Health Committee on Feb. 12th, 2021

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

Mr. Chair, you cannot just adjourn a meeting. A meeting can only end by implied or explicit consent. A chair's decision or lack of resources is not a reason to end a meeting.

In this type of situation, Madame Vignola is absolutely right. We should have translation, but a Liberal filibuster...? I'm sorry, democracy doesn't just run along the Liberal government's timeline. Of course the opposition is going to put forward motions to compel the government to give information. Of course we're going to do that. There should be resources for Parliament to continue. If there aren't resources to do this, then this isn't working and we can't continue this way. This is a violation of privilege.

Madame Vignola just had to abstain on a vote because she couldn't get interpretation. That is a failure on behalf of the House of Commons. As a member of Parliament, I don't have to give anybody notice of the extension of a debate or a point of order. This is an absolute breach of privilege.

I'm just reminding you that even though the government deputy House leader might be trying to suggest that something happened, a committee ends only by consent—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Not true.

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

—and not by a lack of resources. A lack of resources is not approved—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

You're wrong, Michelle.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm being heckled by the House leader at this point.

I think this is a huge problem. This is something that has not been addressed and needs to be addressed. It is not my fault as a parliamentarian that the Liberals decided to filibuster a motion that could have been dealt with five hours ago. They could have voted yes or no, but they wanted to filibuster it to get to this point; they wanted to filibuster it to the point where there were no translators so that Madame Vignola couldn't hear and couldn't vote.

That is an abrogation of democracy, and it is a breach of my privilege. It should be brought up in the House, and shame on you for not agreeing to it.

We're stuck in the middle of the pandemic. We're being asked to deal with these resources and then you're not providing them. This is the definition of a breach of privilege. This absolutely should be raised in the House, between translation or whatever.... It shouldn't be, “Oh well, I just have to bring in Kevin Lamoureux to talk the clock so that Rempel's motion can't get through.”

That is an abrogation of democracy, and I cannot believe this is happening right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, may I speak to the point of order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Sure.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm really conflicted on this. Having considered Ms. Rempel Garner's point, in theory I think she's right. If there's a filibuster going on, then the filibuster continues until there are no speakers to be put up. I'm troubled by the fact that during the vote and during the debate leading up to the vote we did not have translation, which in my opinion abrogates the vote.

Ms. Vignola has the right to—you just said it yourself earlier—contemporaneous translation. I don't even know at what point she didn't have translation during this. We were conducting a vote without having official simultaneous interpretation, and Ms. Vignola indicated that.

I'm troubled by this because we are operating in a strange time right now, which is that from the very beginning.... The reason I voted the way I did was that it has been my understanding from the beginning of this meeting that we would be out of technical support at 4:30 eastern. But when I think about it, Ms. Rempel Garner is correct that if there are still people who are willing to speak at this point and there's no motion to adjourn that has passed by a majority, the meeting continues.

I'm troubled by the vote, because I don't think it was validly taken, and I'd like to hear from the clerk, if I could, as to when it is appropriate to end the meeting in the case where we have gone over time, we have speakers who are still wishing to speak and there is no motion to adjourn on the table. Is it a valid reason to stop the meeting because the current translators are going to leave or the technical support isn't there? I'm sorry. I regret my vote, because I think Ms. Rempel Garner's position is correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Once again, it's a matter of House administration to allocate staff and resources. It's agreed to by the House leaders. It has been agreed to by the whips. It's not up to me. Ms. Rempel Garner can certainly raise this in the chamber as a point of privilege—absolutely.

You're right that the chair cannot just arbitrarily adjourn the meeting. If there seems to be a consensus, the chair can do so. Otherwise, there needs to be a motion of adjournment. Failing that, the chair will have to suspend, and that is in fact what I must do, because we're already 20 minutes past the time when all the interpreters and staff are supposed to leave—

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

A point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

—and it's not fair to them.

The meeting is now suspended.

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

A point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The meeting is suspended.

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

A point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The meeting is suspended.

[The meeting was suspended at 4:50 p.m., Friday, February 12]

[The meeting resumed at 1:12 p.m., Friday, February 19]

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The meeting is now resumed.

Welcome back, everyone. We are resuming meeting number 18, which commenced last week on February 12.

Before we get going, I wish to emphasize that everyone has the right to participate fully in this proceeding in the official language of their choice. If at any time there is an interruption or problem with the translation services, I urge affected members to advise the chair or clerk without delay. We will do our best to correct the situation.

The motion currently on the floor was moved by Mr. Barlow. According to my information, it currently reads, as amended, as follows:

That the Chair of the committee write to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel inquiring on whether or not the contracts for Canada's seven vaccine agreements with suppliers have been provided to his office as part of the motion adopted on October 26, 2020 by the House of Commons.

Should the law clerk have copies of any of these documents, that the committee instruct the law clerk to prioritize the translation of these documents and that these documents be published as soon as possible in accordance with the parameters set out in the House motion.

If the law clerk does not have such documents, that the committee request from the government the contracts for Canada's seven vaccine agreements with suppliers be tabled with the committee in both official languages, that the documents be vetted in accordance with the parameters set out in the House motion, and that the members of the Standing Committee on Health review these documents in camera.

The clerk has advised me that the speakers list at the time of suspension was as follows: Mr. Lamoureux has the floor, followed by Mr. Kelloway, Mr. Davies and Mr. Fisher. I would ask these members, if they still wish to speak, to use the “raise hand” function on the participants pane and they will be recognized in the debate in the order I have just noted.

Members will note, however, that in order to adhere as closely as possible to the motion passed earlier, meeting number 19, giving effect to that motion, is tentatively scheduled shortly following this one. That meeting cannot take place, of course, until the current meeting concludes.

It is my hope that after a number of days of reflection, members will be able at this time to proceed straight away to the vote on Mr. Barlow's motion, as amended. If it appears that the current meeting will continue at length, however, I must reschedule meeting number 19 for Monday.

If anyone wishes to speak to the current motion as amended, please use the “raise hand” function on the participants pane to signify this. If there are any, they will be recognized following anyone on the current list who still wishes to speak in the debate.

[The Clerk]

The bells are ringing, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay. I'll finish my statement.

If you're on the list and your hand is raised but you do not wish to speak in the debate at this time, please lower your hand from the participants pane. If there is no one who wishes to speak in the debate, we will be able to proceed to the vote.

Thank you.

After that marvellous speech, I have been advised that the bells are ringing. We require unanimous consent to continue. Do we have unanimous consent to continue?

Is it the wish to carry on with this meeting at this time?

I'm not seeing any response here, so I'm going to ask the clerk to conduct a vote.

[The Clerk]

Is it for the bells or on the motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Right now we have to decide whether we're going to continue through the bells or whether we're going to proceed to the House for the vote.

If there is anyone who dissents from carrying on with the meeting at this time, they should speak up or vote “no” as we conduct the roll call vote.

Please, Mr. Clerk, go ahead.

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

I have a point of order. We are now voting on the motion as amended from the last session, am I right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

No, we are not. We are voting on whether to continue this meeting or go to vote in the House. If anyone says no, then we're done, and then we can.... Anyway, is that clear, that that's what we are voting on? Okay.

Mr. Clerk, please carry on.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Kelloway?

[Kelloway]

I vote no.