Health committee  I believe we have some proposed redactions in some documents that have not yet been translated that we will be looking at, and that would be with respect to personal information. I believe we also have a document redacted on the basis of government security under the Access to Information Act.

Health committee  Not to my knowledge, no. As I say, we have some documents with redactions that we can't see behind. We continue to expect the disclosure to come to us when it comes.

Health committee  There are no statutes that I'm aware of that have limited the privileges of the House to send for papers and persons. There are statutes that indicate public policy considerations, and Speakers' rulings have indicated these ought to be considered by the House, but it's up to the House.

Health committee  I've reported to the committee on the situation and what I've received. Then it's up to the committee to make its determination as to whether it's satisfied with what has been produced and how.

Health committee  We do. In terms of factual information, the government may be in possession of information, for instance, talking about the impact on contractual negotiations. The government may well be in possession of the information, which is why the approach that we've taken is that the government can propose to my office areas that it feels ought to be redacted and kept confidential.

Health committee  The finding was that this was a prima facie question of privilege. Mr. Milliken dealt with the issue of a claim by the government of national security and found that, at the end of the day, the House has the ability as part of its privileges to seek the information. That said, Speaker Milliken did say there were important responsibilities on both sides of the House, that both sides ought to try to work together to find a way that would allow the role of the House as the grand inquest of the nation and the role of the government as defender of the realm to be met.

Health committee  No. I did not.

Health committee  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.

Health committee  The House order says they are to be vetted and implicitly redacted by my office on those bases. Yes.

Health committee  Well—

Health committee  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.

Health committee  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.

Health committee  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.

Health committee  Ultimately, the House has the ability to order and to make the determination. Then it has the disciplinary powers to act on it.

Health committee  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.