Health Committee on May 28th, 2021

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

It's just to provide clarification in answer to Ms. O'Connell's point. I'm asking that we have two more rounds of questions. We have the Liberals' round and then we have the Bloc's round and then my round. All I'm asking is that, if we can all agree, none of us will move another motion substantively to deal with business so that we can ensure that we deal with Ms. Rempel Garner's motion at the end. Then we can proceed to hear from the witnesses as Ms. O'Connell wants to do.

That's not tying anybody's hands. That's just making a commitment that we can get to that motion at the end of the meeting, because if Ms. Rempel Garner lets go of her motion now, and then the Liberals in five minutes move their own motion, and we lose the witnesses, then that's an unjust result. What I'm asking my colleagues to do is this. Let's listen to the witnesses, finish the question round, and agree to deal with Ms. Rempel Garner's motion at the end of this meeting so that we can do justice and respect the witnesses. It just means the Liberals, the Bloc and I, in the next 15 minutes, don't move another substantive motion. Why can't we agree to that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Davies. I understand you're asking that no one will move a substantive motion during their question slot for witnesses. Is that correct? Yes.

Mr. Van Bynen, your hand is up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a right to put forward a motion, and I don't want to compromise that. To agree to not putting forward a motion, I think, is unrealistic as an expectation, and I will do that at an appropriate time, as Ms. Garner has done at her appropriate time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I believe my motion is in order, and it's on the floor for debate. I know we've had issues when you've suspended at the end of meetings when we've moved motions before, and so I'd like to proceed with debate. It is in order. It's routine proceedings, two witnesses. We're just trying to make sure that we have the program set, because we've sort of run to the end of the universe of our program prior to the end of session.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes, I've already said that it's in order, and you have the right to move it at this time. I was just asking if we could deal with this after our witness testimony, but I don't think we're going to get to that point.

We have Mr. Van Bynen again.

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

I'd like to hear from Mr. Powlowski. I'll speak after him.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay.

Dr. Powlowski, go ahead.

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

Since this has moved into debate, I want to apologize to the witnesses, particularly the people from New Zealand who got up very early in the morning to be with us.

I would also like to wish Colleen Flood's son a happy birthday from Canada and from all of us here in Parliament.

I am sorry that we didn't manage this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

May I have the consensus of the committee on whether we should release the witnesses at this time with our apologies and our thanks?

I'm seeing agreement on that.

To the witnesses, once again, I apologize. This is the way it works sometimes in Parliament. Motions get moved and motions have to be dealt with when they get moved.

On behalf of the committee, I really do appreciate your time today and your offering to help us with our inquiries. If you have any further communication you wish to convey to the committee, I would invite you to please direct it to the clerk of the committee, and the clerk will ensure that it gets properly translated and distributed to the committee.

Thank you, all, and with that I would invite you to leave if that is your will to do so.

Having said that, we will now continue with the debate on Ms. Rempel Garner's motion.

Mr. Van Bynen, your hand is up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues of a couple of things that were said during our meeting of May 14, starting with Mr. Davies:

I think what I'm getting from this on all sides is that we need a better process for determining our agenda going forward. I think it does speak to the less than optimal functioning of our subcommittee. We do have a subcommittee on agenda, which I think, with great respect, falls under the authority of the chair to call. I'm going to put that bug in the chair's ear to maybe use that. All parties are represented on it, and I think that we should be meeting on some sort of regular basis to deal with issues.

Then, as our meeting was coming to a close, Mr. Chair said:

I would advise the committee that I am planning to do a subcommittee meeting following the end of Mr. Davies' portion of the study and just prior to the PMPRB last two meetings, so that we can plan what we're doing following those meetings and so we'll be able to bring witnesses in, should that be our intent.

It seems to me that the crumb was indeed planted in the chair's ear, because it's my understanding that this subcommittee has been scheduled for next Monday, a little less than 75 hours from now, to discuss the committee's work plan moving forward.

Now, the first phase of this study is completed. The motion we are currently debating, introduced by Ms. Rempel Garner, 11 days after our chair advised the committee of this plan as quoted above, completely undermines our ability to collaborate and work together in a respectful manner.

While there haven't been many, I have been proud of the moments when we could collaborate and be respectful to one another, because that's when we are most productive. I am not proud, however—or thankful for that matter—of motions such as this one that undermine our ability to work collaboratively as a team while respecting each other.

