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.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to thank MP Kwan for introducing what we're saying is a subamendment, because I think her concerns around personal information and privacy are very similar to my own.
The only thing is that I don't feel that it's a subamendment. It's really a different amendment. I believe you have ruled on that, but in a sense it changes Ms. Sidhu's amendment to the extent that I think it's preferable for us to vote on Ms. Sidhu's amendment and then perhaps see if Ms. Kwan would like to introduce her subamendment as an amendment.
This is shaping up to be a little puzzling. I offer that because, just like Mr. Kelloway, I'm getting a little confused as to exactly what we're voting on.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Ms. Kwan's subamendment is on the table, and it is the one we're dealing with. We need to deal with that before we get to the original amendment as it may or may not be amended by this motion.
The debate on the subamendment continues.
Ms. Kwan, please go ahead.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
To wrap up my comments, I think my subamendment is one that bridges the sides. The amendment that was moved by Ms. Sidhu is much broader in its scope, which raises the concern that important information may be redacted, and then seeking these documents would become meaningless. This is a process the committee embarked on before, and the documents that came back were effectively meaningless because much of the information was redacted.
If the concern truly is to ensure that people's privacy is dealt with, then we can do that with my subamendment, to ensure that privacy issues are protected, which is to say that people's names and personal information would be redacted from the documents.
To the other point, on February 26, the health committee did pass such a motion on a different matter, requesting documents, briefing notes and so on, and the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons had undertaken the work to vet the documents for these three reasons: privacy, cabinet confidence and national security.
I'm hoping my subamendment will get support so we can move on to dealing with the many other issues that are before us today at committee.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Kwan's argument is exactly why I think we want to use our language, because the language that was very close to what is in the subamendment is perhaps what caused a lot of the redactions last time.
I totally appreciate what you're trying to get at, MP Kwan. I still think ours allows for more information that the committee is seeking to come back.
Mr. Chair, I'm not sure exactly how we proceed on this. I guess we have to—
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Okay. Can we go back to a question that Dr. Jaczek asked?
This seems to be significantly different, not just a tweak. You did rule that it could be a subamendment, but it seems it's significantly different from what was proposed by Ms. Sidhu. I'm by no means second-guessing your decision, Mr. Chair, but I do think this takes us in a different direction, so I'm wondering how we proceed here.
Is there a way of finding out if this subamendment does represent the integrity of Ms. Sidhu's amendment?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I don't believe there's a requirement that it does, but I will ask the clerk to give us an opinion.
3:45 p.m.
The Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My understanding of this subamendment would be that it narrows the scope of what Ms. Sidhu was asking for, and it clarifies or modifies the proposed amendment. So, in this case, my understanding of this subamendment would be that the documents would arrive from the government unredacted, and the OLCPC would be in charge of redacting the documents in the manner proposed in the subamendment.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I just want to put this on the record, addressing MP Fisher's point of view, and say that the documents that came back were over-redacted. This is the reality.
The law clerk's office never had a chance to do the redaction. In fact, the information they got was already redacted, and given that they did not have a chance to see the original, unredacted documents, they were unable to provide the information. That's why it was over-redacted, exactly to the point that MP Fisher is raising. This motion before us, I believe, would result in a situation where the information that the committee is seeking would be over-redacted.
Let me just put on the public record what the law clerk's office had provided related to this issue. The government actually didn't allow the law clerk to do the redaction in response to the February 26 motion. That is why it's over-redacted, so I want to be clear about that. In the letter from the law clerk's office on this subject, they said this:
Upon reception of the documents on March 15, 2020, you provided them to my Office so that we could make the necessary redactions to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens, permanent residents and public servants as contemplated by the production order. However, as mentioned above, the documents had already been redacted by the respective departments.
As my Office has not been given the opportunity to see the unredacted information, we are not able to confirm or adopt those redactions. My Office did make one additional redaction to the documents regarding a public servant.
At a meeting with my Office on March 10, 2020, representatives of the departments had expressed concerns about providing to the Committee or to my Office, unredacted information that would, in their view, fall under statutory disclosure exemptions.
