Debates of June 16th, 2021

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that he is to address all questions and comments through the chair and not to the individual member.

The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think it is clear that the government is delaying and obfuscating. It is clear the government is trying to cover this entire matter up and I base it on the following evidence. Initially, as the member for St. John's East pointed out, the government hid behind the excuse of the Privacy Act and the protection of personal information. Then it shifted its argument and started to make the argument that it was not about the protection of personal information under the Privacy Act, but rather about national security.

I have come to the conclusion, and I think anyone would have to come to the conclusion, that the government is delaying and obfuscating on this matter because there is information that it does not want to come to light because it would embarrass the government and demonstrate it was lax in its oversight of national security and policy at the Winnipeg lab.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills for his speech. He is someone I like, someone who works very hard and is very insightful.

Speaking of insight, on Monday, the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations heard from the hon. Minister of Health, and I know my hon. colleague was there. I would like to know whether he learned anything interesting during those three hours the committee met on Monday.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for his question. He also attended the meeting on Monday night, and over three hours we did not get any answers to our questions.

That we did not get any answers to our questions I think demonstrates a profound lack of respect for Parliament, a profound lack of respect for our parliamentary democracy.

If we watch committees of other legislatures around the world, parliamentarians get real answers about the questions they are asking. Through the Internet and through other media, we can see what happens in legislatures in Europe, the U.K. and the United States. When elected officials ask questions, they get answers.

It speaks to the government's profound lack of respect for this place the fact that after asking repeated serious questions about the Winnipeg lab, we continue to get stonewalled and we continue not to receive answers.

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

Madam Speaker, it has been a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to work with the member on the Canada-China committee and various other fora. I know that fighting for democracy and parliamentary institutions has been a core part of what he has done, both in foreign affairs and domestically.

I would ask the member to expand on some of the very important comments he has made about the broader attacks that we are seeing on the ability of Parliament to do its job, this increasing pressure from the government to minimize the role of Parliament and minimize its real powers to hold the government accountable. What is the trend that he is observing in this respect? What do we need to do as parliamentarians from all parties to assert the privileges, the rights and, indeed, the important role that any Parliament should play in a democracy in the face of the approach of the current government?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very worried about the future of our country. Our institutions have been weakened in recent years and all Canadians should be very alarmed at the state of these institutions. I have never seen institutions so weak in my lifetime and possibly never so weak in our history as they are now.

We do not have a governor general because the previous governor general resigned due to scandal. We do not have a permanent clerk of the Privy Council. The previous clerk resigned because of scandal. Eight senior members of the Canadian Armed Forces have resigned or have been removed from their posts in recent months. We have a Parliament that is unable to get documents about a serious matter that concerns the government's National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, Manitoba. We have institutions that are failing Canadians and the government just snubs its nose at all of these issues.

We need to wake up. We are in trouble as a country. Our institutions are in trouble. It is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We need to move on to other questions.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to get my hon. colleague's comments on an analogous situation. On October 26 in the House of Commons, members, also by majority, passed a motion requiring the government to produce documents to the health committee and it prescribed the process for doing that. The government had to produce unredacted documents to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, who would then redact those documents in accordance with prescribed criteria listed in that House order. The documents were to be delivered no later than December 7.

The Liberals said they had over a million documents. Here we are in June, the health committee has received about 8,500 documents, 990,000 undelivered, and the government has chosen not to send those documents to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel in some cases and has redacted those documents in violation and with criteria beyond what the House ordered.

Does my hon. colleague see a parallel or similarity in the contempt that the Liberal government is showing Parliament and does he think that it is violating the very important concept of supremacy of Parliament?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do believe there is a pattern here, a pattern of contempt for Parliament from the Government of Canada. I am often shocked at the lack of knowledge the government has about Parliament and its function within our system. The member notes the government's failure to provide the documents ordered to be given to the health committee. We are now seized with the issue of the documents the government has refused to give to the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.