Most importantly, I want to highlight how disrespectful we have been to our witnesses today, especially those joining us from New Zealand, and at a very early hour. I personally think that hearing from them would have been incredibly important, and I was looking forward to hearing what they had to say.

That being said, I move that debate be now adjourned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

A motion to adjourn the debate is on the floor. It is non-debatable so I will ask the clerk to call the vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Very well. We will carry on with this debate.

Mr. Davies, I see your hand is up. Go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm going to speak in support of this motion.

I do want to say to Mr. Van Bynen, and I say this with great respect, on several occasions over the past year I have urged the committee chair to make use of the subcommittee to schedule business. Today is Friday, May 28, and as of my coming to this meeting, there was no subcommittee meeting called.

This is the last day of the first round of topics of our COVID study. This motion was submitted by Ms. Rempel Garner more than two days ago. Everybody on this committee has had an opportunity to look at the motion. What it does is it simply seeks to make productive use of the remaining seven or eight meetings that we have.

With great respect, I raised this issue of calling a subcommittee meeting two weeks ago and it was not called. For a subcommittee meeting to be called today for Monday means that were we to accede to that, we would lose a committee meeting on Monday and then we would lose another meeting on Friday, because the subcommittee would meet, come to a decision, hopefully, and then that proposal would have to be adopted by the full committee. We would lose approximately 25% of the meetings that we have left before the House rises on June 23.

That is not an effective way to deal with committee business. I'm going to be a little more strenuous in my objection at the lack of effective and efficient scheduling and the use of the subcommittee on this basis. If the committee chair is not going to call subcommittee meetings to plan the business of this committee, one can hardly fault the members of this committee for taking the bull by the horns and doing it themselves, which Ms. Rempel Garner has done.

This motion is written very objectively. For the record, I want to state what it does. It schedules our PMPRB meeting on Monday, as Mr. Thériault is entitled to. It proposes that we have eight witnesses instead of four so that we effectively have the final two of the four meetings, which Mr. Thériault proposed and this committee passed, completed on Monday. We finish the committee business on PMPRB.

Starting on Friday of next week, and on every successive meeting but the following Monday, for the first hour of each meeting each party is allowed to submit one witness as they see fit on any issue under COVID. You can't get more egalitarian than that. In the second hour of each of those meetings, the deputy ministers will come to answer questions. I think this is an excellent way to structure the meeting because we are allowed to hear the witnesses as each party wants to call them, whether it's on long-term care or mental health, which I know is a priority of Mr. Van Bynen's. I know long-term care is a priority that Ms. O'Connell has mentioned. On whatever issue anybody wants, we can have those witnesses appear in the first hour and then, if questions or issues emerge, we can put them directly to the deputy ministers from health, from the Public Health Agency of Canada, from procurement, and the chief public health officer.

I think that's a very important way to proceed because were we not to come up with this process, we would have to then proceed with the next first priority of the Liberals. That's where we'd go back and we would never get to the next priorities of the other parties. We have the benefit right now of stopping at this point, having heard the number one priority from each of the four parties and having four meetings on each. You can't get more egalitarian than that and because we can't then go to the second choice of each party and hear from each of those in a fair way by the end of June, it's a very natural stopping point for us on how we are going to handle the final seven or eight meetings. This way allows every party to get the witnesses they want before each one of those meetings.

Finally, the other piece of it is that the meeting a week from Monday is the only other meeting that departs from the process I just described. This would be a meeting to hear from the law clerk and the Clerk of the Privy Council. I am going to make some pointed remarks about this.

Last October, the House of Commons—no less—passed a motion compelling—not asking—the government to produce documents in prescribed form on a number of subjects set forth in that motion. That was passed by the majority of the members of Parliament in the House of Commons. We live in a democracy. That is the democratic will of the House of Commons.

In that motion... at the time, my Liberal colleagues said they had resisted it because there would be over one million documents. By the way, I never understood how they got to that number. I think it was pulled out of thin air. Nevertheless, it was confirmed in writing by the Clerk of the Privy Council to this committee that they had in their possession over one million documents related to the motion that we called production for.

To date—seven months later—this committee has received just over 8,000 documents, while 992,000 documents remain in the possession of this government. Not only that, but this government refused to translate those documents, in my view, in direct violation of the law and of their obligation to provide documents in both official languages. This government dumped that responsibility onto the law clerk, who has no resources to do translation and had to use his budget to hire people specifically for the purpose of translating documents that this Liberal government refused to put in both official languages.

