Debates of June 1st, 2021

Oral Questions

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Does the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord wish to respond to what was said about his point of order?

I am afraid he has left already, but I—

[An hon. member]

Mr. Speaker, you cannot refer to the presence of a member.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am sorry; the member is right. I will resign. I am thankful for the reminder. Even the Speaker makes errors. That is why I am very conciliatory when people make mistakes.

There was an issue and a prop may have been used. I want to remind hon. members that using a prop in the chamber is not allowed, and that the minute a member's camera goes on they are in the chamber.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Documents Related to the Transfer of Ebola and Henipah Viruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, before question period, I was talking about the politicization of the lab in Winnipeg by the Conservative Party, and alternatives that the Conservatives could have used with respect to what they put forward in their opposition motion.

I would like to expand on that, but first it is important that I emphasize three points.

First, Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory is in fact a secure facility. Everyone working at or visiting the National Microbiology Laboratory must undergo a security screening and adhere to strict security protocols, procedures and policies. That is a very important message as we talk about the lab, which I am very familiar with because of its location on Arlington. It is just outside of my riding of Winnipeg North, and I see the outside of it quite a bit.

With respect to the other two points, Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory plays a critical role in protecting the health and safety of Canadians, and the government is very much aware of that. It is also important to recognize that collaboration takes place among laboratories outside of Canada, which is critical to advancing public health research and science that is aimed at improving public health on a global scale, including research into infectious diseases, and I will start with that as background.

We need to realize that the Government of Canada does not in any way underestimate the importance of the lab. If we were to review question period in tomorrow's Hansard, the Prime Minister was very clear on the issue, and it goes back to what I was saying earlier today.

For years, while the Liberals were in opposition to the Stephen Harper government, we argued that there needed to be a mechanism in place to protect Canada's national interests when it came to security. I spoke in the chamber on many occasions back in those days about Five Eyes partners having intelligence committees except for Canada. When the Prime Minister was leader of the third party in the House of Commons, he also advocated that we needed to establish a security committee. Lo and behold, and no one should be surprised, within months of being elected, we had already put into place a process that ultimately led to the creation of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. Like our other Five Eyes partners, Canada had an intelligence committee.

Members of that committee, and this has been demonstrated over the last number of years, can do a lot of fine work for Canadians in protecting the national interests. We have already seen at least one report. The type of work it does is in the best interest of Canadians. It is a way to ensure that there is a certain level of transparency, even on delicate issues where confidentiality needs to be respected.

I was very disappointed in my Conservative friends across the way. I asked whether they had consulted or asked the National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians to look into the matter. They seemed to want to throw it to the wayside, that it did not matter. They said that the special committee on China had to deal with it. In fact, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan had the audacity to stand and say that they could still do this, that they did not have to be completely reliant.

This is where it gets into what the Prime Minister indicated in question period, and that is that the Conservative leader would not hesitate at all to try to score political points, partisanship, even on the issue of national security.

If we go beyond the leader's round to when the Minister of Health spoke, she indicated very clearly to all members that the information being requested, at least in good part if not in whole, had been provided to the committee. The committee has the information.

This is the problem. From the Conservatives' point of view, they do not like the fact that certain parts have been redacted. Redactions occur because there is a need to protect issues surrounding confidentiality and personal issues. That is why if the Conservative Party were really more interested in national security, it would allow the National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians to deal with it. However, that is not the real agenda of the Conservative Party of Canada.

The Conservative Party and its leader want to play politics with this issue. At a time when Canadians are concerned with the pandemic, are concerned about getting shots in their arms and the vaccine doses, the Conservative Party is more concerned about partisan politics. They want to see more information and call ministers before a committee. That is fine. I have always been an advocate of standing committees. They are creatures of their own and they will decide what they decide. There is a very strong element of independence to those committees.

I look back to Conservative tactics last summer. I would remind members of the House that literally thousands and thousands of pages were provided to a committee. One would think the Conservative Party believes there is an unlimited amount of personnel and resources to meet its every whim in trying to uncover an issue that it can call a scandal. The Conservatives continue to push that button, especially in the last few months.

The government, led by a Prime Minister, is committed to being there for Canadians day in and day out, seven days a week, with a single focus on battling the pandemic. We will continue to make that a priority of this government and Liberal members of Parliament. Whether physically in the House or in their constituencies, where a vast majority of our Liberal members are because of the virtual Parliament situation, members are able to gauge what their constituents are telling them and can funnel that information back to where decisions are made.

When I look at the motion before us today and what ir asks the government to do, I believe the Conservatives are somewhat misguided. I can only hope that other opposition parties will see that and not vote in favour of it.

We could have been talking about many things. Let us think about the remains of the children found buried last week in Kamloops. Let us think of the pandemic and the number of cases in some of our provinces, including my home province of Manitoba. Lets think about the billions and billions of dollars that have been spent and are proposed in the budget to be spent in the coming months. I would suggest the opposition could talk about these issues on opposition days.

