Health Committee on June 21st, 2021

[Philippe Dufresne]

There would be no order that I'm aware of that would require the government to provide me with this information. It would be up to the government to provide them on its own initiative. There would be no order that I'm aware of that would require it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, sir. That's because there isn't one.

Can you give me a general idea, Mr. Dufresne, what the average number of pages per document is, just the roughest ballpark estimate, that you can best estimate?

[Philippe Dufresne]

I'll turn to Mr. Bédard to see if he can provide that type of estimate in terms of number of pages per document. I think it varies.

[Michel Bédard, Deputy Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons]

In response to the question, if we were to talk about an average, that would be five or six pages, but this is not representative, because we will have a document with only one page and documents with a hundred pages.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I understand. That's why I'm asking for an average. It's nothing I'm going to hold you to. I realize you're giving me your best estimate.

Let's say it's six. You said you've received how many documents?

[Philippe Dufresne]

We've received about 8,500 documents.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Okay. My math is bad. Quickly, that's about 50,000 pages; six times 8,500 is 51,000 pages.

Mr. Shugart, the Clerk of the Privy Council, has told us in writing that the government has millions of pages.

You received about 51,000 pages out of millions of pages of documents in seven months. Does that strike you as an acceptable rate of delivery of documents in compliance with the House order of October 26? I will note for the record again that it had a deadline of December 7 to produce documents.

[Philippe Dufresne]

What I can say is there were estimates that were made by the Clerk of the Privy Council at that time in those letters and in committee. It was of a far greater number than what we have received so far. I can't comment or speculate on the reason for that. I can only note that the initial estimate was much higher than ultimately the number that we received.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Can you tell me briefly what kinds of documents—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

That ends round two of our questions. We start round three with the Conservatives.

Once again, Ms. Rempel Garner, is it you?

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

Yes, it's me. Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead, please, for five minutes.

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

We've heard quite a bit today. I think Mr. Davies' line of questions established the obligations of the government under both the House order and the order of the health committee.

Mr. Dufresne, thank you for all your work in this regard, and thank you for your ongoing efforts to provide transparency to Parliament. It has been disappointing to not be able to have access to some of these documents, given the gravity of the situation. I would be remiss if I didn't say I feel as though we should talk about Britney Spears and her conservatorship today and I feel as though I should just say “Free Britney” on the record. However, given that and the amount of testimony we've heard today, I'm fairly confident in what needs to be done next.

Therefore, I move:

That the analyst and clerk be directed to prepare a brief report to the House, outlining the material facts of the possible contempt, discussed with Bill Matthews, Deputy Minister of Department of Public Works and Government Services, concerning the documents ordered by the House on October 26, 2020, and further requested by this Committee on February 19, 2021; and that report be tabled as soon as it is ready.

Chair, it's very clear to me that the government is in contempt of both the House motion and the motion in front of this committee. I believe Mr. Davies has provided a master work to this committee in terms of laying out the obligations of the government that they have failed to comply with. Certainly the government's parliamentary secretary has not responded in any factual way that would provide a case otherwise, and that's disappointing.

Parliament is supreme. The questions that have been raised by all opposition members today really show that regardless of political stripe, Parliament is supreme and we have a right to this information. When the House or the committee orders this information, it's not up to the government to try to sue the Speaker of the House of Commons or to try to obfuscate. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. If there's no problem, then there should be no issue providing these documents to us.

If there are problems, then it is up to Parliament and to this committee to consider best ways forward. Certainly I look forward to the clerk and the analyst providing this report and I look forward to ensuring that Canadians, regardless of how they vote, know that Parliament functions; and that whatever flavour of government is in office, but certainly this Liberal government right now, understands that its power is limited by each of us. We don't report to the government. We hold them to account. That is our role here.

To the Liberal members on this committee, including the parliamentary secretary, your role is to hold the government to account. It is to ensure that every action is happening in the best interest of Canadians, not to toe the party line, not to cast aspersions, but to ensure that transparency is provided, accountability is provided, and good and just government is provided.

What we have seen from this government, on the obfuscation and delay of government, is an affront to Parliament and an affront to democracy. We might not agree on policy and we might not agree on political stripe, but we should agree that Parliament is supreme. We should agree that our rights as parliamentarians are paramount.

On the work of Mr. Dufresne and the law counsel, I know you've tried to do your best—and the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner. I strongly feel this. What has happened over the last several months in Parliament is very concerning to me and many people. Of course, there might be times when the government might not want certain facts to come to light. That is true of any stripe of government, but we cannot ignore the fact that Parliament is supreme, that we have the right to look at these documents, to ascertain what happened, to pass orders for production of documents, and then provide a better path forward where we see deficiencies.

There are ways to put constraints around the release of documents. For example, Mr. Barlow's motion talked about reviewing things in camera. These are deliberations and bounds that can be put on release of information, but that's not what this government did.