I can point to another example that came to my attention recently, which is the fact that someone in the government thought it appropriate in the 2021-22 departmental plans for the NSICOP Secretariat to list its core responsibility as parliamentary review when the act itself says it is not a committee of Parliament. On and on the list goes.

It speaks to institutions that are much weakened and that are struggling to keep up. It should be a wake-up call for all of us about the need to strengthen and reform these institutions so they can serve Canadians in a much stronger fashion than they have been in recent months.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in this important debate. Although I am rarely speechless, I must say it is a little intimidating to follow the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, with such powerful and historic words about the state of our institutions. I would encourage all members to reflect on those words. They go beyond any party. They go beyond any particular issue of the day. However, they do speak to particular problems that we see right now in our national life, particular problems that reflect actions and decisions of the government.

Prior to getting elected, the Prime Minister was asked which other regime or political system around the world he admired most. He said that he actually had some degree of admiration for China's basic dictatorship. This is what we are talking about. We are talking tonight about the fact that the Prime Minister has a problem with understanding democratic values, their importance, how they operate and how they constrain a Prime Minister. We are also dealing with the fact that as a result of his admiration for the Chinese regime, the Prime Minister has allowed our country to form dangerous associations, which threaten our values and our security, and which threaten global security.

I am going to talk about those two issues. I am going to talk about the rule of law and democratic values, and then I am going to talk about the particular issues raised by the associations that we have seen, in terms of Chinese military-affiliated scientists working at Canadian labs, and the fact that the health minister does not seem to see any problem with this.

On the issue of the rule of law, we are seeing, make no mistake, regular assaults on the rule of law by the Liberal government. Last year, at the beginning of the pandemic, under the pressure of very challenging circumstances, the government tried to pass a law that would have effectively given it unlimited law-making power for more than a year and a half. Conservatives stood up to that. We put a stop to that, thankfully.

It should never be forgotten that the government thought this was the appropriate thing to try to do in the face of a pandemic, that it wanted to seize on the very real fear and concern that Canadians were feeling to try to pass a law that would have given it unlimited law-making power for over a year and a half without Parliament.

We have a Prime Minister who has repeatedly been found in violation of ethics laws, multiple reports, multiple violations, according to the Ethics Commissioner. It has become clear that the Prime Minister who said he admired China's basic dictatorship simply does not feel that the laws apply to him. We are seeing that again tonight.

In the last week, we have had back-to-back rulings from the Speaker calling out the government for failing to respect the rules of Parliament and for failing to abide by them. The first ruling was on Bill C-10. After the government shut down committee debate, the committee then proceeded to vote on amendments without debate, without those amendments even being read. Thankfully, our Speaker recognized that that was a clear violation of the rules of this place.

Today we have a very clear ruling, a ruling that, while giving full credit to the Speaker for making, I think we should acknowledge came as no surprise to anyone. It was clearly aligned with all the past precedent, the well-established powers of Parliament to send for documents.

Why does Parliament, as the voice of the people, as the democratic representative of this country, have the right to send for documents in every case? It is because if we are to hold the executive accountable, if we are to do our job on behalf of the people who sent us, if we are to exercise our industry and our judgment, as Burke said, then we have to have the information available to us to consider what is going on and to consider the steps that need to be taken.

Speakers, since the beginning of Parliament, have recognized powers and privileges that must accord to Parliament in its role. Once again, the Speaker recognized that those precedents recognized those rights, and affirmed that Parliament has the right to request these documents and that the government has to hand them over.

Continuing this debate today, in spite of the Speaker's ruling, the government is not at all chastened, it seems. We have members like the member for Kingston and the Islands simply reverting back to the same old talking points that have been clearly rejected by the Speaker.

