Evidence of meeting #87 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was money.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
I guess someone brought up relevance before, but realistically, looking at relevance, this motion doesn't mention the NDP at all. The member continues to talk and wax on about the NDP. Maybe he could bring it back to the centre again.
Thank you.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I hear Mr. Davies responding to points that were raised in your intervention, Dr. Ellis.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I was going to say the exact same thing. I hear Mr. Davies speaking on all the things that have been said today, but what I would say is, if possible.... When the Conservatives were speaking, we were utterly quiet, including Mr. Davies, and now there are chuckles and giggles. I would just suggest, Mr. Chair, if we could all just listen to whoever is doing the debating and whoever is making their important points, if we could all—
12:10 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible—Editor]
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I acknowledge Mr. Fisher's comment with respect to only one person having the floor, and that is Mr. Davies.
Go ahead, Mr. Davies.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you.
This is the kind of absurdity the Conservative position is being reduced to, where Dr. Ellis talks repeatedly about the NDP and “the NDP-Liberal coalition” in his remarks, but when I respond to them, he says it's inappropriate for me to mention the NDP, after he mentioned it 22 times in his talk. That lack of good faith at this committee makes one wonder how far we're going to get on this.
By the way, I also want to say this. The Conservatives brought up—I think it was Dr. Kitchen—the very real point that Canada was left in a position where we couldn't produce vaccines. I think it's important for all Canadians to know why that's the case. It's because the Conservatives, under the leadership of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, sold the Canada Crown corporation Connaught Labs, which had been producing vaccines and other medications in this country. Had that decision not been made, Canada could very well have been in a position to produce vaccines and wouldn't have had to rely on companies like Medicago or others. Of course, we were placed in that position of vulnerability because of bad, poor policy decisions made by the Conservatives back then. Canadians need to know that, as well.
The situation Canada found itself in, in early 2020, was a bad one. We were unprepared. We had poor personal protective equipment. We were unable to produce vaccines. All of that is shared by consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments that came before this, as documented in repeated Auditor General reports going back decades. Lest the Conservatives get completely sanctimonious, they claim to be the party of accountability and responsibility, but they sure don't take it when there's any placed in their lap.
I would like to end here by saying that we should look at this issue. I appreciate that this motion tacks on an extra hour after regular meetings. I want to second what my Liberal colleagues said and point this out, as well. You know, I've been on committees for a long time. I'll tell you that every party can throw a monkey wrench into the machinery. For every action of dislocation, confusion and delay that can be thrown into this, there's an equal one.
By the way, I will also say that the Conservatives, who have pretensions of being government next time, may want to file away this point for their government, because they may face this, as well. I have found that, at committees, we have to work together to some degree. Every party at this table sat down and agreed—in a subcommittee meeting on the agenda, and then in open committee—on what the agenda of this committee would be. Then, one party, the Conservatives, took it upon themselves—after they had agreed to it—to come forward and continue to disrupt the agenda they themselves agreed to. Now, they can continue doing that, I suppose, but there are countermeasures that can happen. You know what happens: Canadians suffer, along with the very real business.
The Liberals had a study on the health professionals human resources crisis. The Conservatives had their study on children's health. The Bloc had their study on the breast implant registry. We have not even completed the children's study report yet, nor have we completed the very important report on the breast implant registry. I've been waiting patiently. I'm now into my third year on this committee waiting for the first NDP study, on women's health, which for some reason the Conservatives appear not to want to get to. I hope that's not the case.
Speaking to the amendment, what I will say is this. I think this motion is sound. I think it's well founded. I want to thank the Conservatives for moving it. However, I don't think we necessarily need six hours of meetings on this matter, which is the equivalent of three meetings. So far, the women's health study—if we ever get to it—is between six and seven meetings. Are we really saying we need three meetings to discuss this matter, when we already know the basics of it? Yet we're going to spend two meetings on women and cancer. Really? Is that how the Conservatives would allocate the time of this committee?
I'm not sure if I can make a subamendment to this motion, Mr. Chair, but I would amend it to say “That the committee hold up to six hours of meetings” and that way we could gauge. We can get the answers we need. If I'm wrong and it takes six hours of meetings to get the answers we need to the questions, then so be it, but if we get that answer in two meetings or two hours or three hours, then that will save all of us time.
