Health Committee on Oct. 26th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

I should also point out that we don't have any meetings scheduled this week. I'm not sure what the availability of time for that will be. We will have to check with the clerk and the whips, of course, to see if we can do that.

We shall carry on with Mr. Davies, please.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair; I'm still waiting just to move my own motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

While I have the floor, though, Mr. Chair, I have a bit of a question for you. It has to do with your last comment.

I know it's very difficult right now to figure out where we're going, because we don't know the outcome of the vote tonight. I believe there is a time requirement in the motion tonight to commence the study of COVID, which, if it passes tonight, I believe would probably require us to commence the study a week from today. I also think the motion of my colleague Ms. Rempel Garner to study the supplementary estimates and have the minister appear is also extremely valuable. She is quite right that we have not heard from the minister in quite a long time. I think a lot of committee members have a lot of questions to ask her.

My question is around the fact that you said we don't have a meeting scheduled. According to the rules, any four members of this committee could put in a motion at any time and require a meeting within 48 hours. It's in either Standing Order 106 or Standing Order 108, if I'm not mistaken. The fact that we don't have a scheduled meeting this week doesn't mean we could not schedule a meeting this week if we wanted to. I just wanted to clarify that. There may be reasons for or against this with my colleagues—Ms. Sidhu may have some reasons she wants to have more time, and I respect that—but I want to be clear that if we do pass a motion today to hear from the minister on the supplementary estimates no later than this Friday, we absolutely can do that, because the rules allow for it.

I just wanted you to clarify that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Absolutely. I am just speaking in terms of the availability of resources. According to Standing Order 106(4), based on a letter from four members of the committee, we have five days to call a meeting, which requires 48 hours' notice of that meeting. Absolutely, that could be done. However, it's a question of whether we have the meeting resources available to us for that. That's all I'm addressing in that point of information.

In any case, Mr. Davies, if you lower your hand, I will put you on the list for the first order of business after we resolve this matter.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there was a motion on the floor from Ms. Rempel Garner, but didn't Sonia propose an amendment? Isn't there a motion to amend the motion? Are we not debating that now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes, we are. Thank you for the clarification.

I believe Ms. Sidhu moved that we remove from the motion the time referencing this week specifically. That amendment is before the committee at this time.

Dr. Powlowski, did you wish to speak on that amendment?

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

Sure, I'll be very brief. It seems like it would be a good idea. It would seem very difficult to get the minister in the next four days to appear before the committee. It would be hard to get the committee together, and undoubtedly certain members of the committee will then point to the fact that it was yet another example of how the Minister of Health refused to appear before the committee. It wasn't a refusal. It was just that technically getting it done in four days was really difficult.

I think we should drop that, and I agree with the amended version.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Van Bynen, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's quite reasonable and quite appropriate for the minister to appear before the committee to discuss these matters. I do not think it's reasonable to require the minister to show up in four days. The minister is in the middle of a pandemic, thank you very much, and there are some priorities that we need to deal with, and the House is sitting as well. I think there are a lot of things that need to be considered, and to require the minister to report in four days is just setting this up and being unrealistic.

While I fully support that the minister be there and I don't anticipate any difficulty in having her appear, I find that the timelines are totally unrealistic and unfair to the minister—someone who has very significant responsibilities as we go through this pandemic. I think we should provide full consideration for that. These people are working 10 to 12 hours a day, if not more, so I think we need to be able to accommodate our schedule to when they're available.

Let's be realistic and supportive at a time when people are working all out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

Mr. Maguire, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think, for Mr. Van Bynen's very reasons, it's quite appropriate to have the minister appear this week. We are in the middle of a pandemic and we've had a month now since Parliament was prorogued. I think it's just an opportunity to have the minister come here in a timely fashion and have the discussions with her in regard to the supplementary estimates (B), because then we're going to go right into the meetings for our own committee work subsequent to that. Rather than taking up meeting time in those areas, I think we could quite appropriately ask the minister to come this week. There are a lot of indications that the answers that might come up in the supplementary estimates, the answers that the minister might want to put forward in a presentation to us, might actually help us in the deliberations we will do in subsequent weeks.

For that reason, I believe it's totally appropriate that they do come this week. It's even more important because we are right in the middle of a pandemic that's expanding, so I would vote in favour of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Maguire.

Mr. Thériault, the floor is yours.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I'll make some brief comments, Mr. Chair.

When the government tables supplementary estimates, it isn't an unexpected or unforeseen occurrence. It's part of the normal course of events. If the government does it, the government is prepared to do it. This doesn't require any exceptional preparation.