I do not think that NSICOP is the appropriate forum. I think the Canada-China committee had a right to look at these documents, but frankly, it does not matter whether or not one thinks that NSICOP should be the one looking at this. The point is that the Speaker, the lawful authority in this case, has ruled clearly based on the precedent, and the government must follow the law. Again, we have a Prime Minister who simply does not think the rules and the law apply to him and his consistent behaviour, since taking office, of breaking ethics laws, ignoring Parliament and, in back-to-back cases in the last week, being chastened by the Speaker. The Prime Minister is trying to behave as if the law does not apply to him.

I want, again, to go through the events at the Canada-China committee, where I have the honour of serving as vice-chair, to illustrate how this came about. The government had many, many opportunities, and we put in place very clear and reasonable checks. Because of the reasoned process through which we proceeded, there was substantial support throughout the committee to proceed in this fashion, but the government thinks it is in its political interest to try to make this all about the Conservatives: the Conservatives this, the Conservatives that. This is not about the Conservatives. This is about the fact that a parliamentary committee unanimously asked for those documents.

This process started when the president of the Public Health Agency, Iain Stewart, was before the committee and members started asking very simple questions about these two scientists who transferred deadly viruses to Wuhan and then were expelled. We were asking some very basic questions about what happened. The president of the Public Health Agency refused to answer. These questions were asked by Conservative, Bloc and NDP members consecutively.

We asked some very general questions as well: Has there ever been a case where somebody has been expelled for a policy breach? How many of these cases have taken place? Identifying numbers of cases in which there has been an expulsion for policy breaches certainly does not hurt anybody's privacy, as was claimed at the time. There was a complete refusal to answer these questions.

At that initial meeting, the committee agreed unanimously to give the president of the Public Health Agency until that Friday to provide additional information. No additional information was provided, so we used Standing Order 106(4) to summon the committee for a special meeting on March 31. That initial Standing Order 106(4) letter was signed by members of multiple parties already.

Then we had a motion adopted at that meeting to send for the unredacted documents. We did so in a collaborative way, involving the whole committee in the discussion. We compromised on the number of days. The Liberals at the committee agreed that we had the right to request the documents. They said we needed to give the Public Health Agency more time. We agreed to give the Public Health Agency more time, and it still refused to comply. As a result of its failure to comply, the consequence was that Iain Stewart, the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada, came back to the committee for further discussion in a three-hour meeting.

There are a few things that are very important about that subsequent meeting that happened on May 10. One of them is that the justice department shared that its legal advice to PHAC had been that PHAC did not have to provide these documents. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs directly told them, “You need a second opinion. Your legal advice is wrong.” Actually, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, obviously a Liberal MP, went further than that. He said that the Department of Justice is often wrong. He cited a number of precedents of cases where he felt the justice department had given bad legal advice.

When I questioned the justice department lawyer, I said, “Look, we have the ruling from Speaker Milliken that says you have to hand over documents and that Parliament has an unfettered right of access. You are saying Parliament does not have an unfettered right of access, so that means you disagree with the Speaker's ruling.” The justice department essentially said that, yes, it was hard to square the two. It was hard to square its position with the position of the Milliken ruling.

Then I asked if they thought that Speaker Milliken had the lawful authority to make the ruling, and there was acknowledgement that yes, Speaker Milliken had the lawful authority to make that ruling. He was the authority accountable for making this ruling. He made the ruling, and the ruling is different from the justice department's opinion.

Do members know what happens when we have a different opinion from the lawful authority about what the law should be? We have to comply with the lawful authority. That is how the rule of law works. In a rule of law society, there is an authority that is empowered to make determinations about law. We might disagree with that authority. We might disagree with the Speaker. We might disagree with the judge. We might disagree with the police officer on a given day. However, we have to adhere to that lawful authority and, where available, seek appeal. We cannot just say that our legal opinion is different from the lawful authority that made that decision, so we are just not going to listen.