The official opposition is trying to force its way on a special standing committee to compel the government to do something when, for all intents and purposes, it is just not needed. There are other venues in which this can be done. I would remind members, in particular members of the Bloc, the Green Party and the NDP, that information has been provided to the committee, albeit redacted for a good reason.

I ask them not buy into the Conservative agenda, a partisan agenda, but to stay focused on what Canadians want the House of Commons to be focused on. There are many other things we should be spending the rare time we have to debate in the House of Commons—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, quite frankly, I am astounded that the member opposite would suggest that it is somehow partisan posturing to demand accountability of the government. It seems that he has forgotten the very basis of the parliamentary system in which we are all a part, which is that government is a function of Parliament, not the other way around, not simply an inconvenience.

Specifically to a comment that the member made during his speech, I would suggest that maybe he has not read the NSICOP Act, the act that empowers the NSICOP to do its work. It does not allow for parliamentarians or MPs to make a request for it to study things. I wonder if the member would like to correct the record regarding his comments on the NSICOP.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member has a point, but parliamentarians from all political caucuses sit on that committee, which is an appropriate thing. Nothing at all prevents members of the committee, whether the Prime Minister, the leader of the official opposition or any member of the House of Commons, from talking about it in hopes that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians will accept this as a serious issue and do the fine work that it has been able to demonstrate very clearly over the last couple of years. I would not underestimate the potential of this committee.

I realize the Conservative Party did not support the need for a committee of this nature while it was in government, but for confidentiality and security purposes—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague takes issue with certain parties scoring political points at the expense of the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. I would like to remind him that reports published by the national media clearly show how naive the Liberal government is.

According to those reports, members of the Chinese People's Liberation Army have access to our supposedly high-security facilities. What does he have to say about that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not take, as much as possible, anything for granted. I realize there are unique and special relationships with countries around the world and between that country and Canada. At the end of the day, that has to be taken into consideration for a multitude of countries. I do not make any assumptions. I believe we have ministries that do their job and protect the national interests of Canada, depending on which country it happens to be, the issues of the day and so forth, and I have the confidence that it is being done properly.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. I would rather be spending today talking about indigenous issues and the government's failure to take action on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action or supports for small businesses in the pandemic. Instead, we are talking about this motion because the government failed to be transparent on public health issues by not releasing documents that were requested by the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations in March, and again in May, with all-party agreement that the committee has a constitutional right to access these documents.

Does my colleague not agree that being transparent and releasing these public health documents would be the most effective way to combat disinformation and conspiracy theories? How is it that the government has not found a way to work with the Public Health Agency to find a resolution that respects the constitutional rights of parliamentarians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, just because we have this unholy alliance of opposition parties saying there is no transparency, that does not mean there is no transparency. This government has demonstrated transparency even prior to the Prime Minister being Prime Minister of Canada, through proactive disclosure, where we had to bring the NDP kicking and screaming. I could speak on this endlessly, but suffice it to say that the member is wrong in this assertion.

There have been documents that have been requested, fulfilled and provided to the committee, albeit redacted. Is the member trying to say that we should not be providing redacted documents and there is nothing confidential, that we should just provide the whole document and should not care about national security and national interest? I think the NDP is being hoodwinked once again in terms of supporting this motion. I hope I am wrong.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, earlier and throughout the debate we heard calls to action from the other side of the House to not be political and to be open and transparent, that this has nothing to do with politics and is about just being open and transparent.

Meanwhile, and I am not sure if the member caught it earlier, the member for New Brunswick Southwest actually suggested that the member from Pickering, the parliamentary secretary, might be working for the Chinese government. Here we are, talking about not wanting to be overly partisan and political; meanwhile, we get accusations like that coming from Conservatives.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary can weigh in with his thoughts on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, not too much could be said inside the House that would surprise me. On this particular issue, the issue of transparency and China, the biggest thing I would point out to those who might be following the debate is that whenever Conservatives use the word “transparency”, one should reflect back to a number of years ago when Stephen Harper actually negotiated a trade agreement of sorts with China and did not tell anyone about it. It never came back for any sort of approval.

I know the former leader of the Green Party would be able to talk at great length on that particular issue. We do not need to take any lessons from the Conservative Party on the issue of transparency when it comes to China.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member has spoken about NSICOP and he is clearly way off base in terms of the way NSICOP works. He asked why we could not ask it to study this. NSICOP could not answer the question and could not tell us if it was studying it. It could not disclose any information about the study without the permission of the government. The government could also prevent NSICOP from studying it if it wished.

I want to quote directly the words of Ms. Suzanne Legault, the Information Commissioner who testified about the bill that created NSICOP. She said:

...clause 8(b) of the bill undercuts this mandate by providing that the minister of a department may override a review where the minister determines it would be injurious to national security.