In my view, the committee must be able to establish what it wants to do. I would fully understand, under the circumstances, if the minister has a valid reason for being unable to come and speak to us. However, we don't need to censor ourselves when it comes to the steps that we want to take. We're saying what we want to do. I think that she's ready. Two hours go by quickly. I'm available.

I want to point out to my colleagues that we've turned on a dime quite a bit faster than this under other circumstances. During the first wave of the pandemic, we held meetings for several days in a row and we had people coming in one after the other. We often received the briefs just before the meeting, and we managed with this.

I think that the government and the minister are ready. She must be ready, because she tabled the supplementary estimates for her department. We want to hear her speak about this topic, and we have the opportunity to do so. The suggestion has been made that we do this now, so that we can then prepare our work. If she can't come, she can't come. That's it. However, I think that she's ready. This doesn't require any exceptional preparation.

That's why I'm in favour of the motion.

If we must ask the executive for permission every time we want to make a decision that concerns it, I believe that this isn't part of our job as legislators.

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

I have a quick point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead on a point of order.

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

We're debating Ms. Sidhu's amendment to remove “on or before Friday, October 30”. Is that correct? It sounds as if Mr. Thériault and Mr. Maguire were talking about the main motion. I'm just clarifying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That is correct. Thank you.

Ms. Sidhu, go ahead, please.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I proposed is quite reasonable. We want the minister to come, but four days is not enough time. We are not asking that the minister not come. It's about the resources, and that's why I think it's quite reasonable. It's not like we don't want the minister to come. We want the minister, and we have until November 27. We are happy to have her, but we propose “prior to November 27”.

It's not like we don't want the minister. We want the minister to come, but four days is not enough. It's not about the minister; it's about the resources.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Sidhu.

Mr. Fisher, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

We have heard about resources. We have heard about.... The committee can't compel her to come, as Ms. Rempel Garner said, but I suggest she probably will want to come, especially on an important topic like this.

There are no heads nodding here, but I think everybody supports the idea of inviting the minister here. Again, I have sat on other committees before, and I don't remember a committee ever voting against inviting the minister.

I will ask my colleague Mr. Davies, have you ever had a motion, notwithstanding Standing Order 106(4), that said invite the minister and we want her in three days, not counting today? Maybe that's happened. I have never seen it happen. I have seen ministers invited for everything, and there's always a time frame.

I think what we should do is move on, support the amendment, support the amended motion, and invite the minister. I would be very surprised if the minister didn't show up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

Mr. Kelloway, please go ahead.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I was going to comment on some of the things that MP Fisher brought up. Again, it's not a matter of not wanting the minister to come. I definitely do, and I think every parliamentarian, everyone on this Zoom call and anyone watching wants her to come. I suspect that Ms. Hajdu, the Minister of Health, relishes that opportunity as well.

We talked about some words today. I have been listening to some key words that have come up today, such as “pragmatic” and “calm”. Those were some of the words I heard today. I think one of them is about the ability to look at this from a common-sense approach and look at the fact that the Minister of Health is like all of us, every parliamentarian and every Canadian, waging a battle against COVID. I think we can do better than to give her three days to come here. I think there's a common ground between this committee and the minister's staff to look at a time when she can come, answer questions, and we go from there.

My hope is that we can look at this amendment in this spirit. It's a common-sense approach to get to the dialogue we need to have with the Minister of Health of this federal government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.

We go now to Monsieur d'Entremont, please. Go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

What I'm finding concerning about making this amendment is that it doesn't give any end date. We want to give a date, by Friday. The Liberals are suggesting to keep it open-ended.

Mr. Chair, COVID-19 is growing in our communities, maybe not here in Nova Scotia, but definitely in Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan. They have all had the highest numbers they have seen in the last number of months, the highest numbers since COVID-19 came in.

If we think that the Minister of Health is going to get less busy over the next number of weeks as she's trying to fix the problems created by the second wave of COVID-19, we're dreaming in technicolour. I think she needs to come here as soon as possible because it's going to get busy for her over the next number of days.

Her estimates have been brought forward. If she doesn't know them and she's not ready for this, then why is she Minister of Health? Every minister of health needs to know their estimates, what they are bringing forward, and be able to debate them at the earliest convenience.

If she can't be here by Friday, then I would suggest to my colleagues to provide another date that makes more sense, rather than leaving it open-ended, so that if she doesn't come before November 27, they can't say, “Oh, well, she got busy and can't come before us.”

That's my suggestion.