Evidence of meeting #6 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subamendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
It reads:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the committee order all documents, including briefing notes, memos, emails, text messages, and summaries of phone calls prepared for the Minister of Health, Minister of Transport, Minister of Public Safety, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Minister of National Defence regarding the outbreak of the coronavirus, no later than March 3, 2020; that matters of national security be excluded from the request, and that any redactions to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens whose names and personal information may be included in the documents, as well as public servants who have been providing assistance on this matter, be made by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons.
Is that clear now?
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
It's just a comment. I'm thankful for the member opposite's comments.
In terms of transparency, obviously we're all supportive of that. In terms of efficiency in getting to transparency, I think that's equally important. I just want us to be aware that, if my understanding is correct, if it is the chief public health officer who has to accumulate those emails and other public health and safety officials' emails and phone calls. It's actually the person; it's not the staff doing it.
My concern is that that's going to take time away from the work at hand. That's my concern.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Mike basically said what I was going to say.
I think our concern on this side is that these are all ministries that have this added—and pretty excessive—burden of dealing with the coronavirus on top of the work they had before. Presumably, they were all pretty busy before. Now they're really busy, and then this diverts their attention away from what, hopefully, they ought to be doing, which is dealing with the emerging threat of coronavirus. Instead, it is diverting them to doing an administrative task of pulling up all these old emails and texts.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
We have Mr. Fisher, Mr. Davies, Mr. Van Bynen and Mr. Jeneroux. I would also caution everyone that we are hoping to have a briefing here, so if we can wrap this up soon, that would be good.
Mr. Fisher, please.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Mike and Marcus said very much what I want to say. The amendment that Mike read gives so much. There's no way we can do it by the 28th, but perhaps we could consider it by the 15th. We had 23 days from February 5—from the original motion being logged. The fact that it was on the table doesn't mean that all of the departments were accumulating all those things in the expectation that this motion was going to come forward.
We certainly want to be very transparent. This is important stuff. It is important that Canadians get to hear and see all this stuff. I'm happy to support Mike's amendment, but I won't be supporting your subamendment. But I love you, man.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I have a few things. One is that we may need a friendly amendment in either event, because the language that purports to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens whose names and personal information may be included probably should be changed to something broader or include the words “permanent residents”. My understanding is that permanent residents have been impacted by this and we wouldn't want their personal information to be disclosed.
It's been my experience that speeches that begin with profound commitments to transparency often end with a conclusion that calls for less transparency, but I think that the subamendment actually provides a good compromise because it has added the Liberals' concern over national security.
I have a comment and a bit of a question on cabinet confidence. I personally would support an exclusion of cabinet confidence, but I'm wondering if we can get a quick piece of advice from the clerk.
I understand that your original subamendment excluded national security and cabinet confidence matters, but you've taken out “cabinet confidence”. I think that should be in.
My question would be, would that not be an “anyway”? Without us specifying, I think cabinet confidence would always be a reason for government to redact, whether that's specified or not. If there is any doubt on that, I would suggest that “cabinet confidence” be put back into the motion, because I don't think the purpose of this committee here is to try to get at cabinet confidence or issues of national security.
What we should want to get at is full transparency, in terms of helping us understand the real health issues facing Canadians. I think that's the spirit behind Mr. Jeneroux's motion.
I also prefer the word “order”. I don't know what the term “request” means. If we mean for this to be complied with, then we may as well say “order” because a request can just be denied. If that's the case, we'll just come right back with another motion that says “order”. If we mean to get the documents, then we should say so.
Finally, I would just say that I think asking for all the documents requested, as specified by Mr. Jeneroux, is a broader list that will give the committee a more fulsome picture of what's going on. It also satisfies my Liberal colleagues' concerns that national security and cabinet confidence and privacy matters be protected. I think that's a good compromise.
I don't know whether to say I'm supporting the subamendment exactly as written, because I am suggesting that we add the permanent residents portion and that we put “cabinet confidence” back in. I'm hesitant to move a subamendment to a subamendment to an amendment to a motion.
I think if all of us agree by friendly amendment, at least on the subamendment to put “cabinet confidence” and “permanent residents” in, we can at least vote on that. I understand it may still not be enough for my Liberal colleagues to support the subamendment, but I think we all should agree that cabinet confidence as well as protection for permanent residents should be part of the subamendment before we vote on it.
I would offer that as a friendly amendment to Mr. Jeneroux.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We can't officially amend the subamendment, but procedurally, we can ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the subamendment, and then Mr. Jeneroux could move it as he likes.
Do we have unanimous consent to withdraw the subamendment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
So that the changes that Mr. Davies proposed could be in the subamendment....
Do I have unanimous consent to withdraw the subamendment?
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
We would like to get to the briefing as well. That's my only concern if this is going on. Why don't we vote on his subamendment, and then we can vote on the amendment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay, so we can't withdraw the amendment, and we can't change it. The vote is on the subamendment as moved.
Mr. Van Bynen.
February 26th, 2020 / 4:05 p.m.
Liberal
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
I'm unclear. There wasn't a very clear vote there. Mr. Fisher was being distracted at the time. I'm not quite clear if we're all clear on what we were trying to do.
What we're trying to do, Mr. Fisher, is that, if everybody is in agreement, we put back in “cabinet confidence”, which I think you want, and we just clear up the “Canadian citizens” to include “permanent residents”. Then we can vote on the subamendment.
It's just that, procedurally, I can't amend the subamendment. To speed up time, if we just allow Mr. Jeneroux to withdraw it and resubmit it with those changes, then we can vote on the subamendment.
I thought that might help get unanimous consent.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay.
Do we have unanimous consent to withdraw the subamendment?
(Subamendment withdrawn)
The subamendment is withdrawn.
Mr. Jeneroux, do you wish to re-move your subamendment?
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
I would, with the changes indicated by my colleague. I would also look across the table, and perhaps amend the date as suggested by Mr. Fisher to March 15. I believe that's what he said was a more acceptable date. We could certainly work within that as well.
Do I need to read it again? I think we've debated it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I think it's clear now. It's clear to me.
Is it clear to everyone what the subamendment says now?
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Then I would like to move to have a vote on this, but ensure that the vote is also recorded by the clerk.
