Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm really happy to hear my colleague Ms. Lantsman's comments that she likes that Canadians can see the hard work that our government has been doing and continues to do to make sure they and their families and our economy have always been kept safe.
The number one issue for our government has been, from day one, since the COVID pandemic, first and foremost, the safety of all Canadians, the safety of our transportation system, the safety of our employees, and the safety of all Canadians and our economy.
Mr. Chair, the reason for my amendment to the main motion by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is that I think it would allow for the main motion to pass. I proposed striking the words about ordering the sharing of “all relevant documents” and replacing that with the following formulation, “a copy of public health advice and scientific modelling in support of the decision to maintain existing public health measures”.
Mr. Chair, my rationale for the amendment is the following. I wish to focus on what I think is the key question. The key question is this: Is there a public health justification to maintain certain health measures in place for air travel at this time? If so, what is this justification?
I proposed striking the formulation “all relevant documents”, as what is or is not relevant is open to interpretation. I think narrowing the focus like this will prevent a fishing expedition. We've seen this time and time again in various committees, where, instead of working on the real, important issues, committee time is wasted to make partisan or political points and is just used as a fishing expedition.
Colleagues, we have often seen in recent years prolonged deadlocks in committees, including this committee, over a so‑called motion to produce written documents. This often turns into lengthy, time‑consuming debates about what information should or should not be presented. That inevitably ends up attracting the law clerk, which generally takes up a lot of time. The purpose of this amendment is to avoid such a situation. I think this committee has done a good job, and I don't want us to get bogged down in a prolonged procedural battle.
Parliamentarians, including those on this side of the table, want information. They want to ask questions and get answers to those questions. I understand that, and I recognize that it is perfectly legitimate. I also recognize that every government, regardless of political affiliation, must protect certain types of information for reasons that most members of the House understand: legally or commercially sensitive information that could be damaging if made public has to be protected. We also need to preserve space around the cabinet table and in ministers' offices to have those frank discussions. Similarly, individual MPs need a certain degree of privacy and space to discuss matters with their caucus members, staff, and so on.
It's also important for members to consider that governments not only have to consider the implications of a particular motion on the production of documents, but they must also absolutely pay attention to all the information that is produced in writing in order to avoid any misinformation or misunderstandings that could be detrimental to business and the good work that the government and the departments have done to date.
Thank you.