Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let me talk about part (e), “Viability analyses and program evaluations”.
These documents are, by their very nature, part of the internal policy process. They include candid assessments. They include risks. They include recommendations. Those recommendations are meant to inform decision-makers in a way that is honest, true and sometimes critical. If public servants believe that every internal analysis could be disclosed in full without appropriate protections, it makes it harder for them to pull some thousands of thousands of documents.
We want to present some amendments too. This is why we need time. That is what we are saying. We are not saying no, but we need time. This is, frankly, untimely. It makes it harder for the government to make informed decisions.
I come to part (f), “Documents that led to the decision to terminate the program”. This category almost certainly includes briefings to the minister, recommendations, and decision-making records. There are long-standing principles respected by governments of all stripes regarding these types of documents, so we have to see what we are requesting. I don't think the time frame is enough. This is not about avoiding accountability. This is about respecting the framework that allows government to respond to thousands and thousands of unredacted documents. We want to work with the opposition. It's a long motion.
Through investment in the organization, we have supported the development of tools that improve patient safety and enhance data security and have made historic investments through health transfers to provinces in health workforce retention and recruitment. We invest in mental health services....
I have to ask what the objective is. They cannot blame us for that. We also want to be transparent. We already have a mechanism to ensure accountability. If the object is to improve health care delivery, we should be focusing on how to strengthen systems like PrescribeIT, not undermining them through broad and potentially harmful disclosure requirements. If the objective is to support patients, we should be listening to the witnesses in front of us, who can provide insight into how these systems work on the ground. Instead, this motion demands extremely broad document production and imposes an unrealistic deadline. A one-week deadline is not enough and risks exposing confidential, sensitive or protected information.
This is something that takes time away from the very witnesses who are here to help us do our job better. We can do better if we work together. The amendments.... We are not opposing what they are saying. We also want to work together for the betterment of the health of Canadians.