Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 13th, 2022

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Am I to understand from Mr. Brassard's indication that an invitation was sent to the witnesses prior to the motion being presented? That might be a potential procedural issue, considering we are debating the motion now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

No. An invitation to appear was not extended to the witnesses, but the individuals named in the draft motion that had been prepared.... In the interest of allowing them to be ready, the clerk reached out to make them aware that it was possible that such a motion might be presented and voted upon. It was just to get ahead and inform the ministers or the individuals of the possibility.

Carry on, Mr. Brassard.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That obviously speaks to the urgency of the issue and the fact that we need to deal with it.

The second thing I would say on the amendment is that I know it calls for the Minister of Indigenous Services, Minister Hajdu, to be stricken from this list. I think Minister Hajdu is an important piece of this puzzle as it relates to the information and data collecting that was happening while she was the Minister of Health. We want to find out for sure about not just the involvement of PHAC but also the minister's involvement in this collection of data. I think it's important that Minister Hajdu, as the former Minister of Health, be part of this.

Of course Mr. Duclos would be important as well, because the RFP was proposed when he was the minister. It's not just the connection with PHAC but the connection between PHAC and the government, and I think it's important that both ministers appear.

The next question I have, Mr. Chair, is a procedural one, because the motion did speak about “immediately following the adoption of this motion”. If the amendment fails and the main motion passes, then my question to you procedurally is this: When in the near term would it be possible to have a meeting of this committee reconvened with either one minister or both ministers, as well as Ms. Tam, able to appear? If I am to agree to this, understanding what the Liberal members are doing with respect to “immediately”, I need to know, because of the importance of this issue, that we're going to have a meeting sooner rather than later. I'm asking for your direction on that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Mr. Brassard.

Before I go to Mr. Fergus, I will say that as the chair, I am able to convene a meeting. It will be at the call of the chair. It will depend in part on the availability of services and room availability and whatnot, but given the intent of the motion to do this quickly, I would work toward that end.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Can I ask, Mr. Chair, what assurances we would have that the ministers and Ms. Tam would be available to the committee at a time when the committee is called?

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I can't answer that question.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Perhaps the mover of the amendment might be able to answer that question.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of clarification, you indicated that the clerk had sent out a potential notice—I think that's how you phrased it—that this might happen. I'm wondering if you got a response back. Obviously we want the study to happen, and it has to be at a reasonable time. I was wondering if the clerk has had a response back. Maybe the clerk could update us as to what that invitation process is going to look like.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I'm going to suspend the meeting on Ms. Khalid's point—and Mr. Brassard's, for that matter, because they're somewhat the same issue. The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

We will resume.

In response to Ms. Khalid's question, which is similar to Mr. Brassard's around assurances of availability, what has happened is that the clerk, as a general heads-up, for lack of a better way to put it, informed the individuals when she was aware of the draft motion or potential motion regarding these three witnesses. When the motion was moved at this meeting, the clerk also at that point emailed the motion so that the witnesses would know there was a motion to invite them as witnesses today and asked in the email for their availability. It seems at this point that none of the three witnesses has affirmed their availability today.

Now, on this motion, the committee is free to adopt whatever motion it would like and invite any witness it wants. It then would be a matter of availability, but the committee is free to invite a witness. It then will be up to the witness and to the administration of the committee to do its best to accommodate and address availability.

I hope that somewhat clarifies the situation. It doesn't clarify Mr. Brassard's question about assurances of witnesses' availability, and I, as chair, am not in a position to comment on any such assurances, but I think it addresses the point of order that Ms. Khalid raised. If that's—

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, can I just speak to that a little bit? I'm sorry to be taking up time on this, but I feel that we need to be careful with the precedent we're setting—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I'm sorry. We have a point of order on top of a point of order.

That was your point: It's a concern on the precedent.

I will go to the point of order from—

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I'd like to finish what I was saying, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Okay. Go ahead.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

My understanding is that prior to a motion being tabled, it is confidential, and for us to have reached out to witnesses prior to having the discussion makes me uncomfortable and nervous. I hope that we will be better in terms of how we communicate in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Mr. Kurek, we have your point of order.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Chair, I am seeking a couple of clarifications.

There are obviously challenges with the hybrid format, which I acknowledge fully, and I just want to ask you to affirm and clarify that this motion is in fact in order and that it's being debated as such and kind of what the committee can expect in terms of a path forward. I know that there have been a number of points of order and of course some complications, some of which are related to the hybrid model. I just want to ensure that the regular rules of order for how committees are to operate are in force, because certainly policy-related discussion in a speaking order is incredibly valuable.

