Debates of June 1st, 2021

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

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I think it is deplorable that the Liberal members keep changing the subject. My hon. colleague is going completely off topic talking about economic development, which has absolutely nothing to do with the important Conservative motion we are debating. This is the second time this has happened today, since another Liberal MP went completely off topic this morning talking about vaccines. I would like my hon. colleague to be called to order.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert for his comments. He is absolutely right that the relevance of speeches is part of the Standing Orders.

In this case, I was listening to the parliamentary secretary's speech, and I think the subject he is raising has to do with international research on public health, which is certainly relevant.

However, as I said during the last intervention on the relevance of speeches, today's opposition motion is very specific. Most members do not have the same latitude, so I would ask the parliamentary secretary to ensure that the rest of his speech remains relevant to the subject at hand.

I invite the parliamentary secretary to continue.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is encouraging Canadian researchers to further collaborate with the world's best and to keep Canada at the forefront of science and innovation through investments in international research under the new frontiers in research fund. Through shared objectives and principles for international research collaboration, the federal research funding agencies are also strengthening Canada’s reputation as a valued partner in international research and innovation.

Interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral, national and international collaborations continue to amplify the impacts of research on pandemic recovery and future resilience. To this end, Canada is working very closely with international platforms to facilitate global efforts in information sharing, research collaborations and knowledge mobilization, such as the United Nations Research Roadmap for the COVID-19 Recovery, the World Health Organization and the Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness.

At the same time, we are witnessing new international threats to Canada’s research enterprises. For example, we are aware of new and evolving challenges to protect Canadian researchers’ intellectual property from actors that pose security threats or attempt to subvert rules and accepted norms.

Moving forward, we will continue to strive to find the balance between how best to sustain these international science, technology and innovation activities, while supporting our values like good global governance, freedom of science and valuing diversity, equality and inclusion in research in the face of these new challenges. This is happening from coast to coast to coast.

In northern Ontario, Sault Ste. Marie has a variety of international research happening at the local university and college through the Ontario Forest Research Institute, the Ontario Forest Research Institute and the MNR. In fact, we have some of the most Ph.D.s per capita in Canada, according to the local Economic Development Corporation. That research is happening all across Canada and in other places in northern Ontario, including the Experimental Lakes Area in Kenora, which recently received government funding to conduct very important research on water. It is attracting scientists from around the world. There are 60 lakes there and scientists from all over are coming. That collaboration continues as we finish our fight against COVID-19.

We are calling on all scientists and researchers to continue that kind of collaboration. This speech is evidence that we have put our money where our mouth is to support and finish this fight with such resources that will enable us to continue to do the great work. I think of some young entrepreneurs, three young ladies from North Bay, who are right now seeking IP protection, without saying too much about their product, on some ultraviolet processes that will sterilize and help with COVID-19.

The government is supporting a lot of research across Canada, and we need to continue to finish our fight against COVID-19.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member about the disclosure of documents to Parliament, which is the topic of today's opposition motion.

In 2011, an opposition motion was put forward by the Liberal Party in this place. The motion read:

...given the undisputed privileges of Parliament under Canada's constitution, including the absolute power to require the government to produce uncensored documents when requested, the government's continuing refusal to comply with reasonable requests for documents...represents a violation of the rights of Parliament...

That motion was put forward by Ralph Goodale. Voting in favour of that Liberal opposition motion were the Prime Minister, the current foreign affairs minister, the current government House leader, the current government whip, the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the member for Winnipeg North as well as the chair of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.

Given that the Liberals have in the past taken the position that Parliament has an absolute and unfettered right to access documents, does the member agree that right still continues to exist and that his government ought to also comply with the terms of the opposition day motion that was put forward by his party in the past?

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about past history, it reminds me that our government, in 2015, created a very specific committee, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, the NSICOP, which was a move to ensuring open and public government in a manner that appropriately protected sensitive information, including national security. It was established to review many matters. I would be interested to see how this group, which has members from both houses of Parliament and various opposition members, engage. They hold the appropriate security clearances and have express rights of access to other restricted information and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, having listened to my colleague, I would say that I feel like anything related to the motion before us was redacted from his speech.

The House is debating a motion asking “[t]hat an order of the House do issue for the unredacted version of all documents produced by the Public Health Agency of Canada in response to the...orders of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations”.

Does the member agree with this motion? Can he talk to us about it?

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question is a bit philosophical in its approach. I truly believe in this democratic process, and it is really important for us to come with the ability to discuss and to take a look at different tools in our tool box that we can use to finish the fight against COVID-19 and to continue to make sure we address security issues. There are lots of tools there, and processes.