I want to say this. I want to give my Conservative colleagues one bit of credit. I want to ask and hope and give them credit that they are interested in women's health. Mr. Doherty has often been very good at giving credit to everybody. I want to assume that all of us want to get to that.
I was going to say as well that in terms of a Standing Order 106(4) meeting, they are generally reserved for emergencies. I'm not really sure that this topic, important as it is, constitutes an emergency, but because I appreciate the Conservatives' tacking on the extra hour, I think we can look at this issue without disrupting the regular agenda.
I implore all of my colleagues at this table: Let's get back and respect the agenda we've agreed to. We can tack on this subject. I would agree to support this and tack on an hour after each meeting for up to six hours until we're satisfied that we have the answers we need.
The last thing I'll say is that it would be nice if we could get to a vote on this. I think the issue has been well canvassed. We've heard from all sides. We've heard four Conservatives speak. We've had two Liberals speak. I don't want to take away Mr. Thériault's ability to speak, so after we hear from Mr. Thériault, I'm hoping we can vote on this, but I would move a subamendment to the main motion that we just change the words and add “up to” in front of “6 hours”.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Mr. Davies, you can't move a subamendment to the main motion, because there is an amendment under discussion.
You can move a subamendment to the amendment, but not to the main motion.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Well, could I move a subamendment to delete the amendment and instead replace the main amendment with the words “up to” in front of “6 hours”?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I'm advised that this is also not in order. If you don't like the amendment, the right way to go about it is to defeat it, and then the main motion can be amended anew.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Could I ask for unanimous consent? If there is opposition, that's fair enough, but if everybody agrees to get to that, could we ask for unanimous consent to that if that would provide a motion that everybody could live with?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I think there is a request for unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and to replace it with what Mr. Davies is putting forward.
Is there unanimous consent to proceed in that fashion?
I don't see unanimous consent.
Are you ceding the floor, Mr. Davies?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
I've been frustrated listening to all of this conversation. We are the health committee, and yet we've heard about everything, especially from the Conservatives, other than health. We heard about WE Charity, SNC-Lavalin, billionaire islands, the cost of housing. We even heard about Mr. Kitchen's kitchen.
I would implore the committee to get back to health. That's what we're here for. I've been on this committee for four years, and I think that, compared to a lot of committees, we've actually done a pretty good job in being non-partisan when we had to be non-partisan. For example, on the workforce shortage study, I think we came up with some good recommendations, and in fact I think the government has gone with a lot of those recommendations. I think the breast implant study—thanks to Mr. Thériault—was a real success, too, and we were coming up with some recommendations, if we ever get to them.
Now, we have a couple of studies that are in line for us to deal with, such as the opioid crisis, which the Conservatives certainly agree is a crisis. I mean, here we are holding this emergency debate to deal with this issue that was basically before us two years ago. I feel like we're turning the clock back.
I know that Mr. Davies was here. I know that Mr. Kitchen was here. I know that Sonia was here and Darren was here when we dealt with this two years ago under COVID, when there was the question of revealing the contracts with the vaccine manufacturers. We dealt with all of that two years ago. Here we are, and suddenly this is a big emergency.
Well, I would support the Conservative position to begin with, that the opioid crisis is far more of an emergency than this is. I would also say that the women's study is more important than this. As Don said, I don't think the health committee has ever studied women's health before.
Instead of doing all that, we're going back and we're turning the clock back to the issue of what was in those contracts. I reluctantly support the amendment to limit the number of sessions we're going to hold on it, but I really do think this is interrupting far more serious work.
Let me go to the actual issue of those contracts. Like some of the other people here, I was on the health committee during the time of COVID. For those who weren't there, let me tell you, when we first talked to scientists about how long it would take to get the vaccines, almost everybody was saying something like five years. A few people thought it might be as short as two years. However, the fact that we got the vaccines out as quickly as we did was a real accomplishment. It was a real horse race back then. We were all globally looking for whoever could come up with the vaccines the fastest.
