Health Committee on July 13th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Mr. Fisher, please go ahead.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The privacy and things that should be redacted because of this proposed amendment.... Imagine conversations with a province or a territory. Imagine names of ministers and public figures. I think it's important that we consider privacy.

I get what MP Kwan is saying. It's important to ensure that the proper people are vetting this, but the language that is used by MP Sidhu is the exact language that was put forward by.... I read this and Matt got a great chuckle out of it last time, but this wording comes from Conservative motions.

John Barlow moved:

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.

We hear this angst about keeping things from the public. This is strictly about privacy, relationships and discussions.

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[.]

There are more. There are many of these, and they all appear to be Conservative motions, so I'm not sure why folks are up in arms about this.

I will agree with Jenny that it's important that any vetting that is done be the proper vetting for the real reason of privacy. I share her concern about making sure that not too much is redacted and that the right people do the redacting.

Thank you for that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

We go now to Dr. Kitchen. Please go ahead.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, everyone, for your input.

With all due respect to Mr. Fisher, what was proposed back at that time was a number of months ago. We've since seen what has come out of that and the information that's been provided or has not been provided. The redacting of that information basically left in the “thes”, the “tos” and the “ins” but took everything else out, and that's challenging.

When we turn around—and we made adjustments to the motions by taking out emails or by taking out texting—we find out that Minister Champagne said in an article in The Star on April 3, “You know, basically, I had to negotiate the landing slots for our planes to land in Peru, I did that by text message, to be honest”. Then the minister, at our meeting, meeting number 30 on June 23, 2020, basically said, “We did diplomacy by text message. I managed to get people out of Peru by texting my counterpart there and negotiating landing rights. We got people out of Morocco by texting the minister and saying we needed one more flight.”

This is information that has been put out there that we hear after the fact, after it's all been redacted and taken out. So I truly—

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry to interrupt, Dr. Kitchen.

Those motions I just read, which were moved by Conservatives, were for documents that have not even been produced yet. Those are for August production of documents, so they're not old. That's not in relation to the one you're talking about that came back already previously redacted.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Correct. The reality is that it was redacted. Why? It was because of ATIPs. For you to suggest that this is not the case—and then we have to wait to see what the ultimate response is—I think is a little misleading.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Please direct your comments through the chair.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Ultimately, I would ask Madame Sidhu to reconsider this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Dr. Kitchen.

We will go now to Mr. Kelloway.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'll certainly be supporting the amendment being posed here by MP Sidhu.

We talk about the importance of transparency, and I think everyone would agree with that. Every Canadian would agree with that. Everyone on this panel and every staff member would, but I also think there are two other elements that go with transparency, and they are efficiency and consistency. I look at MP Barlow or MP Block, and, if it's good for those folks, I think it should be good for us, in this case.

I think you can have all three elements: transparency, efficiency and consistency. I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.

We will go now to Mr. Jeneroux.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you to MP Fisher, on the comment about imagining that the names of public figures were to be released, quite honestly, that's why we are public figures, for that purpose. The Minister of Health has a tremendous responsibility in making sure she is accountable to Canadians and, quite frankly, to the opposition in this case, and that's what we're trying to get to the bottom of.

The motions that Mr. Fisher references apparently were agreements made off-line. I certainly wasn't privy to any of those being asked of us here at HESA. It means we don't have to do that. Nobody has approached me to make any of these sorts of deals off-line either, so, Mr. Fisher, they do not necessarily pertain to here.

I simply implore the committee.... We've worked extremely well together. We've heard lots of very important testimony. In light of everything we've heard and the consistent lack of preparedness and readiness for this pandemic, I think Canadians certainly would appreciate the ability to know that the government has, perhaps, learned lessons and is looking forward to implementing certain things that maybe weren't in place before, and that's fine. We want to make sure we have those as part of our report so that it can then become lessons learned for the next government in any other potential pandemics.

There's no need, most times, for these government members to defend the government. Particularly in light of the WE scandal that we saw, there really isn't any reason to stand and try to protect the government. There is every reason that transparency should be even more important today.

I'll leave my comments there, Mr. Chair, but I implore the members to reconsider, thinking that there's an opportunity in front of them to stand tall and really promote transparency here at this committee, where we can all do that together in a non-partisan way, but certainly that would begin with the withdrawal of this type of motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Jeneroux.

We go now to Mr. Van Bynen.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm supporting the comments that were made earlier by Dr. Jaczek on the information we need to be cognizant of. There is a significant amount of personal information. The legislation is on access to information and privacy, and I think we need to respect the privacy component. This is legislation that's been adopted by the House, and it's been adopted for a reason.

Some of the materials involved could be discussions with other orders of government, which are likely to be caught up. It's important that they need to be consulted with as we go forward. I think there's some degree of privacy in the discussions between different levels of government, and some degree of privacy for personal information.

Again, I want to emphasize that this legislation was put into place to protect people's right to privacy, and the format and the judgment that's being exercised will be exercised in accordance with the rules. Why is it that we would object to exercising and living by the rules that the government has established? Why do we have access to information and privacy legislation when we don't intend to respect it?

There's a real need to respect what has been adopted by this government, so I will be supporting Ms. Sidhu's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

We go now to Mrs. Jansen.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I'm a bit mind-boggled by the constant talk about privacy, when we need to understand that Canadians are scared. Canadians are looking to their public officials for good leadership based on good science. How can we get the good science if we're going to be told that there's a lot of privacy that has to be upheld? If someone has made a mistake, we definitely need to know. How are we going to know if we're all of a sudden talking about privacy being more important?

