Debates of June 16th, 2021

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House

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

Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier on, the reason I am raising these points is to explain to the House why I believe the Conservatives have introduced this motion, so it is completely relevant.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I am prepared to give a bit of leeway in the way the hon. member brings the subject forth, but we do have to go back to the subject of the motion.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives also want to obstruct the passage of Bill C-6, which brings forward amendments to the Criminal Code and moves us closer to seeing an end to the damaging practice of conversion therapy, a practice that continues to harm the LGBTQ communities in Canada and around the world.

This harmful practice must finally—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Abbotsford, on a point of order.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker. I have now heard this member address everything but the motion. He has touched on the budget implementation legislation, Bill C-30. He skated over to Bill C-10. Then he skated over to Bill C-6. What other legislation is he going to touch on before he gets back to this motion?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

If I may, the hon. member started, in the first nine minutes or so of this intervention, to speak strictly to the question of privilege. It is in the past five minutes that he has been on this subject.

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

Madam Speaker, I am trying to explain to the House why it is that I believe the Conservatives have brought forward this motion. It is hard to listen to this. I can appreciate the member for Abbotsford does not want to hear this.

However, the reality is that there are people in our LGBTQ community across this country who are subject to a horrific practice, and this Conservative Party is holding up the government, with the Bloc and the NDP, passing important legislation to keep these Canadians safe.

Conservatives continue to obstruct the passage of this bill. In fact, two members of their caucus, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the member for Cloverdale—Langley City recently produced a video that highlights the benefits of professional counselling to challenge gay sexual behaviour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind the member, please, that we are approaching the end of the member's time, so could we go back to the relevance of the question of privilege.

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

Madam Speaker, I would submit to you, and I will sum up right now, that what I have been trying to put to this House today are the reasons I believe the Conservatives are up to these games.

We have six precious days left in which we could pass very meaningful legislation. We could ban conversion therapy. We could pass a budget bill that helps Canadians. We could make sure that very important legislation is put in place for our environment. These are all items that the Conservatives do not want us to complete before this legislative calendar is over.

Why? I do not know. What I do know is that, today, the member is challenging me on relevance. Today, the member for Carleton stood there for 45 minutes, rambling on about a debate issue that had nothing to do with the question of privilege, and the member for Timmins—James Bay supported him through it, encouraged him through it, and gave him excuses to continue on and on. We—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes is rising on a point of order.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question of relevance was previously raised and the Speaker gave instruction for the member to resume. Since that point, the question of privilege that the House is debating has not been raised, but, instead, all items except for that item have been raised, including naming other items on the Order Paper in the coming days and questions of privilege other than one that is currently being debate, including the one raised by the member for Carleton earlier today.

The member is not being relevant to the topic at hand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

As I have expressed before, there is leeway in the way we interpret relevance.

I have invited the hon. member to go back to the question. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has the floor and he may proceed with his points.

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

In my remaining couple of minutes, Madam Speaker, I will start with something that is very relevant. The Conservatives are great at dishing it, but they cannot receive it. That is exactly what we are seeing.

I am trying to give a speech to the House of Commons as to why I believe the Conservatives put forward this motion today, and I genuinely believe this. The member for Abbotsford, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London and the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes can all stand and say that my motives in speaking today have nothing to do with relevance, but I would argue that they are completely relevant. The relevance is that this is why they are doing this. This is why they put forward this motion.

If I do not explain to this House why I believe the Conservatives put forward this motion, how could I possibly not be more relevant than that? Conservatives have been hell-bent on obstructing this government for the last several months. I have been here every single day to witness it.

The NDP and the Bloc, by and large, have been here to debate policy and to talk about what we can do to advance Canadians while still maintaining their partisan approach. The Conservatives have lost that. They do not know how to do it anymore, they do not realize what their role is in this House and they will do anything for political gain.

