Health Committee on Feb. 26th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any discussion on the subamendment?

Monsieur Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like you to reread it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The subamendment in its finely honed form is as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the committee order all documents, including briefing notes, memos, emails, text messages, and summaries of phone calls prepared for the Minister of Health, Minister of Transport, Minister of Public Safety, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Minister of National Defence regarding the outbreak of the coronavirus, no later than March 15, 2020; that matters of Cabinet confidence and national security be excluded from the request, and that any redactions to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens and permanent residents whose names and personal information may be included in the documents, as well as public servants who have been providing assistance on this matter, be made by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons.

If it's clear, shall we vote on this subamendment with a recorded vote?

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Okay, so the subamendment carried.

We're back on the amendment as amended by the subamendment, which reads as I just read it.

Mr. Jeneroux.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure that we get a recorded vote on this one as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay, so on the amendment as amended by the subamendment, is there any discussion?

Yes, Mr. Fisher.

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

If I can get this straight, are we looking at tasking some of the busiest people in the country with ordering all documents, including briefing notes, memos, emails, text messages and summaries of phone calls, in 15 or 17 days? Are we really interested, as a committee, in tasking the busiest people in Canada with all of this?

This will be thousands and thousands of documents. This is beyond transparency; this is a fishing expedition. I think what we should be doing here is.... Mr. Davies talked about “order” not “request”, but we've never asked for anything that we haven't received. I feel that we should request prior to an order, and if we don't get what we seek, then order it. Use the power of the committee to order it then.

This is such an overreach for a committee that's been so far working really, really well. Our officials, who are sitting here waiting to brief us, have been amazing on short notice. We had a conversation a day and a half ago about inviting them back, because it's important. Mr. Kitchen and Marcus talked about the importance of having them here, and we all agreed.

We have had conversations where we were supposed to have a minister for an hour. We heard that it's important to members that the minister be invited for two hours, and we said yes, okay, if that's what folks around the table want.

It just feels like this is a real overreach, and, again, taking the busiest people in the country and asking them to dig down from the last four weeks everything that they've done, said, talked about on the telephone—everything. To me this just seems ludicrous.

If that's what the committee determines they want, we'll task these incredibly busy people with this. But if this isn't a fishing expedition, then I don't know what is.

I'm interested to hear from some of the members across the way what it is specifically that they feel they're searching for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We have Mr. Jeneroux, followed by Mr. Davies.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

It's hard not to point out the hypocrisy of taking up time by just...everything we just talked about being within the subamendment that we just had the committee vote on and support, so I won't litigate everything he just went through.

Mr. Kelloway started his speech by saying that we intend to be transparent and accountable to the full extent. We know from history.... All you have to do is look back at the last Parliament with the SNC-Lavalin affair and see the number of text messages that went back and forth between the minister and deputy minister. Obviously, the chief public health officer and the minister are certainly well staffed. We know that they essentially would be the ones getting and going through these text messages and emails. At the end of the day, we know that this is how this particular cabinet likes to operate. It's through that sort of communication.

That's why it's important that we keep all of that in there—to really pursue the full transparency and accountability that these members said they're looking for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Just briefly, I think Mr. Fisher does make a good point about this being an onerous request. It is. But I think the onerousness of the request is commensurate with the seriousness of the issue. I think the COVID-19 virus right now is probably the number one public health issue facing Canadians. It's on their minds.

I don't know that there are thousands of pages. He may have seen some documents that I haven't seen. This says that we're after documents that were prepared for the Minister of Health, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence. I don't know how many memos, briefing notes or phone calls were made. We're asking for the summaries that would have been prepared.

The thing about accountability is that it is onerous, but we are the health committee. I think the government has done a credible job, up to now, of managing this crisis, but I think it's also fair to say that there have been some shifting sands. I'm not even putting that at the foot of the government, but first we weren't sure whether this virus was only transmitted by particulates. Then we found out that it could be transmitted by surface. We weren't sure whether it could be transmitted person to person. Now we understand that it could be transmitted person to person. We understand now that it's coming into Canada from not only people from China but maybe from Iran or elsewhere.

I think the time has come for us, as the health committee, to get a very good idea of what has happened so far in order to help guide us in terms of doing our work as the body of Parliament that is to keep a close eye on the health portfolio.

For those reasons, I think the motion is a sound one. I'll be supporting it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We have Mr. Kelloway, and then Ms. Sidhu.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Again, I've only been here three or four months, so I'm very much a neophyte here with respect to panels and committees like this that bring in top-notch experts who are dealing with fundamental challenges, not just in Canada but around the globe. When I was back home, which I go back to every weekend when a flight will allow—or a snowstorm, for that matter—I speak to a lot of my constituents, and a lot of these constituents tell me of the work that we're all doing here in terms of bringing the panels together to speak to health, to speak to transport, to speak to global security. To me, this is transparency; this is openness. Using words like “order” as opposed to “request”, I just think that speaks to.... I guess on one side, people across the way may believe that's not cynicism, but I believe we're feeding into a machine here and it's not an overly healthy one. I'll go back to a hypothetical suggestion here.

