Health Committee on Jan. 25th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. Rempel Garner, do you wish to respond to this?

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

I apologize. It's probably not appropriate to ask that question.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

That's okay.

I would just respond with a question to the parliamentary secretary, given that he has the responsibility of helping the government set its legislative agenda.

Does the government feel that four meetings, including a meeting with the minister, is adequate for Canadians to understand why, in a situation—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. Rempel Garner—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

No, you don't. I am the chair. I have the floor.

You were not called upon to engage in a debate. You were called on to respond to Mr. Fisher's—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I am responding. You might not like what I have to say, but I am responding, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

In my view it's debate, and we'll go back to Mr. Fisher.

Mr. Fisher, please carry on.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Part of Mr. Davies' motion, the unanimous motion that we passed, required unanimous support to go over four. I am just, again, trying to seek some clarity. Perhaps we would have support unanimously to go to more than four. I don't know.

I'm not certain at this point—

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Chair, I have a point of order.

I get that Mr. Fisher has asked a reasonable question in regard to what the meetings would be used for. I think it would be just as reasonable to have an answer on that from my colleague, Ms. Rempel Garner, if the question was asked, and it was.

Even though I get that Mr. Fisher indicated that it's probably not the right protocol, it's just as right a protocol to have a response because we just went back into it with Mr. Fisher's comments. I think it's appropriate then for Ms. Rempel Garner to ask him a question as well and to get a reasonable answer, given that he is part of the government that's setting its work agenda.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Maguire.

Ms. Rempel Garner was called upon to answer a question on a point of information for Mr. Fisher, not to ask her own questions.

We'll carry on with Mr. Fisher.

Go ahead, please.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I challenge your ruling, Chair.

I kind of feel like as a woman I get cut off a lot, and I kind of feel like this is slightly misogynistic.

I challenge your ruling on the ability for me not to speak in response to a colleague's question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I guess that's appropriate.

Mr. Clerk, is it appropriate to challenge such a ruling?

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

I could just move an amendment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

At this point, we have a—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

It's on the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

—possible appeal of a ruling.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Jean-François Pagé]

She has appealed a ruling by the chair, so, yes, she can do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Very well. Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

Mr. Clerk, would you call the roll, please?

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)

Ms. Rempel Garner, you may continue with your response.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you to my colleagues for letting me speak. It's nice. Thank you.

Thank you to Mr. Thériault and Mr. Davies. I appreciate it.

In response to Mr. Fisher's question, as he is the parliamentary secretary and he is responsible for setting the government's legislative agenda, or assisting in that with regard to health, I would ask him if he feels that four meetings, including a two-hour meeting with the ministers, is adequate for the committee to dispense with issues that are being raised by provincial governments. For example, what is the vaccine delivery schedule? The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board raised on CTV today that he didn't know...or he presented erroneous information that perhaps the government was banking on the AstraZeneca vaccine being approved, or Johnson & Johnson's. Is it adequate to have vaccine manufacturers come before committee to discuss terms of contracts?

To answer my colleague's question, the Standing Order 106(4) procedure allows the committee to determine different meetings. The ministers are being asked to come here under the auspices of the emergency situation that Canada is facing. I would like to have the ministers come here as soon as possible. The chair can determine what date that is within the bounds of the motion. I would ask my colleague whether he feels that we should limit debate on procuring vaccines, which is possibly the only way out of one of the greatest public policy challenges that Canada has faced in some time.

I'll let the Liberals and the parliamentary secretary—the government rep—determine or perhaps answer that question. Does the party feel that we should be limiting debate on vaccines at this particular juncture in our nation's history?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Mr. Fisher, you still have the floor. Please go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for that clarification, Ms. Rempel Garner.

I will move an amendment to one of the points in your motion, Ms. Rempel Garner.

After “invite the Minister of Health”, I move to amend the line as follows: “the Minister of Procurement and their officials to appear before the committee for no less than two hours each regarding all matters related to Canada's COVID-19 vaccination strategy as the committee's first witnesses on the topic of vaccines, with the number of committee meetings to be determined by unanimous consent, and that this meeting occur no later than February 4, 2021”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

We have an amendment on the floor. Is there any discussion on the amendment?

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

I will speak to the amendment for just a second.

It's a good motion, but I think that this gives the motion a little bit of clarity. It also gives an opening to allow us to have a conversation as a group and as a committee on how many meetings we want to have, rather than have a particular member from a particular party make the decision on how many meetings we would have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

Once again we have an amendment on the floor. Is there any discussion on this amendment?

I have a number of hands raised. I expect they are raised in regard to the original motion.

We have Mr. Kelloway.

Did you wish to speak on this particular amendment?