Thank you, Dr. Flood.
In passing, Dr. Knight, are you also in New Zealand?
Evidence of meeting #39 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Dr. Flood.
In passing, Dr. Knight, are you also in New Zealand?
2:30 p.m.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington, As an Individual
Yes, I am. I'm in Wellington, at the bottom of the North Island, just across the way from Dr. Flood.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I note that it's 6:30 a.m. there, so I really appreciate that you're here. I'm not a morning person, so I feel for you guys.
We will carry on now and start our round of questions, with Ms. Rempel Garner for six minutes.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you. I'm sharing my time with Mr. Davies and I'll give the floor to him.
2:30 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Dr. Flood, you recently co-authored a chapter entitled “The Federal Emergencies Act: A Hollow Promise in the Face of COVID-19?” in the book Vulnerable: The Law, Policy and Ethics of COVID-19. In it, you tested three case scenarios in the context of COVID-19 where, arguably, provincial steps have been insufficient, triggering the need for a national response.
Could you please provide the committee with an overview of those case scenarios and the conclusions you were able to draw from them with respect to the Emergencies Act?
2:30 p.m.
University Research Chair, Health Law and Policy, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Sure. We did look at the Emergencies Act very early on in COVID to understand how it works and whether or not it could be triggered, so let me give you an overview.
The Emergencies Act, unlike provincial emergency legislation, can only be triggered in relatively rare circumstances. The general emergency powers at the provincial level are much broader and provide many more powers. If the federal government were to trigger the Emergencies Act, there are very prescribed areas in which it can utilize it, and that makes things more tricky. It's not so obvious that the Emergencies Act can be used to respond to some of the problems that we've seen arise in COVID-19, such as a requirement to wear masks, for example. However, there are some particular powers that perhaps would allow contact tracing, for example, in a more generalized way, which would allow, perhaps, requirements for lockdowns. There are therefore very limited means there, Don, to permit the federal government to act, but it's fairly prescribed.
There is a question coming out of this, and I think you put it rightly to an earlier witness: What kind of emergency, if a global pandemic isn't a sufficient emergency, would you need to be able to declare a federal emergency, or is it just, as we've said, sort of a hollow promise? What more would you need than this, given 25,000 Canadians have died and the number is mounting? From a normative perspective, it's odd that Canada is one of the only developed countries in the world not to have declared a national emergency.
I think we have to come back to it. The Emergencies Act was written coming out of World War II and a concern about the internment of Japanese Canadians. It's written in a very prescribed way because of that. It's clearly not fit for the purpose of managing a pandemic or a public health emergency, as we've seen.
2:35 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Dr. Knight, in a recent article you wrote:
My suspicion, too, is that this openness to responsibility was crucial in fortifying the social licence for the extreme measures the government took. In other words, the government bred legitimacy for its response through its open attitude to accountability. This speaks, I think, to an aspect of constitutional culture in New Zealand—a sense of civic virtue that predates the pandemic but one that has been rarefied throughout it.
In your view, what lessons can Canada and other nations draw from the constitutional culture of New Zealand and the way it approached accountability and openness in dealing with COVID?
2:35 p.m.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington, As an Individual
For me, the value of leaning into accountability is gold. Our Prime Minister, who is very much at her best in dealing with crises and emergency, and bringing people with her, and her government have leaned into responsibility, accountability, and building, as you see, a team of five million. That's the language that's used to encourage that collective community spirit that is required to manage this pandemic.
It was done in a number of different ways. I mentioned the face-to-face explanation—just being straight up, clear, and open about the crisis that was being faced and what the government was doing, and so forth.
I mentioned the fact that the government has been proactively releasing cabinet papers and minutes, with very few redactions, that showed the sense of decision-making, the analysis, and so forth. During the height of the pandemic, we had the day-to-day press conferences with the Prime Minister, director general, and ministers speaking directly to the nation, where you're trying to encourage a collective sense of precaution and health measures.
