Health Committee on Oct. 19th, 2020

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

First, as a matter of procedure, it seems to me that people are just jumping in and whoever puts their hand up and starts talking is being recognized. I saw Ms. Sidhu have her hand up before Mr. Fisher jumped in, yet you recognized Mr. Fisher. That's not to pick on Mr. Fisher; it's just an example.

The first thing I want to get straight here is what the speaking order is and how that is determined. It can't just be whoever grabs the microphone and starts talking. You're not respecting either the raised hands list or the order of visual calling on the screen. It just seems to be that the speakers are determining who gets recognized. Therefore, I'd like to register, for the sake of all of us, that we need to come to an agreement on a respectful, appropriate speaking order.

Second, to the point of order at hand, I also think we need to decide, as a committee, how we're going to proceed on this. Ms. Rempel Garner is absolutely correct: There is no requirement that any motion that is moved at a business meeting, relating to business, has to be in writing. If the committee wants to make such a requirement, we certainly can, but there is no such requirement.

Again, to Ms. Sidhu's comment, it doesn't have to be bilingual, because it doesn't even have to be in writing. Mr. Thériault could raise a motion from the floor, if he wished, and he could raise it in French.

What I would suggest is that it's very helpful for all of us on any type of motion, particularly one that has any length or complexity, for it to be produced in writing. What we typically do in these meetings is that once someone has moved the motion from the floor orally, we then take a moment to make sure that the clerk reads it out and we all write it down ourselves so that we have it in front of us. That is the way this committee has operated.

If you want to have a rule that motions have to be submitted in writing, prior to the meeting or not, we can make that decision, but that is not in the standing orders of this committee presently and I think that needs to be emphasized.

Also, I don't think there is anything wrong with my colleague Mr. Powlowski's request. If a motion does come and it's in writing, and we get it in writing and it has complexity to it, absolutely we can take a moment to talk about it, but I would like to have those discussions on the record. If a party needs to caucus for a period of time, I totally respect that. I myself have an easy caucus. If the Liberals, the Conservatives or anybody else needs to do that, I'm fine with that.

To sum up what I'm saying, it would be good for all of us if we come to an agreement on how we recognize speakers and how motions will be presented to each other, because it is true that we all deserve to have the motion clearly in front of us and clearly understood in both official languages prior to having a sensible debate on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

We'll cut the debate off here.

First, Mr. Davies, I appreciate your comments regarding recognizing speakers. We do have a “raise hand” function on the participants panel. I was interpreting that to reflect the regular speaking order, not on intermediate points of order. I'm doing as best I can to identify people when they identify that they want to respond to the point of order.

On the point of order, and in the spirit of collaboration that Ms. Rempel Garner mentioned and the fact that we do need to properly review the motion before we proceed, we will suspend for one half hour. We will resume in 30 minutes.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, everyone. The meeting is now resumed.

Mr. Kelloway was kicked off his session and lost his position in the speaking order.

I will now recognize Mr. Kelloway. I believe he wanted to speak.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate this time to talk a little bit about the last meeting and this meeting.

I'm a little frustrated. It occurred to me, once I stepped back from the last meeting and this one—and hopefully that will change—that Ms. Rempel Garner obviously didn't intend, in my opinion, for her motion to pass during last Friday's meeting. If she had, she would have shared it with the Liberal members of the committee in advance, as seemed to have been done with the other opposition members.

Ms. Rempel Garner has considerable committee experience. She has considerable experience being a member of a governing party and an opposition party, and I have no doubt that she knows the importance of compromise when it comes to moving forward in a collaborative way. This is as true for a minority government as it is true for an opposition party, since neither has the numbers to pass what they want without agreement of enough members to proceed.

Presumably this is why she seems to have shared her motion with the opposition members; however, if it had been shared with the Liberal Party members in advance—and I'm confident that she knows this—we would have had an opportunity to review it and find a path forward, and I'm hoping that's still the case.

By not sharing it in advance, it was impossible last week to pass the motion. That should be even clearer now, as here we are once again at the table and she just dropped a motion and pretended that it was possible for everyone to be completely prepared to respond to it.

I know I'm a newbie to politics, but it seems to me a bit of a game, and I think many would think that way.