That was the really strange testimony we heard from the justice department at the May 10 meeting. It was testimony that was directly called out by the Liberal Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In the end, another Liberal member, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, moved a motion to order the unredacted documents again. That was the second motion to order the unredacted documents. It was not only supported by the Liberals, but it was actually moved in the first instance by a Liberal member, the member for Cumberland—Colchester. That motion was adopted unanimously, ordering the production of the documents. We compromised again with the Liberals on the timeline. We wanted seven days; they wanted 10 days, and we said okay. Then the report was tabled.

We have two separate orders, very much driven by a collaborative process at the committee, one motion proposed by me, one motion proposed by the member for Cumberland—Colchester, and unanimous support. Then we have an opposition motion that says the government has to comply with this order and provide this information. Again, the government refuses. We have three consecutive orders, two by committee and one by the House, and the government refuses to comply. We have lawful authorities telling the government to follow the law, and the government is saying, effectively, that the rules do not apply to it.

On Monday, we had the Minister of Health before the committee. I was precise in asking her whether the decision not to provide the documents was made by Iain Stewart alone, or whether she was consulted on that decision. That was about the only question she responded to directly, but she told the committee that she met with Iain Stewart, they discussed it and she agreed that they should not hand over the documents.

This is not just a decision being made by public servants. Public servants need to be accountable for their decisions in terms of following the law. However, we see how the Minister of Health, in her position by the Prime Minister, does not feel that they have to follow the law.

What are the Liberals saying about these issues? Right now, they are saying this should be a matter for NSICOP. On the issue of NSICOP, I was very interested in the speech by the chair of NSICOP, the member for Ottawa South. Notably, the member for Ottawa South, who is the chair of NSICOP, did not discuss whether the committee had received the documents.

He did not discuss whether his committee was studying the documents, because he cannot talk about what the committee is working on. He can only share information with respect to the committee that the Prime Minister allows him to release. He made the argument that the Prime Minister's discretion in terms of limiting the release of information is constrained by law, but we have seen how the Prime Minister reacts when he is constrained by law. He does not believe himself to be constrained by law.

It was evident in the speech from the member for Ottawa South why NSICOP is not the appropriate body, because he, himself, was not able to address very basic questions. He could not even answer how he was voting on the motion. He cannot actually, because of his role in NSICOP, speak at all about this issue in a serious way in the House, because to do so might give some indication as to whether his committee is studying it.

We know that NSICOP is not a parliamentary committee, but the point is that the Speaker has ruled. These questions about NSICOP have been answered definitively by the Speaker in his ruling, the Speaker being the lawful authority to make these determinations.

We hear the government making arguments about national security issues. The reason these efforts to get documents got so much support throughout the committee, including from Liberal members, including the motion being proposed by the member for Cumberland—Colchester, is that we put in place those protections for national security.

Yes, Parliament should use its powers in a responsible way. Yes, with great power comes great responsibility. That is why we established a process by which the documents would be given to the law clerk and the parliamentary counsel and redactions would be made at that level, but we wanted an employee of Parliament, not of the executive, to make those determinations. That was a reasonable process that respected national security and, at the end of the day, it was our right as a parliamentary committee, it was our right as a collective Parliament in the context of the opposition motion to make these decisions.

The fundamental point is that in every case, the authorities with the constitutionally given powers to make these decisions made decisions. In every case, in three consecutive instances dealing with this issue alone, and in many others, as we have discussed, the government said that the rules did not apply to it.

We know now why the Prime Minister believes it would be so much better to have a basic dictatorship. We see how the Prime Minister treats our institutions as if we live in a basic dictatorship. Truly respecting the values of a parliamentary democracy means we do things as an executive that we might not want to do because we are accountable to the people's representatives. We do not get to do exactly what we want. We are bound by law.

At the Canada-China committee, we have discussed the distinction between rule of law and rule by law: rule of law characterizing our system where leaders are bound by law; and rule by law whereby leaders use law to their advantage to get the kinds of outcomes they want. The Prime Minister is behaving as if he thinks this is a rule-by-law system instead of a rule-of-law system. The Prime Minister needs to know the rules apply to him.