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

Madam Speaker, I found it very interesting to listen to the member's speech. His speech emphasizes the exact point that the government is contemptuous of the very idea of what Parliament represents, and that is democracy. It is telling that he wanted to talk about everything other than the fact that the government has done everything it can to obstruct, limit access and ensure that Canadians do not get the answers that the majority of parliamentarians want.

The member keeps saying that somehow partisanship is driving this. My constituents would suggest very much otherwise. I will not use the unparliamentary language that the member used to describe Conservative actions, but Canadians are tired of politicians playing politics. The member's conduct is exactly what Canadians are sick and tired of.

I would ask the member to take some responsibility for the fact that we find ourselves in a position where we are debating the absolute contempt that the member and the government have shown for Canadian democracy.

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

Madam Speaker, the member may not have listened to the beginning of my speech where I specifically talked about why it was so out of place for these documents to come here, but I will let him cherry-pick what he wants.

I will tell the member what Canadians in my riding are talking about. Canadians in my riding are asking why on earth the Conservative member for Cloverdale—Langley City would say the LGBTQ community is unclean. That is what my constituents are saying. The member wants to talk about democracy. How about we start representing Canadians, the people throughout this country, who are negatively impacted so seriously by the actions that have occurred throughout this country? Why are we not protecting them?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kingston and the Islands for his remarks.

However, I would like him to explain something to me. I believe that what we have just experienced is highly symptomatic of three things. First, this government is in contempt of democracy. Second, as I said earlier, this government has shown contempt by obstructing and lacking transparency on several issues. Third, the government is telling us this evening that we would rather debate this issue than other bills, and yet it is the government that is responsible for its own legislative agenda. It has sat on many bills for a long, long time, and it is entirely responsible for the delays.

I would like to ask my colleague a question, and I would like him to avoid telling me what he believes the Conservatives were thinking when they moved tonight's motion. Why did my colleague not take more time in his speech to specifically address the issue that we are debating right now?

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

Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but the Bloc Québécois had to support this government on a number of occasions to invoke closure or time allocation because we needed to move on with the agenda. The member is so incredibly aware of what is going on in this House that she has actually had to support the government on occasion to move forward with the legislative calendar. She knows that the legislative calendar is completely being held up by the Conservatives. I apologize if it is not clear. I recognize the fact that on this particular issue she has a different point and that she supported the Conservatives to get to here, but the reality is that we cannot move the calendar along because of what the Conservatives are doing.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. member was saying. I find it curious that he tries to enlarge the debate to a whole bunch of other matters that he is concerned about with the official opposition. That is delaying matters. The reason we are here today is because the government itself refused to follow the precedents of this House, the ruling of Speaker Milliken on April 27, 2010. It clearly states the powers of the House of Commons for members of the House of Commons, members of Parliament, to have access to documents. It is a seminal ruling. It was confirmed again today by the Speaker.

The simple way of ending this debate is to just agree to comply with the rulings of the Speaker and with the order of the House and produce the documents so they can be produced to the committee in accordance with the ruling of the Speaker who is satisfied that the provisions have been made for their protection. That is the simple answer to his argument.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate this member on a very good speech that he gave last night while saying goodbye to this House.

With respect, I would disagree that that is such a simple thing to do. The documents have been withheld because of the national security nature of them. Does the member not think that the director of PHAC understands the seriousness of documents being ordered, but still chose to do something outside of that direction? The director did that because of the national security implication. To suggest that it is just as easy to turn them over is a massive, wilful misunderstanding or non-appreciation of the reality of the situation.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, this member has given a long speech and he has ridiculed and pointed fingers at certain members and their intentions, but he sounds like he is speaking from a position of absolute truth. Does the member have security clearance to be able to say that those documents say exactly what he wants to say? That is the problem. He is not part of the executive. He has a duty, like all of us who are not part of the executive in this place, to hold the government accountable.

Does he have some sort of confidential information that says that those documents say exactly the narrative he is trying to frame tonight?

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

Madam Speaker, no I do not, and that is the whole point. The difference between the member and me is that I err on the side of caution and he errs on the side of reckless behaviour that potentially exposes national security items to the public.

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

Madam Speaker, handing over these documents is not a matter of political choice; it is actually a matter of law. The Liberals should not think of themselves as being above the law.

I will observe for the benefit of the member that when PHAC was first asked about these issues, the president of PHAC did not invoke national security. He actually invoked the Privacy Act. The idea that there is a national security problem with handing over these documents is a talking point that was invented later. It was not the rationale used in the first place for not handing over the documents.

Finally, I want to put to the member that the second motion, adopted by the committee on May 10, was moved by the member for Cumberland—Colchester, a Liberal member. A member of his own caucus moved a motion to demand the documents. That motion was adopted unanimously by the committee. Every single Liberal member of the committee voted to have the documents handed over to the law clerk, reviewed by the law clerk and redacted by the law clerk, and then given to the committee in camera, which was a secure process endorsed by the Liberal members of the committee.

The member does not have to like the Speaker's ruling, but the Speaker has ruled on a matter of law and on the obligations of Parliament. The Speaker has ruled that NSICOP is not a parliamentary committee. That is clear in law and it is clear in the Speaker's ruling.

Does the member believe that the government has an obligation to comply with the law in this case?

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

Madam Speaker, I absolutely do, but I also respect the fact that the government has a responsibility to protect national security and privacy, which is legislated. What did members do to try to rectify this situation in a way that would create a good balance? They delivered the documents to a proper committee that had the proper security clearance for this.

I am sorry if the Conservative members do not trust their representatives on the committee—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I salute our Conservative colleagues.

The House is debating a motion that hits on something, which is that, ultimately, parliamentarians should have rights. When we adopt something like a motion, it should not just fade into oblivion, like a big show or circus just passing through, as if it stops mattering once the vote has taken place.

We are constantly being told that under Canada's parliamentary system, which originated in the United Kingdom, Parliament is the supreme body and has all the powers, and that the legislative branch does everything and the government is accountable to it. However, in the end, we see that the votes in this Parliament are forgotten and serve no purpose. Is this normal? Is that how this parliamentary system, the virtues of which are constantly being dinned into our ears, is supposed to work?

We are also told that this is a parliamentary monarchy, but I think the monarchy part gets more airtime in the House than the parliamentary part. Apparently, the legislative power is merely symbolic when we vote on a motion, as is the case here.

In fact, I see the same thing in my files. I am the international trade critic, and every time a trade agreement is discussed, we, as parliamentarians, are not asked to tell the negotiators which issues we want them to play up or down, or which interests they should suggest or protect. We are not consulted at all, and it is only at the end of the process that we are asked to rubber-stamp it.

The motion moved by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, a member of the official opposition, also hits the nail on the head with regard to this whole parliamentary culture, which is parliamentary in name only. That is unacceptable.

The Bloc Québécois was in favour of the motion, but it questioned some aspects of it. The government House leader spoke earlier about information that could impact national security and that must not end up in the wrong hands, redacted information that should not be revealed. The Bloc Québécois also expressed concern in that regard, and we told our official opposition colleagues that we agreed with their motion but that we were somewhat concerned about that aspect of it.

That did not stop us from voting in favour of the motion, because we figured that any disclosure of information had to be approved in committee and that there were enough members who would vote to prevent sensitive or essential information from being leaked, since no party holds a majority in committee. I therefore do not really understand the motivation or rationale behind the concerns of our colleague opposite, the government House leader.

There is something else we need to address, and the member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent touched on it earlier when he said that the Conservatives' motion was not meant to stigmatize China or the Chinese community.

The Bloc Québécois has a completely different approach to China than the Conservative Party. We have always spoken in favour of normalizing relations with China, and we are in favour of maintaining good relations between our two countries, even though these relations have worsened over time.

Just a few years ago, we had excellent relations, to the point that we almost signed a free trade agreement with China. We were seriously considering it. The Bloc Québécois would have been against such an agreement because it would not have been a good idea. However, the fact that we were talking about this proposal and it has now been completely abandoned shows that our relations with China have deteriorated.

