The big problem with the Winnipeg lab affair was obvious from the start: too much secrecy

The release of 623 pages of documents on the firing of two scientists from the Na‐ tional Microbiology Lab in 2019 understandably gen‐ erated excitement around Parliament Hill on Wednes‐ day, setting off a race to discover and frame exactly what kind of scandal they revealed.

What the documents tell us is certainly interesting and relevant, and will help us fill in a picture that has been frustratingly incomplete for more than three years.

But the biggest problem here might still be the one that was obvious from the start: the sheer amount of secrecy that enveloped this case. And the release of those 623 pages - even par‐ tially redacted - only renews questions about how much of that secrecy was actually necessary.

Political stubbornness is at least partly to blame for the long delay in releasing the documents. The federal government was reluctant from the outset to explain what had happened. In re‐ sponse, opposition MPs constituting a majority in the House of Commons - deman‐ ded that the government turn over documents about the scientists to a House committee.

The Liberal government invoked privacy and security concerns and instead sought to send the documents to the special national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians - a com‐ mittee that exists outside Parliament but whose mem‐ bers have national security clearance. The Conservatives objected to that arrangement and responded by pulling their members from that committee.

WATCH: Fired scientists shared information with China, documents say

The stand-off ultimately resulted in the House voting in June 2021 to hold the pres‐ ident of the Public Health Agency of Canada in contem‐ pt for refusing to comply with its orders.

The government then sug‐ gested that an ad hoc com‐ mittee of MPs, assisted by a panel of arbiters who could make decisions on the re‐ lease of information, be giv‐ en access to the documents. The proposal was based on what was done in 2010 when Parliament demanded that Stephen Harper's Conserva‐ tive government turn over documents related to the treatment of Afghan de‐ tainees.

The opposition was un‐ moved. A few days later, the

Liberal government asked the Federal Court to block Parliament's order. The courts might have been ex‐ pected to endorse Parlia‐ ment's authority and prerog‐ ative. But the dissolution of Parliament for an election in the fall of 2021 brought the parliamentary and legal processes to a halt.

How MPs finally got to see the documents

Partisans will view one side or the other as the villain in that sequence of events - the government for not being transparent and flouting the will of Parliament, or the op‐ position for being unreason‐ able or irresponsible in its demands.

It's also possible that both sides were motivated by at least some amount of justifi‐ able concern - that the gov‐ ernment had legitimate cause to demand as much protection as possible for in‐ formation that could involve national security, and that the opposition was well with‐ in its rights and responsibili‐ ties to demand as much transparency as possible to hold the government to ac‐ count.

Ideally, the two sides would have landed quickly on an arrangement that sat‐ isfied those concerns and pri‐ orities. But it wasn't until May 2023 that all parties finally agreed to the ad hoc commit‐ tee the government pro‐ posed two years earlier.

WATCH: PM accuses Con‐ servatives of weaponizing national security

That committee of four MPs, with three former jus‐ tices reviewing the documen‐ ts to determine what could be released publicly, has fi‐ nally produced some disclo‐ sure.

What those documents show offers reasons for con‐ cern about the behaviour of the two scientists and how well the lab enforced its pro‐ tocols. Opposition MPs have every reason to ask whether more could have been done at the time and what has been done since to improve security policies.

But while those MPs are clamouring for a political scandal, the big problem is the simple fact that this busi‐ ness is only being aired out now - and not three years ago.

Was all this secrecy nec‐ essary?

In a letter attached to the documents, the four MPs Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, Con‐ servative MP John Williamson, Bloc Quebecois MP René Villemure and NDP MP Heather McPherson - ac‐ knowledge that some amount of secrecy was justi‐ fied, particularly for docu‐ ments from the Canadian Se‐ curity Intelligence Service. But they also said that the "majority" of documents from the Public Health Agency should be released.

"The information appears to be mostly about protect‐ ing the organization from embarrassment for failures in policy and implementa‐ tion, not legitimate national security concerns," the MPs wrote.

Officials from the agency probably could point to a stack of internal legal opin‐ ions and policies that sup‐ ported their decisions about what could be released publi‐ cly. (Health Minister Mark Holland says public servants are in charge of deciding on redactions, and argues that is how it should be.) And maybe agency and security officials had concerns about how opposition MPs original‐ ly proposed to handle those documents.

WATCH: Conservative leader says National Micro‐ biology Lab scientists should not work with China

But the mere fact that this much information has now been released shows that it didn't absolutely need to be kept secret in the first place. Which suggests, once again, that this government is too quick to come down on the side of withholding informa‐ tion.

The last fight over docu‐ ments, more than a decade ago, offered a similar conclu‐ sion. When secret documents related to the handling and treatment of Afghans de‐ tained by the Canadian Forces were handed over to an ad hoc committee of MPs and a panel of legal experts, the end result was at least a little more disclosure than would otherwise have occur‐ red.

Partisans will cry coverup, but it's possible that the problem is actually more sys‐ temic and cultural - a ten‐ dency toward excessive se‐ crecy that has built up over generations, even as succes‐ sive governments have promised new levels of trans‐ parency. Canadians tend to default to reticence. And we have created governments in our own image, ones which default to keeping their confi‐ dences confidential.

Governments have legiti‐ mate reasons to keep some things secret. Real questions need to be asked about how Parliament can responsibly handle secret information.

But the biggest question is why it took more than three years for this week's disclosure to happen.