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.
5:25 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Okay. I stand corrected.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
—but nevertheless, pages, documents.... It was documents. Tell me, how many have you received?
5:25 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
We have received 8,500 documents.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Okay. Just being conservative and using that figure as a percentage of, say, one million documents, conservatively that means that in seven months this committee has received less than 1% of the documents ordered. At that rate, it will mean that it will take some 700 months—or 58 years—for the Liberals to comply with the order of the House.
For the Information Commissioner, does that conform with your notion of transparent government in Canada?
5:25 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Not to provide you the information that it said it would be providing you is outside of my jurisdiction, but according to what we know about transparent government, if it is voluntarily providing information, that's being an open and transparent government.
5:25 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Oh, you mean for the timelines.
5:25 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Under my act, you have 30 days to provide information or you can ask for an extension. Then, if there's a complaint about the extension, I can make an investigation on that.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Okay.
I'll go back to you, Mr. Dufresne.
To go to Mr. Barlow's motion, when he said that the vaccine agreements “be vetted in accordance with the parameters set out in the house motion”, would it be your interpretation that it means the House motion's requirements were that the vaccine contracts be vetted by you?
5:25 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
In the House order, the vetting is to be done by me, by my office.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
In the House order, the documents are to be sent to you in unredacted form. Is that correct?
5:25 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
In order for me to vet, I have to be able to see what the information is.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I think you've already specified the three criteria by which the documents would be vetted. Those are different from the criteria under the Access to Information Act, aren't they?
5:25 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
There are some similarities, but it's not a reference to the provisions of the Access to Information Act. These are the grounds that the House accepted.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Well, it's been a while since I looked, but I counted at least a dozen different criteria for redaction in the Access to Information Act. The House order specifies three. Is that correct?
5:25 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
That's correct. Yes.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
James Stott, the assistant deputy of public services, delivered vaccine contracts not to you but to the clerk of the health committee. Are you aware that those documents came pre-redacted?
5:25 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
They were not redacted by me. No.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
He specifies in his letter that they were redacted according to the Access to Information Act—correct?
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Would you agree with me that the government was not in compliance with the House order of October 26 when it delivered vaccine contracts?