All the same, that should not stop us from remaining clear-eyed. My colleague from the Bloc Québécois, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, has brought up the situation of the Uighurs several times. The week following the election, we also voted with the Conservatives in favour of creating the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.

Our position is one of respect, because China went a long time without getting the respect it was due. For a long time, it was not even recognized. It was France, under the insightful General de Gaulle, that finally recognized that China was more than just Taiwan. That was the right thing to do.

Still, we have to be clear-eyed about the fact that human rights abuses are happening and that some serious issues there need to be discussed. I will not go over the timeline or talk about how the doctor, her husband and her students were removed from the lab. I think the timeline is well established. However, that does raise some questions about the labs.

Let us talk about the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, Canada's only containment level 4 virology lab. This lab handles some of the most dangerous pathogens on the planet. This kind of lab follows very strict protocols to prevent viruses from escaping, which would have disastrous consequences.

This kind of facility also has numerous chemical showers, and employees have to don pressurized rubber suits with external air supplies. Security protocols are highly detailed. Everything is closely monitored and tightly controlled. Access to the lab is tightly controlled, as is egress, of course. We do not want anything getting in that should not be there, and we definitely do not want anything getting out that should not be out. Very few people have access to the lab.

A level 4 lab does not usually work with viruses like COVID‑19. That kind of virus is usually handled in a level 3 lab. A level 4 lab typically handles pathogens for which there is no antibody or treatment.

As members know, according to certain conspiracy theories, Dr. Qiu and Dr. Cheng shipped the COVID‑19 virus to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. For the reason I just mentioned, this theory does not hold up. The laboratory actually deals with viruses like Ebola, Lassa fever, smallpox, henipaviruses and other similar virus types. It is managed by the Public Health Agency of Canada, and it is the type of laboratory that is designed to prevent pathogens from being released in the event of an earthquake or a fire, for example.

Let us now talk about the laboratories in China. It is quite an interesting subject. China has two level 4 laboratories, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Harbin Veterinary Research Institute.

The Wuhan institute was established in collaboration with France. One of its features is that it can handle viruses like the coronavirus, and this is the source of the conspiracy theory that emerged early in the pandemic and recently resurfaced, namely, that the COVID‑19 virus escaped from a laboratory. The Wuhan lab holds the world's largest collection of coronaviruses. We know that China has been somewhat lax and that there have been leaks in a number of areas. My colleagues probably remember SARS, or severe acute respiratory syndrome. Well, SARS escaped from level 3 labs in Beijing several times in the past, despite the fact that it posed a very high risk to the population.

Most scientists agree that the virus came from animals rather than the Wuhan lab, although this possibility has not been ruled out. Let us agree that if this does turn out to be the case, the COVID‑19 crisis would truly be to China what Chernobyl was to the Soviet Union. It is a disaster of the same magnitude.

Still, we need to bear in mind one aspect that has been observed and that was mentioned in a 2017 article published in the journal Nature. In this article, a number of researchers showed that the Chinese regime its lack of transparency was preventing laboratories from being safe, because it was impossible to criticize the authorities and the senior ranks. If anything went wrong, they might be tempted to cover up what was going on.

At the Wuhan institute, the risk of a leak is significant. In the case at hand, it is surprising that Canada allowed the shipment of virus samples.

It would be very surprising if this shipment caused the virus to make its way from Canada to China. I explained why a little earlier. Nevertheless, it is very surprising that the shipment was allowed.

There is no denying that there are concerns about safety.

In 2005, scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States recreated the Spanish flu in a laboratory so they could study it and better understand how it works. They tested the virus on animals, and the animals quickly died. The U.S. military also took an interest in the virus, studying several sample fragments to sequence the virus's genomes.

China may well be conducting similar tests, but its lack of transparency makes it impossible to know for sure. China is particularly interested in Ebola and is investing heavily in Africa, but those investments could be threatened by a resurgence of the virus.

This research raises concerns about the possible use of other countries' intellectual property. China is known for taking intellectual property from Canada.

