Health Committee on June 15th, 2020

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I'd be open to having the documents provided no later than August 31.

Mr. Chair, I'll clarify my original statement to say “no later than August 31, 2020”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The motion before us, then, is that the wording be changed to “no later than August 31, 2020”. I think we require unanimous consent to accept that.

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think some of the honourable members wanted to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes, I'll get to those. I just want to make sure we're clear on the amendment.

Mr. Kelloway has clarified the amendment that he was making. I wish to ensure that everybody is in agreement with the wording of the amendment as it is now.

Seeing nothing to the contrary, I shall take that as unanimous consent.

We will go now to the speakers list.

Dr. Powlowski, you're still on the list. Do you wish to carry on?

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I'm not sure if someone wanted to speak to the proposed amended amendment, because I see a bunch of hands coming up. I'm not sure whether Mr. Paul-Hus is saying that people want to speak to the motion, or to the proposed amendment “no later than”, or to the original. I'm not sure what we're debating.

Assuming that the debate is still on the date by which documents have to be submitted, I agree with the extension. I would go back to the same reasoning that these people have a lot of work to do to begin with. This is a big issue. There are so many border points between Canada and the United States, and not a lot of people working in this job. They have a sufficient number of things to do without their lives being made so much more complicated by having to divert those issues instead of addressing them, having to put them all on the back burner, because they have to produce documents.

I realize that for the sake of transparency they are important, but this means you're prioritizing this function of producing documents over what I think ought to be their priority, which is dealing with the issue of border closure—who's allowed to go across the border and who isn't—that justifiably, I think, takes a good deal of their time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Dr. Powlowski.

We go now to Dr. Jaczek.

Dr. Jaczek, please go ahead.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Again, to speak to Mr. Kelloway's amendment, which is “not later than August 31”, if possible, of course, we could get the documents sooner. I think that's important to make sure we all understand that.

Our goal is to get the very best information we possibly can. We know that many other committees are also looking at similar motions in terms of production of documents. Though, of course, this is important work to be done, I think we want quality, thoroughness, in the name of truly understanding what the government's response has been, and obviously planning to look to the future. I'm sure we all hope we could open that border as soon as is feasible.

However, as Dr. Powlowski said previously, it is a very delicate issue, obviously in terms of the trade involved that's so important to both our economies, but also, of course, to the health of the population and not being sure of what exactly is happening to the south of us at any one time, from so many different states and so on.

I think what we're after is production...that is transparent, that is full and of good quality. I think the timing as proposed in Mr. Kelloway's amendment makes a great deal of sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Dr. Jaczek.

We go now to Ms. Sidhu.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

It's the same thing. We also need good quality reports, and we should give flexibility to staff. If the department finishes before, that's great, but we should provide the department with the time that they need. I agree with the amendment for “August 31”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Sidhu.

I've been advised by the clerk that the time for panel number one has expired.

I will thank the witnesses for their statements.

Regrettably, we are unable to question you further at this time, but thank you for joining us. I appreciate your time.

We go now to Mr. Fisher.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I'm good now that I have clarity.

As Dr. Jaczek said, and as MP Sidhu said, if these documents are put together in a pile before August 31, I think then it's prudent to get them out before the 31st. So, “no later than” works for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. Jansen, please go ahead.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I have to say that I am completely shocked at the lack of urgency that the Liberals are showing here. Unless they have information that there won't be a second wave coming, I am absolutely appalled that we are suggesting we have time.

I am against the idea that we're just going to give ourselves a couple of extra weeks. We don't have a couple of extra weeks. That's what happened in the beginning of the pandemic as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Jansen.

Mr. Thériault, you may go ahead.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, when I said earlier we had to be reasonable in our request, I thought the cutoff should be August 10, since we have a report to table, information to go through and a work plan to prepare.

Today is June 15, and I think the government can provide the documents requested in the motion on time, and that's important. I agree with Mr. Paul-Hus and Mrs. Jansen. I think it's doable and that there is enough time, especially since it doesn't involve many departments, unlike other motions we will eventually deal with.

This is an important issue, and we're going to have to review the information. We have a report to submit, so I think we should stick to August 10.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Monsieur Thériault.

Mr. Van Bynen, please go ahead.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My concern is around getting clarity in terms of the information that's being covered. If we say anything up to August 31, or August 10 for that matter, these are ongoing negotiations, so what happens if there are discussions that go on after that? Shouldn't we be spending some time defining the start date and the finish date for when these documents are covered, or do we intend for these documents to be available in the interest of full transparency? What happens if something comes forward or if there's a document that's eligible for review on August 31? Should we define August 31 as the timeline for the review of the documents that we have in place and then have a timeline for reporting?