That's certainly what Mr. Davies exposed with his line of questions today. There was no effort to work with Parliament. There was no effort to work with the opposition. It was a borderline dictatorship move, and that's enough. Enough of that. We don't want that.

This motion is important, and I hope every member on this committee agrees that we are supreme and we have an accountability to our constituents. I hope it passes, and I hope that light is shed on these matters.

Again, in my closing words to you in this Parliament, I would just go to Mr. Dufresne.

You have a big job ahead of you in coming days, and I want to say to you on behalf of the 120,000-plus constituents who I represent, they are depending on you to make a case for our place of democracy. We cannot allow what has happened to continue. As Parliament adjourns for the summer, we look to you now to ensure that the torch is borne and to ensure that we're not silenced by rulings that preclude our supremacy.

Thank you, Chair.

I now pass it over to the rest of my colleagues, hopefully in support of this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

You did move the motion, I believe, and then followed up with an argument, so we'll take the motion as moved. It is in order.

Go ahead, Mr. Maguire.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to congratulate my colleague. I do support the motion she has put forward. We really do need to get to the bottom of this process.

We've heard a lot of obfuscation today with regard to the cover-up of material. We've only seen 8,000 pages or documents, I believe.

That has been very clearly stated by you, Mr. Dufresne, and we really appreciate your testimony today as well. It really clarifies this for any Canadians who are listening. As Parliament ends this session, the government is still not providing information on the table for Canadians to know what's going on, or even for us, as committee members, even though Parliament is supreme in this case and we really need to get to the bottom of it to find more information.

It was very clear that the contracts or what was at the base of this whole discussion right back from last fall...when were trying to outline the material facts of the possible contempt that was discussed with Mr. Matthews, the deputy minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada and deputy receiver general for Canada, concerning these documents ordered by the House on October 26 last fall. We really do need to get a report tabled as soon as we possibly can.

We asked for the Privy Council to be here today as well, and they aren't here, so why not? Others have made an attempt to be here. They've even had extra time. We've had an extra couple of days here because this was supposed to have happened on Monday, so there is no reason why we couldn't have had people show up on the very last day of Parliament before it recesses for the summer to provide the information that's required to get to the bottom of the cover-up that the government has had with regard to not wanting to discuss any of the information with regard to the contracts.

I think it's very clear that getting to the bottom of the matter is not what the Liberals want to do.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Pardon me, Mr. Maguire.

Ms. O'Connell, please go ahead on a point of order.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Since we're into debate on a motion it would be fair to allow the witnesses to go. I don't think they need to listen to the Conservative spin after they've already confirmed that this is not a breach.

Anyway, it would be fair. The witnesses are honourable public servants who have done great work and I appreciate their openness to these questions here today. It would be fair to release them while we let the Conservatives drone on with their misinformation and conspiracy theory.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

I would ask the committee if they are in agreement with releasing the witnesses at this time.

Is there anyone who opposes that?

Seeing none, I will thank the witnesses very sincerely for your time today and all of your efforts on an ongoing basis to assist this committee and the House.

With that, I would invite you to leave if it is your will.

We will carry on with Mr. Maguire.

Mr. Maguire, I apologize, we interrupted you. Go ahead.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly feel that the witnesses have done their job today because they've answered so many questions that [Technical difficulty—Editor] to get to the bottom of this for months in regard to this whole issue of a cover-up and the lack of information the government has given our health committee for these months.

This has been a situation we've been trying to get to the bottom of to find out why we were so late in getting vaccines in Canada and to get the information out of those contracts. It would have given people the confidence to know that we could have been on the same basis as other countries that were vaccinated three months earlier than we were. Many of them have not had the same third wave levels hitting their countries as we've had in this country. That's part of the reason we're still locked down when we're going into July here, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say that I believe this is a very valid motion. We want to make sure that we get to the bottom of it and get a report on this contempt. I don't know what other word to use there. It's just been an obfuscation of responsibility, as far I'm concerned, in regard to making sure that Canadians were well informed on this issue, never mind the fact that even we on the committee didn't get these documents, even in any kind of confidence.

My colleague, Mr. Davies, has made an extremely sound case today for the whole, very good history of what we've just gone through here to bring us to today, yet we still have a government that has some 900,000 pages of information that we haven't received.

I will leave it at that, Mr. Chair. I really do think it's a responsibility of the committee to vote this motion in and try to get that report as quickly as we can so that Canadians can be assured that everything was above board. We know full well that there were many holes in that package.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Maguire.

We go now to Mr. Lawrence.

Go ahead, please.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you very much.

I believe that our whole committee is indebted to the excellent work of Mr. Davies, who explained it in extremely explicit terms, but I will reiterate it, probably not as eloquently as Mr. Davies has done.

