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.
5:30 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
They've applied grounds in the Access to Information Act as opposed to specific reference to the grounds in the House order, and I'm not able to see behind those redactions.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
5:30 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
The House order says they are to be vetted and implicitly redacted by my office on those bases. Yes.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
This is my final quick question, Mr. Chair.
If that's the case, obviously the government did not comply with the House order, Mr. Dufresne. That is impossible to deny.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Davies. Your time is officially up.
Mr. Van Bynen, go ahead on a point of order.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you.
My point of order is that there's a reference to the House order. The House order makes absolutely no reference to how the contracts would be treated.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Well, I don't know how much clearer I can get.
Let me go back to you, Mr. Dufresne. I'm not trying to put you on the spot or make you uncomfortable. I'm just trying to prove, I guess, that water is wet.
If the House order says that all documents delivered have to be redacted by you, according to three criteria mentioned in the House order, and you did not redact the vaccine contracts, and those documents came pre-redacted by someone else who redacted according to criteria under the Access to Information Act, is there any other logical conclusion than the government being in violation of the House order of October 26?
5:30 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Well, you have the House order saying that documents are provided to my office and I would vet them under those three grounds. You received documents that are vetted by the government on different grounds. The issue is whether the committee is satisfied with the grounds that are proposed by the government—namely, the grounds in the Access to Information Act.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you.
Does the executive branch of government have the prerogative to withhold records duly ordered by the legislative branch?
5:30 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
In my view, as part of the privileges of the House and the power to send for papers and persons, it's up to the committee and ultimately the House to determine what grounds it will accept as a basis for redactions. The government, in my view, does not have the unilateral right to make those determinations. It's up to the committee and ultimately the House.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Isn't that a feature of just basic responsible government, Mr. Dufresne? If you had an executive branch that simply refused to provide documents when ordered to by the House.... Let's say on a budget or on any other feature of government they just say, “No. We have secret documents. We're not sending them to the House. It doesn't matter if the majority of the members of Parliament have demanded them.” Does that not strike at the very core of responsible government?
5:30 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I think what we've seen in Speakers' rulings, the ruling by Mr. Milliken and more recently the ruling by Speaker Rota, is the balancing and the mention of the House of Commons, as the grand inquest of the nation, having these privileges to send for persons and papers and the ability to make those determinations. At the same time, the executive has a responsibility as the defender of the realm. There are valid reasons and valid considerations of public policy that ought to be considered, but ultimately it's for the House to make that determination—
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
That's my question, sir.
When those two things collide, if the House is demanding production and the executive says no, who wins that battle in the end, Mr. Dufresne?
5:30 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Ultimately, the House has the ability to order and to make the determination. Then it has the disciplinary powers to act on it.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
You've already touched on this as well. The government consistently sends you documents that have not been translated into both official languages. Is that consistent with their obligation under the law?
5:30 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
As I've indicated to the government and to this committee, in my view, the government has the obligation under the Official Languages Act to provide documents in both official languages.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Let me sum up here, if I may.
You have a government that says it has millions of pages of documents—in one case millions of documents—millions of pages at the very least. They have delivered 8,500, leaving at least 992,000 documents to be disclosed. They have trickled the disclosure over seven months. They refuse to translate them. They redact them, when they're told by the House order that they're not to redact them. They use redaction criteria that are not specified.
Forgive me if I might come to the conclusion that this is a government that is deliberately delaying the production of documents to the House of Commons. Is that a fair conclusion, Mr. Dufresne, for someone to draw?
