Mr. Chair, I have the unpleasant feeling that I've been robbed of my time. Nevertheless, I'll speak about the amendment moved by Mr. Genuis.
First, here's what I would have wanted to say, if I had been able to speak in the second round. For their own reasons, the people at the Public Health Agency of Canada chose not to publicly disclose the information requested. The committee gave them the option of disclosing this information to the law clerk and parliamentary counsel for the House of Commons, so that he could advise us on how to handle the information.
As I said earlier, parliamentarians aren't irresponsible. They won't seek to publicly disclose any personal information, or information that could affect national security, or information related to criminal investigations.
As a result, I believe that the initial plan was to ask the Public Health Agency of Canada to provide the unredacted documents through the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, who would advise us on how to proceed. That's how I would interpret the motion that the clerk referred to a few moments ago.
Surprisingly, the Public Health Agency of Canada didn't reach out to the committee members to share information that may not have been released to the public. It ultimately treated the parliamentary committee like any other individual subject to the law who requested information from the agency.
Mr. Chair, I'm afraid that we're clearly headed towards an escalation, and the Public Health Agency of Canada won't come out on top. That's what I wanted to say earlier. I thought that the agency must understand that it has a vested interest in working with the committee, with parliamentarians.
As I said, we're reasonable people. I don't believe that any of us want to misuse or inappropriately use the documents or information provided in a way that violates the provisions of the Privacy Act, jeopardizes national security or undermines criminal investigations. As a result, we would handle the information with the care that the circumstances require.
I can see that the Public Health Agency of Canada, on the advice of Mr. Roy, keeps on saying that the committee doesn't have the jurisdiction to obtain this information, these documents.
This goes against the advice provided again this evening by the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, who obviously referred to the constitutional provisions in this area and to the ruling of both the Supreme Court and Speaker Milliken. Nevertheless, Mr. Roy keeps on saying that the committee doesn't have this jurisdiction.
My concerns are becoming a reality. We're heading towards an escalation. I don't think that the Public Health Agency of Canada would benefit from this escalation.
That said, I agree with Mr. Genius that Ms. Zann's motion, which I think was very well intentioned, didn't go far enough. It was much less far-reaching than the earlier motion that we passed. Not only was there no timeline, but there were no consequences.
To pick up on Mr. Oliphant's points, I believe that Mr. Oliphant's proposal was already included in the motion that we passed, namely, that if the agency were to refuse to provide the documents, Mr. Stewart and his officials would be called by this committee. This is now taking place.
There's no point in repeating this for the umpteenth time. We've clearly reached a dead end. The Public Health Agency of Canada, on the advice of Mr. Roy, is deliberately refusing to provide the information requested by the committee, either through the law clerk and parliamentary counsel or through other means.
This pains me. I really wish that we could have found an acceptable compromise with the officials from the Public Health Agency of Canada and with Mr. Roy. As I've said repeatedly, we're reasonable people. There's no reason why parliamentarians would want to overstep their bounds and publicly release information in a way that violates the provisions of the Privacy Act, jeopardizes national security or undermines police investigations.
However, the Public Health Agency of Canada and Mr. Roy don't have the authority to determine whether they must produce these documents. This obligation is legal—it exists—and, in light of this deliberate and repeated refusal, I have no choice but to announce that I'll vote in favour of the amendment moved by Mr. Genuis.