Health Committee on Oct. 26th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. Rempel Garner, if you would please.

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment would add after the words, “if the committee deems it necessary”, the following text:

that the committee issue a request for written briefs and for requests to appear by the end of the week with a submission deadline of November 6, 2020.

Just to clarify what we're asking for, we are asking the clerk to issue an open call for written briefs by the end of this week, and that those written briefs and requests to appear be submitted to the clerk by November 6, which is the end of the following week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Are we all clear now on the amendment?

Therefore, I think it's best to go to a vote.

Mr. Clerk, would you please call the vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Debate can continue now on the motion as amended.

Go ahead, Mr. Davies, please.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Again, I just want to test my colleagues.

If we have an understanding of how we're going to proceed, I don't think we need to amend the motion further. I just want to be sure that once we get the written submissions, we will then meet as a committee meet, or perhaps the subcommittee can meet. I think we've scheduled up to four meetings to hear from a representative sample of those who wish to appear in person. If that's my colleagues' understanding, then I think we can proceed to the motion.

I want to know if anybody thinks differently about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We have Dr. Powlowski.

Please go ahead.

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

I support the now as-amended motion, with the caveat that the question of whether we have the resources to have an adequate number of meetings, given the motion that we're voting on in the House, certainly is of concern. My understanding is that there are only so many open spots to do these committee meetings. It would be a real shame if this motion never actually got there before January 1. I think it's Mr. Thériault's intention that this be looked at by the committee before those changes go into effect.

Given the technical limitations, I question our ability to do this, should the motion before the House get passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Let me point out to the committee that new resources are being added to the committee resources, if you will. Our ability to have meetings will be increased after, I believe, next week.

We have now Monsieur Thériault.

[The Clerk]

If I may, Mr. Chair, the whips will decide which meetings will be held.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

As the clerk said, the whips will decide who gets what priority, but there is more capacity coming.

Monsieur Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, the motion also mustn't be distorted by comments and requests for clarification. The motion calls for a minimum, not a maximum, of four committee meetings. In my estimation, we'll need a minimum of four meetings. We may be able to accomplish everything in just four meetings using the methodology proposed by my colleagues. However, the motion does say “a minimum of four meetings”.

We'll also be inviting people to submit briefs and show their desire to appear as witnesses. I'm not worried about whom we'll invite. Every committee member said that they wanted to hear all points of view. So all points of view must be heard, including the patients' point of view. Some of them have said that, if the guidelines were adopted as they stand, this could impede access to innovative drugs in the coming years. I'm very concerned about this.

People are reporting that their voices weren't heard throughout the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board process. They want to take the floor and provide input. The methodology is important. However, it doesn't matter to me, as long as we make it clear that each party can propose a witness, as we did with the other motion.

I think that this discussion can take place in a subcommittee and that we're certainly ready to vote on the motion today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault, for that clarification of the wording of the motion.

My recommendation to the committee is to not get too deep into process issues right now. If this motion passes, we can carry on and do our work plan and so forth accordingly.

Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.

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

Briefly, Chair, thank you. I want to thank both my colleagues for working so collegially. I'm sure, as the clerk said, that we can find the resources to do both the COVID study and this study. There are standing order provisions that can compel us to hold a meeting to discuss the work plan, as Mr. Davies has suggested. If necessary, we can absolutely do that. I would support that approach, and I think that if we adopt the motion as amended and proceed in the way that we just discussed, it will allow patients, other groups and so on to get some clarity on this study moving forward.

I offer my congratulations to Mr. Thériault and my thanks to my colleagues for clarifying this motion. I look forward to getting started on this study as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

I see no more hands raised. We'll go to a vote on the motion as amended.

Mr. Clerk, would you please call the vote?

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

It would appear that the motion as amended has passed. Thank you, everyone.

Dr. Powlowski, I said I would put you first on the list after this matter was disposed of. Please go ahead.

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

I want to propose a modified version of the motion that is currently before the House.

Yes, I am trying to reinvent the wheel, but this is providing an alternative so that if in the vote today we vote against the motion, there is an alternative motion before us and an alternative path.

That said, here is our motion:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the Committee receive a briefing from the analysts and report its findings and recommendations to the House as regards the study on the Canadian response to the outbreak of the coronavirus that it had undertaken in the 1st session of the 43rd Parliament; and that the Committee then commence a study on the emergency situation facing Canadians in light of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this study evaluate, review and examine all issues relevant to this situation. The initial 5 topics that shall be studied will be determined by each party submitting a ranked list of their top 5 priority study areas to the clerk by October 27th at 5 p.m. so that he can prepared a ranked list. Each party will be entitled to one witness per one hour witness panel, and two witnesses per two hour witness panel; and that we request pertinent documents, topic by topic, after hearing from witnesses and ascertaining which documents are relative to a productive study of the issue.