Mr. Chair, I have no doubt that she—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Larry, go ahead on a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, we were through this already a while ago in an earlier part of our meeting. The motion that we have before us today is exactly the same as the one before with letters taken out of it on the first page. Some were saying that they didn't have it. Well, we have all had it. It's all there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That's not a point of order.

Mr. Kelloway can continue his speech.

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

I'm just saying it's a bit disingenuous to say—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

This is getting into debate, and Mr. Kelloway does have the floor for debate.

On a point of order, Mr. Van Bynen, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, I hate to interrupt, but as a point of order, Ms. Rempel Garner waltzed through her changes fairly quickly, and now that we have the new document, I would see some benefit in going through the changes and highlighting the changes she has made. That would be more helpful for me as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen. That is also not a point of order.

Mr. Kelloway, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll pick up where I left off. It ties into this stream of conversation. I have no doubt some will say that we're the ones stalling the committee and preventing important work from being done, and honestly, this is what frustrates me and I think it frustrates a lot of Canadians.

I'm disappointed that the Conservatives' approach to this committee for this new session of Parliament seems to be a lot of theatre and not focused on action. Their objective appears to be to make it impossible for any real work to be done while pretending they're trying to do important work.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mike, are you just going to mansplain for a bit, or are we going to get to something here?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. d'Entremont, Mr. Kelloway has the floor.

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

I'm new to parliamentary procedures, but I'm wondering if “mansplain” is acceptable terminology. It's quite offensive to many people.

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

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Hold on, everybody.

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

Since the mansplaining is happening to me, I would—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. Rempel Garner, you do not have the floor.

Mr. d'Entremont, you do not have the floor.

Please do not interject. Please do not interrupt the speakers other than with a valid point of order.

Mr. Kelloway, you have the floor.

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

Are we sure I have the floor here? I just want to make sure.

It seems to me that their objective is to make it impossible for anything to get done. The motion is simply too big to create any productive study, with or without a global pandemic at our feet. For me, it doesn't allow us to look into particular issues in-depth. It certainly doesn't allow us to do any good for Canadians.

Frankly, to me it seems as though it was drafted without any real desire to assist Canadians through this pandemic. It's workable, but it's certainly not usable as it stands. Many parts of her motion completely minimize the importance of an issue, or request that we study a topic that has already been resolved.

I'm hopeful that at least some of my colleagues across the table want to do the right thing to help Canadians and will listen to what I have to say.

I'd like to provide some explanation for my perspective because I think that most, if not all, of my colleagues will be able to relate to or understand where I'm coming from. I decided to run for Parliament out of a desire to give back to my community, to my constituents in Cape Breton—Canso and to Canadians. Like all of my colleagues, I want to be their voice in the House of Commons, especially at committee. I really feel fortunate to sit on the Standing Committee on Health, especially during these challenging times.

I feel that this committee is one of the most important committees, or perhaps the most important committee right now for Canadians. There are so many important studies that we could be taking on. I look to one study from my colleague Mr. Van Bynen, which is a study on mental health and the effects of COVID. It's clearly one of those important considerations. I look to my colleague Ms. Sidhu's proposed study on long-term care as another.

These are real studies. They're designed based on the needs of Canadians and the interests expressed by all parties in the committee and the House. Their design was intentional, which is to ensure that we have the support to commence them as quickly as possible to get Canadians the help they need and deserve.

If I'm not mistaken, even Ms. Rempel Garner commented on the significance of these issues during the debate in this committee this past Friday by including them in her omnibus motion.

My colleagues chose issues that are relevant and critical to what the committee does and should be doing at a pivotal moment in our country's history.

I want to stress that I'm by no means suggesting that these are the only good items. The essence of a committee and committee work is around compromise. I referred to it earlier in our last meeting around team Canada. We work best when we're working together. We discuss the interests of Canadians, what we should undertake and when and how we should undertake it. This is how our committee generally operated even throughout the early months of COVID, if you remember. We did not always agree, and that's okay, but it was always clear that everyone who sat on the committee, whether it was the Liberals or Conservatives or Bloc Québécois or NDP, all had a common goal. That common goal was to be productive.

That's why I'm disappointed to see what's happened in the past couple of meetings. I'm frustrated to see that there seems to be some partisan games being played here. We have to get to work at putting more motions forward that have purpose, meaning and are doable.

I also want to briefly note that it's been suggested that we've lost time due to prorogation. I don't think that's accurate. Prior to prorogation, this committee already decided to reduce its sitting days from the months of July and August. As I understand it—again, I'm new to politics— prorogation allows governments to stop and to refocus.