In May 2020, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced plans to make a potential Chinese vaccine available to the entire planet. The reality is that China is giving away some doses, but it is also selling them to other countries. As everyone knows, China sells licenses, so it is already much better than pharmaceutical companies in the western world. However, China is using vaccines to pressure Taiwan. For instance, China recently pressured Pfizer to stop distributing the vaccine directly to Taiwan, to force the Taiwanese administration to negotiate with Beijing.

It is important to understand that, generally speaking, in the health context, China is a real expert when it comes to collecting data, especially medical data.

Of course, I could go on and on about China's economic and trade strategy, but let us focus on what China refers to in its official communications as the belt and road initiative.

When this initiative was launched a few years ago, it was essentially about transportation infrastructure. However, a health component was added during the pandemic, and a digital component was also developed. In the issue we are concerned with today, that may represent something much bigger that we will have to examine.

China is investing heavily in research and development and in various technologies, such as 5G, data centres and artificial intelligence. It has adopted policies concerning global collection of health data. Private technology firms are extremely integrated with the research arm of the military. China's and Canada's data protection standards are quite different. It is important to know that.

Take the Chinese firm BGI, for example. BGI's headquarters are located in Shenzhen, which is known as the Chinese Silicon Valley. During the COVID-19 pandemic, BGI donated equipment to almost 20 countries, but a dozen or so U.S. states refused them out of fear. They rejected this seemingly generous offer. BGI also has many partnerships with hospitals, universities and research centres.

BGI is listed on the Chinese stock exchange, which is regulated by Beijing. BGI built and manages the China National GeneBank DataBase, which is under government control. This database holds the largest number of genetic and biological samples in the world. BGI sometimes uses the Chinese army's supercomputers to process genetic data. This shows that everything is closely connected: the data collection, the companies, the military and the Chinese government.

The lab at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto analyzes 15,000 COVID‑19 test samples every day. In 2020, the lab did not have enough money to pay for equipment, but it received donated equipment from BGI Group. This equipment included an extraction robot that speeds up the process for analyzing COVID‑19 tests. The company also installed the equipment and provided training and logistical support. Global Affairs Canada remained silent on the issue.

BGI has an office in Montreal, Quebec, on Avenue du Parc. The company's website claims that this office has been conducting genome sequencing since 2019. However, in an interview with Radio-Canada, BGI denied that this office did sequencing. It even said that the office was closed and that no one worked there. Who is telling the truth, BGI or BGI? Do we believe their website or their official statement? Actually, these are both types of official statements.

As far as the public is aware, there are six BGI sequencers in Canadian universities and research centres, including in Quebec. In Quebec's case, the two devices at McGill University remain BGI's property. McGill University claims that the data is not shared with the company, but it refuses to answer questions on where the data is stored and who is authorized to access it. BGI also has a maintenance agreement regarding the machines. That means that company technicians have access to the machines and can do whatever they like with the data they contain.

Canada is the only country in North America with BGI sequencers. Apart from the equipment, the company has also entered into a scientific collaboration with Genome Canada. It is normal that such an agreement should be confidential. However, there are still two major issues with it, namely data collection and China's commercial power grab in America's biopharmaceutical sector.

We know that China is collecting DNA data and sometimes uses it for repressive purposes. That has been proven and documented. The lab at the Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto that I was talking about earlier claims that no data is shared with BGI. The people at the National Counterintelligence and Security Center in Washington are looking into that, and they are worried about China controlling America's biopharmaceutical industry.

Of course, Washington also has its own imperialistic tendencies and its own ways of using data, algorithms and so on. One empire is criticizing another and creating one of its own. However, that is not the issue.

We can still consider the recent 750-page report that was just submitted to the U.S. Congress and President Joe Biden, in which the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence also warns the country about these practices.

Did Canada consider those issues too? Presumably not. Unfortunately, the tone that the government is taking today on this motion regarding past events suggests that it is no more prepared to face the present and future than it is the past.