Health Committee on Jan. 25th, 2021

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

It was so long ago.

I think I'll forgo it for another time, other than to say.... We've all said this because we live it. Our constituents live it. We have family members who are living in it and people who are separated because of it. I don't know of anybody in my short time in Parliament who puts party before country. My hope is that we can stop that verbiage because it's not accurate for anybody in any party.

When it comes to having the ministers come, I like the idea of having them come at the same time. A lot of times when we've had ministers on separate occasions, we get to ask a question, but because that minister is not there it goes back to staffers. To look at the key ministers in question at the same time—and sooner rather than later—is important to every parliamentarian and every Canadian. That's why we're here. It's a good and important discussion to have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.

Mr. Van Bynen, did you wish to speak to the amendment?

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

Could I hear the amendment one more time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Sure.

Mr. Fisher, would you mind restating the amendment?

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

Sure. Thank you.

It is that we invite the Minister of Health, 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 and that the committee determine how many meetings we would hold on that topic, and that this meeting occur no later than February 4, 2021.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You mentioned in your original amendment that such a vote would have to be unanimous. Is that correct?

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

That's right, as per Mr. Davies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

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

I, for one, am eager to see the ministers come forward because it's important for us to be updated on that part. I share the sense of urgency that's being expressed. I'm sure that the ministers are eager to have this conversation and to bring us up to date.

I don't agree with the statement that we should act in the best interests of our constituents. I believe that each and every one of us acts in the best interests of our constituents. That goes well beyond any party line. I don't agree with that statement. I don't think that statement should be permitted to stand without being challenged.

I will be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

Ms. Sidhu, please.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly support the amendment as moved by my colleague, Mr. Fisher.

I would also like to comment on the matter we are discussing today later on, but I have absolutely no issue with the ministers reporting to our committee. We all want to hear from our ministers about the hard work that they are doing for Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Sidhu.

Dr. Powlowski, go ahead please.

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

Thank you.

Yes, I support the amendment.

This is one of a number of amendments that basically come down to this: We do mental health on Friday and on Monday we start the vaccine study by calling the two ministers. That's it. That's all our amendments amount to. It's nothing more complicated. We don't have to drag this out. You're starting to make me look back with regret to my work in emergency rooms doing fecal disimpactions. I prefer doing that to the procedural wrangling over this kind of stuff, which goes on and on.

This is simple. If you guys really want to come to an agreement, we're just asking.... Our amendments are small. If you're really interested in co-operating and getting this done, we totally agree that vaccines are the number one issue facing the country right now. We should be studying it. We should be in the substance of it, not arguing over procedural things.

Our suggested amendments, which are meant to make this consistent with the House motion, are relatively minor. We just finished the mental health study. We can start the vaccine study. The ministers are part of the vaccine study. It's not more complicated than that.

If we really want agreement, let's do it. Then let's go home and get back to our families.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I didn't want to interrupt my friend Mr. Powlowski's impassioned remarks. However, I must let you know that there was no interpretation. This evening, I want the interpretation issue resolved once and for all, because it's ridiculous.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Thériault, I'm sorry that there's an interpretation issue.

It’s not something I can solve immediately. It’s a problem that we will have to work out over time. Please feel free to intervene at any point when you are not getting translation. I apologize for that.

We will continue now with Ms. Rempel Garner, please.

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

I’m waiting to speak to the main motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We'll move to Mr. Davies, please.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Thanks to everybody for their interventions. I have great respect for all of my colleagues, particularly Dr. Powlowski. I share so much of his perspective, but I do have a couple of small disagreements with his last comment that I think are important.

From a structural point of view, it's been said that time is the most valuable currency in Parliament—I guess next to majority votes. Generally, government is going to win the votes at the end of the day in a majority, but in the opposition, we have time.

I'm going to point this out again. The Liberals hold the chair in this committee. If they had come before this committee with a nice schedule for the next four weeks, they would have been able to propose all sorts of things, including starting the COVID study on Monday and proposing that their witnesses, whom they're entitled to have first, would be the ministers. However, they didn't do that, so we're left here with the vacuum that Michelle Rempel Garner has filled.

The issue here is that a meeting under Standing Order 106(4) is an extraordinary meeting. That's the motion here today. This isn't a motion to schedule the first meeting of the COVID study and to allocate the witnesses. It's to have an extraordinary meeting with the ministers. That's over and above anything else we're doing here. If the Liberals wanted the ministers to be the first witnesses in four meetings, they could have and should have moved that. They're now moving it as an amendment to this main motion. They are effectively making the ministers everybody's witnesses, which is contrary to the main motion that we passed in the House of Commons.

I agree with Dr. Powlowski that there's a very simple fix here. If we really care about the urgency, which we all do, and we want to quit getting mired in procedural wrangling, here's the answer. We schedule the fourth meeting on mental health for Friday. On Monday, we hold the first meeting on the COVID vaccines. We get our witnesses in by this Wednesday, and we call the ministers for the following Friday. That's not one of the four meetings of the vaccine study. That's the extraordinary S.O. 106(4) meeting.

I would like to illustrate why that wouldn't work. When the ministers come—I don't know who said this, maybe the chair said this, or maybe it was Mr. Fisher who said this—the ministers are not anybody's witnesses in particular. They are the ministers. That's why they don't come with other witnesses. It's why they come with staff. It's a separate kind of meeting that is conducted out of respect, and in consideration of the special role they occupy. They're not just any other witnesses. They're the ministers who are in charge of things.

That's entirely different from the four meetings that I'm envisioning on vaccines, where we're calling scientists, epidemiologists, emergency room doctors, infectious disease specialists, maybe Pfizer, and people who can tell us things with regard to COVID. I am adamantly against wasting one of our four special meetings on COVID, when we should be hearing from Canadian stakeholders who we normally don't hear from.

In terms of ease, I could turn this around on the comments that were just made. What's the problem with having five meetings on vaccines? Are we really wasting time worrying about that? No. I see Mr. Fisher shaking his head no. We all agree with that. Let's just get down with it. Let's get this done and finish off that important mental health aspect that Mr. Van Bynen championed on Friday. Let's start COVID vaccines on Monday, with each of us with our one witness, in congruence with our original motion. Let's get the ministers here on the following Friday.

The other reason the ministers should come the following Friday is that it gives them more time. Every time we call the ministers, we are made aware of how tight their schedules are, and I respect that. You want to give the ministers as much time as possible to rearrange their very busy schedules. By giving them next Friday, that gives them almost two weeks to get ready to come to committee.

I think what I just said is a compromise that meets everybody's objectives. We should just pass it and get on with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

We will go now to Mr. Maguire.

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

Like others, I am waiting for the first motion, Mr. Chair. You can move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. Sidhu, you are next, please.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to speak to the main motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Very well.

Mr. Kelloway, I have you on the list next, or are you there for the main motion?

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

No. I just wanted to reiterate....

Don, thank you. I think if we have four meetings on vaccines and we have the ministers separate from that, it makes all the sense in the world. We're here to ask questions, learn more and find out how to enhance what we're doing and do it better. We need to know where those gaps may be and why they're there. That's what good parliamentarians do, as I've studied in my green book and learned from you folks. It's what I see every day when we meet on this panel.

If we can get to that and, as Don said, look at mental health.... We need to finish that. That's important. Many, if not all of us on this Zoom, have talked either here or on social media about how important mental health is. It's important to us. Let's finish that. Then let's move on to the vaccines and find a time the ministers can come that is outside the parameters of the four meetings dedicated to vaccines. It seems as if there's common ground there. My hope is that we can get to that ASAP.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.

Dr. Powlowski is next again. Please go ahead.