Evidence of meeting #46 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Now, we know that the documents are allowed to be redacted for national security reasons, for privacy reasons, and in the case of certain documents for any interference with contractual relations. Mr. Dufresne, is it your understanding that there are 990,000 documents in the possession of the government that relate to national security or privacy concerns, and that that's why they're withholding those documents from this committee?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I don't know what the government has in its possession that it has not given to me.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Have any of the documents you've received been related to national security or personal privacy, or engaged those concerns?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I believe we have some proposed redactions in some documents that have not yet been translated that we will be looking at, and that would be with respect to personal information. I believe we also have a document redacted on the basis of government security under the Access to Information Act.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Davies. I expect you'll have a chance to resume your questions later.
We go now to Ms. O'Connell for five minutes.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Davies, in a pretty rude comment to my colleague Mr. Van Bynen, referred to his point of order as “desperate”, but watching that interaction by Mr. Davies was what I would determine as “pretty desperate”, referring to something as Watergate, a cover-up, withholding documents. That's pretty interesting, given the fact that thousands of documents have been handed over. These unredacted documents have been handed over. Documents have been handed to multiple committees.
“Grasping at straws” might be another characterization, but it's okay—we'll continue with the witch hunt of the Conservative-NDP coalition. I never thought I'd live to see the day, but here we are.
Mr. Dufresne, I apologize. I feel for you in this very clearly political battle here, but I just want to clarify a few things that I heard in the last round of questioning.
Has it been indicated by the government that they are withholding any documents? That's a pretty big accusation. You indicated that there are thousands of pages and they are coming in, and they are still coming in, so has it come to your attention that the government has said, “We are withholding these documents”?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Not to my knowledge, no.
As I say, we have some documents with redactions that we can't see behind. We continue to expect the disclosure to come to us when it comes.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Right, because this is a process that's ongoing. There is no withholding.
I think this type of language is consistent with, again, that kind of theme of desperation. There is no conspiracy theory too small that the Conservatives, and now the NDP, won't track down.
I want to get into another point of clarification. I keep referring to it as the “Barlow motion”, but it's the motion from February 5. In that third paragraph, Mr. Davies kept referencing, in reference to this motion, that the documents were ordered by the House. This motion states, “that the committee request from the government the contracts”. Is this an order of production of documents?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
The motion by the committee is a motion that was adopted by the committee.
Liberal
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
It's a motion that requests “from the government the contracts”.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Right, and which, again, the government did provide to the committee, as set out in that third paragraph.
I feel for you, Mr. Dufresne. When it comes to the production of documents motion, the original in October, I feel that it was a poorly written motion. It left out a pretty big piece in terms of vaccine contracts that the Conservatives seem to think they want to have at all costs, even if it puts vaccines in jeopardy.
Instead of dealing with the fact that they wrote a pretty poor motion, they then come back and try to come up with a motion, which I referred to as the “Barlow motion”, and try to put in a clause that suggests that vaccine contracts were included in the original October motion. But you can't make something exist that doesn't exist, that Parliament has already voted on.
We've heard all week that Parliament is supreme. Parliament voted on that October 26 motion that did not include vaccine contracts. Then the Barlow motion came forward, and the government complied with it.
Moving on to the redaction piece, I wanted to just.... Again, if we're referring to the Barlow motion, since there is no reference to vaccine contracts in the October motion from the House, then my question is around the redaction, or the vetting. Mr. Davies rose in the House on December 3, and actually said, “Nobody is asking for detailed commercial information.” When it comes to vaccine contracts and the vetting, even members of the opposition stated that they didn't want commercial information.
Is that the vetting process the government would have done in compliance with the Barlow motion on February 5?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
l think, again, it's up to the committee to determine whether it is satisfied with the production in light of the Barlow motion and in light of the House order that's referenced in terms of the vetting “in accordance with the parameters set out in the house motion.” Again, it's for the committee to consider what it has received, why certain things may be redacted and whether it's satisfied with those reasons.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Fair enough, and whether or not they are trying to rewrite history with a couple of bad motions that didn't really cover everything.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.
We will go now to Ms. Rempel Garner.
Go ahead, please. You have five minutes.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll start by saying that the term “witch hunt” is pejorative to practising pagans and Wiccans in Canada, and should be used with that understanding.
Having said that, I will turn my time over to Mr. Davies.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Well, thank you.
Again, I don't know how much more time we need to spend on Ms. O'Connell's attempt to pretend today is Sunday when it's simply not.
The quote that Ms. O'Connell raised was me speaking in the House, speaking to the commercial interests that would be at risk upon disclosure of the vaccine contracts. Of course, I was speaking in terms of the October 26 motion. We were debating it. Along with Minister Anand's remarks, which I've already read into the record, these make it crystal clear that everybody in the House and in the world understood that vaccine contracts would be covered by the October 26 order. Despite the valiant but weak attempt to pretend that's not the case today, that's not going to fool anybody.
I'll just come back to one part of this, Mr. Dufresne, and it is a straightforward question. When the vaccine contracts were delivered—and this government did deliver them—were they redacted in accordance with the instructions of the House order? In fact, I want to put the exact wording to you so that we can be very precise about this. Mr. Barlow's motion stated, “that the documents be vetted in accordance with the parameters set out in the house motion”. I'll break that down. The House motion being referred to is the House motion of October 26. Was that your understanding, Mr. Dufresne?
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Were those documents—the vaccine contract documents—vetted in accordance with the parameters set out in the House motion? What is your opinion on that?