I'm a bit confused in terms of the “up to”. If it said August 31 specifically, then we would know we're dealing with information from the time that the discussion started with COVID and for what length of time we're going to be including the information. It's not clear to me how much information we're seeking, because we don't have a start date and a finish date. I'd like some clarity on that from the person who proposed the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'd like to clarify a point Mr. Thériault made, and I would ask the clerk to weigh in if she feels it's appropriate. I believe the documents we're requesting here are not part of the study we're undertaking on COVID-19. The report we will be getting out of that study will be derived from witnesses who have appeared before the committee, and from briefs submitted by those witnesses and by other people to the committee specifically for this study. The document matter is, I believe, completely separate.

Unless the clerk wishes to offer an opinion, I will go to our next speaker, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

I support the August 10 date. I really am flabbergasted that anybody would think it would take two and a half months to produce this documentation. It's June 15. We don't need to go until August 31. Frankly, I think the documents could be produced much sooner than August 10 as well.

In some ways, it's arbitrary. We're just picking dates here, but if Mr. Kitchen's motion was that he wants documents by August 10, then I think we should respect that. Whether it's August 1 or August 15, none of us has any basis for determining if that's enough time or not. I think we should respect the intent of the original motion and, as Mr. Van Bynen said, obviously by picking a cut-off date we are limiting what's going to come after that. Mr. Kitchen must have recognized that in his motion. There's no bureaucratic reason that we can't have these documents prepared in the next two months. I'm going to support the motion as August 10.

I also want to reiterate again that responsible government requires oversight by democratically elected politicians. I'm getting concerned at this repeated point and argument being made that by requesting disclosure for us to carry out our obligation to oversee the civil service, or oversee the behaviour and response of government, we somehow are derogating or taking away from the government's ability to deal with the pandemic. The government can chew gum and walk at the same time. I haven't heard any member of this government say that transparency and accountability are not possible right now because they're too busy dealing with the pandemic.

I want to in the strongest terms possible indicate my opposition to this false dichotomy between taking away our civil servants' ability, somehow, to deal with the pandemic and discharging our responsibility to have parliamentary oversight. This is a minority government we're in right now. No party enjoys the majority support of the House of Commons. I think it's unfair to suggest that by us as parliamentarians discharging our duties, as this motion seeks to do for transparency and accountability, somehow we are harming the government's ability to deal with the pandemic. There's not a shred of evidence of that and it doesn't pass muster.

I'm going to support the motion as is and suggest that we move on to the vote. We've already lost one panel. That's fine, by the way. I want to also say that committee members have the right to move motions at committee, and it's unfortunate that sometimes it happens when we're in the middle of a study, but I'm also a bit troubled when people apologize to witnesses as if what we're doing here is somehow inappropriate. This is the only time we have to move motions—during committee meetings—and it's a totally appropriate use of our committee time to do so.

Unfortunately, it does take away from witness time, but since we have witnesses scheduled at every meeting, there's no other time for us to do this. I respect my colleagues' right to move motions and I respect the right to debate them, but I think we've heard a lot about this motion already and I would hope that we could move to vote on it as soon as we can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Mr. Fisher, please go ahead.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think Don made some very good comments there, as did Mr. Thériault. If the 10th is arbitrary and the 31st is arbitrary, my personal belief is that I want our public servants working on the matter in front of them—the pandemic.

Mr. Van Bynen talked about in one day getting 91 emails; that's as an MP. In our office, if you add up the emails that come in with our various accounts, it's several hundred a day. Imagine those public servants having to.... Maybe Don is right. Maybe they don't have to stop their work. Maybe they can walk and chew gum at the same time. However, the important job here right now is taking care of Canadians during this pandemic and providing good advice.

Yes, the 10th and the 31st could be very arbitrary, and again, we have the “no later than” in this amendment, so I would suggest that we consider supporting the 30th and no later than the 31st and we give these public servants the time they need to focus on their jobs, on what they're tasked with doing every single day.

Don's right. We're probably at the end of the debate on this. Again, I want to thank him for his comments. This is the important stuff. This is the only time we get a chance to get together and hammer these things out. We are in a minority and we are finding ways. This committee has done a very good job since we formed. We were the first committee that formed and we've been able to get together, figure things out and make things work pretty well. Maybe there's a bump in the road every now and again, but I think what we've got on this committee is a group of MPs who really do want to get to the same place, maybe not exactly in the same way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

We'll now go to Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Without dragging out the debate too much longer and with all due respect, of course, I would say that, during a pandemic and a public health crisis, border management is a fundamental issue, as we saw around the world. The biggest hotspot in the world is our neighbour to the south. We talked about the border extensively with the witnesses we met with, and to claim that it's irrelevant and doesn't have a bearing on our report strikes me as wrong. I'm certain the report that's tabled will guide discussions on how Canada manages the border with the U.S. in relation to the pandemic.

That said, I'm ready to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

We'll now go to Mrs. Jansen.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Fisher was talking about the importance of ensuring that staff are able to focus on their jobs, and I want to mention that we also need to focus on our job, which is to consider the safety of Canadians.

That is why we need to get this done as quickly as possible. Any delay could mean further problems with COVID-19 in our country during a second wave. We need to understand what happened. That is our job. We're focusing on the safety of Canadians, and we need the staff to help us by providing us with these documents.