I think that the issue in the change regarding what documents would be required is an important change to what has been proposed in the motion that is on the floor.

Certainly we have heard a lot of discussion from various interest groups, various manufacturers, about the implications of the motion that is before the House. This would allow us to tailor the request for documents topic by topic. That is important. For example, in the motion before the House there are provisions to protect things like contractual obligations with respect to vaccines; however, that doesn't seem to be there with respect to PPE, and certainly there was concern by manufacturers that the motion before the House could lead to revealing contractual details between companies and companies that have done a lot of work to refit their plants in order to make PPE.

There is also some concern about trade secrets being revealed, so when it comes to PPE we may want to have a slightly different request from the government in terms of what documents are required.

Similarly, on the issue of vaccines and the documents required in relation to vaccine deals that the government has made with other countries, there is a lot more concern there about contractual details being revealed and possibly harming our ability to access the vaccines, which everybody knows is essential to our getting out of this deep hole we are in as a result of COVID.

There is another concern with respect to procuring documents regarding vaccines and redactions. There will be redactions, even based on the motion before the House. There will be redactions from that material, but that is going to be problematic, because, as a lot of you know, there are a lot of conspiracy theories hovering around vaccines, some really crazy stuff. I've heard seemingly intelligent people telling me that they believed the virus was developed by Microsoft and we will have a vaccine that will inject little microchips into people. This is a crazy idea, but a lot of people believe this, so as soon as you produce all these documents from the government with respect to vaccines and there are these blacked-out segments, there will be a lot of concern and people are going to read into this: “What are they hiding from us? They are hiding something.”

The current motion before the House seeks to procure a vast number of documents. This is a war. We are in a war against COVID, and we don't want to do anything wrong.

I think the current request for documents is problematic, and we're hearing about it from companies. It is probably in all of our best interests to try to refine it, hone it down a bit, and because of that, I'm putting out my motion as an alternative path.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Dr. Powlowski.

We go now to Mr. Barlow. Please go ahead.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think this is the first time in my parliamentary history, in my years as a member of Parliament, that I've had a colleague say that revealing documents and transparency will add to misinformation that's out there. That is from my colleague Mr. Powlowski, I'm really surprised.

I think the best step forward would be the motion that we have in the House today. Because of that misinformation that's out there for Canadians, don't you think the best solution would be to reveal the documents and reveal the path and decisions that went into getting us to where we are?

There's a very strong list of exemptions in that motion, and we had this debate last week. We debated this through a full day, and we said time and time again that there are exemptions in the motion to ensure that we protect some of those things, such as deals with or agreements with corporate Canada.

I find it interesting that you're concerned about this. The Minister of Health has put in an interim order that gives her special powers right now to compel drug companies across Canada to give her documents. There's a bit of hypocrisy here when you are concerned about revealing trade secrets or agreements with corporate Canada and drug companies through the documents we're requesting, yet the government has no problem whatsoever in allowing the Minister of Health to compel the drug companies and corporate Canada to give those same documents to the government.

I think it's really important that we have transparency. I know my constituents—and I'm getting many of the same questions that Mr. Powlowski is—want to know what decisions were made for us to get here. I think we should be waiting for what happens with the motion that's in front of the House today. We're going to be voting on that, and then if it fails, Mr. Powlowski can bring his motion up afterwards.

All of the opposition parties seem to be in support of the motion that's in front of the House today. The only group that isn't in favour is the Liberal party. I think that shows that the opposition parties have worked together to put this motion forward to ensure we are supporting our constituents who want some answers. They are worried about their health and they're worried about their safety, but they're also worried about their businesses and their jobs and their families. They want to know the details behind the reason our early warning system was dismantled, why we don't have access to rapid testing, and clearly, to Mr. Powlowski's question, they want to know the future with vaccines. Are they going to be accessible? How are they going to be distributed? Who is going to make those decisions? What are we basing our best practices on?

I think it's important for us to focus on the motion that's in front of the House today. We had this debate, and now we're putting the cart before the horse.

Mr. Powlowski, you're already assuming that the motion this afternoon is going to fail. We've had this debate out there, and for you to be trying to neuter this already.... Despite the arguments that you and your colleagues had in the House last week, I think it's really important that we stand up for transparency and accountability, for scrutiny of these documents, and to understand, to know....

