Health Committee on April 12th, 2021

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

Why wasn't the meeting scheduled, as stated in the motion? I understand that the ministers can choose to appear or not, but why didn't you schedule the meeting?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The motion was for us to invite the ministers and other witnesses for a meeting on that day. We did so. The ministers were not able to attend. Dr. Quach-Thanh was not able to attend. I therefore felt it was not appropriate to hold the meeting on that day. I felt that it was more the will of the committee to hear from these witnesses than to have a meeting just for the sake of having a meeting.

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

Mr. Chair, you unilaterally decided to overrule a motion by the committee. I understand that people might not show up, but direction was given to you by the committee to hold a meeting. What you just said is that you felt, based on your feelings, that you couldn't avail yourself to schedule a meeting that the committee ordered you to schedule.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I believe the motion was to invite the ministers and other witnesses for a meeting on a specific date, and we did that.

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

You felt that you didn't have to schedule the meeting. You felt...feelings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I believe I fulfilled the terms of the motion.

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

I don't think we had the meeting, so I beg to differ, but I guess your feelings prevail.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That's not exactly what I said. I said that as far as I'm concerned, we fulfilled the terms of the motion, which were, in fact, to invite the ministers and other witnesses for a meeting on that date. We did that. The ministers, of course, were not able to make it, and neither was Dr. Quach-Thanh. I believe there was also potentially a problem with television coverage for such a meeting last week.

In any case, we will do our best to have this meeting on Friday. Hopefully, we can resolve the questions and get the information that is hoped for from the ministers and other witnesses at that time.

Ms. O'Connell, go ahead.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With regard to her comments about your feelings, Ms. Rempel Garner is absolutely wrong. The committee passed a motion requesting the appearance of officials and ministers on a specific date. They weren't available. You, as chair, fulfilled the committee's request, which was to hold a meeting with those ministers and officials.

Her feelings are hurt because she didn't get the date she wanted, but the business of this committee and Canadians moves forward despite what she wants. I think having testimony from the ministers and officials is far more important.

If there are any feelings at play here, I suggest that the member opposite get on with doing the committee's work, as you have so appropriately done, Mr. Chair, and I look forward to the meeting on Friday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

Mr. Davies, please go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Given that we have witnesses here, we probably should defer this conversation to another time. I do, however, believe that we need to have a discussion about the proper protocol going forward.

I don't agree, with great respect, with what Ms. O'Connell said, or frankly, Mr. Chair, with what you said. We passed a motion that gave one week to have a meeting within one week, and we invited five witnesses. I don't think the obligation is to simply send out invitations, and if no one shows, not have a meeting. I believe the proper approach there would have been to schedule the meeting. We could have then, at that meeting, decided what the next step would be.

We have the tail wagging the dog. Witnesses don't control this committee. Witnesses appearing or not appearing doesn't determine whether this committee sits. This committee determines when we sit. We passed a motion by eleven votes to zero, including the Liberals, to hold a meeting within one week with those witnesses.

I also find it passingly coincidental that five out of five witnesses could not appear on the same day at the same time, including Ms. Tam, Ms. Quach-Thanh, Mr. Stewart and the two ministers. Frankly, what if witnesses never want to appear? Do we never sit?

I also think it's an important accountability mechanism. If we call this meeting and no witnesses show up, it gives us a chance to question why.

I would also point out that this committee received not a word of notice from the chair at all, until the eleventh hour. After one week, at six days and 23 hours, we were notified that the meeting wouldn't take place. There was no attempt to notify the members of this committee of the witnesses' response so that we might have made an adjustment. Perhaps we could have met on Thursday or Friday of last week, but we weren't given that chance because of the unilateral decision of the chair.

I think, then, that we need to have a conversation about this. This is not about feelings on anybody's part; this is about respect for this committee. When this committee passes a motion to hold a meeting, that motion should be respected. If witnesses do or don't appear, then it's up to the committee to determine how that situation is handled.

