Health Committee on June 18th, 2021

[Iain Stewart]

Mr. Chair and honourable member, you are exactly right. This has been characterized as if it were an opinion of mine. In fact, as I've mentioned, I'm trying to follow the law, and laws also circumscribe what security-related material can be released. There are legal and also security experts who guide those decisions.

As accountable head of the Public Health Agency, I am the person who signs the packet or provides the documents. Hence I find myself in this extraordinary situation in this 27th year of my career, but it's not the exercise of my choice that's putting me here. It's the obligations of my job and of making the representations of my organization, guided by the advice that was provided by the experts.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Stewart.

On that, had you ignored the advice of the national security intelligence community or the experts on that part of the redaction and released unredacted documents in open-source format, are there any provisions to prevent, say, China, Russia, Iran or any other foreign national governments from also accessing that national security information, once it is publicly released?

The point I am making here, Mr. Chair, and my question to you, Mr. Stewart, is whether there would be any safety protections once those documents are released. The Conservatives continue to make the argument that Canadians have to see this information. They fail to point out, however, that the law Mr. Stewart is referring to in terms of national security protections is in place because it's not just Canadians' eyes seeing this information. Once it's in an open-source or unsecured format, it's actually bad actors around the world who would love to see Canada's national security and intelligence information.

Mr. Stewart, had you ignored the law and the advice of national security experts, would there be any protections against other bad actors, or governments around the world, gaining access to Canada's national security and intelligence information?

Do you have any powers that would have prevented that broader access once it was in open-source format?

[Iain Stewart]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, honourable member.

You're very right. When it comes to security, there's open source, there are soft sources and then there's specific intelligence. Materials related to things around a level 4 lab are of interest to many parties.

In my experience over the past several weeks, where we have provided materials, those have immediately been made public by the Commons committee reviewing the matter. The cumulative effect of making these materials available does, in and of itself, begin to create security concerns for the intelligence community.

The materials we have not released to date due to our concerns about security—and national security, of course—are classified, so the impact you're talking about is even more profound.

If I may, we were asked to provide the materials unredacted to a committee where none of the members had security clearances. They had no ability to handle classified documents nor even to have secure communications. It was done over the World Wide Web.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I actually am a former member of NSICOP and Mr. Davies is a current member. We understand what is required, the difference in receiving security clearance, how meetings are handled and the difference between an in camera parliamentary session and a secure meeting, so Mr. Chair—

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Pardon me, Ms. O'Connell.

Mr. Lemire, is there an issue?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I have a question for the member of Parliament.

What section is she referring to in terms of security clearances as part of our current detailed study of the budget?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is this a point of order?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Yes, exactly. I would like her to respond.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. O'Connell, the question has been asked. Do you wish to respond?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Absolutely.

Mr. Chair actually ruled that this line of questioning was out of order. Then, Mr. Lemire, you and the majority of the committee members voted against it, thereby allowing this line of questioning.

The section I'm referring to is your specific vote on the item that overruled the chair's ruling.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you for your response. I was just intellectually curious.

You can continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

Ms. O'Connell, you have the floor.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thanks.

Again, I'm hoping that didn't eat up my time, with the member—I guess—forgetting the vote that just happened.

Mr. Stewart, in relation to that secure process and also in reference to the Speaker's ruling, at the time there was a reference to a previous ruling with respect to the Afghanistan war. However, a secure committee of Parliament with security clearance and the ability to meet in a secure setting to handle sensitive documents didn't exist at that time. Now that this process does exist, was this the rationale for using NSICOP, with all the secure protocols, to send all documents unredacted to a safe and secure setting, with members of Parliament from both Houses able to handle and understand the national security information in that secure manner?

[Iain Stewart]

Mr. Chair and honourable member, it was a committee of parliamentarians who had the necessary classification and ability to handle secret documents. I provided all documents in an unredacted form to that committee in the hope that would address the intent. However, obviously, subsequently it has not addressed the intent.

Thank you for the question.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

Mr. Lemire now has the floor for six minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for Minister Hajdu.

Yesterday, we learned that a prominent Quebec researcher, microbiologist Gary Kobinger, who developed vaccines against Zika and Ebola and who is currently working on a COVID‑19 vaccine, will be leaving Quebec to head the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas. His main reason was that funding didn't pose an issue there and that the projects were plentiful. Remember that Ottawa denied him the funding needed to complete his research and clinical trials for his COVID‑19 vaccine.