This override essentially turns the committee's broad mandate into a mirage. It will undermine any goodwill and public trust that may have built up towards the committee and, by extension, the national security agencies it oversees.

The Information Commissioner said that the government can shut down a study of NSICOP any time it thinks it is convenient and we would never know about it. That is why the work of parliamentary committees, completely different from committees of Parliament created by legislation, is so important.

Does the member understand what NSICOP is and recognize that parliamentary committees still have an important job to do?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I understand the importance of this committee. After all, when we were in opposition, I was part of a Liberal caucus advocating that we have such a committee, while the member's own caucus at the time, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, said they did not want a committee like this.

Am I surprised that the Conservatives today do not have confidence in the committee? I think they should have more confidence in their members on the committee and understand and appreciate the vital role they could play on this issue. I disagree with the member and the leader of the official opposition. I do not believe we should be playing partisan politics on the important issue of national security, especially during a pandemic.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, since the hon. parliamentary secretary has given me the opening to mention what happened with the Canada-China foreign investment protection act, I will say that it was never debated in Parliament. It was approved by cabinet as a Governor in Council approval for a treaty, and the treaty allows foreign corporations from the People's Republic of China to bring financial challenges against Canada for any decision of our government that they do not like.

This is just to bring it full circle to the parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it was the member who just spoke who educated me a bit more about it, and that is the reason I figured I should attribute it to her. It was a sneaky thing, and that is why I say that when it comes to transparency the Conservatives are not the party to try to emulate.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam this afternoon.

Like other members of this House and hundreds of thousands of Canadians, I have had the pleasure and privilege of living in Hong Kong. I was fortunate enough to be on hand for the territory's handover from Britain to the People's Republic of China on July 1, 1997. It was a heavy moment, with feelings of both apprehension and opportunity.

I visited Asia frequently after returning to Canada a year later, and I have fond memories of both rural and urban China, Hong Kong and remote Tibet. Today, I would not travel to any part of mainland China for any reason. This saddens me, because I have a deep affection for the Chinese people. One cannot travel for weeks at a time and leave untouched by their hospitality, fondness for family, tradition and cuisine. As well, I admire China's culture and long history of struggle, perseverance and accomplishments. However, travel today in the Middle Kingdom is risky, because the PRC's governing system is not subject to oversight, nor the rule of law. Instead, it is arbitrary and dangerous.

As of Friday last week, May 28 to be exact, two Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, have been illegally detained by the Chinese Communist Party for over 900 days. This is a disgrace. We have witnessed how Beijing has increasingly revealed itself to be at odds with international law, accountability and openness, as well as the rights of people, including China's own citizens.

Beijing, instead, is devoted to control and secrecy, at home and abroad. Its ruling politburo believes its opaque and autocratic institution offers its country superior economic and social outcomes compared to nations that govern themselves democratically, like ours. Certainly, too many Sinophiles, otherwise committed to democracy in their home countries, are tempted to agree, but I do not. Totalitarian nations can make societal advances, but to sustain them requires ingenuity and human freedom. These flourish when people are free and govern themselves as free people.

At the core of today's motion is Canada's long-standing commitment to accountable government. It appears to me, from the filibuster speeches made today by some Liberal MPs, that the government bench might well oppose this accountability motion. I should not need to remind government MPs that under our system, the federal government is accountable to Parliament, and Parliament is accountable to Canadians.

My hon. colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, earlier today made the compelling case that the Liberal mismanagement of Winnipeg's National Microbiology Laboratory failed to protect Canada's national security and the safety of Canadians. We know that Canadian scientists worked at the Winnipeg lab with mainland Chinese scientists, including military scientists, on some of the world's deadliest viruses and pathogens. We know that the RCMP escorted NML employees out of the facility, and those two employees were terminated. Later, other senior staff resigned, suddenly and without explanation.

Does this not beg for answers? It does, which is why every MP on the special parliamentary committee examining Canada's relationship with mainland China voted, twice, for answers, by summoning the production of unredacted documents produced by the Public Health Agency of Canada concerning the transfer of deadly viruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2019 and the subsequent revocation of security clearances for, and termination of, two employees.

PHAC has stonewalled Parliament, twice. Canadians, through their elected representatives, have a responsibility to scrutinize the federal government and find answers.

I wish to reinforce my position today by highlighting Speaker Milliken's ruling in 2010. Speaker Milliken confirmed that parliamentary committees, through this House of Commons, have unfettered constitutional power to send for persons and papers, a power greater than ordinary statute law, through parliamentary privilege. This fact is confirmed in section 18 of the Constitution and subsection 8(2) of the Privacy Act. It has been confirmed by our Supreme Court. It has been confirmed again by the House law clerk. Most recently, it has been confirmed, twice, by the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, on which I sit.