On the issue of research co-operation with the Chinese military, we have a case where two scientists were involved in transferring deadly viruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The head of the lab at the time, Matthew Gilmour, raised concerns about this. He raised the fact there was no materials transfer agreement in place. He raised other concerns about the credibility of what was to happen. His concerns were ignored and a few years later he resigned suddenly and left the country.

After these deadly viruses were transferred, even in a context, by the way, where security concerns had already been raised about the Wuhan lab, people were expelled who were involved in this transfer, but no explanation was given as to why they were expelled or what the context of the investigation was. We found out since that another person, Feihu Yan, was affiliated with the People's Liberation Army's Academy of Military Medical Sciences while working at the Winnipeg lab.

Some of these issues are complex but some of these issues are fairly simple. When we hear that somebody from the Academy of Military Medical Sciences is working and gathering information at a Canadian lab, it should not be difficult to identify that is a problem. The government of China is currently, as we speak, committing genocide. It is running concentration camps for Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims.

We know the government of China is deploying all of its most up-to-date technology in its suppression of minority communities like Uighurs. We know it is always trying to access new technology, the most sophisticated surveillance, to control and repress minority populations and indeed to inflict this ongoing genocide.

When we are engaged in research co-operation around virology with the military of a country that is involved in genocide, that should just horrify the basic moral sensibilities of Canadians. There are all these questions around what kinds of co-operation were happening between the Winnipeg lab and the Wuhan Institute for Virology. There are very serious questions that need to be investigated about the lab leak theory potentially being a cause of COVID-19. There are security questions. There are obviously intellectual property questions. There are human rights questions.

I posed these questions to the Minister of Health at committee on Monday. She just piled this in layers of complexity, saying that it was complicated, that the world worked together, that we needed to have this research co-operation, that this was the way the research system worked and everybody was working together on research co-operation.

I am in favour of research co-operation with like-minded countries, but I do not want us engaged in research co-operation when there is a very serious risk that research done in Canada contributes to repression of minorities, contributes to genocide and contributes to threats to our own security. These are questions of our fundamental values.

The government, in addition to talking about a basic dictatorship, is just so naive to the risks to our values. This privilege motion is critically important. We need to stand up for Canada, stand up for our values and hold the government to account.

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

Madam Speaker, in his intervention, the member specifically stated that this was not a decision just of the president of the Public Health Agency, but also a decision of the minister. Could he explain to me why the minister is not named in this motion? Why is it just the president of PHAC who is being called before the bar of Parliament in this motion? Is it perhaps that doing so would actually constitute not having confidence in the House?

These are the games the Conservatives will play when it comes to this issue. They are willing to sacrifice the career of a public servant for their own political gain. That is exactly what is happening here.

Could the member tell me why no one else is named in this motion other than a public servant?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is accusing me of threatening the career of a public servant. I will simply say this. I would put at risk the careers of thousands of public servants if it were necessary to defend the rule of law, because the rule of law is important. The rule of law is critically important. It is more important than our comfort. It is more important than anyone's career. It is far more important than my career.

The minister told the committee that she had discussions with the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada and agreed with his decision. The president of the Public Health Agency of Canada is accountable for this decision and he must bring the documents to the committee.

The government also clearly bears responsibility for its own failures, and we hold it accountable every day in question period and other fora. The Minister of Health and the Prime Minister are part of this decision to refuse to hand over these documents.

Members can be sure that not just Conservatives, but multiple opposition parties, working together, will hold the government accountable, defend the rule of law in our country and demand that we not engage in the deeply troubling practice of research co-operation with a military committing genocide.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his impassioned speech. I was wondering whether he was in a tent just now. There was a rather interesting background on the screen.

I was listening to the member for Kingston and the Islands say that the Conservatives may be motivated by political interests in tonight's debate. In response, I might suggest that he take a long look in the mirror.