Although you significantly increased research funding during the pandemic year, you didn't maintain the same level of investment. A number of researchers won't be able to obtain proper funding for their research. How can we resolve this issue? During question period, you told my colleague, Mario Simard, that you were already making substantial investments, that you were in touch with scientists and researchers and that the production capacity in the country needed improvement.

When asked in the past hour, Mr. Lamarre said that basic research should be increased by 25% and then increased by 10% per year for the next 10 years to ensure that Canada catches up with the other G7 countries. Canada is currently in second last place, ahead of Italy.

Do you feel that you're doing enough right now? What will it take to really increase research funding and stop the brain drain?

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

Thank you very much.

I also recognize the value of research.

I think it's super important that we continue the path we've been on in terms of reinvesting in research, science and evidence in this country, after a decade of slashing of scientists—in fact, destroying research and science—under the former Harper Conservatives. That's why we put that at the front and centre of our policy in 2015.

Thankfully we had, because we were able to build up the research community over the past four years prior to COVID-19 hitting. We were able to mobilize very quickly our Canadian research community to research not just COVID-19 but the many aspects of COVID-19 that would be, I would say, spill-on effects of living through a global pandemic.

Perhaps I can turn to Dr. Strong to speak about some of that work through the CIHR. He's here today. I think the work that the CIHR has been doing with our research community is critically important.

Dr. Strong.

[Dr. Michael Strong, President, Canadian Institutes of Health Research]

Thank you very much, Chair, Minister and honourable member, for the question.

In fact, one of the major investments that this supplementary discussion is about is a clinical trials fund, which will in fact begin to develop again the clinical trials expertise in this country and to support investigators such as Dr. Kobinger in the very early phases of drug trials.

It's a $250-million investment over three years to establish a pan-Canadian strategy and to assist with the biomanufacturing component. The investments required are being made as we speak to rebuild, as the minister has stated.

Thank you.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

I want to reiterate the importance of long‑term investments. A strong signal must be sent to the research community, who is waiting for this signal.

In 2017, Quebec adopted the Quebec life sciences strategy for 2017‑27. This constitutes an important sector of the Quebec economy. Several billions of dollars are invested in research and development. This sector includes over 660 companies and 32,000 high‑quality jobs in Quebec.

On July 1, the PMPRB reform is scheduled to come into effect, even though Douglas Clark told us five years ago that the PMPRB had never studied the impact of the life sciences reform in Quebec and in Canada. Yet we know that research takes place at the centre of an ecosystem with strong components and that weakening the biopharmaceutical sector undermines the entire chain.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing a solution that has consensus. It involves changing the countries' reference basket and delaying the contentious issues in order to set up a discussion table. No one wants a third passive delay, since this would prolong the uncertainty.

Do you agree to implement these recommendations, Madam Minister?

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

What I can say is that we agree it is important to rebuild our life sciences sector. That's why my colleague Minister Champagne has been working so closely with a number of pharmaceutical companies, including Novavax and many others, to look at how we can strengthen Canada's footprint in biomanufacturing and the life sciences sector.

Of course, when we do that with the many companies that are interested, actually, in coming to Canada and being part of that sector, with a footprint here, it is an opportunity to strengthen the connection with research and science in that space as well. I'm very excited about that work, and I know that the minister would be happy to speak about the ongoing conversations with the pharmaceutical companies and their eagerness to be here in Canada.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

You're the Minister of Health, and I would like a clear response from you.

In two weeks, it will be July 1. The research ecosystem is fragile.

Will you delay the implementation of the PMPRB reform?

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

Thank you. On the subject of the PMPRB, as the member knows, we have already delayed the coming into force a number of times as a result of the stress on the industry but also their incredible focus on responding to COVID-19. We continue to have those conversations with all stakeholders, including the pharmaceutical companies, and we'll assess closer to the date how we proceed.

I will just say this: We will continue on our path to lower the cost of drugs in Canada for Canadians as well. This is an important aspect of PMPRB renewal and adjustments, and we have to stay focused on the fact that Canada pays some of the highest prices for drugs in the world. It is also critically important to Canada that we find a way to reduce those costs so that all Canadians can have access to medications that save lives.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.