Health Committee on July 13th, 2020

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We hear a lot of talk about science. Science is multifactorial. Information is provided by multiple scientists around the world. The Public Health Agency has received information. The health minister has received information. Ultimately, the health minister has received that information from multiple facets, not just the Public Health Agency of Canada. One would assume the minister has received information from the provinces and their scientists, and the great work their public health doctors have been doing.

For us to turn around and say that, purely, we're going to get the answers we want because this is what we're asking for...is not there. We need to hear all the science. We need to know the information. Canadians need to know the conversations that the health minister and her office had, besides just listening to the Public Health Agency of Canada.

We have heard from multiple people, throughout this committee, on how the communication has broken down, that it never got out and was never put out by the doctors and the scientists. For us to turn around and say we're not going to hear from the health minister is, to me, demeaning to Canadians. I think we need to listen to that and hear that information.

I will be voting against this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Dr. Kitchen.

Mrs. Jansen, please go ahead.

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

Again, I think it's very important that we let Canadians know that we have done our utmost to ensure that all the information is out there. I am willing to be here four hours, eight hours, 12 hours—you name it, I'm here. I'm very concerned about my constituents.

I think it's very important that all the information comes out. At our last meeting, we had witnesses suggest there was no reason, no new science for Dr. Tam to use to switch. She flip-flopped. The suggestion was made that she flip-flopped because we did not have enough personal protective gear.

We need to make sure there was no interference politically at all. How are we going to do that? We are only going to do that by providing all the information from all the different actors. To suggest that that's scattergun is ridiculous.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mrs. Jansen.

Is there any further discussion on this amendment?

Seeing none, I will call the question. Madam Clerk, please conduct the vote.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Clerk, can you please read the amendment again?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Please, Madam Clerk, would you mind?

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The amendment is that the words “Minister of Health's office” be removed from the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Does that clarify it for you, Monsieur Desilets?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Yes, it certainly does. That's what I thought, but I wanted to be sure.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, please go ahead with the vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will go now to Mr. Jeneroux's motion as previously amended. The discussion is now on Mr. Jeneroux's motion as previously amended.

Mr. Fisher, I see your hand up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With all these amendments, I'd like to move my own amendment. I would like to change the date of “2015” to “2010” in the middle of the motion, where it says, “regarding the management of the National Emergency Strategic Stockpile from 2015-2020, including supply inventory broken down by number and all updates sent to the government”.

The reason I do so is that, tragically, when we came to government we saw that we had a stockpile that had, essentially, expired. It had expired equipment. The previous government somehow allowed that equipment to sit there and did not rotate it. Of course, we had a lot of feedback from members of this committee about how atrocious that was, and how this government inherited a very out-of-date and expired stockpile.

I suggest that if we move back to 2010, we could, perhaps, get some information and data as to why that sat there gathering dust in the strategic stockpile.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

You are amending the motion to reference 2010 instead of 2015. Is that correct?

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

Yes, it's where it speaks specifically to “the management of the National Emergency Strategic Stockpile”, not in the other parts of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

The debate now is on Mr. Fisher's amendment.

Mr. Jeneroux, please go ahead.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the [Technical difficulty—Editor] of transparency, certainly I don't agree with the member's assessment of its being poorly managed in the past. This government has had five years to essentially do something about whatever was put forward.

At the very beginning of this committee, I preached that it was important for all members to look at where we're going. If certain things had happened, we would want to make sure we correct those for future generations and any other potential pandemics.

I'll certainly be supporting that motion. If he'd like to go back as far as 2000, I'd be happy to support that particular motion. However, on the motion on the table, again, in the spirit of transparency, I think it's important for Canadians that we see the changes that have happened or that haven't happened in these past five years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Jeneroux.

Dr. Jaczek, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'll be supporting this motion. I think that going back to 2010 is actually quite useful. We know that we had H1N1 around 2011, I believe, so it would be useful to understand how the national stockpile was replenished, if it was. On the details, we did get some information on that topic through our deliberations as the health committee, but I think it would be useful to explore that again. In the interest of transparency, as has been quoted so many times this afternoon, I think this would really help in analyzing exactly the status of the stockpile over a longer period of time, so I will be supporting the amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Dr. Jaczek.

Mr. Van Bynen, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wholeheartedly agree with the amendment that Mr. Fisher has put forward, and I believe that Dr. Jaczek adds a great dynamic to it.

This is not a short-term thing. This is something that has happened over a very long period of time. In the interest of understanding and making sure that what we are doing is better, and that we will be implementing long-term plans coming out of what we've learned now, I think we need to have a better understanding of our history as well, so extending the history to include 2010 makes an awful lot of sense to me, and I will be supporting that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

Dr. Kitchen, go ahead, please.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm comfortable with that. I think, though, that we should go right back to 2003, when the NESS, as well as the agency, was first established, to see exactly how it was established and how it was monitored. Having that information.... I wonder if the mover would be okay to make that adjustment and make it as of 2003, or whether he needs another subamendment to a subamendment to an amendment to an amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I'll speak to that briefly.

You suggested that there were no friendly amendments earlier. Of course, Dr. Kitchen has every ability to move a subamendment. I chose 2010 because the purchase of the equipment that was out of date and had to be disposed of was around the 2010 era. It wasn't in 2003 or 2004.

I wouldn't mind clarity as well. I don't know exactly when the NESS started. I believe Dr. Jaczek would know that for sure, but I stuck with 2010 because that's when the products, the masks and the PPE, were considered to be new.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

This is just a comment on friendly amendments. Friendly amendments are not strictly part of the regular process, but we can generally do things by unanimous consent, which is kind of where that fits in. So it's really up to Dr. Kitchen, I guess, as to whether he wishes to proceed with an amendment to change that date to 2003.

Dr. Kitchen, would you care to step in?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Certainly, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to prolong it. We've definitely been rehashing and rehashing, and that's why I made my amendment to the amendment to the subamendment to the subamendment.

The bottom line is that when NESS started.... I agree with Mr. Fisher. I don't know exactly whether it started in 2003 or 2004, but I think if we established the purchase of masks, etc., back at that point in time, it would be interesting to see and worthwhile to know whether that equipment was actually found to be obsolete and whether it was replenished, etc. I'm comfortable with....

Why don't we go back to 2005, go back 10 years? If I need to make a subamendment to that, I will, but I'm hoping Mr. Fisher might say, “Hey, maybe I can make that change” and we can agree unanimously on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Well, let's make the offer.

Mr. Fisher, are you comfortable with moving the date to 2005?