We get the impression that the Liberals, too, have a tendency to be driven by political considerations and that they are raising privacy and national security concerns for the sole purpose or never disclosing the information.

There were three instances. With CanSino, we were never able to learn any interesting or useful information to make up our own minds. It was the same thing with the WE scandal, and it is again the case today with the Winnipeg lab.

I do not know whether my colleague shares my view.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not have much to add to what my colleague said. In general, I agree with him.

I just want to say that I appreciated the Bloc Québécois's co-operation on the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. We worked together very effectively to hold the government to account.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, I disagree with him on many things, but he has made some important points tonight. Most specifically is the fact that you have ruled on this motion of privilege. This is something that all parliamentarians should view as a very serious subject. A breach of privilege is not something to be taken lightly. I know when you rule on something like this, you do not take it lightly. You investigate the precedents before you make your ruling, and now this is before Parliament.

I have been greatly disturbed by the slightly unhinged comments from the member for Kingston and the Islands, because it appears the government and government members are not taking this seriously. We heard similar comments with all the ethical violations the Prime Minister has made over the last few years, more than any other prime minister in Canadian history.

Why is the government not taking this serious breach of privilege and this debate tonight seriously?

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

Mr. Speaker, why is the government not taking these issues seriously? Let us distinguish between members like the member for Kingston and the Islands who, unfortunately, is likely simply being given a line to deliver. Why are the Prime Minister, the health minister and the powers that be repeatedly refusing orders of the House? I would suggest that they have decided there are things in these documents that they do not want to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and that should very much worry members. We know the government wants to move its legislative agenda forward. It has had many opportunities to simply hand over the documents, and then this whole thing goes away. It all would go away. It would all go away right now, if it hands over the documents. That is all the government has to do.

It would not be handing them over to the public; it would be handing them over to the law clerk, who would then review the redacted items and hand things over to a committee. The government could make all of this go away tomorrow, but it has repeatedly, knowing the consequences, refused to do that. This suggests that there is something in these documents that the government is so afraid of seeing any kind of light of day, even through the law clerk and a committee would be looking at them in camera.

Recognizing that fear in the government should just underline the urgency of continuing to push very hard on these issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I think it is pretty clear to everyone here that the member is speaking in support of this motion. In the motion, it actually calls for the president of PHAC to come with the documents. It says right in the motion, contrary to what some members of the Liberal Party have said, that there are safeguards to ensure that the confidentiality and the national security concerns that are raised will be addressed by the law clerk, who has experience ensuring those vital interests are maintained.

Does the member believe this is a good compromise that will protect national security and at the same time allow parliamentarians to do our job?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent work previously on the Canada-China committee prior to the leadership transition.

The previous ruling of Speaker Milliken emphasized that Parliament had a right to unfettered access to documents, and also that Parliament was enjoined to exercise that right in a thoughtful and responsible way. In this case, Parliament has exercised its right and has put in place very judicious safeguards. The documents would be handed over to the law clerk and the parliamentary counsel. They could be redacted and then transmitted on to the committee, which would look at them in camera.

However, the critical difference between the government's procedure and our procedure is that in our procedure, it would be employees of Parliament, who understand and respect the privileges of Parliament, who would be making determinations about appropriate redactions rather than the executive having carte blanche to make its own determinations about redactions based on criteria that they are not sharing with us.

It is important to remember that on these issues of national security, the government did not even start invoking national security in its arguments until substantially into the process. At the beginning, the Liberals were not talking about national security; they were talking about privacy. However, when we clearly pointed out that there were exceptions in the Privacy Act that addressed the very issues they were talking about, exceptions in the Privacy Act that talk about the right of lawful authorities to request documents, then they changed tactics. They stopped talking about privacy and started talking about national security. The point is it was an invented excuse part way through.

