Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 376-390 of 489
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Health committee  These are obligations that fall on the government and the executive in terms of what documents can be requested by Canadians, the grounds for redactions and the process for complaints. There are obligations on Parliament and the House itself in terms of proactive disclosures, and there are rights for the protection of private information.

November 27th, 2020Committee meeting

Philippe Dufresne

Health committee  Do you mean the obligations required on the government or on the House? As counsel to the House and as counsel to the committee, I would say that the obligations do not apply to the House and to the committee. So these would be questions really for the government, as to what it is required to do under those statutes, and the government would be best placed really to highlight its obligations in this respect.

November 27th, 2020Committee meeting

Philippe Dufresne

Health committee  One of the unknowns is that we have not received the documents yet, so one of the things we do not know is whether the government will have proposed redactions or not. If they have, then we would look to those and we would expect to be able to see behind those redactions to what is being proposed to be redacted, what's the information behind it, and then compare that to the grounds that the House has allowed.

November 27th, 2020Committee meeting

Philippe Dufresne

Health committee  In its motion, the House really linked the vaccine development and the contractual negotiations. It said that this ground of “information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to interfere” would apply with respect to paragraph (y). Paragraph (y) is the paragraph on the vaccine task force.

November 27th, 2020Committee meeting

Philippe Dufresne

Health committee  We will be implementing what the House has ordered and the grounds the House has provided in its motion. It has provided, as one of the grounds, the protection of information the disclosure of which could interfere with the government's ability to contract or negotiate with third parties.

November 27th, 2020Committee meeting

Philippe Dufresne

Health committee  We would have to see what is provided to us by the government and we would have to see the context and, again, what concerns may be raised with that. Is the information you're describing something the disclosure of which could interfere with the government's ability to contract or negotiate with third parties?

November 27th, 2020Committee meeting

Philippe Dufresne

Health committee  We were approached by senior government officials to exchange and discuss the practical implications of this motion and complying with the motion. And so, exchanges have been had in terms of what to expect. So yes, there have been exchanges.

November 27th, 2020Committee meeting

Philippe Dufresne

Health committee  Discussions centred around what the motion required and how best the government could comply with it, and the implications for my office. It was really in the sense of a pragmatic consideration looking at how to meet this task that's set out by the House.

November 27th, 2020Committee meeting

Philippe Dufresne

Health committee  As set out in my statement, we are setting up a team to review the documents, to look at the proposed redactions from the government, if there are any, and really to go page by page, line by line, making sure that given the grounds that the House has identified in terms of the appropriate areas for redactions, those are made, and that the information that needs to be kept confidential is kept confidential.

November 27th, 2020Committee meeting

Philippe Dufresne

Health committee  In this context, the order and obligations to redact do not come from the Privacy Act. They come from the House's constitutional authority to seek documents and to determine the manner in which...and the public interest considerations that ought to be applied. We could look to those statutes, and if there are similar concepts that are found in those statutes, that can be a guide, but at the end of the day the ultimate ground is the one that the House has adopted.

November 27th, 2020Committee meeting

Philippe Dufresne

Health committee  Absolutely, Ms. Rempel Garner. We have a full legal team with knowledge and experience on a range of legal topics. As indicated in my opening statement, we are, in a sense, the department of justice for the House, providing legal, litigation, drafting services for the House, obviously with smaller resources.

November 27th, 2020Committee meeting

Philippe Dufresne

Health committee  Thank you for the question, Mr. Davies. My remarks really dealt with the practical way of raising a concern if the amount of documents is so significant that we know we are not able to meet that timeline. Ultimately, at the end of the day, in terms of a path forward, it seems that a change to the House's order would be required.

November 27th, 2020Committee meeting

Philippe Dufresne

Health committee  Certainly, Mr. Chair. It seems to me that there is the House order that provides for timelines. I understand Ms. Rempel Garner's suggestion was that the committee would report to the House, so I wonder if the purpose is to have the House ultimately adopt that report as an order.

November 27th, 2020Committee meeting

Philippe Dufresne

Health committee  No, we have not. Not as of today.

November 27th, 2020Committee meeting

Philippe Dufresne

Health committee  Our goal, once we receive documents, is to see whether we can do what we have received within the timelines. If we are not able to do so, then we would advise the committee and seek the committee's guidance as to what it wishes to do about any prioritization in terms of providing the documents.

November 27th, 2020Committee meeting

Philippe Dufresne