I just want to conclude with this. There were a lot of arguments last week that we want to start looking forward. Mr. Fisher and I had this discussion on a panel last week: “We want to look forward. We want to look forward.”

Mr. Powlowski, if you were treating a patient as a medical physician, you would want to know whether the treatment was working. I would think you would want to look at what the treatment was throughout the process before you decided to continue forward. I would not say, “Let's not worry how I've been treating this patient for the past eight months; let's just continue. We don't need to worry if it's actually working or not, or whether it's maybe actually harmful.” You want to assess that process as you go along.

The argument from the Liberals right now is that they don't want to assess how this has been going. They just want to look forward. I think that is very wrong. I think we should be assessing this process every step of the way, to ensure that we make the best decisions for the best outcomes for Canadians.

We cannot ignore how we got here, the decisions that were made to get us here, the dollars that were spent, if we have any hope of ensuring that we make the best possible decisions over the next few months.

I will conclude there.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

We'll now go to Ms. Rempel Garner, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Standing Committee on Health is tasked with looking at issues related to the health and safety of Canadians. Right now, we are in the middle of a pandemic.

I am concerned that in several places across the country we are seeing record numbers of COVID cases, months into the pandemic. I'm worried about people losing their lives. I'm worried about regulations having to be put in place again to shut businesses down. I think there is no greater job for our committee right now than to be looking at—in a very pragmatic, calm way—whether the government is looking at this issue appropriately. Are there things that we need to do differently so that we can provide some stability to the Canadian public at this time? That is the motion that is in front of the House this afternoon. I want to remind my colleagues that this motion is to be voted on this afternoon.

I want to address some of the issues that my colleague brought up. I did so already in a national press conference this morning, but I'll go over it again.

First of all, with regard to the issue of confidentiality, the motion itself has many different provisions for confidentiality, including the issue of confidentiality around vaccine production and so on. The law clerk is tasked with doing the redactions. If the Liberals on this committee are concerned about that, we should have the law clerk as our first witness here, and the law clerk can tell us about their approach to redactions. If we need to discuss this in the House, there are ways that we can discuss it, but instead of trying to get to a “yes”, I can tell you what the Liberals did over the weekend. We know this because we had pharmaceutical companies call our party and say, “The government called us and said that X, Y and Z were going to happen. What's going on?” Instead of trying to get to “yes”, the government was trying to fearmonger on this stuff with pharmaceutical companies while we saw cases of COVID-19 grow.

At this point in time, I can only surmise that what the government is trying to do is orchestrate an election around this issue. Now, in terms of this being an issue of confidence, it is Parliament's job to scrutinize expenditures related to issues like the COVID-19 pandemic. That is what this committee is being tasked to do, including with regard to the production of documents. I am very confident that we can manage this in a professional way. I am very confident about the motion itself. I do firmly think that we should look at the results of the House vote this afternoon before examining this motion.

I'd also like to talk about the supplementary estimates. This committee has not reviewed the supplementary estimates yet. Given that there is a House vote this afternoon, I do move to adjourn debate on this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

The motion to adjourn debate is not debatable.

We will go now to the clerk to conduct the vote.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm sorry, but could you read the motion again? My sound blacked out when I was going between my headsets.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The motion is to adjourn debate on Dr. Powlowski's motion.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Thank you all.

The debate on Dr. Powlowski's motion is adjourned.

Ms. Rempel Garner, you still have the floor.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I move:

That, pursuant to the Order of Reference of October 22, 2020, the Minister of Health appear before the Committee for no fewer than 2 hours to consider the Supplementary Estimates (B) on or before Friday, October 30, 2020; and that this meeting be televised.

My rationale for moving this motion is as follows. We haven't been able to scrutinize government expenditures in some time. This committee, should the COVID motion pass, will be tasked with this issue, as well as the very important PMPRB study. I think it would behoove the committee to have the minister appear on supplementary estimates this week, prior to our undertaking those issues, since we have a little bit of time between now and when the House motion, should it pass, kicks in.

This would also give committee members the opportunity to review some of the minister's responses to the supplementary estimates as part of planning the work plan for the COVID-19 study. We have some time this week. The minister hasn't been before committee for some time now. I think it would be a very productive use of our time to scrutinize the supplementary estimates (B). We should certainly reach out to her and invite her to appear before the end of the week.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner. Will you please send a text of your motion to the clerk?

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

Yes, I will do that right now.