During that meeting, we 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. One such measure was the Committee's decision to have my Office make the necessary redactions to protect personal information.
In the circumstances, it is for the Committee to determine whether it is satisfied with the documents as redacted by the departments.
My Office is at the disposal of the Committee should it wish to be provided with more information or require further assistance on this matter.
From this quote from the law clerk's office, it is clear that they never actually had access to the original documents to make a determination on what information should be redacted.
If MP Fisher has already indicated his concern, his stance, then he would want to accept my amendment as proposed and let the law clerk's office do this work, not the department officials. That's how I think we can prevent over-redaction. The over-redaction came from the departments. That's what happened last time. If we're going to learn from that, then I think we can try a different route, which, by the way, is what was proposed on February 26 and accepted by the committee.
To the point that this is somehow a different amendment, I don't think so. I think this is a subamendment to go through the redaction process, or the access of the vetting process, if you will.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The language that we're using relates to access to information and privacy. Those are principles and processes that have been adopted by the government. Those are principles and processes that would apply to all parties, be it Conservative, NDP or the Liberal government. I just don't understand why people are reluctant to apply the principles that this government has established as appropriate: one, to provide the information that is necessary and relevant, and two, to protect the privacy of individuals.
What I'm looking at here is that materials that do not contain either the privacy...or issues that are raised by other orders of government can be publicly shared, as is requested, but we need to be mindful of the privacy issues. Again, why is it that people are turning their backs to the processes that have been established? Why is it that people don't think that the access to information and privacy regulations are sufficient? Isn't that really what we're looking for? Isn't that what's been established?
So, what is it? I simply don't understand why we're ignoring something that has clearly been established to benefit the Canadian people, to benefit committees, to benefit the government and to benefit all parties. Why aren't we applying this on a consistent basis for everyone in government?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm wondering about the vetting process and whether a public servant can take the documents and vet them. I'm just thinking about the legal ramifications.
Ms. Kwan, you took out the access to information process, which is what Parliament uses to vet documents. Did you take that out on purpose because you like the other possibility more?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Given that it was a direct question to you, Ms. Kwan, I will invite you to respond, if you wish.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much. I'm not quite sure what MP Fisher's point is.
The point, from my perspective, is this: We're talking about who should be doing the vetting of the documents. I think that there is an office that can be set up to do it outside of the department. Perhaps then, in terms of ensuring that the documents are vetted in a non-partisan way, without any undue influence of any sort, or the perception of it, the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons is well suited for this. That is the purpose here.
I will remind the committee members that on February 26, the language about using the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House to do this work was, in fact, adopted by this committee. This is what I'm proposing to go forward with.
It's already been admitted by MP Fisher that the last set of documents that came back was overly redacted. We already know that. We already acknowledged that. I think it would be important to go through this different process.
The other thing is that, to somehow suggest that going through the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons would be deficient, with all due respect, I disagree with any such suggestions. In fact, I would argue that they are well placed to do this work and can address the concerns of privacy protection. Having them do the work does not eliminate the privacy protection, as has been suggested by a member. It does not eliminate that at all.
At the same time, it can ensure that the information the committee is seeking can be made available, with the privacy protections intact, and it can ensure that the public gets the necessary information about what's happened with respect to this issue around masking.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'll follow up a little bit on what Mr. Fisher was saying. This language was used in February. According to some members of the committee, documents came back excessively redacted. I'm wondering what would be different this time. Departmental officials surely have their rules within the department to apply access to information through an established process. Surely they're not going to send documents that they haven't vetted through that process to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. Surely they have their own rules that apply to the information in their possession.
I'm just puzzled to see how this would really result in a different outcome this time.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
It may be my small-town mindset here, but it seems like we tried what's being proposed here in February, and it didn't work. Now we're proposing something in the original amendment that we think will. If it didn't work the first time, why would we expect a different result?
The other aspect that I want an answer to—maybe here or at another time—is about the law clerk. Would they have the same training or ability to vet that an ATIP official would have? That's a question as well.