Not only that, but the first tranches passed over to the law clerk were a series of the most innocuous documents you could imagine—press releases and documents well in the public sphere.

I'll tell you my thesis. This government is deliberately stalling and withholding production of documents. There is no other conclusion any reasonable person can come to. In seven months, the law clerk has received 8,000 documents out of one million.

Moreover, I will say that this government, by the terms of the motion, does not have any right or responsibility to vet those documents, so they can't say they're doing any work on them. Their job is to identify the documents and fire them over to the law clerk.

We, specifically, in the House of Commons, said that the law clerk has the responsibility of doing the redacting and vetting according to the criteria we gave them. We did that specifically so that the government wouldn't hold up the process by redacting documents in advance. The government doesn't have to redact and they don't have to review. Their job is to find the documents and turn them over to the law clerk. The law clerk will then do the redacting according to the instructions.

I think it's entirely appropriate to have a meeting on Monday to hear directly from the law clerk and from the Clerk of the Privy Council about what the heck is going on. Parliament is supreme in our system—not the government, not the cabinet and not the Liberal caucus. Parliament is supreme, Parliament has demanded production of these documents, and we're not getting them.

To wrap up, this motion gives us the PMPRB study conclusion that this committee has already passed. It provides a fair structure for us to hear on a completely egalitarian basis from witnesses from each party on COVID, which is what Canadians want us to focus on. It calls the deputy ministers responsible to come and be answerable to this committee, as they should be. It provides one meeting so that we can deal with the issue of production of documents, which I believe is bordering on contempt of Parliament. Finally, it asks the Minister of Health to come to one meeting of her choosing on one of the Fridays between now and June 25.

How could anybody on any side of this committee object to that? To say, “Oh, no, we don't want to vote on this. We're going to filibuster or talk this out. I know, let's have a subcommittee meeting on Monday”, on Friday and then to waste two meetings the next week on it is, frankly, irresponsible.

Other committees might have their own business, but this is the health committee and we're in the middle of the biggest global health crisis that this country and this globe have seen in a century. We can't afford to miss meetings.

I think this motion is well structured, it's fair and it gives a very prescribed system for dealing with the last seven or eight meetings of this committee. I can't imagine anybody on this committee having a single valid objection to it. I will be supporting it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

I should clarify that the notice for the subcommittee meeting went out Wednesday morning. It appeared in my inbox at 10:22 a.m. Pacific time. That was done by the clerk in response to a request earlier in the week, and also, to follow through on my commitment to do so in our previous meeting.

We'll go now to Ms. Sidhu.

Ms. Sidhu, go ahead.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'm extremely disappointed with this motion. I have some important questions for the witnesses from New Zealand. I strongly believe it is important to have their perspective studied. I'm very disappointed that my turn was next and the opportunity has been taken away from me. Mr. Davies just said that questions should be offered equally, but this motion personally took my time away today.

We agreed to a subcommittee meeting, following the NDP topic in our work plan as agreed by all members. Letting the witnesses go despite the agreement on the scheduled subcommittee meeting has been disappointing. Is this what we are showing our friends in New Zealand? They woke up at 5 a.m. and have spent hours preparing their testimony, and we are doing this. It's unbelievable.

As I said, you had mentioned that a subcommittee meeting would be held next week after we completed Mr. Davies' study. We had also adopted an earlier subcommittee report in March that said we would have two more PMPRB meetings and proceed to report writing.

This motion is worded in a very confusing way. I'm very concerned about how much time the fourth section of the motion has asked for public officials, these high-ranking public servants, to be on standby for an hour on two different days every week, in the middle of the day, while they are in the middle of managing our response to a global pandemic. It is just asking for two hours. Like everyone, they need to prepare for these meetings. They need to defer other meetings. They're accountable to us, but it is not their job to be grilled with unnecessary questions for multiple hours a week so that an opposition member can get clips for social media.

More than any of that, I'm concerned at this point about the lack of respect that this motion shows for this committee. We have repeatedly said that we should be discussing these things as they grow. As Mr. Van Bynen said, we had the same discussion about the last Standing Order 106(4) meeting, and the quote from Mr. Davies pretty much sums up how this committee should be functioning.

This motion would be in complete contradiction to the spirit of co-operation that Mr. Davies spoke about. This motion by the Conservatives is designed to render the subcommittee meaningless. How is it respectful of this committee if its intention can force the cancellation of a subcommittee meeting where the parties could all work together, off the record, to plot a good way to move forward?