I am reminded of what a former local politician used to say when I was on city council for many years. He said, “I make my decisions in chambers.” I know a lot of people have already said their position up front, but I have put forward some ideas and I am listening. At the end of the day, the most important thing to know is that our national security that we have in place in Canada is doing an excellent job and needs to be supported, as well as our scientists and researchers. It is so important for them to continue to be supported, as they are the ones who are saving Canadian lives.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

I would like to briefly come back to the Prime Minister's accusations of racism.

Let us remember one thing: Since the beginning of the debate on the problem at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, all the Prime Minister has been doing is accusing us of racism.

Every time the opposition raises an issue that deals with the Chinese Communist regime, as I did last week, the government calls us racist. As I speak, I am looking around to see whether the Prime Minister is going to stand up and accuse me of racism.

That is a serious problem. Using racism as an excuse is a really feeble defence. Racism has nothing to do with it. The Conservative Party has never attacked Chinese people. Our attacks have always been directed at the Chinese Communist regime, which is aggressive and dangerous. What we are saying has absolutely nothing to do with the people of China.

When we raise the issue of Huawei, we are accused of being racist. The Prime Minister never takes a strong stand with regard to the two Michaels, who were imprisoned on trumped-up charges. He even once said that he prefers a communist system to a democracy, which is very disturbing.

We ask questions in committee and in the House. We mostly ask questions in the House because this is where the Prime Minister answers our questions, when he feels like it, that is. This was his answer last time:

The rise in anti-Asian racism we have been seeing over the past number of months should be of concern to everyone. I would recommend that the members of the Conservative Party, in their zeal to make personal attacks, not start to push too far into intolerance towards Canadians of diverse origins.

Even The Globe and Mail said the Prime Minister's answer was a foolish thing to say.

This is not the first time the Prime Minister has called us racist. Let us not forget that, last year, early in the COVID‑19 crisis, the opposition suggested it might be a good idea to cancel flights from China. What was the response? We were accused of being racist. It was not our fault the virus came from China. That is the reason we wanted to cancel flights from that country.

I know that racism is a delicate subject and that it is easy to lob such accusations. For our part, we always put public health and safety first, regardless of the origins of the virus.

Europe experienced a similar problem. Would anyone cry racism if we were speaking of European people and democracy? Absolutely not. The same is true in this case. If the problem came from Italy, we would be saying the same thing about banning flights. No matter where those flights came from, we would be saying the same thing.

The same thing applies to Huawei. We asked the government many questions in the House about Huawei's probable, possible, and indeed assured interference in our telecommunications system. Once again, we were accused of being racist.

We are not going to give up just because of the Prime Minister's accusations. We will persevere, because we are here to work on behalf of Canadian interests. This is why our motion includes the following:

That an order of the House do issue for the unredacted version of all documents produced by the Public Health Agency of Canada in response to the March 31, 2021, and May 10, 2021, orders of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, respecting the transfer of Ebola and Henipah viruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in March 2019, and the subsequent revocation of security clearances for, and termination of the employment of, Dr. Xiangguo Qiu and Dr. Keding Cheng.

This is just one part of the problem that needs to be addressed.

The second problem is the following. In September 2020, the Prime Minister appointed Iain Stewart as president of the Public Health Agency of Canada. This appointment was pure and simple politics. The Prime Minister could have appointed any number of other Canadian men and women, but he chose to appoint Mr. Stewart.

Mr. Stewart recently appeared as a witness before the Special Committee on Canada‑China Relations, of which I am a member. He refused to provide relevant details about the security breach at the Winnipeg laboratory. The committee members requested unredacted versions of all the documents produced by the Public Health Agency of Canada. Mr. Stewart refused and continues to refuse to provide them. Just yesterday, we received redacted documents, despite the committee's clear demands.

The problem is not simple. On the one hand, Iain Stewart is the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada for the sole reason that he was appointed by the Prime Minister. On the other hand, this same gentleman is telling us that it is impossible to provide unredacted information about the dismissal of two scientists linked to the Chinese Communist regime and the revocation of their security clearance because that would be a disclosure of personal information, which is legally prohibited by the Privacy Act.

Mr. Stewart may be deliberately ignoring subparagraph 8(2)(m)(i) of the Privacy Act, which states:

Subject to any other Act of Parliament, personal information under the control of a government institution may be disclosed

(m) for any purpose where, in the opinion of the head of the institution,

(i) the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure,

In other words, the head of the institution, which could include the head of the laboratory, Iain Stewart, who is the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Minister of Health or the Prime Minister, may disclose personal information if they decide that it would serve the public interest better to reveal the truth than to hide it. That is what the act says.

