms of what they had experienced in the past. On the one hand, there's a lot of credit to the agency for earnestly putting forward due diligence in actioning those fact-finding reports and then moving towards what was ultimately the administrative investigation. I firmly recall, again from a public service perspective, that this was not your normal HR process. That would have been a struggle for the executive.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much.
Through you, Chair, was the Minister of Health made aware of that during that time, to the best of your knowledge?
9:15 p.m.
Research Scientist, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, I'm not aware of that happening. Those were not conversations I was privy to.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
You were the scientific director general. In your mind, do you think that the Minister of Health should have been made aware at that point in time?
9:15 p.m.
Research Scientist, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, that's a good opinion question and one I honestly haven't reflected on until now, as you're asking it.
Yes.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you for that.
I'll go back to your original contact with CSIS in August 2018. For all intents and purposes, that's what started the ball rolling, if I might use that term here.
Can you please elaborate for the committee what concerns you related to CSIS at that time?
9:15 p.m.
Research Scientist, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I remember that the session on it was starkly different, because I transitioned from just having one-on-one briefings with an individual agent sporadically, over time. If I recall correctly, I think this was the first group session where there were multiple CSIS agents presenting a prepared presentation and describing some of the tactics and approaches used in the PRC—things like talent management programs and the undue consideration of intellectual property protection.
I recall, at the time, that some of the tactics they were describing were familiar. They were some of the same concerns we had, I think, very recently started to talk about within the NML management team, including affiliations with Chinese institutes, frequent travel to China and the number of visiting scientists and students who were coming from that particular country. That was a concern we were discussing within the management team, and there it was in front of me in a CSIS briefing.
There was no compunction to withhold that from them, so we had a conversation about it.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
That's fair enough.
Through you, Mr. Chair, Dr. Gilmour talked about having those discussions among the management team at the NML. Who else would that have included, at the time?
9:15 p.m.
Research Scientist, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, I'd be challenged to remember the specifics, but I have to imagine it was at least the executive director.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Just the two of you would have had those conversations about Dr. Qiu and Dr. Cheng.
9:15 p.m.
Research Scientist, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, I couldn't say if it was just the two of us.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
I have one final question for you, Dr. Gilmour.
Obviously, you had concerns about the shipment going to the Wuhan lab, which was a new actor in the laboratory scene. A level 4 lab didn't exist in China before Dr. Qiu helped it come into being.
Why didn't you stop the shipment?
9:20 p.m.
Research Scientist, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, I think, as other members have questioned, I did express concern and I expressed concern at multiple points.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
9:20 p.m.
Research Scientist, As an Individual
I didn't stop the shipment, though, because, for me, that would have meant overriding my team—their expertise and processes. That's the process we had at the time, so I didn't override it.