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.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.
We do allow a certain latitude. I'm certain that the question of admissibility of documents and the process is relevant.
In any case, I will start Ms. Rempel Garner's time again.
Please carry on, but do bear in mind relevance, if you can.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I would argue it was directly relevant, but with that I will be sharing my time with Mr. Davies.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you.
Mr. Dufresne, you, on March 20, 2020, sent a letter to the clerk of this committee in which you said this: “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.”
Do you stand by those words, Mr. Dufresne?
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Last week, Mr. Iain Stewart, who is the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada, came to this committee and stated that he would refuse to turn over those documents that were ordered by this committee because he felt that he was bound by other statutes, that he worried that he would break the law of those other statutes if he complied.
Is he correct or incorrect in that view, in your assessment?
5:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
The view that I've shared with this committee and other committees is that the power of committees and the House to send for persons and papers is part of parliamentary privilege. It's a constitutional power and right, and it supersedes statutory provisions that would otherwise limit production of information.
So the House and committees have the authority, and in the situation where it is not done then the committee can report the matter to the House and the House can take the appropriate steps, as it has.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
If a person refused to comply with such an order, does that not violate the privilege of parliamentarians?
5:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
In the situation where a person does not provide the information sought by the committee, the committee has a number of options. It can determine that the reasons put forward are valid. It can determine that it will find a compromise situation. It can determine that it rejects the position taken and report the matter—
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
But Mr. Dufresne, in the event that the committee wants the documents, and that's their determination, the question is straightforward. Does a person who still refuses to provide those documents in that circumstance violate the privileges of that committee?
5:15 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
They're in breach of the order of the committee. The committee can report it to the House and then the House can make the findings in terms of the exercise of its privileges and disciplinary powers.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you.
On October 26, 2020, the House of Commons passed a motion ordering the government to produce all documents related to various issues—I think you already commented on this order—concerning handling of the COVID crisis, to this committee through you.
Those documents were required to be delivered to the law clerk in unredacted form. The law clerk was to redact according to specific criteria contained in the order, and then to deliver those documents to the committee no later than December 7, 2020.
Has that motion been complied with by the government?
5:15 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
We've received a number of documents. In some instances, some of the documents contain the proposed redactions, which is consistent. In some situations, we have received documents where the vaccine agreements have been disclosed, and they contain redactions. These are documents where I cannot see behind those redactions.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Davies.
Ms. O'Connell, please go ahead for six minutes.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Dufresne.
My questions are for you, as well, and I'm going to get right to it because I have limited time.
Do you have a copy of the October 26, 2020, order in front of you?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you.
For the benefit of the committee, can you please highlight to me or tell me the specific section that refers to vaccine contracts?
5:15 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I do not believe there is a specific reference to vaccine contracts. There is language about all documents relating to the COVID-19 vaccine task force and its subcommittee, so it's a long order, it's a broad order, but I don't believe that vaccine contracts specifically are referred to.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Right. They're not.
In terms of the vaccine task force, is the vaccine task force the signatory of the contract or is it the Government of Canada?
5:15 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Those are signed by the Government of Canada.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Right, so even discussions that are ordered in this motion in terms of the task force...that's one thing, but the contracts themselves [Technical difficulty—Editor] explicitly mentioned in this order.
I recognize there is broadness. However, as parliamentarians we vote based on the four walls of the paper, so to speak. If vaccine contracts are not referred to in this, then how is a parliamentarian who voted on this motion to surmise what you may determine as broad, or can we conclude the vaccine contracts are not part of this order?
5:15 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Well, I think it's up to the committee and ultimately to the House, if it's raised before the House, to make the determination as to whether it's satisfied with compliance. That's an interpretation that would be done by those bodies.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Fair enough. I think, though, we can conclude that the vaccine contracts are not part of the October 26, 2020, motion.
5:15 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
That's not specifically cited.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Right.
Then let's move to the motion of the committee. You referred...the committee can then make changes. I keep referring to it as Mr. Barlow's committee motion. Let's refer to that, where it does, in fact, talk about vaccine contracts. The first paragraph, if you have it in front of you—