The call for the vaccine contracts is fairly simple. There is a House motion that calls for documents that it says should be redacted. It says explicitly that they are to be redacted by the clerk and not by the government or any part of the government.

There is then Mr. Barlow's motion, which calls for those documents to be redacted in accordance with that motion. This is dead simple. This is not difficult to understand, and in fact, the government is blatantly disagreeing with it.

Yes, it's parliamentary supremacy, and that's clear. As Ms. O'Connell said, we've heard it over and over again from the Speaker of the House, from the previous speaker of the House, from Liberals, from Conservatives, from NDP members. It is beyond a doubt. We've heard it from the law clerk that Parliament is supreme.

However, that's not really the critical part of this because we are to be governed by the people, and Parliament is merely a function of the people. When this government decides to blatantly and blazingly disobey the Parliament, they are saying to every one of my 100,000 plus constituents, “We don't care. We're going to do what we want. We are unresponsible.” This is the height of irresponsible government. This is why our country was founded. This is the reason for the Magna Carta. This is the reason that we formed a responsible government.

If government—if the executive—is not going to listen to the committee, why do we even exist? Why is this committee here? If we have no power, if we have no authority over the bureaucracy, we're just wasting money. We're just a dining club. We're not a function of the people, which is what we are supposed to be.

When, Ms. O'Connell, you call into question parliamentary supremacy, you are calling into question the very foundation of our country, of our nation, which I believe is the greatest country in the world. It is absolutely incumbent on all of us—and I say this not just to my colleagues in the NDP or my fellow Conservatives but also to my Liberal colleagues. You are the stewards of responsible democracy. If you don't vote for this, you are literally disregarding all the men and women who sacrificed their lives so that we could have responsible government, so that we could have a government that responds when people's voices are heard. We are saying, “You know what? The law clerk doesn't get to see those documents.” There are all sorts of provisions that are there to protect national security.

Whether it be MP Barlow or MP Rempel Garner, they have used that power with precision. They haven't said, “Let's go ahead and have these documents all go out to the public.” They're aware of the impact of this power, of the unfettered absolute power to require any document, any witness from the civil service, at any time.

What they've done is protect our national security. They have protected the ability of any type of privacy by giving it to the law clerk first, who is a creature of Parliament, and giving him the ability to censor it so that we make sure that no unnecessary documents.... On top of that, they even go the next level and say, “We'll have the committee in camera so that we don't inadvertently allow some information, some privacy or other documents....”

In conclusion, the law is absolutely clear. We, as parliamentarians, have the unfettered, absolute power to have any documents that we want when we want them, and we have asked for them. The government has disregarded that. This is not just a slap in the face to Parliament. It is a slap in the face to every one of the 37 million plus Canadians who send us here to Ottawa, who we represent. Shame on you if you don't vote for this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

We go now to Mr. d'Entremont.

Go ahead, sir.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Why is it so hard to get information from Liberal governments? I spent 10 years in opposition in Nova Scotia. It was the same problem. It was a Liberal government whose arrogance made them think that they were the holders of everything: “Who cares about the opposition? Who cares about Canadians? We're doing the right thing for you.”

Then I come to this Parliament, where the rules and traditions are greater, and what do I find? I see it's worse. With all due respect to the Nova Scotia member on this committee, Mr. Kelloway, because Nova Scotians tend to take care of themselves, when I see this blatant disregard for the rule of Parliament, the simple request for Canadians to be able to see the contracts and how the decision-making has been done by this government, the total disregard for it sickens me.

I had high hopes being on the health committee that we could find out about issues, that we could talk about things that are important to my constituents, that we could actually talk about health issues.

Member Sidhu is here. I'm very happy that she brought her diabetes bill. I'm so proud that she was able to pass it unanimously in the House of Commons. That's how working together actually works. My hat is off to you.

However, what I see here is this blatant disregard, especially by the parliamentary secretary, to come up with this false narrative: “It's because of how the motion was written.” Come on. The government does not want to release these documents, and they are hell-bent on trying to hide it. Why?

Let's get a report done. Let's be parliamentarians and uphold the law and represent the people who put us here and support the release of these documents.

My final point would be this. This disarray by government and this arrogance, I will call it, that “It's not our fault.” They're the keepers of the government, but “It's not our fault.”

Ms. O'Connell likes to bring up the Conservatives. We'll use Mr. Lamoureux's line, “The unholy group of Conservatives and NDP”. That's what Lamoureux is starting to use these days, but “It's not our fault. It's the provinces' fault. It's the Conservatives' fault. It's the manufacturers' fault.” It's everybody's fault but the government's.

They should be ashamed. They should support this motion. We need to get down to the information. Enough of this masquerade. I've had enough.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. d'Entremont.

We will continue with Mr. Lemire.

Mr. Lemire, go ahead.