That said, neither the Prime Minister nor the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada have any legal grounds for doing what they are currently doing, which is hiding information.

Let us not forget that documents sent to the committee that may contain sensitive national security information must first be reviewed by certain officials before they are shared with members of Parliament. It is not up to the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada to censor documents as he is doing. That is the job of the law clerk of the House. The clerks have the authority to do this work and ensure that the documents submitted to members are properly protected pursuant to the rules of the House, not Iain Stewart's rules.

The question is whether Mr. Stewart is doing this on his own initiative. Did he decide that the information should not be shared with the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, or did the order come from the Prime Minister's Office?

Is the Prime Minister too afraid that the truth will come out? If so, what does he have to fear?

This is our national security and our country. If information from the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg has been passed on to Wuhan and, for example, the Chinese People's Liberation Army has used some viruses to develop others, we have a right to know.

If the members of the House of Commons do not have the most right to know, who does?

This is about Canada's national security and best interests. The Conservative Party and I are very aware that some information must remain secret to prevent other countries from gaining access to information that is critical to our own security. However, it is not true that all of the information regarding the National Microbiology Laboratory, and especially the information that was given to the Chinese Communist regime, should be kept secret. We have the right to know.

Our request is legitimate, and I believe that the opposition parties all agree with the Conservative Party of Canada that there is nothing racist about wanting to know what the Chinese Communist regime is up to. Canadians have the right to know what happened at the Winnipeg lab.

[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, the member has made reference to the importance of national security. It is interesting that in the first few years of government we put into place, like other Five Eyes countries, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which was actually established to review such potential matters, while ensuring appropriate safeguards.

I am wondering if the member could provide any information to the House on whether the suggestion that is being suggested in the motion we are debating today has ever been raised with the chair of this particular committee, or to what degree the Conservatives would even support it going to this committee.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Yesterday evening, the chair of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians did come to testify before the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations about its 2020 report. It was clear that we have serious problems in Canada. He even mentioned that we should act swiftly on the issue of cybersecurity.

Should that committee review the documents? That is not what is at issue today. The issue is that the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada took it upon himself to hide information, and that is inconsistent with parliamentary privilege. All we want is to get the unredacted documents. The law clerk will take it from there.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

One thing struck me. The motion we are debating raises an issue of transparency. We want access to sensitive documents held by the Public Health Agency of Canada. Since this morning, the Liberals have been completely off topic. It must be said that the Liberals do not have a history of being transparent. Last year, we sought to find out the truth about the WE Charity scandal. When we got too close to discovering something, the Liberals prorogued Parliament. That was also about transparency. Today, the Liberals do not seem to be present in the least. They are talking about economic development and progress with the vaccination rollout.

In my colleague's opinion, why is transparency so problematic for the Liberals?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the million-dollar question. Transparency and the Liberal Party are words that do not go together. That has been obvious for going on six years now.

That was the case with everything to do with COVID‑19, and that is why there will be a public inquiry led by a Conservative government.

Why are they like that? I do not know, but I would like to know. It is a great mystery that we may be able to solve one day.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, throughout a number of interventions today, there have been discussions from members regarding the balance that needs to be struck between Canada's national security interests and the importance of international collaboration. I know the member touched on that briefly in his speech.

Does he have any initial proposals that he would like the federal government to engage in on that front, where we look at sensitive information but also broaden our international collaboration, where many hands makes light work?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Obviously, national security must be protected no matter which government is in power. We have to protect our security issues. I had my security clearances when I was in the military, so I know a thing or two about it.

Even so, what we are talking about here is a unilateral Public Health Agency of Canada decision to redact the documents when that was not its job. All we are asking is for the documents to be sent to the committee. The law clerks will take care of any necessary redaction. Then the committee can get the documents, as provided by the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for a brief question.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must tell my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles that it is good to hear people speak to the motion we are debating today. This is not the case with my Liberal colleagues. In fact, we have to wonder if they have read the text. We are debating things today that are of great concern.

Earlier, I asked the colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan what was holding the Liberals back from providing the information and being more transparent.

Is it because they are afraid to step on the toes of a giant again and fear the consequences? Is it because they have something to hide?

Why does my colleague think the Liberals are refusing to address this issue with transparency?

It seems to me that this is a matter of utmost importance to national security.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a report here that is not secret. This report provides information about the type of viruses that were transferred by the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. This report refers to Ebola, among others, but all kinds of other pathogens were shared by the laboratories. How Wuhan handles these pathogens is very questionable and that has repercussions.