When we are asking very general questions about whether there are Chinese military-affiliated scientists at Canadian labs, those questions should be answered, if not in public, then certainly in private.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to our privilege motion, which I am going to take the time to reread for those who are watching at home. This is what we are calling for:

That the House find the Public Health Agency of Canada to be in contempt for its failure to obey the order of the House, adopted on June 2, 2021, as well as the orders of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, adopted on March 31 and May 10, 2021, and, accordingly, order its President to attend at the bar of the House, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on the second sitting day following the adoption of this order, for the purposes of (a) receiving, on behalf of the Agency, an admonishment delivered by the Speaker; and (b) delivering up the documents ordered by the House, on June 2, 2021, to be produced, so that they may be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel under the terms of that order.

As we can see from reading this privilege motion, this is an extremely important issue for democracy and respect for the authority of the House.

Today, sadly, we are not surprised by the way this government has acted over the last five, almost six, years. However, rarely in over 150 years have such events occurred in the House of Commons. Such a profound lack of respect for the institution will go down in history, but for the wrong reasons.

I would like to come back to the issue at hand. How did we get to where we are today? First of all, this all started with a CBC news story in July 2019 reporting that two Chinese scientists had been expelled from the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, a level 4 facility. This news came as a surprise to us, but it was a bit nebulous as we were unsure, waiting for more information. Meanwhile, the COVID‑19 pandemic began, and we went into “COVID mode” all through 2020.

During that time, the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations was doing a study on Hong Kong. Later, after passing a motion I presented to the committee, it undertook a study on national security in Canada-China relations. This study included evaluating various levels and aspects of security, like defence. One of the points studied just happened to be the relationship between China and the Public Health Agency of Canada, and that is where everything began to point to the problem we face today.

On March 22, the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada, Iain Stewart, appeared before the committee, only to tell us that he would say nothing. Committee members exchanged some glances and asked the usual questions about various files, but especially about Winnipeg. The agency remained secretive and we had no way of finding out anything at all. As a result, we became suspicious and questions were asked.

Then we asked for an emergency committee meeting on March 31 and summoned the House of Commons law clerk, Philippe Dufresne, and the deputy law clerk, Michel Bédard. We asked them for advice. We asked them to explain our rights and how to exercise those rights. They explained the procedure and said it was normal for a committee like the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations to ask questions and get the documents it sends for.

At that same meeting, we moved a motion calling on the Public Health Agency of Canada to turn the required documents over to the law clerks so they could redact personal information and anything to do with national security.

Several weeks later, we got another surprise. The agency produced documents, and those documents were redacted, but not by our House of Commons law clerks. The president of the agency and his team had taken it upon themselves to decide what should be redacted.

On May 10, the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations held another meeting, which was attended by the law clerks, who are officers of the House, and the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada with his lawyer. We asked them to explain the process to us, and the law clerks once again clarified that it was their job to analyze documents provided by a government agency because they had the authority and credentials to do that analysis.

That is great, so why did they not proceed that way? At that same meeting on May 10, there was another surprise when the Liberal member for Cumberland—Colchester moved a motion calling for the documents to be provided, for the law clerks to do their job and, if that did not work, for the matter to be referred to the House of Commons. What was bound to happen did happen; once again, that did not work, and the matter was referred to House.

After the debate on the motion in the House on June 2, the House adopted an order requiring the Public Health Agency of Canada and its president to provide the documents, as requested, to the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.

Someone, somewhere, then had the idea to send the documents to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, simply to get the job done and be able to say that the documents had been sent to a committee.

The order of the House called for the documents to be sent to the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, which has law clerks in place who can do the work. Despite that, the documents were sent to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians in an effort to have Canadians believe that this committee could do the work because it included Conservative members and now Bloc members. This was done in the hope that everyone would be happy.

However, that is an ultra-secret committee. The two Conservative members and the one Bloc member who serve on it must keep quiet for the rest of their lives about anything they might learn, see or hear. They will eventually conduct an analysis and submit a report to the Prime Minister, although he will not learn anything new, since he already has the information and knows what happened in Winnipeg, as do all government members. Sending this to the committee of parliamentarians is a charade. Three opposition members who are sworn to secrecy for the rest of their lives will know what happened, but they can never tell, so nothing will ever come of it.