Maybe it's not a thousand documents, maybe it's two thousand, maybe it's three thousand, so we're going to ask Dr. Theresa Tam to personally go through her phone log and her texts, and at the same time we're asking for a very efficient and expeditious review and triage of a very serious problem, with her at the helm. That was one of the original things that I brought up in our own pre-committee around this amendment.

Again, when I say I believe that this committee is transparent, I believe wholeheartedly in that. That's not a qualifier. I believe that's what we're all doing here.

My concern is the workload that we're going to put on individuals who are actually trying to triage this problem right now. I wanted to put that out there publicly on the record. Of course we're for openness and transparency. We have a difference of opinion here, but it should never be said that I don't think anyone on this committee is for a lack of transparency. We're for transparency and efficiency and getting work done.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I should point out that the motion is as is, before us. We will vote for it or not, or amend it. As it stands, this is the motion before us and these are the amendments that we're going to have to decide on.

I'll go to Ms. Sidhu, followed by Mr. Jeneroux and Mr. Thériault.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to add to what my colleague said. With what we are digging out as a committee, I think transparency is here and the panel is here. We really want to listen. We are wasting their time as well. My colleagues said they had to come back and they are here. I don't know what we are reaching out for, what we are digging for here.

Another comment is about the changing virus. As you know, WHO did not.... They are just finding out; it is coming, and then we will all know. It's not like Canada is going to change anything. It's just a new virus; we all don't know. There is research coming out and we know this thing is happening.

Everything is transparent here. I just want to ask my colleague what the purpose of that is. I think we are wasting the panel's time as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Jeneroux.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Chair, they could end this right now by just having a vote. We have seen now three speakers reiterate arguments that were made in the arguments of the subamendment. I would simply say to the members across the way that we simply vote on the matter before us. If it's uncomfortable to some of them, then I would suggest they vote against it. However, there is no longer a majority Parliament in this House of Commons.

If this is uncomfortable for you, simply vote against it, and we'll see what the results of the vote are. I would encourage the remaining Liberal speakers on the list to consider the argument that there are speakers here in front of us. It certainly can be ended.

Right away we can move to the speakers if we simply go to a vote, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Thériault, go ahead, please.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, my apologies to the witnesses. I wanted to hear them address the committee, but, in all likelihood, I'm going to miss it since I have to be in the House. Unfortunately, I won't be able to hear what they have to say today.

Nevertheless, I'd like to try one last time to reach a consensus and move a subamendment.

I move that, after “emails”, the words “from high officials” be added. We would strike “text messages, and summaries of phone calls” and keep the rest. We want information and transparency, but if we ask for text messages, it'll be a lot. Reviewing it all within the prescribed time frame will be challenging. The same goes for summaries of telephone calls.

What I'd like is information, but if we don't specify whose emails we are looking for, we could get the emails of 300, 400, 500 or 600 people. We'd be inundated with information, and I want to be able to review it in a reasonable amount of time. We are dealing with a crisis here.

That's my subamendment in a final attempt to reach a consensus.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Could you clarify what you mean by “high officials”?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, do I really have to explain what I mean by “high officials”?

It refers to “emails” without specifying whose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I understand “senior officials”....

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I'm talking about high-ranking officials in the departments concerned, which is implicitly understood. I'm talking about those who are closely involved in the file.

I'm not looking for the emails of all high-ranking officials across government who have nothing to do with managing the coronavirus. I have no desire to read that. This isn't a stalling tactic. We have to deal with this seriously.

I have no aspirations to be Inspector Clouseau, but what I do want is to have all relevant information that will set the stage for us when we hear from witnesses, so we can ask thoughtful questions on behalf of the public. That is my goal, so this is what I'm proposing.

I got the feeling earlier that Mr. Fisher had acquiesced in the face of Mr. Davies' reasoning. He seemed to be in agreement. He gave it the thumbs up. I thought everyone was onside. They didn't present any counter-arguments.

I realize we need to hear from the witnesses, but at the same time, I think there's a way to come to an arrangement and reach a consensus. Perhaps the clerk could help you read the amendment, if necessary.

It isn't all that complicated. I move that we request the emails of senior officials, that we remove the reference to text messages and summaries of phone calls and that we keep the rest. We could be even more specific by adding “emails from senior officials involved in the coronavirus crisis”, but I think that's understood in the request. We are talking about senior officials involved in the various departments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay.

With Monsieur Thériault's subamendment, the amendment looks like this: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the committee order all documents, including briefing notes, memos and emails from senior officials involved in the”—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

It would read “memos, emails from senior officials”. I didn't hear that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I've dropped “text messages, and summaries of phone calls”. It's “memos and emails from senior officials” involved in the file. All the rest is the same: “prepared for the Minister of Health, Minister of Transport, Minister of Public Safety, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Minister of National Defence regarding the outbreak of the coronavirus” and so forth.

Does everybody understand the subamendment?

I also had an indication from Dr. Powlowski that they would like a brief suspension to discuss this.