Evidence of meeting #33 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.
The Clerk
You're currently debating the amendment, which reads, “provided that the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel vet the documents for matters of cabinet confidence and national security as well as privacy pertaining to names and personal information.”
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I have a quick point of order, Mr. Chair. What did we just vote on, then? That's what I voted on.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We voted on a subamendment that changed Ms. Sidhu's amendment into what you just heard.
Mr. Van Bynen, please go ahead.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you.
I would like to get some clarification. I know that the intent here was to gain the benefit and to respect the rights of all people with respect to the ATIP legislation. Can somebody tell me how this alters the process from the ATIP legislation and what that process is? Who would be undertaking that review, and how is what's being proposed any different from simply relying on the ATIP legislation?
Is there someone who can give me that advice?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'm seeing no one's hand go up.
Mr. Fisher, your hand was up already. I believe you wished to speak on—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay. No worries.
The ATIP language is no longer on the table. We are voting on the amendment to vet the documents according to the language proposed by Ms. Kwan, which is to have the law clerk do the redactions as necessary.
Is there any further debate? Seeing none, we will conduct the vote on the amendment.
(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are now on the main motion, Mr. Jeneroux's motion, as twice amended now.
Is there any further debate?
Mr. Kelloway, I see that you have your hand up. Please go ahead.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
I talked about this before, in terms of the original amendment. I'm looking at the two dates in question, August 3 and August 10, that are in the original motion. Given that summer is going by so quickly and August is just around the corner, I'd like to make a friendly amendment in terms of the dates being changed respectively to August 31 and August 31.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
That would be an amendment to what's in the motion, yes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Very well.
We now have an amendment on the table to amend the dates.
Could we clarify what the dates are?
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Sure. The documents would be provided by the government by Monday, August 31, 2020, and the documents would be published publicly on the committee's website by Monday, August 31, 2020.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I think that's reasonable. Hopefully, a lot of our wonderful public servants will be getting a little bit of time off during the summer. I think we can all agree that they've been tasked with Herculean work and effort in the last 110 to 115 days. August 3 is not very far away. I think it's a good compromise to move it up to August 31.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Fisher.
Is there any further debate?
Ms. Sidhu, please go ahead.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Mr. Chair, I would like to speak in favour of MP Kelloway's amendment.
A notice of this motion was given, and the motion was moved on July 7, so pushing the date of production to August 31 would provide approximately the same timeline. It's worth noting that given that most people are working from home, locating these documents is more of a challenge. I'm in favour of Mr. Kelloway's motion. This is a reasonable ask, as public servants have been working very hard recently due to COVID-19.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Sidhu.
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Van Bynen, please go ahead.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're looking at a considerable number of documents. Frankly, the amount of time that it has taken for us to.... We're not even finished with this motion yet. I think the staff genuinely want to meet the timelines. Requesting them to meet timelines that are unmanageable, I think, is unfair to them. This is a particularly busy time of year. As mentioned by Ms. Sidhu, a lot of people are working from home, so these are not the normal processes. Now that we've added additional steps, I think that the consideration of additional time is quite appropriate.
I will be supporting that amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I have a note from the clerk to please verify the dates. There's a comment here that to receive the unredacted documents and to post them on the website on the same day doesn't allow time for vetting them. Perhaps you could clarify the dates again, Mr. Kelloway.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Sure. Given what you just said, we'd be looking at the changing the first date, so that documents be provided by the government by Monday, August 31.
What I'm hearing is that it obviously can't be done the same day. I think it's reasonable to look at a week later—September 7, perhaps.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That's essentially a change to what was moved. Do we have unanimous consent to adopt these changes, or do we need a subamendment?
Can I get some indication of whether we are prepared to accept Mr. Kelloway's clarification?
Seeing no dissent, we shall deem it was moved—
Conservative
