“We, as this committee, are a body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information,” the foreign affairs critic added.
Also, committee members, backed up by parliamentary law clerk Philippe Dufresne, insist they have the constitutional authority to order the production of any documents they please and that their authority takes precedence over any other laws.
Stewart’s legal adviser, Christian Roy, disagreed, saying that the Justice Department does not recognize the power of committees to compel documents in violation of the Privacy Act or other laws.
“Is your position the same as Speaker Milliken?” Genuis asked Roy, executive director and senior general counsel of health legal services at the Justice Department.
“I don’t think we can square the two in the sense that my recollection of the Milliken ruling is that ultimately he asked that the parties discuss the matter and that they come up with a solution,” Roy answered.
“You’re telling this committee that your position is different from Speaker Milliken’s position. Do you believe that Speaker Milliken had the authority to make that ruling? And do you believe that his ruling has force of law?” the Conservative MP followed up.
“I do believe Speaker Milliken had the authority to make the ruling and that it applied to the legislative, the legislature in essence,” replied Roy.
“The Speaker ruled though that parliamentary committees have a right to send for documents that you said that’s not your position … What I don’t understand is how you are taking a position that is different from the position that the lawful authority has made in this case, and yet you presume to say that your position is still the legally correct position? Genuis pressed.
“My recollection is that the facts were different, and that the order that was issued was different,” Roy replied.
“Mr. Roy, I think you’ve just defeated your own argument, like you’ve acknowledged your position is inconsistent with the speaker’s ruling, the speaker had the right to make the ruling, but you still wish to persist in disagreeing with it,” Genuis said.
Liberal MP Robert Oliphant questioned Roy’s legal opinion and suggested Stewart “get a second opinion.”
“I think you need a second opinion, because I think that the Justice Department is not giving you the best advice,” Oliphant said. “Lawyers are not always right and Justice lawyers are particularly in my mind, not always right.”
Bloc MP Stephane Bergeron told Stewart that he was not respecting the request and goodwill of parliamentarians.
“I imagine that you would have never dared to transmit redacted documents or refuse to answer before the court. Here, the parliament is acting like a court,” Bergeron said.
“Parliamentarians understand that there is personal information that should not be publicly disclosed ... if they are related to national security questions or questions related to criminal investigation underway. That is why we offered you the option of communicating this information to us under the protection of an in-camera session, so that we would not share this information with the public.
“But in spite of having made that offer, as parliamentarians towards you, you have chosen to not respond to any of the requests from the parliamentarians,” he added.
Due to Stewart’s non-disclosure approach, the committee, in a unanimous vote, demanded the PHAC provide all the unredacted documents within 10 days, which the law clerk would then review and advise the committee as to what could be released publicly.
Should the agency fail to deliver the unredacted documents again, the committee would seek an order to do so from the House of Commons.