Today we are debating an egregious affront to the will of Parliament: Documents requested by a parliamentary committee are not being released to Parliament. It is a deliberate act infringing on the supremacy of Parliament, and it sets a precedent that could weaken our institutions if it goes unanswered. To put it in a different context, officials who report directly to the health minister are knowingly withholding pertinent information on a study regarding national security: specifically, how scientists with deep connections to the Chinese military were able to gain access to a Canadian high-level security-cleared laboratory with the world's most dangerous viruses.

We should consider some of the following information discovered through other channels. The member for Cloverdale—Langley City, on her Order Paper question from last year about the National Microbiology Laboratory, asked: “What is the reason that officials from the laboratory wrote on March 28, 2019, that they were really hoping that the transferred viruses go through Vancouver instead of Toronto, and fingers crossed?” The government's reply was, “These comments relate to the administrative process associated with transit through Toronto. The process for shipment through Vancouver is simpler.”

Why is that? Should security not be identical at any of Canada's borders? Why would health officials hope for loopholes when dealing with viruses and pathogens?

The member for Cloverdale—Langley City asked about the lab's inner workings on the same Order Paper question concerning a September 14, 2018, email from Matthew Gilmour, the lab's former senior official. She asked: “Are there materials that the Wuhan Institute of Virology has that we would benefit from receiving?” The government's reply was, “There have been no requests from the National Microbiology Laboratory for materials from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Exactly what was the relationship between the two labs, and was it strictly one-way?

I highlight these questions today for the record because they demand further explanation, and because each of the responses received from the Order Paper questions was more revealing than the documents released by PHAC under order of a parliamentary committee. The question that remains is this: What is the federal government hiding? Is it bureaucratic incompetence, a gross security error, being duped by Beijing or some sort of malfeasance? Could it be how a foreign government scientist with direct ties to a foreign military received secret clearance to work at one of the most secure facilities in Canada?

Does the government not want to disclose more ill-advised partnerships that failed to protect sensitive information from being accessed by hostile foreign agents? Have there been additional instances of wilful ignorance concerning partnerships on sensitive technologies with counterparts in China, causing research to be delivered to the Chinese military? Why is a government that was elected in 2015, and that promised to be the most open and transparent in Canadian history, ignoring a lawful request by Parliament?

It appears to me this is a case of Canadian officials ignoring our national security and bending over backwards to collaborate in a partnership with the Chinese military. Now those same officials are citing national security, or even privacy concerns, as justification for not disclosing important details to Parliament. They certainly earn points for moxie, but is it a cover-up? That shall be revealed by the Liberal government's next few moves in the House. We know now how easily our most secure institutions have been compromised by the Prime Minister. Canadians should be informed of the toll of that security lapse to our collective safety and security.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the official opposition's motion.

However, we are somewhat concerned about the section that would give committee members the power to decide whether any of the redacted information should be made public. We think that is a problem and would set a dangerous precedent.

Can my colleague reassure us in that regard?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Under the motion that we moved today, the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations would take steps to make absolutely sure that only information that does not jeopardize our national security is shared with the public.

Until now, we have asked the clerk of the committee to verify what is sent over. In the future, committee members would have a discussion to ensure that Canada's interests are protected.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, sometimes in these debates it is possible to get lost in the weeds. When we step back, we see allegations that something very serious happened with respect to the potential for viruses and research to be taken from one of the highest-security Canadian labs, here in Winnipeg, somewhere else to serve some other nation's interests, potentially against Canada. In those times, we need a government that can provide clear answers. Everybody here is sensitive to the importance of protecting Canadian national security and respects that not all information can be released to the public. However, the government has not shown that it is even trying to assuage the concerns of the opposition within the context of Parliament and in camera meetings, or to have the proper redaction of documents in a way that opposition members can feel confident in, rather than the government itself redacting them. I believe that is what the Conservative motion is trying to do.

We look at the government and we think of John McCallum, who had a very tight relationship with the Chinese government, and the lack of progress with respect to the two Michaels and the lack of a decision on Huawei. We are trying to get an answer Canadians can trust, and the government is not volunteering that.

Does the member want to speak to the nature of the leadership we need from the government to give Canadians an actual reassuring answer, instead of more of its expectation that we will trust it to get it done? It is clearly not getting it done, with respect to Canada's relationship with China.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is spot on. This is a question of the Canada-China parliamentary committee setting up a number of measures to protect the information we receive from PHAC so it can be reviewed by outside counsel, or parliamentary committee counsel, before it is reviewed by members to decide on next steps. Previously, the government deputy House leader threw out a red herring by saying the government could not release the information publicly and that it questioned whether we cared about national security. Of course we do. That is why we are taking that step, but that is also why we think these answers are important. We need to protect national security and find areas where it is lacking and how we can improve on it.