Evidence of meeting #27 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think everyone heard what the three opposition parties—the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives—had to say. We all agree on the motion, and it makes sense that the Liberal members want to extend the deadline. It's perfectly normal; they are the party in power.
I think we can vote on the amendment and on the final motion.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Mr. Paul-Hus took the words right out of my mouth. I think we're at a point now where we should vote on the motion. I thank my colleagues for a spirited debate. There were a lot of great points and some that I'll consider different from mine, but that's what democracy is about. I recommend that we put this to a vote.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Mr. Chair, as you know, it's National Public Service Week. I really want to recognize all staff who are working very hard—including the House interpreters, who are trying to keep up—to meet deadlines, with a number of motions passed in multiple committees. I really thank them.
Also, I thank all my colleagues. We are also working very hard on the government's response to COVID-19. I agree that if staff are working hard, we are working hard.
Of course, we need a quality report. That is why, as I said, if we had them before, that is well and good, and I support the same thing. Staff need time to make a report, so this is an important vote. Then we can be ready if the second wave comes.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Sidhu.
I'm seeing no further interventions, so we can have the vote. I will ask the clerk to conduct the vote. The vote is on the amendment to change the date.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are back to the original motion, as previously amended. We will carry on with the debate on it.
Go ahead, Mr. Van Bynen.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Madam Clerk, can that amendment be part of the general housekeeping by the motion; or do we need to debate that particular change?
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm proposing a housekeeping amendment. We didn't insert the word “and” when we deleted the emails, so I'd suggest we clean that up.
1:50 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, if the committee sees fit to allow me to clean up the grammar, then I would be certainly willing to do that.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Do we have an agreement so far to do that?
Okay, very well.
We now have Mr. Fisher.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to propose the following amendment. I would like to add, after “August 10, 2020” the words “provided that the department does its assessment and vetting in gathering and releasing the documents as it would be done through the access to information process”.
This amendment has been added to several of the other committees when they've done motions just like this. John Barlow moved in AGRI on Friday, June 5:
That, given the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food’s written response to M.P. Philip Lawrence’s question on the cost of the carbon tax to the agriculture industry, in which their analysis and estimates do not reflect the federal backstop, the committee send for a copy of all reports, briefing notes, memorandums, emails and documents related to the federal carbon tax and its cost, directly or indirectly, to the agriculture industry, to be provided in both official languages by Saturday, August 1, 2020, provided that the Department does its assessment and vetting in gathering and releasing the documents as it would be done through the access to information process.
This was done also in several other motions. I'm not sure if you want me to read them all into the record, but Mr. Barlow moved them in two or three different motions. Kelly Block moved:
That, in the context of its study of the government’s response to the COVID-19 Pandemic and pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the committee send for the following documents to be provided by the government by Monday, August 3, 2020 and that the documents be published publicly on the committee’s website by Monday, August 10, 2020 and that departments tasked with gathering and releasing the following documents do their assessment and vetting as would be done through the access to information process:
I've got several more here, Mr. Chair. It seems that is the way most of the motions have gone, both in English and French, from Madam Block and Mr. Barlow as well. So I would suggest that we tag that on to the end of this motion as well.
So moved. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Anytime Mr. Fisher wants to move more Conservative motions into the public record, I certainly welcome him to do so. However, yes, certainly that seems like a fair amendment, and we'll be supporting it.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Given the fact that the Conservatives seem willing to accept the amendment I don't have anything further to say.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
I would agree. It seems to me that this amendment is clearly done to ensure that privacy is protected, and I think we can all understand the sensitivity potentially, so I think this is a very good amendment.
Thank you.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I think it's a reasonable request that will help narrow the scope to relevant information, which would be beneficial to our committee. I support my colleagues.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
1:55 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm having some trouble understanding what the amendment has to do with privacy. What do memos and background documents given to a deputy minister or minister, not to mention briefing notes, have to do with privacy?
When emails are involved, I can appreciate that they might contain some compromising information and would have to be scrutinized. I'd like to hear from members who have more committee experience than I do. I am open to their views.
Earlier, Mr. Davies referred to documents that contained way too many redactions. Doesn't this actually open the door to overly redacted documents, considering that emails were stricken from the motion? I would understand if emails were still being requested, since people have a tendency to say certain things in an email because it's like chatting with a co-worker at the office. The contents of an email could go beyond the scope of what we're looking for. However, I'm having trouble understanding how accessing these formal documents could breach privacy.
It's a simple question. Can anyone answer or reassure me?
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think we've been discussing the motion long enough. I take Mr. Thériault's point, and my fellow members can talk about it further off-line. Clearly, we want to have as much information as possible, and we don't want redacted documents. We are willing to support Mr. Fisher's amendment.
I would like us to vote now, please.