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.