That's my two cents' worth. Perhaps we can have a special meeting at which we can make sure this doesn't happen again, but I think it's important to set the record straight on this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Davies. I take your point about the witnesses.

I would really like to thank the witnesses for their attendance here today. Please feel free to withdraw, if that is your wish.

I would also say, Mr. Davies, that I did not say that all five witnesses could not come on Wednesday. I know that at least one or both of the ministers, as well as Dr. Quach-Thanh, could not attend.

Anyway, I'll turn the floor over to Ms. O'Connell.

Please go ahead.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Once again, Mr. Chair, I understand the position of Mr. Davies in wanting to discuss this, but frankly, the rules around what a chair can and cannot do are established, and it is the job and the role of a chair to call meetings based on the direction of the committee. The chair acted exactly in that fashion. If members of this committee don't like those rules, then they should take the matter up procedurally at PROC or within the House. Those are the Standing Orders, and the chair has the authority to do this.

In addition to that, I've never seen a committee which, if members asked for specific witnesses and they were not available, would hold a meeting and all just sit there. If that were the direction of the motion—that, if witnesses were not available, the meeting be held anyway—then the drafters of the motion should have written that in.

You can't, however, go back on a poorly written motion or a motion that didn't encompass all of the things you wanted and now blame the chair for not being able to read your mind into an understanding of what should happen in the event that witnesses are not available. We can invite witnesses, but we cannot control their schedules.

If the intention, then, was to have a meeting despite not having witnesses, that should have been included in the motion and—coulda, woulda, shoulda—you'd have had to come forward and have that stipulated, because the chair followed the direction of the motion as written, and the Standing Orders are the rules that govern the responsibilities of the chair.

If those rules are something you want to review, then there is an appropriate way to do so. Blaming the chair for fulfilling his role, however, is not appropriate, and blaming the chair for something that's not written as part of the motion is also not appropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

I also would remark, regarding the matter of notice, that I did not hear definitively that the ministers could not attend until Tuesday, and the committee was informed as soon as possible thereafter.

We have Ms. Rempel Garner. Please go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, to be clear, there were witnesses who were able to attend, per the outline in the notice. That's what you said: some were able to attend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I didn't say that. I said that I only have knowledge that the ministers—or at least, one of the ministers—couldn't attend, as well as Dr. Quach-Thanh. I don't know whether the other witnesses were able to attend or not.

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

Did you ask them?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The clerk reaches out to the witnesses and—

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

Clerk, did you ask the other witnesses on the list?

[The Clerk]

Yes, of course.

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

Were they able to attend?

[The Clerk]

They didn't say no. I just got an email saying that Dr. Tam and Mr. Stewart were available this Friday, the sixteenth. They didn't say no, but they said they were only available next week, the week after.

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

It seems that the story has changed here, Mr. Chair. At first you said the ministers weren't available and you weren't going to call the meeting; however, in your response to Mr. Davies, you said there were some people available. It sounds as though you really didn't press to get an answer, and if somebody was available, I'm not sure why you unilaterally decided to not have the meeting. It seems curious to me.

I will just say this. Per the Standing Orders, chairs have to follow directions given by a committee. I think there's a bit of a changing story here.

If I had to surmise, I think this is what happened. I think the ministers decided they didn't want to attend, per the terms of the motion. I will note that the ministers did find time to speak on a political panel at the Liberal committee last week. They were both there at the same time, so that was a priority. I think that's interesting.

I think they probably said they couldn't attend, and then it was, “Let's not have the meeting at all”, because they didn't want to face the political consequences of not showing up to a meeting, given the gravity of the matter that was compelled.

Mr. Chair, I think it's very interesting that you decided not to hold the meeting. Also, given that your story has changed a couple of times here, it's disappointing. I think we deserve better. I find it odd.

That's all I'll say on that. I'm very disappointed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. Rempel Garner, you're putting words in my mouth. The story has not changed.

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

I'm happy to check—