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.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As the clerk said, MP Kwan's motion would allow the information to be provided. However, I think my motion is broader, and I echo my colleagues. If the last time it didn't work, why would we take the chance again? We tried this in February. It didn't work, so we should go with what I proposed.
Thank you.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you.
I'll just ask a question of the clerk, if I may. Is the law clerk able to vet cabinet confidence?
4 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, I'm not sure about that. I wouldn't think so.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I can't imagine that the law clerk would want to determine what is cabinet confidence as well. Have we thought about asking?
I know MP Kwan gave an awful lot of information there that I was trying to follow. Was there something in what you read there, Jenny, that spoke to the fact that the law clerk would do this on behalf of the committee?
4 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much.
A number of points have been made. First off, on the question of why we would go through the same process again when it was already done for February 26, just so every single committee member is clear on this point, the motion that was passed on February 26 did not get followed. Why? The law clerk's office did not get the unredacted documents to go through to determine what should be redacted. In fact, they got documents from department officials that were already redacted.
That's why it was over-redacted. They never got to do that work. The motion that was passed by the health committee on February 26 was never followed through on, which I believe is probably contempt for the committee's work by the government side, so that's why.
To the committee members who are asking why, if the February 26 motion didn't work, we are embarking on that process, you are arguing on exactly that point. The amendment that was moved by MP Sidhu is for exactly the process that produced the documents that were useless. We're embarking on exactly the same process again if we pass that amendment instead of my suggested amendment.
On the second point, with respect to the issue around the work of the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, the language that I used was exactly the language adopted from the February 26 motion. The committee actually adopted that and accepted it at that point. The only problem is that they never actually followed through with that work. The government stopped the law clerk's office from doing that work.
I would suggest that we pass my subamendment, follow through with that process and see what the end result is going to be.
The long passage that I read was from a document that I believe has been shared with all committee members, and that is what they indicated, that the office would be prepared to assist. I can read the passage again if the committee members would be so inclined.
Would you like me to read that passage again, Mr. Chair, the long paragraph that I quoted from the letter?
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
All right, for clarity, I will read the passage again so that all committee members can hear it. This is a direct quote from the letter from the law clerk's office on this subject:
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.
This is the entire quote that I read out earlier, from a letter from the clerk's office.
Again, to summarize this whole point, the process that was followed on the motion of February 26 was never followed through with the law clerk's office. They received already redacted documents and, because they had not been able to see the original unredacted documents, they could not comment on whether or not the information redacted was valid. What we do know is this: It's clear that the information that came from that redacted document was overly redacted.
If we want to get a different outcome, as MP Kelloway and others have suggested, then we should not do what we have already done, and that is to have the department vet these documents. If we pass the amendment as proposed by MP Sidhu, then we're going through exactly the same process. If we want to get a different outcome for the purposes of accountability and transparency, I would suggest that we go through the law clerk's office.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess I've done as much thinking and talking about this as I possibly can. I still don't believe that law clerks can handle the cabinet confidence portion, maybe not even the national security portion. Ms. Kwan has talked about the clerk's office and the law clerk's office. I understand they're two different offices.
I think I will continue to support MP Sidhu on this. I guess we vote on the subamendment and then, if that doesn't go through, we go back and vote on Ms. Sidhu's amendment.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Mr. Chair, I have a quick point of order on Mr. Fisher's comments.
I believe that the government can withhold the cabinet confidence anyway. Nowhere do I note that this is referencing cabinet confidence. If I'm mistaken, then that's on me, but I believe that's not part of this ask, so essentially his comments are moot when it comes to cabinet confidences.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
This is a question for the clerk or my fellow parliamentarians who have been here longer than I have. Does the law clerk have the security clearance to view the original document, or is security clearance not a factor in this?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I believe that is a question for the clerk.
Madam Clerk, if you are able to, could you respond?
July 13th, 2020 / 4:10 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, I don't have a definitive response for what the law clerk's security clearance is. I would imagine that it's quite high.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Is there any further debate? I'm seeing none, so we will call a vote on Ms. Kwan's subamendment.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are now moving on to the amendment to the motion as amended, with the email changes. The amendment proposes to enable vetting according to the language proposed by Ms. Kwan.
Is there any further debate on this? The debate is on the amendment now on the floor.
Mr. Kelloway, please go ahead.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
I'd like to make an amendment to the date, but I'm not sure that's what you're asking.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
No, we're not at that point yet. We're voting on the amendment that is now on the floor.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Could you tell me that again? Sorry, the committee just voted for the subamendment.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The amendment to the motion, as previously amended, is that the vetting process be now done according to the language proposed by Ms. Kwan. That is the amendment now before this committee. It is the amendment we are now debating and will eventually vote on.
Is there any further debate on this?
Dr. Jaczek, please go ahead.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I'm really confused. Could we read what we are debating now, please?