One year ago when the speech from the throne was made, Canada was in a different place. The world was in a different place. Even if our priorities remain as important to us now as they did then, the world has been plagued by a pandemic that has caused all of us to rethink our day-to-day lives. We all have stories in our lives. For some, it's working from home. For others, it's home-schooling children or finding a safe way to care for loved ones.

It is logical, then, that a government would need time to pause, reflect and refocus attention. There were no summer breaks. There was very little time for reflection, particularly for members of this committee. At the time of prorogation, the pandemic was sufficiently controlled to provide an opportunity for us to take a step back and reassess our priorities. Since that time we've seen case numbers spike in really terrifying ways.

Once again, we need to act. We need to protect Canadians. We need to prevent the situation from getting out of hand. We've already seen the devastating effects that have occurred in other countries. We've done well in Canada, but we need to keep at it and keep doing better because better is always possible.

It's premature to request documents in the manner that has been set out in the motion. Receiving a massive package of documents that we all need to sort through is, I think, unproductive. Rather, as each topic is studied, documents can be requested from the witnesses who appear before the committee, as they often are. This will ensure that we receive the relevant documents at the time we're studying each issue. This will also help us know what documents are relevant to our study as witnesses can point us in the right direction, which they often do, based on their expertise and experience. Certainly, that would be a more efficient and helpful way to request documents.

The way they have been requested in this motion is somewhat problematic, not only because of the challenges it will present for us, and the fact that it won't enable us to effectively do our jobs, but also because of the human and financial costs it will entail. Need I remind all the members that the public service continues to work around the clock with real objectives to help all Canadians? Every time documents are requested, whether the request is large or small, it is our hard-working public servants who have to look through the documents, compile them and translate them. This country's bilingualism is one of the greatest strengths of our country, but it also requires that time and money be spent on translation. This means that documents can't be produced as quickly.

Not only that, but it's also important to consider the amount of time these document searches take. Every person involved does their utmost to ensure their search is thorough. This takes days, weeks and perhaps even months. Each person involved in that search is taken away from their work to do this, which means that fewer people are working on the issues that matter most to Canadians. This not only applies to the hard-working public servants in government departments, but when the production of document requests relate to ministers and to their offices, the same logic also applies to all of those people. It stops the preparation of essential legislation, stops critical engagement with stakeholders and means going through every email, every memo, every note in order to ensure that these requests are satisfied.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting in any way that transparency is not important. Of course it is. We would all agree with that. I know there are some who will try to paint this as a government trying to avoid being open and transparent with Canadians, but that could not be further from the truth. The truth is there's a balance between transparency and efficiency. All I'm suggesting is that the right balance needs to be struck so that we do not unnecessarily delay or restrict the government's capacity to do the work Canadians want us to do. In fact, they need us to do this work.

Canadians are counting on us. On top of the fact that hard-working public servants who are doing the critical work of helping Canadians and keeping people safe will be forced to redirect their efforts to filling these orders, it is worth noting, given that most, if not all, people are working from home, that locating these documents poses a challenge. Most people are not in their offices at the moment because they can't be. Daily case counts in Quebec and Ontario have been over 1,000, I think, and are rising. People need to be able to work from home. This makes locating documents, quite frankly, even more time-consuming and challenging.

It seems to me that Conservatives don't appear to be concerned about that, but I think Canadians care about these things, and we care about these things. We're here because Canadians elected us. I would like to do the work that Canadians need us to do, because if we don't, the situation will not improve.

I, obviously, cannot support this motion as it is presently drafted, and quite frankly, I'm not sure anyone can. To be a workable motion, the production of document requests needs to be removed and the date needs to be changed from October 20 to another logical date. I'm hopeful that my colleagues across the way will make these changes, and that we can be supported by all members to do so.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.

I see that Mr. Van Bynen is next on the list.

I'm sorry, Mr. Van Bynen. I'm not sure if you were on the list for this debate or for the original—

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

This was on the original motion. I had intended to put my motion forward, but I'll defer to my colleague.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. I'm looking at the participant “raise hand” list, and I'm first. I'm not even sure how Mr. Kelloway got on before me. I'm looking straight at the participant list, and I'm the first one with my hand up.

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

As am I. I think that's the way the—