Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 46 - 60 of 1860
View Don Davies Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you.
On October 26, 2020, the House of Commons passed a motion ordering the government to produce all documents related to various issues—I think you already commented on this order—concerning handling of the COVID crisis, to this committee through you.
Those documents were required to be delivered to the law clerk in unredacted form. The law clerk was to redact according to specific criteria contained in the order, and then to deliver those documents to the committee no later than December 7, 2020.
Has that motion been complied with by the government?
Philippe Dufresne
View Philippe Dufresne Profile
Philippe Dufresne
2021-06-23 17:15
We've received a number of documents. In some instances, some of the documents contain the proposed redactions, which is consistent. In some situations, we have received documents where the vaccine agreements have been disclosed, and they contain redactions. These are documents where I cannot see behind those redactions.
View Jennifer O'Connell Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Dufresne.
My questions are for you, as well, and I'm going to get right to it because I have limited time.
Do you have a copy of the October 26, 2020, order in front of you?
View Jennifer O'Connell Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you.
For the benefit of the committee, can you please highlight to me or tell me the specific section that refers to vaccine contracts?
Philippe Dufresne
View Philippe Dufresne Profile
Philippe Dufresne
2021-06-23 17:16
I do not believe there is a specific reference to vaccine contracts. There is language about all documents relating to the COVID-19 vaccine task force and its subcommittee, so it's a long order, it's a broad order, but I don't believe that vaccine contracts specifically are referred to.
View Jennifer O'Connell Profile
Lib. (ON)
Right. They're not.
In terms of the vaccine task force, is the vaccine task force the signatory of the contract or is it the Government of Canada?
View Jennifer O'Connell Profile
Lib. (ON)
Right, so even discussions that are ordered in this motion in terms of the task force...that's one thing, but the contracts themselves [Technical difficulty—Editor] explicitly mentioned in this order.
I recognize there is broadness. However, as parliamentarians we vote based on the four walls of the paper, so to speak. If vaccine contracts are not referred to in this, then how is a parliamentarian who voted on this motion to surmise what you may determine as broad, or can we conclude the vaccine contracts are not part of this order?
Philippe Dufresne
View Philippe Dufresne Profile
Philippe Dufresne
2021-06-23 17:18
Well, I think it's up to the committee and ultimately to the House, if it's raised before the House, to make the determination as to whether it's satisfied with compliance. That's an interpretation that would be done by those bodies.
View Jennifer O'Connell Profile
Lib. (ON)
Fair enough. I think, though, we can conclude that the vaccine contracts are not part of the October 26, 2020, motion.
View Jennifer O'Connell Profile
Lib. (ON)
Right.
Then let's move to the motion of the committee. You referred...the committee can then make changes. I keep referring to it as Mr. Barlow's committee motion. Let's refer to that, where it does, in fact, talk about vaccine contracts. The first paragraph, if you have it in front of you—
View Jennifer O'Connell Profile
Lib. (ON)
—okay, perfect—refers to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel inquiring about whether or not the contracts of the seven vaccine agreements have been provided. However, as we just concluded, vaccine contracts were never part of the October 26 motion, so that first paragraph, in my mind, is void. You can't ask for something.... You can't amend a motion by another motion in this manner without its being part of the House.
Let's move, then, to the second paragraph, which talks about how, if you, as the law clerk, have those documents, you would move forward in providing them.
Then let's get to that third paragraph, which I think is the important piece because it's clear that you weren't provided with those documents because that wasn't part of the October 26 order. Therefore, it goes to the third paragraph, which says, “If the law clerk does not have such documents, that the committee request from the government the contracts for Canada's seven vaccine agreements with suppliers”, and it goes on.
If the contracts were never part of the October 26 motion, they were not, therefore, required to be sent to you directly. Then this motion, the Barlow motion, says that those contracts were requested—not ordered but requested—to be sent to the committee directly, which would allow the government to make the redactions because there was no requirement to send them to you directly. Is that accurate?
Results: 46 - 60 of 1860 | Page: 4 of 124

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data