We are not spreading conspiracy theories, but in the context of COVID‑19, we have to wonder about the management of all these pathogens and viruses. That is why it is essential that we understand what happened in Winnipeg.

What was the lab's relationship with the Chinese Communist regime?

It is essential because, as far as I am concerned, in this case China could quite simply be considered as an enemy.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill once said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile—hoping it will eat him last.”

Appeasement is the diplomatic policy of making concessions to an aggressive power hoping to avoid a conflict. In Churchill’s time, he was referring to Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement to Nazi Germany. Chamberlain’s ultimate act of appeasement was in ceding parts of Czechoslovakia to Germany under the 1938 Munich agreement in exchange for Hitler’s promise not to invade the rest of that country. However, in 1939, Hitler did just that.

In 1940, Chamberlain lost the confidence of the house, leading to the prime ministership of Winston Churchill.

Chamberlain emerged from history viewed as a weak, vacillating, indecisive and failed leader, so much so that Churchill quipped, “Poor Neville will come badly out of history.”

Today, as a matter of foreign policy, there can be no bigger challenge than our relationship with China. The litany of foreign policy errors when it comes to China by the Prime Minister is truly astonishing.

First, we had the national embarrassment in the aftermath of the arrest of Huawei executive, Meng Wanzhou. Following the arrest, Canada’s ambassador to China and former Liberal cabinet minister John McCallum was unceremoniously fired. His embarrassing remarks included, among other things, how great it would be for Canada if the U.S. extradition request was just simply dropped, alleging that the intent of her arrest was to attempt to leverage trade concessions from China.

These statements completely undermined Canada’s defence of the arrest, namely that Canada is a rule of law country and politicians do not meddle in these sorts of things.

It is clear that when it comes to meddling in cases before the justice system, the Liberal government picks and chooses where it thinks it is appropriate to do so. That was evident when the Prime Minister tried to strong arm his then-minister of justice, the current member for Vancouver Granville, into interfering with the independent prosecutors over charges against SNC Lavalin.

It is no wonder that when we said that Canada was a rule of law nation and that there was nothing the Prime Minister could do in the Wanzhou case, that the Chinese government simply did not believe us.

The actions of the Prime Minister and the then ambassador seriously weakened our credibility. In retaliation for the arrest of Wanzhou, China did two things. It blocked imports of Canadian canola, pork and beef, hurting our farmers and our agriculture industry, and it arbitrarily arrested and detained Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. Those two Canadians remain imprisoned still today.

Jonathan Manthorpe, author of Claws of the Panda, said:

I think this has to be a lesson that you can’t deal with China like any other country that abides by the law and diplomatic norms. And in that respect, we’ve been a bit naive in the past.

The reality is that China is not a friendly regime. Frankly, no better evidence of this exists than the arbitrary detention and trials of the two Michaels. Canada has been completely unable thus far to bring this matter to a positive conclusion in part because our credibility as a nation of laws was weakened by the actions of the Prime Minister in the SNC Lavalin affair.

Then came the revelation that our military had decided to cancel training with the Chinese People's Liberation Army in 2019. I am really not sure who thought this was a good idea in the first place. In retrospect, this seems to be the obvious decision, and yet Global Affairs Canada actually pushed back against the military decision to cancel this in an apparent act of appeasement regarding the two Michaels.

Additionally, while most countries have recognized the perils of doing business with Huawei, the Prime Minister simply will not rule it out.

As well, serious concerns have been expressed about Canadian universities’ co-operation with the Chinese government on research projects. These concerns range from potential disclosure of intellectual property to national security concerns. Again, no action has been take by the Liberal government.

As if this were not all enough for the Prime Minister to be on the highest alert in looking out for Canada's national security interests, now comes the issue at hand in today’s motion.

In a May 20, Globe and Mail article, there was the revelation that scientists working in Winnipeg’s National Microbiology Lab had been collaborating with Chinese military researchers to study and experiment on deadly pathogens.

This is a lab that works with some of the most infectious diseases on the planet. The security of not only the dangerous physical contents of the lab, but the highly sensitive information regarding its activities should be paramount and of the utmost importance. One of the scientists who co-authored some of the studies on this collaboration was reportedly from the People's Liberation Army’s Academy of Military Medical Sciences, an obvious red flag, to be sure, if there ever was one.

Even the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has stated that the risk of collaboration with the People's Liberation Army’s Academy of Military Medical Sciences is a “very high risk”.

As if that were not enough, in January of this year, two of the scientists at the Winnipeg lab were fired and escorted out of work by the RCMP after CSIS recommended that their security clearances be revoked on “national security grounds”. CSIS expressed concern over the nature of information being passed on to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Andy Ellis, a former CSIS assistant director, has called all this “madness”, saying it is “ill-advised” and classified the actions of the Public Health Agency of Canada for co-operating with the People's Liberation Army as “incredible naïvete”.