The ability to get a very high sense of social licence has been crucial, and it's helped in enforcement. It has obviated the need for heavy-handed police enforcement, because people know that they have to do the right thing, and—
2:35 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Doctor. I'm sorry to interrupt you. I have to cede my time back to Ms. Rempel Garner, but thank you.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I move:
That, the following regularly scheduled meetings of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health be programmed as follows:
On May 31, 2021 the Committee undertake one [or] more two hour meeting regarding Patented Medicine Prices Review Board’s Guidelines, that each political party represented on the Committee be given leave to invite two witnesses of their choosing to provide testimony on the topic for this meeting, and that upon the completion of this meeting, the analysts of the Committee be directed to commence the development of a draft report based on witness testimony and written submissions received by the Committee on this subject to date;
On June 7, 2021 that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, the Clerk of the Privy Council Office, and Canada’s Privacy Commissioner and Canada’s Information Commissioner be invited for the duration of a two hour meeting to discuss issues related to, but not limited to, the production of documents regarding the October 26th House of Commons motion, and that the total time allotted for opening statements be limited to 5 minutes for each witness up to a maximum of 20 minutes in total to ensure adequate time for questions to be posed by committee members;
For the first hour on the meetings scheduled for June 4, 11, 14, 18, and 21, 2021, each political party represented on the Committee be given leave to invite one witness of their choosing to discuss issues related to, but not limited to, the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the total time allotted for opening statements be limited to 5 minutes by witnesses to ensure adequate time for questions to be posed by committee members;
For the second hour on the meetings scheduled for June 4, 11, 14, 18, and 21, 2021 Deputy Minister of Health Canada, the Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Deputy Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the President of the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, the Vice President of Logistics and Operations for the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the head of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, be invited to discuss issues related to, but not limited to, the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, that the Minister of Health be in attendance for at least one of these meetings, that the meeting that the Minister of Health is in attendance be held on a Friday, be three hours in length, that the Minister and officials be in attendance for two consecutive hours, and that the total time allotted for opening statements by officials (and the Minister) during this portion of these meetings be limited to 5 minutes by witnesses up to a maximum of 20 minutes in total to ensure adequate time for questions to be posed by committee members
To witnesses who are here today, I want to thank you so much, particularly the World Animal Protection folks.
This motion that I've just moved is just in recognition that we are almost at the end of the parliamentary session. We only have a few meetings left, and we haven't really discussed committee business in some time. Should we have to allocate another meeting to discuss business, and then adopt it in another meeting, we'd be losing two meetings in the middle of a pandemic, so the genesis of this motion was to ensure that the remaining meetings are maximized for activities related particularly to the government's response to the pandemic.
I also believe that the schedule that has been presented here will also allow the clerk enough time to give witnesses headsets. My understanding is that most political parties here have already identified their witnesses for the PMPRB study and that headsets have already been distributed. There should be no reason that we can't proceed as suggested.
This motion would also give officials a full week before they next appear in front of committee—and, again, this is designed for us to maximize our time.
The other thing I'll say is that I think this is very fairly written. It gives every political party here leave to determine their own witnesses. There's really no partisan language in this motion at all. It's just to ensure that, prior to the end of session, the committee is focusing its efforts on scrutiny of the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly given that I understand that there will be a gap at the end of June in which the House of Commons IT staff will be undertaking regularly scheduled maintenance, and meetings may not be possible, so we want to make sure that we're getting as much work done as we can, Chair, before Parliament rises.
I hope there is agreement among parties that we can proceed in this fashion. It gives a lot of flexibility. I seek the support of all of my colleagues on this committee for proceeding as follows.
May 28th, 2021 / 2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner. It is your purview to move this motion. We have notice of it. I'm wondering if you might consider moving it at the end of our witness testimony and our questions.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I think, just for the sake of time, I'd like to move it now, because I noticed that we didn't get a second round of questions for the first panel. I would like to proceed.
2:40 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
As a point of order, Mr. Chair, could I maybe ask, if we have the agreement of all committee members, that we not move any other motion so that we can deal with Ms. Rempel Garner's motion at this meeting? If we have that agreement, then we can finish at least one quick question round with the witnesses in respect of [Technical difficulty—Editor].
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Sorry, I missed a little bit of your remarks, Mr. Davies. I think I have a power glitch here. You went dead for a while, figuratively speaking. I'm thinking the matter has been responded to by Mr. Van Bynen, so we have to either go ahead with this motion now or trust on faith that we will be able to deal with it after the witnesses.
2:40 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. My screen froze right after I spoke, so I don't know what happened after I said my piece.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Technology is so wonderful.
As you were speaking, my power glitched and I missed your whole speech. I believe Mr. Van Bynen has responded with a “no” to your request. I still think it would be appropriate, if we could, to deal with this matter after our witness panel.
2:45 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I'm sorry to interrupt. What I missed was Mr. Van Bynen, on behalf of the Liberals, saying no to my request that we deal with this at the end and agree to hear from the witnesses.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Sorry, just hang on.
What you're asking for, Mr. Davies, would require unanimous consent. Mr. Van Bynen said no, so we have no unanimous consent.
We go now to Ms. O'Connell. Is that...? I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear who interjected.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Yes. Just to clarify, Mr. Chair, I think it is incredibly unreasonable to have asked witnesses, in particular from New Zealand, to appear here and our not at least having the ability to hear their testimony. If we can deal with this motion at the end, that's fine. But, Mr. Chair, I can't commit, and I don't think it's reasonable for any member to commit, to tying their hands by our dealing with a motion procedurally. I think the intentions are that we can deal with this at the end, but I don't think we can make any commitment. Given the level of disrespect to these witnesses as well as our own members' question times, to interject like this is completely unreasonable.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Very well. Are there any more comments on this particular point of order?