It is quite obvious that this is the government's plan. This is yet another affront to the House of Commons, because that committee of parliamentarians has nothing to do with this file and because it is not a parliamentary committee like other House of Commons committees. Furthermore, this violates the order given to submit the documents to the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.

Not only is it an affront to parliamentarians, but it is also an affront to officers of Parliament, which shocks me. Law Clerk Philippe Dufresne and Deputy Law Clerk Michel Bédard are members of the House of Commons team, just like the clerks. They are not elected members or members of the opposition. They are members of the staff who were chosen on the basis of their skills and abilities to deal with information so as to ensure that security and personal information are protected. Why would we not trust our law clerks and submit the documents to them as requested? These documents would have been processed and submitted to the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations according to the rules. Why play around with that?

This means that there is an even more serious problem and that something dangerous beyond our imagination happened between the Winnipeg lab, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Chinese army. There is something very serious going on. The Liberals' manoeuvres are only amplifying the problem, making the situation more sensitive and creating a huge issue.

The Conservatives do not want to fearmonger. We simply want to know what happened. There are ways to talk with the opposition. We are all Canadians, no matter our political allegiances. We all have the right to know what happens here in our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the member an opportunity to answer the question that I asked the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

If the real subject of the debate tonight is the government and the way that the government handled matters, why is the government or any member of the government not named in the motion? Why did the motion go after a public servant?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. My answer will be the same as the one he got from my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

The individual in question is a public servant and is not responding to orders from the House. It does not matter if we are talking about one, 10, 20 or 100 employees; what matters here is the rule of law and the primacy of the House, and this individual must respond.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles.

I want to talk about what happened on Monday at the meeting of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations we both attended. The minister came to committee to answer our questions. Every time she gave us an answer, or did not give us an answer, we found ourselves wondering how it was possible to say so little in response to so many questions.

Does my colleague think that the minister showed a lack of respect for the parliamentarians on the committee during her appearance on Monday?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean for his question.

I do not want to be rude, but I have to say it turned my stomach to witness the Minister of Health's three-hour appearance at the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.

Let us not forget that the House ordered the Minister of Health to appear before the committee to explain and answer our questions. Such orders are not uncommon. The answers we got were just like those we heard during this afternoon's question period: evasive and indicative of total ignorance of the situation.

What most impressed me were answers to questions like this one: Were you briefed on what happened at the lab?

The minister's answer went something like this: No, I was not briefed about it. Was she not Canada's Minister of Health? That was either blatant disrespect or utter incompetence.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask this hon. member a question I asked a previous member. I am concerned, as a parliamentarian, that there is a disturbing pattern of a government that is simply refusing to recognize not only the democratic will of this chamber but the supremacy of Parliament. It appears that it is a government that thinks it is above the majority expression of the House of Commons.

I am referring to an order passed in this House on October 26, 2020, that ordered the government to produce documents on a variety of subjects to the health committee, which, to this day, the government has refused to do. It has violated the time limit. The government is refusing to send documents to the law clerk, as the order requires, and it is redacting when the order says it is not to redact; but the law clerk is, and then the government redacts according to criteria beyond the House order.

Does my hon. colleague think that this latest motion is simply a continuation of a pattern of disrespect for this House, by a government that seems to have forgotten that it is subject to the will of the majority of people in this place?

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

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

I would say that it is more than a pattern. This government's lack of respect for the institution of the House of Commons is a systematic pattern.

I remind members that a few years ago, the Prime Minister said that he admired the Chinese dictatorship and how the Chinese could turn the economy around on a dime, since they did not need to negotiate with a parliament and opposition parties. The Prime Minister said that he found that kind of system interesting.

Based on the things this government is doing, it is easy to see where it gets its inspiration.