Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I understand and I recognize, of course, the legitimacy of all parliamentarians to engage in this debate, ask questions and seek information. However, I also recognize that every government, regardless of political stripe, needs to protect certain kinds of information for reasons of confidentiality—which I think most members understand—and to protect legally commercially sensitive information that could cause harm were it to be made public. Also, in order to do this, we need to follow some kind of protocol that preserves confidentiality around cabinet tables and ministers' offices for full and frank discussions in the same way, I would suggest, that MPs need a certain degree of privacy for discussion at caucus or with their staff, for example.
That's what I find this motion is trying to achieve, and I certainly can't support that, although I certainly support the amendment of my colleague.
Mr. Badawey made reference to the fact that we had people here from the Public Health Agency of Canada who could have spent time answering questions for any member of the opposition or of the government in reference to what this motion is attempting to do. We could have gotten direct information from officials who are certainly very knowledgeable and would have provided some good information to all of us and to the public at large. In fact, the questioning certainly could have gotten to many of the answers that some people suggest they haven't gotten.
I think this motion is somewhat contradictory. When I look at some of the positions of some of the parties in terms of vaccinations and the kinds of things we've been trying to do, not accepting the amendment here seems almost anti-science. It's disappointing. It's certainly a stance that is contradictory—to me, anyway—to the stance that the NDP has taken this entire time in supporting vaccinations and other measures.
I don't know, as Mr. Badawey said earlier, what the objective is here, but I think the amendment by my colleague, Ms. Koutrakis, certainly is something that deserves every consideration. At the same time, the amended motion, I think, would certainly achieve what we would like to achieve, and that is to make sure we have some transparency and that people get the information they need.
The strange part about this committee—and I have to say this as well, like Mr. Badawey said—is that I think we've been doing some great work here for the last six, seven or eight months. We've been producing some good reports, some great reports, actually, with some excellent recommendations, and we've been very productive.
However, I don't see how this motion that was advanced by the opposition would do anything for us other than create turmoil within the public service. They would have to do this production of documents, which would take up a great deal of time and cost a lot of extra money for the taxpayers. Also, these are documents that, I think, would defy confidentiality and the kind of information that all governments need to protect. What kind of a system would we have if we couldn't have a certain kind of confidence in what our elected leaders do?
I know, for example, just as a small-town mayor, that many of the things we discussed were not made public, but that was for the right reasons. That was because we wanted to protect the identity of a certain individual in the community or the confidentiality of that person. That person, as a member of my community, deserved to be treated with the utmost respect.
You can't have a discussion about individuals, organizations, groups or businesses and expect that everybody that could get access to the information would truly understand the context in which it's presented. We have to have certain regulations and certain things that we need to consider to be of a confidential nature. For us to try to pass a motion that requests “all relevant documents” is, I think, a bit of a stretch. It sets a precedent. It sets a precedent that is not good for this government or for any future government.
I certainly would not vote to support that kind of a motion, but I would certainly be prepared to accept the amendment from my colleague Ms. Koutrakis and try to move forward around those kinds of amendments.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to say that maybe we should be considering another amendment, if you want to call it that, or an addition to the current amendment that was proposed by Ms. Koutrakis.
I'd like to add the following clause to the motion, and that would be “that the production of documents be consistent with relevant legislation concerning confidentiality”. I'd like to propose that as an addition to the motion.