If there's information, we need to put it on the table. For instance, if Canadians aren't wearing masks—and let's face it, when you go out into town they aren't—we need to understand what information she got. Lay it all out on the table so Canadians can really see why suddenly now masks work. It's so important. To suggest that privacy is suddenly a top priority.... Canadians are scared and they aren't wearing masks. Privacy needs to take second place right now, and we need to look at the numbers.

If we actually want people to consider her new advice, we are going to have to lay out the information so that nothing is hidden. It's very important. I think if we're going to look at this from a non-partisan perspective, Canadians will respect what this committee is doing. If we can't lay the information out on the line, Canadians are going to continue to not wear masks and not do what they're being asked to do, which will, as we know, have its regular effect, which is that more people will get sick.

I'm begging you. We need to make sure that we have all the information, that we are completely transparent with Canadians. Otherwise this looks just like some kind of political theatre yet again, and Canadians' lives are on the line.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mrs. Jansen.

Mr. Fisher, go ahead.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Matt talked about this committee working very well together, and he's right. This committee has worked well together. In fact, I think if you look back on most of the motions that have come up through this committee, you will see they have been, for the most part, unanimous.

We also have, for the first time ever, a really good relationship among the provinces and territories and the federal government because of the importance of this pandemic and the importance of working together. I'm quite proud of the way the provinces, territories and the federal government have worked together, just like, within the House of Commons, I'm quite proud that the opposition parties and the government have all worked well together. Parties have come up with great suggestions, and the government has enacted those great suggestions. I don't want to see what we're talking about here today interfere with that.

We want to make sure that we get all the information we are seeking as a committee, but also that we protect the privacy of Canadians. That's what's important. MP Kwan said it very well. I can't even imagine the examples, but let's think about someone in Quebec being part of a briefing note or being part of documentation, and being named. That person does not deserve to have his or her name.... Matt's right about public figures. Public figures sign up for this stuff; a lot of people don't sign up for this stuff.

I just think that if we have the ability to provide the level of privacy that Canadians deserve and expect from government, we should put this language in there. Again, going back to MP Kwan's points, making sure that this is done in the proper way so that it protects the privacy of Canadians is the outcome that we want. But, as Mrs. Jansen said, it's also about coming up with all of the information that answers all the questions of the people on this committee.

I will continue. I have not yet heard any reason not to support Ms. Sidhu's amendment to ensure the privacy of Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

We go now to Dr. Jaczek.

Please go ahead.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I've been looking at this wording very, very carefully, in terms of what Ms. Sidhu has presented as an amendment. I just don't understand where the fear is coming from that we will not get good information. Essentially, we're asking the department to do “its assessment and vetting in gathering and releasing the documents as it would be done through the access to information process”. That is a process that has been approved. It has become almost standard language. It obviously does protect individuals in terms of their personal information—many people are very concerned about the privacy of their personal information—but in no way does it preclude the gathering of important information that we all would like to get through the gist of this motion. It simply puts in a layer of protection.

Dr. Kitchen's motion, which we all passed on June 15, had exactly the same language in it. We have yet to see the results of that particular motion, because the date was amended. I just fail to understand how we're going to be denied the type of important information, substantive information that led to decision-making, by ensuring that personal privacy is protected.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Doctor.

We'll go now to Ms. Sidhu.

Ms. Sidhu, go ahead, please.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I just want to remind all members what we are here to talk about. We're not here to try to score political points. We are here to help Canadians. As was the case in February, the same language was used to respect the privacy of Canadians. Just keep that in mind. I think my motion is absolutely what we want from them. The main thrust is that we want information. That information is what we should focus on.

Again, I want to remind everyone that this is the 33rd meeting. We work together. Let's focus on Canadians, not on scoring political points.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Sidhu.

Mr. Jeneroux, please go ahead.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to address a few points that were raised about why we think this particular language will withhold information. I would simply point back to the motion that was adopted at the February 26, 2020 meeting of the Standing Committee on Health, at which we indicated that we wanted text messages and emails. The government was really nervous about the text messages piece. Then it was sent to the parliamentary counsel and law clerk's office. During their review of that information, they essentially determined that it's not a government's role to redact information that comes to committee. The committee determines whether or not to make that information public.

I'll read just a quick excerpt from that letter, which was sent to the clerk of the committee at the time, Mr. Jacques. It says:

[W]e reminded the government officials that the House's and its committees' powers to order the production of records is absolute and unfettered as it constitutes a constitutional parliamentary privilege that supersedes statutory obligations. We added that the House and its committees are the appropriate authority to determine whether any reasons for withholding the documents should be accepted or not; and that it was for the Committee to determine whether it was prepared to accept any proposed measures that would prevent the disclosure of sensitive information for any reason.

Essentially, it says that these committees supersede the order of precedence in terms of the House, and that making this particular motion is an overreach on the ATIP side. Quite honestly, at this time and day we want more information.

I would again request that Ms. Sidhu withdraw her motion. It was the non-partisan law clerk and parliamentary counsel who made that ruling, not the Conservative Party, or the NDP or the Bloc Québécois. Again, I implore Ms. Sidhu to consider withdrawing her motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Jeneroux.

Ms. Kwan, go ahead.