I certainly intend to ask to be put on the speaking list, but there needs to be clarity as to exactly what the process is as we're proceeding—if this motion is in fact in order—and what the committee can expect over the course of the next meeting, as there has been, certainly from my perspective, a little bit of confusion as to exactly where we stand on this amendment and on the motion in general.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

The motion is in order and the amendment is in order, and as I clarified in discussing my ruling earlier, henceforth when there are both hybrid and in-person participants, I will ensure that when I have exhausted the speaking list that I have, which is a combination of people who catch my eye in the room and those who have their hands up on Zoom, I will ask if there are any others before I call the question and we proceed to a vote.

The amendment is in order. That's what we're debating now. I think yours was the last point of order, so I'm going to go back to my speaking order and go to Mr. Fergus, if that's okay. Thank you.

Mr. Fergus, go ahead.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, before I comment, I'd like to thank you for your flexibility. These hybrid meetings are not always easy to manage as technical issues always come up, along with other things that can happen around the table.

I also thank all my colleagues attending in person or in hybrid format for their patience and flexibility.

The discussion between Mr. Brassard and Ms. Khalid is the crux of the matter, it's extremely important. Having said that, I'd like to talk about the second part of Ms. Hepfner's amendment, which involves inviting the former Minister of Health to appear. As you know very well, since you have a great deal of parliamentary experience, it is the tradition of the House that ministers must be held accountable for their department's past and current decisions. To maintain that tradition, it's important that Mr. Duclos respond on behalf of Health Canada. Very few exceptions are made. The current minister has access to all officials, and he must be accountable for his department's past and current decisions.

I feel that it's very important, so in terms of the second part of Ms. Hepfner's amendment, I hope that we will honour that tradition. If we do, I hope we can get witnesses in quickly to explore the issues that Mr. Brassard has raised. I believe that is what everyone intends to do. From what I can see, we have a very broad consensus to look into these issues. I even believe we all agree on that.

If we could improve on Mr. Brassard's main motion, I believe we could reach a consensus. It would be a great way to proceed with studying an issue of such great importance to all Canadians.

I will stop there, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

Next I have Monsieur Villemure.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am listening to my colleagues' arguments, and all of it makes sense. These are positions that we need to debate. I must reiterate that we all agreed that this was important. The motion includes the word “immediately”, which implies some urgency. Both cases have a relationship to time. We need to realize that a tender process is under way. So we have a time component in the equation. I do not want to be obstructive, but certainly the sooner we can examine things, the better. We consider this issue to be important, which means it is somewhat urgent that we take action. While we are debating this issue, the request for proposals continues on, suppliers are being contacted and people are working on it. We don't want them to waste their time either.

First, Mr. Fergus, I always like the arguments you put forward. However, in terms of inviting the former health minister to appear, I ask that you acknowledge the difference between accountability and responsibility. You will forgive me for this etymology lesson, it's a favourite hobby of mine. The word “responsibility” comes from the verb “respondere”, which is made up of the prefix “res” that refers to a “thing”, and “spondere”, which means “to promise”. The person responsible is the one who promises the thing. Obviously, we promise something before doing it, while doing it and after doing it, but we must then be held accountable for it.

Of course, Mr. Duclos can be held to account for the decisions of his predecessor. However, when the person who made the decision and chose the reasons behind it can explain it to us outright. Accountability can and does get passed on, but responsibility remains. In this case, I would rather respect Canadians than respect tradition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

Next I have Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our colleagues for all their interventions. I think this has been a very heartfelt and substantive debate.

With regard to point (b), maybe we can start with the Minister of Health. Then at a later time, if we feel questions have not been answered, we can come back and re-evaluate whether we want to add anybody else to the witness list who could help clarify those questions for us. That's just in the interest of building consensus and moving forward. As members have agreed, there seems to be a sense of urgency here.

Now, I do realize that PHAC did delay the RFP by a number of weeks, so I think we have a little bit more manoeuvring time to start this study. I am hoping it can be a substantive one. I will again express my support for having just the Minister of Health come in, and then perhaps re-evaluate later who else we would like to add to the witness list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

I apologize if I have made an error or two in the order, but I have Mr. Green next.

Go ahead, Mr. Green.