Health Committee on June 18th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

Ms. Rempel Garner, did you wish also to respond?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Are you ruling that my line of questions is in order or out of order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I asked if you wanted to respond to the points. However, I am prepared to rule.

I agree that we generally give wide latitude in asking about estimates. I believe that the microbiology lab is relevant. However, I take Ms. O'Connell's point. The direct line of questioning that you reference, Ms. Rempel Garner, is about a House procedure. It's far too peripheral. I would rule that this line of questioning is not relevant, and I would ask you—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

I will ask the clerk to conduct a vote.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)

Thank you to the committee.

Ms. Rempel Garner, you may continue with your line of questions.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Just on a point of order, Chair, can you let me know what your clock says?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

My clock says 4:41, but I think—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I have three—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Don't interrupt me, please.

I think we lost at least a minute, so I will give you.... We'll call it four minutes, so you would have two minutes left.

Go ahead.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Stewart, did anyone from the Prime Minister's Office, any staff or anyone from the minister's office, any staff or any other staff, advise you on whether or not to comply with the House order made yesterday?

[Iain Stewart]

I've had no conversations with anybody in the Prime Minister's Office on this topic. I have not had discussions with my minister's office with respect to the intent to comply on Monday.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Do you believe that your opinion on this matter supersedes the Speaker of the House of Commons?

[Iain Stewart]

Mr. Chair and honourable member, if I can have the time to respond to this question uninterrupted, I would like to try to take it on, since the member has asked it several times.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I would ask for a yes or no on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The witness may answer as he deems appropriate.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Again, Chair, I have a minute, and I've been interrupted many times.

I would like to know, as it is material, if Mr. Stewart believes that his opinion supersedes the will of Parliament on this matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You've asked. You should expect to hear the answer. Mr. Stewart can give the answer that he feels appropriate. I will make allowances for time.

Please go ahead, Mr. Stewart.

[Iain Stewart]

Thank you.

The way the question is being framed makes it difficult to respond to. I would invite a different way of responding be considered.

I am a career public servant, and as a career public servant, I have to follow the law. There are two laws that limit my ability to act. Nothing in the motion has amended the law to date, so it creates a difficult situation. Therefore, it's not about my view of somebody else. It's about the advice I've received about what I'm allowed to do under the law.

Thank you for the question, honourable member.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you.

You do realize, Mr. Stewart, that the law.... Parliament makes laws and also has the ability to determine what documents are produced, so I guess I would just ask if are you now in a position where you are interpreting the will of Parliament as opposed to Parliament.

Is that what you're suggesting to the committee?

[Iain Stewart]

Mr. Chair and honourable member, that was a very excellent way of structuring what you're asking.

In fact, Parliament does make law, and I am required to follow that law. The House of Commons' motion does not amend the law, and that's been the challenge in this file.

Thank you, honourable member.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. Rempel Garner, you have 30 seconds left.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Stewart, you do realize that the Speaker ruled on sections of the law that were applicable to the House order and found a prima facie breach of privilege, so what you just said is out of alignment with what the Speaker of the House of Commons found and what Parliament then ruled upon.

Do you find that now you are making pronouncements upon the will of Parliament as opposed to obeying the will of Parliament, as you said, in your role as a career public servant?

[Iain Stewart]

Mr. Chair and honourable member, what I've been trying to say is that the law places obligations on me, and the advice I've received helps me stay within compliance with that law.

I don't have opinions of the nature the member is ascribing to me regarding the Speaker and his ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

We go now to Ms. O'Connell.

Ms. O'Connell, please go ahead for six minutes.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Stewart, let's pick up where you left off. I think that it was an excellent point that the motion doesn't change the law that you are bound by as a public official in this. In that vein, in the laws in particular around.... Obviously, one set is around privacy, and the other is around national security.

When it comes to national security redactions in that process, I would assume this is not a decision that is made alone by you in particular, but that national security-type redactions would be done.... Maybe the question is this, and it doesn't have to be about these specifics.

What is that process to considering national security redactions?