WxT Language switcher

Backgrounder

Motion

That, in light of the February 28, 2024, tabling of the Winnipeg lab documents which contained the government’s own findings concluding that the People’s Republic of China and its entities infiltrated Canada’s top microbiology lab, a national security breach representing a very serious and credible threat to Canada, and given that access to this information had been denied to Parliament and all Canadians by the government for several years, the committee undertake a study, for three meetings, pursuant to Standing Orders 108(3)(h)(vi) and (vii), of the government’s reasons to deny access to it by Parliament and Canadians, provided that the committee report its findings to the House and request, pursuant to Standing Order 109, a comprehensive response from the government, and call the following witnesses to appear for one hour per witness:

  1. Anthony Rota, former Speaker of the House of Commons;
  2. Philippe Dufresne, former Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons;
  3. Iain Stewart, former President of the Public Health Agency of Canada;
  4. the Minister of Health, the Honourable Mark Holland;
  5. the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc; and
  6. (f) any other witness that the committee deems necessary.

Documents related to the Winnipeg Microbiology Lab

  • Government initially argued that releasing these documents would hurt national security, and felt that the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) was best suited to review the documents.
  • In June 2021, the House of Commons ruled that the Liberal government breached parliamentary privileges by failing to provide secret documents to the House that would explain the firing of the two scientists.
    • The Speaker ruled that the House of Commons is supreme and that the government cannot ignore an order of parliamentarians, even on grounds of national security.
    • The government applied to the Federal Court of Canada a few days later to prevent the release of the documents, which it maintained would be injurious to international relations, national defence, or national security.
    • It dropped the case when the election was called in August 2021 since the order to produce the documents, along with all other business before the House, was terminated with the dissolution of Parliament.
  • In May 2023, an ad hoc committee of members of Parliament was created to examine documents related to the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg.
    • The committee was proposed by the government so that MPs could have, in a secure setting, full access to related redacted and unredacted documents.
    • Committee members received briefings from officials on the reasons for protecting certain information from disclosure. The documents from the Public Health Agency of Canada pertain to the transfer of viruses and the termination of employment of two staff members.
    • The committee members were Iqra Khalid (Liberal); John Williamson (Conservative); René Villemure (Bloc Quebecois) and Heather McPherson (NDP).
  • In February 2024, information was disclosed to parliamentarians under parliamentary privilege, which allows ordering the production of documents.
  • In March 2024, the Special Committee on the Canada–People’s Republic of China Relationship agreed to question witnesses about how two scientists studying deadly viruses at a special lab in Winnipeg were able to work closely and covertly with China.

Parliamentary Privilege

  • Parliamentary privilege refers to the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfill their functions.
  • The House of Commons, as a collectivity, has the right to initiate inquiries. It can summon witnesses and compel their attendance. It can administer oaths to witnesses, take evidence and treat any misrepresentation of information as a contempt of Parliament. It can order and compel the production of documents, and it has the right to publish papers containing defamatory (or potentially defamatory) material.
  • Parliament does not have the authority to determine the limits of its privileges, these are part of the Constitution of Canada. Courts have the jurisdiction to determine the existence and scope of privilege.

Obtaining documents for MPs: Access to information vs Parliamentary privilege

  • There are two separate procedures that MPs may use to gain access to documents: the parliamentary process, which is governed by the rules of parliamentary procedure, and the access to information process, which is governed by the Access to Information Act.
  • The Information Commissioner has jurisdiction only over matters about which a complaint is made under the Access to Information Act.
  • The two processes are different, but there is no reason why a parliamentarian cannot seek to obtain access to documents using both processes at the same time.

Coverage of Parliament under Access to Information Act

  • Parliament is not covered under Part 1 (right of access) of the Act.
  • The Senate, the House of Commons and Parliamentary Entities are covered under Part 2 of the Act (Proactive publication).
  • There is no provision in Part 1 of the Act to protect the parliamentary privilege.
  • In the absence of a specific statutory provision for parliamentary privilege under the Access to Information Act, there is no obligation for government institutions to consult Parliament prior to making a disclosure decision. This means that there is no way for Parliament to know whether information that could be protected under parliamentary privilege is being identified as such or released.
  • There is no process for government institutions to determine who has the authority to invoke or waive parliamentary privilege.

Other jurisdictions

  • The access legislation in some Canadian provinces, as well as the United Kingdom, covers the legislative branch to a certain degree, with protections for certain interests.
    • The laws of Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Ontario all apply to the legislative branch.
    • The Ontario law only covers records of reviewable expenses of Opposition leaders and the persons employed in their offices and the personal information contained in those records.
  • Examples of the protections that laws might include are those for parliamentary privilege, and constituency and political records.
  • Model laws and some top-ranked right to information laws also cover the legislative branch.
    • The Organization of American States model law, the Tshwane Principles and the Open Government Guideall cover the legislative branch, as do the access laws of India, Mexico and Serbia.
Date modified:
Submit a complaint