You know what? I was somebody who was critical of my own government at the time on various things in response to COVID, but in terms of the vaccines and our ability to get the vaccines out, I think we did really well. If you look at the ones we chose—Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca—we hit the nail on the head. Yes, there was also Medicago, but that was one of many. We had advance purchase agreements for those, and it served Canadians very well. When we look back at it, I think that our response to the COVID pandemic was pretty good.
As for Medicago, to Don's point, my understanding is that 21% of the ownership was Philip Morris, and I certainly understand WHO's position in not supporting anything done by big tobacco, but I'm not sure if the government even knew of the 21% ownership. Back at the height of COVID, I don't know how much that mattered, because if Medicago came up with a vaccine and was the quickest to produce the vaccine, are you really going to tell me that nobody would have accepted it because 21% of the ownership was with Philip Morris?
I ask the Conservatives, the NDP and everyone else: Who owns shares in Pfizer and Moderna? Do we know? Have we looked into that? Would we contract with those depending on who owned shares in that?
Yes, in terms of accountability, $150 million is a lot of money, but hindsight is 20/20. We didn't know who was going to win the horse race and who was going to be the first to produce the vaccines. I think it was a sound policy decision for the government not to put all its eggs in one basket, not to invest in just one vaccine manufacturer but to invest in a number of vaccine manufacturers. That's what we did. Not everyone was going to win this race. It turned out that some of the companies we invested in didn't. It turned out that Medicago, for $150 million, did do the work. They did produce a vaccine, so the money wasn't really wasted per se.
As for looking into it and as for transparency, my understanding is that the public accounts committee has looked at and is continuing to look at those contracts. The Auditor General has looked at those contracts. We, ourselves.... Don will remember this, as he was part of the motion to procure all relevant documents related to the contracts with vaccine manufacturers. We fought this battle two years ago and those contracts were revealed. It is not as though there's been no transparency on this issue.
For us to spend another two or three sessions on this rather than dealing with the opioid crisis and women's health is wrong, I think. It's unfortunate that yet again the Conservatives seem to want to impede our ability to actually deal with the real issues we ought to be dealing with.
I would urge everyone on the committee.... We are the health committee. We should be looking after the health of Canadians and not wasting our time. Yes, it isn't a waste of our time, but as I'm sure Dr. Ellis will realize, in medicine you have to triage things according to importance. Are we really going to put this in front of, for example, the opioid crisis? I don't agree with that.
Be that as it may, if we can confine it to as few sessions as possible, I'm in favour of that.
Thank you.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much, Chair.
It's interesting. I'll try not to inflame the situation any more. People are obviously very sensitive around this topic—as well they should be, with $300 million in Canadian taxpayer money.
That being said, I'd like to propose a subamendment that would also suggest that the Conservatives are quite happy to say “up to four hours of meetings”, but the Minister of Health needs to be included as one of the witnesses.
I'm happy with Dr. Hanley's amendment, but we'd change it to “up to four hours”, with the Minister of Health being one of the witnesses.
Thank you.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I think it would help all of our committee members.... The main Conservative motion says to add an hour to regular meetings, which I think is a good idea, but we're not sure if that can be done or not.
Does the committee have the resources to add an hour to meetings? I think that would help all of us make up our minds as to which way we go. If it turns out we can do that or we can't, it makes a difference.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
First of all, the amendment removes adding the extra hour, so that isn't what's under debate right now. I think you're asking for some advice from the clerk as to whether, if we defeat the amendment and come back to the original motion, it's doable from an administrative perspective.
The answer is that we don't have an answer now, but we can look into it and get back to you. At this point, we don't know. It isn't an unreasonable request, but that doesn't mean it's going to be granted.
I do have Mr. Thériault on the list, but I want to get clear on this subamendment before we get there. I want to clarify something in connection with the subamendment, but the speakers list is Ms. Sidhu, Mr. Thériault and Mr. Fisher at this point.
With respect to the subamendment, Dr. Ellis, I believe there are two things you want to amend in the amendment. One is that the amendment calls for four hours of meetings, and you want to insert the words “up to”. On the list of witnesses contained in the amendment, you want to add the Minister of Health.
Do I have it right?
12:30 p.m.
Conservative