Got it.
Evidence of meeting #33 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #33 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
In the spirit of MP Van Bynen's amendment, my understanding is that we should move to amend to exclude “Min O” in a separate amendment, if I'm not mistaken. I defer to my colleague on that, MP Van Bynen.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That's really a matter that's up to you, whether you wish to move an amendment to the motion as just presented. Do you wish to move that amendment?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay. Mr. Kelloway's amendment, then, is to remove.... I'm sorry, was it the PMO or the Privy Council Office?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The health minister has already been removed. No, sorry. Now I'm getting confused.
Mr. Kelloway's amendment is to remove the health ministry from Mr. Jeneroux's motion.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
All right. Thank you.
The discussion now is on Mr. Kelloway's amendment.
I see that Ms. Jansen has her hand up.
Please go ahead.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I'd like to get this straight now.
We have now been in this meeting for two full hours. We are trying to get clarity and transparency with regard to these issues of mask use and what Dr. Tam knew, what the PMO knew, and what Health, PHAC knew. We've spent two full hours trying to make sure that we don't get information from the health minister and the PMO. It is absolutely mind-boggling. If we want Canadians to trust the process, then we need to make sure that we actually have all the information and that nobody gets left out.
When we look at where we're at right now with the PMO on a number of other issues on which it has tried not to be transparent, we can see that Canadians have a reason to be concerned about this. It absolutely blows my mind that we have spent two hours trying our very best to make sure that the PMO and the health ministry give us no information.
I'm begging you: We need to make sure that Canadians know exactly what happened so they will trust the institutions they are being asked to follow. I'm begging you.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Certainly I think this debate is a very important one, and two hours is not necessarily enough to ensure that democracy...and all views are being heard. The previous member who spoke may not necessarily like what the rest of us duly elected representatives are saying, but we have the right to do so.
I am going to be supporting MP Kelloway's motion because, as I said before, I do believe that this will simply be a duplication. We have sufficient information, surely, from the very important offices that are included in the motion, namely Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Privy Council.
This is not to belabour the point, but I feel strongly that each of us should have every opportunity to speak to each one of these subamendments, amendments and the motion itself.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The motion asks for all the “emerging evidence that altered the government’s advice on the wearing of masks referenced by Dr. Theresa Tam”. You're going to get that. You're going to get that from the chief public health officer, and you're going to get that from the Public Health Agency of Canada. You're going to get that from Health Canada; you're going to get that from the Privy Council. Again, a lot of the rest of it will be redundancy.
The emerging evidence, the science that has directed COVID-19 since the start, the fact that we've said at this committee before that politics did not enter into the response to COVID-19 in Canada.... Probably the reason we've done so well in this pandemic is that we've used science to provide outcomes on how we proceed each and every day, and we have not allowed politics to get involved in this.
So that's what you're looking for, that's what the committee is looking for: “emerging evidence that altered the government’s advice on the wearing of masks referenced by Dr. Theresa Tam, Chief Public Health Officer, at her appearance before the Standing Committee on Health on Tuesday, May 19, 2020”. That's exactly what this motion will bring us.
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I think, precisely as members are arguing, that we want to make sure that the confidence of the public is reassured, that decisions are made in a non-partisan way and that the public health officials' information and advice to the ministers is consistent. Precisely for those reasons, if nothing else, for us to receive this information from the Minister of Health and, I would argue, the PMO, although that amendment didn't pass.... I would argue that, at the very minimum, we should be getting this information from the Minister of Health's office. If nothing else, all that it would do is reassure the public that, in fact, the decisions made and the information that has been shared with the Minister of Health are made available to the public for all to see.
I think that, in the spirit of transparency and accountability, this amendment should not be passed. I think it is absolutely critical for the committee to access this information, and I think it is critical for the public to access this information, so I would really urge the committee members who have been thinking of excluding this information from being obtained from the Minister of Health's office to reconsider that.
The other point I want to make is this. It's been repeated over and over again by government MPs that somehow this would be duplication of information, as though somehow they already know. Well, I don't know at this point in time; we don't know at this point in time, so let's be sure that we go through the process here. We're going to do this work anyway. The officials are doing this work anyway. Let's just be sure and clear the air, so that the information is shared with the committee members and with the public for transparency and accountability.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I think it's incorrect when Mr. Fisher says that we did really well. What we did was mediocre. Since it was mediocre, we need to be able to show Canadians why we didn't get as good an outcome as other nations did.
I had many seniors die in a seniors home close to my home. We need answers. Let's show the redundancy. I'm happy to show redundancy. Canadians need to know why things happened, and the only way we're going to do that is if we turn over the rocks, and that's from all levels of government.
The suggestion that we've done well because.... We have to think about the fact that provinces did their own thing because they probably didn't have confidence—I'm guessing—in some of the things that were coming out of the federal government. Let's look at it. Let's see, so we can help Canadians know that we can be trusted and that we make good decisions based on good science. Let's not cover stuff up or even have the appearance of covering stuff up.
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to let members know that important information is being included in the documents. I just want to say that we are here.... Mrs. Jansen said it's two hours, but even in these two hours we are working for Canadians. This is the 33rd meeting. We are all working hard. Even before that.... Yes, we work together. Let's work together now.
You are getting what you want; it would just be excluding the health minister's office. Again, we are duplicating that. What information we want, we all can get.
Thank you.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I couldn't agree more with Mr. Fisher. The information we're looking for will be provided precisely by the Public Health Agency. I don't think we're helping ourselves, and I don't think our credibility is going to be improved, by taking a scattergun approach and shooting at everybody who might have information. Let's decide on what it is we're trying to understand.
This motion, as I understand it, is dealing with two things, and two things only: the wearing of masks and the national emergency stockpile. So why are we turning over rocks, so to speak, everywhere else on Parliament Hill? I think we should be focused on the question, and the question is, again, about “emerging evidence that altered the government's advice on the wearing of masks referenced by Dr. Theresa Tam”, and the national emergency strategic stockpile from 2015 to 2020, including supply inventory.
Why don't we focus on those things and make sure that the information we're seeking specifically comes to us and addresses that from the people who are most knowledgeable about all that?
I think there's enough on the hands of the government and the people who are delivering the health care that we need now. This situation isn't over yet. I think we should focus on the issue and the question, and that's what we should be doing. To me, the information we're seeking can be achieved without involving all the other groups of government.
As I say, a scattergun approach is not helpful. It confuses the issue. It undermines people's confidence, because we're looking for something but we don't know what we're looking for. Why don't we focus on the areas where the information is available? Why don't we focus on the people who are providing that information?
I will be supporting the amendment.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal