Evidence of meeting #26 for Canada-China Relations in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Executive Director and Senior General Counsel, Health Legal Services, Department of Justice
Our position is essentially that ultimately there are limits on the ability to produce documents as called for—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Is that the same as Speaker Milliken's position?
Liberal
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I have a respectful point of order, Mr. Chair.
Before we get too far into the conversation, I would like Mr. Genuis to apologize for using inflammatory language, the word “hell”. I don't think that is parliamentary language. The rules at committee are the same as those of Parliament. I think it is inappropriate, especially toward a public servant who has come to this committee as a witness.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.
Mr. Genuis, I'm afraid Mr. Oliphant is correct. I would ask you to—
Conservative
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Roy, is your position consistent with Speaker Milliken's ruling?
Executive Director and Senior General Counsel, Health Legal Services, Department of Justice
With respect, I don't think we can square the two. My recollection of the Milliken ruling is that ultimately he asked that parties discuss the matter and that they come up with a solution.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Okay, that's very honest of you. You're telling this committee that your position is different from Speaker Milliken's position.
Do you believe that Speaker Milliken had the authority to make that ruling? Do you believe that his ruling has force of law?
Executive Director and Senior General Counsel, Health Legal Services, Department of Justice
I do believe that Speaker Milliken had the authority to make the ruling and that it applied to the legislature, in essence. There is a separation between the executive and the legislature. These rulings—it's the same with decisions made by committees—have an impact within the bounds of the separation of powers.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
The Speaker ruled, though, that parliamentary committees have a right to send for documents. You said that's not your position. You don't believe they have that right.
Executive Director and Senior General Counsel, Health Legal Services, Department of Justice
Right.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
You've agreed that your position is different from the Speaker's ruling, but you've also said that the Speaker had the lawful authority to make that ruling on the rights of committees.
I guess what I don't understand is how you are taking a position that is different from the position of the lawful authority in this case, but you presume to say that your position is still the legally correct position.
Executive Director and Senior General Counsel, Health Legal Services, Department of Justice
As I said, it's hard to reconcile the two. My recollection is that the facts were different and that the order issued was different. The ruling was different in that ultimately he expected the parties would agree. Ultimately, they did come up with a mechanism that was—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Yes, that's what happened ultimately.
Mr. Roy, I think you've just defeated your own argument. You've acknowledged that your position is inconsistent with the Speaker's ruling and that the Speaker had the right to make the ruling, but you still wish to persist in disagreeing with it.
Mr. Stewart, are you at all embarrassed to be taking this advice over Mr. Dufresne's advice in your decision not to provide these documents to the committee?
President, Public Health Agency of Canada
Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, is the question whether I am embarrassed?
President, Public Health Agency of Canada
Mr. Speaker, with all respect, no, I am not embarrassed. I think legal counsel is saying the cases are different and that the equation you're making doesn't add up.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I look forward to following up.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you.
I'll remind witnesses that I'm the chair, not the Speaker.
Now we'll go to Ms. Zann for five minutes.
Liberal
Lenore Zann Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much, Chair. I appreciate that.
Listen, I have come across a number of times when former MP Bill Casey had asked for documents and they were redacted. He took great offence to this as a parliamentarian, and brought it up several times in the public eye and the media, asking why a member of Parliament can't receive documents that are unredacted.
Could the Public Health Agency please forward unredacted documents to our parliamentary law clerk and request that he review them and ascertain the fairness? I think that would be a very good step forward. What would you say to that?
President, Public Health Agency of Canada
My understanding is that my providing materials to you is a disclosure. Whether I provide them to the law clerk or to you, I'm making a disclosure. That's where I run afoul of the Privacy Act.
We have done all that we can to provide the materials that were consistent with what we understood to be our legal obligations. I think if you review the package, you'll find that in fact much content is there and that it's quite repetitive and consistent content over time.
Liberal
Lenore Zann Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS
No problem. Thank you very much.
Chair, might I make a motion that PHAC forwards unredacted documents to the parliamentary law clerk and requests him to review them to ascertain the fairness in them?