It is incredibly alarming to see the Minister of Foreign Affairs continuously stonewalling questions on this matter. When asked in question period, we kept hearing answers from the minister stating “we are not at liberty to provide any more details at this point.” That just does not cut it. Canadians deserve answers, especially when it comes to matters as serious as these, matters that affect our country's national security.

It should go without saying that Canadians should be rightly concerned when scientists at the top lab in the country are being fired for national security reasons and escorted out by the RCMP. We have government scientists closely collaborating with scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and China’s military, including shipping dangerous Ebola and Henipah viruses to Wuhan. Does the Canadian public not have a right to know what the extent of that co-operation was?

How does a military scientist from the People’s Liberation Army’s Academy of Military Medical Sciences get granted access to work at Canada's National Microbiology Lab anyway?

I have received many questions from members of my community about these issues, as I am sure other members have, and we are trying to get them answers.

It is the duty of the federal government to protect national security and the safety and security of Canadians. By refusing to be transparent and provide answers to these important questions, the government has failed to assure Canadians that it has upheld this duty.

It is the duty of members of the House of Commons and its committees to hold the government to account by investigating and ordering the production of documents. The Special Committee on Canada-China Relations has tried to get this information, but the Public Health Agency of Canada heavily redacted documents and failed to comply with the request of the committee.

That is why we have introduced this motion today, to order the government to produce these documents. Members of that committee have sought to use this power responsibly and in a way that protects national security. This is evident in the motions adopted by the committee on March 31 and May 10, as well as today’s motion, which have been worded to protect national security by having the law clerk review them first.

The government’s repeated refusal to comply with the committee’s orders to produce documents is troubling and continues to raise very serious questions.

The optimistic heady days of “sunny ways” have quickly given way to a cloudy haze. I recall when the Prime Minister proudly proclaimed, “We will make information more accessible requiring transparency to be a fundamental principle.” Apparently when it comes to the Prime Minister’s well-known admiration for China’s dictatorship, transparency becomes invisible.

Given the Prime Minister’s naive and appeasing posture toward the Chinese government, it appears, as Churchill said, that the crocodile may eat us last.

[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, Stephen Harper actually negotiated a secret trade arrangement between China and Canada in complete silence. The member tries to give the impression that we lack transparency.

My question for the member is the same question I posed for his colleague. We have a standing committee, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, that is supposed to deal with security issues. Does the member not believe that might be an appropriate place to have this discussion, if in fact the Conservatives' approach is genuine in wanting to get to the bottom of the issue?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would say in response to that question that NSICOP is not a committee of Parliament; it is a committee of the executive branch, which is under the control of the Prime Minister. The government, especially in cases like this where there are serious questions of national security, simply should not be investigating itself.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in an OPQ that I put through last year on this exact topic we found out there was no other institute that asked for this transfer, only the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Twelve strains of Ebola and three strains of the Nipah virus were authorized for transfer. No compensation was received. No conditions on the transfer of the material were in place. I am curious how my hon. colleague feels this information should be properly treated. How should we be dealing with this terrible situation?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have a very serious situation and matter of national security here. It is clear that the Prime Minister and his government are not taking it seriously. I think all Canadians should be very alarmed by that. When the Prime Minister was asked a serious question last week by our deputy leader about this issue, he responded by accusing the Conservatives of fomenting anti-Asian racism. That is shameful behaviour. The Prime Minister is not taking this seriously and Canadians need to be aware of that and should express their frustration.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comments were exactly on point with respect to NSICOP. I just want to add to them.

First, the existence of NSICOP does not, in any way, take away from the rights or prerogatives of a parliamentary committee to send for documents. These rights are unfettered and the legislation that created NSICOP in no way changed that.

Second, NSICOP is not a committee of Parliament; it is a committee that includes parliamentarians, but its membership is controlled by the Prime Minister and it cannot make any information public except by the permission of the executive branch. Therefore, it does not have any of the tools required for effective parliamentary scrutiny with respect to the actions of the executive.

As a member of the Canada-China committee, I can say that we were trying to do a study on national security, not as a committee of parliamentarians controlled by the executive, but as a parliamentary committee that reports to Parliament and holds the executive accountable. We have a right to request these documents. We need to be able to use these documents in the research we are doing. Whatever may be happening within the executive branch has nothing to do with and does not take away from the rights of parliamentary committees to use their prerogatives to hold the government accountable.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree 100% with the comments of my colleague.