I'm reminded of when they claimed that Canadians were at the back of the lineup to receive vaccines and would not get doses until 2030, but just today NACI recommended the earliest administration of the second dose due to an increased availability of the vaccines. If I may remind, this plan had been made available to the entire country very early on, last year, in 2020. On a recent podcast, Mr. Davies spoke about how inconsistent the Conservatives had been in their criticism of the government. He said they remembered how critical they had been of the government for being too slow to close the borders, and now they criticize the government for hotel quarantine rules and border control measures. They think we should reopen the economy. I cannot really tell what their positions are.

We should not be rewarding this behaviour by wasting public servants' time and inviting them for no reason in particular. If the opposition members would like to take the weekend to think about the topics they would like to discuss with these officials and the most efficient schedule to do that, I'm sure the subcommittee could come to an agreement.

This motion should not pass. The subcommittee should meet on Monday as planned, at which point you and the co-chair, along with Mr. Davies and Mr. Kelloway, can settle the agenda for the remaining meetings.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Sidhu.

We'll go now to Mr. Kelloway.

Mr. Kelloway, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, colleagues.

When I first received the notice of the motion, I was a little surprised as I was looking forward to meeting with my colleagues from the opposition at our upcoming subcommittee meeting.

I agree with Don's comments from the last meeting that we need to utilize the subcommittee as a tool to plan out our upcoming meetings and get a sense of what the committee will look like in the short term, and it would seem to me that putting a motion out like this defeats the purpose of that meeting entirely, but perhaps I'm wrong.

I've heard almost every member of this committee talk about the importance of working together. I've said it at the past couple of meetings, and I've gotten to know many of you. I believe that you do want that as well, but, Mr. Chair and colleagues, let's use the subcommittee on Monday to talk about what MP Rempel Garner proposed in her motion, to hear from the government side on what we'd like to see and to get our input.

For me, that would be truly a way of moving forward together. Frankly, Mr. Chair, it's a little frustrating that we're having this discussion again for the second Friday in a row. Last week MP Rempel Garner brought forward a Standing Order 106(4) meeting, as she can do, as anyone can do, to discuss a motion she wanted to see passed at this committee, joined and signed by three other fellow Conservative members at this committee.

Here's the thing, Mr. Chair. All members of this committee voted in favour of that motion, because we all agreed on its contents, and I think it was maybe 30 minutes. However, Ms. O'Connell and I both took the time to make it clear that we were frustrated with the Conservative members of this committee using Standing Order 106(4) to call a meeting to discuss the motion rather than doing so collegially through a discussion of ideas on the committee's future business with other parties on this committee, namely the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and, of course, the Liberals.

Because of this procedural tactic to move a Standing Order 106(4) meeting last week, a very important meeting that had already been scheduled for last Friday ended up having to be moved to today. This meeting was originally scheduled at the request of our NDP colleague on this committee, who wanted to call witnesses to study his subject matter area of interest at this committee. As a reminder, Mr. Chair, to my Conservative members opposite, the entire committee, them included, agreed that the committee's area of study would alternate among the different officially recognized parties represented at this committee with four meetings to be held per each party's area of interest.

That aside, we pressed ahead with voting for the Conservative motion last week, because we wanted to give the Conservative MPs on this committee the benefit of the doubt that they would constructively, with all their colleagues on this committee, plan for areas of study in the future. In fact, we've all agreed that, in the spirit of working together in good faith, the subcommittee would need to discuss the committee's agenda going forward as a committee.

Mr. Chair, the subcommittee meeting is already scheduled for this upcoming Monday, May 31, and the plan was to work together on a road map going forward. My NDP colleague on this committee stated last week that we need a better process for determining our agenda going forward, and I agree with Don. He also reiterated that all parties are represented at the subcommittee, and that “We should be meeting on some sort of regular basis to deal with issues”. As I previously said, I agree with the comments, these comments in particular. I have made that clear to my colleagues on this committee at many meetings.

When we deal with things in this hasty and unco-operative manner, it does lead to dysfunction and to this committee's never finishing the work it's already agreed to work on.

The member already knows that, because Don specifically pointed this out last week, in saying, “Luc has been waiting for the last two meetings of his PMPRB study for months”. In fact, the member for Montcalm's PMPRB study was last before this committee on December 11, 2020. That was six months ago. We haven't had a chance to complete the two meetings still required for that study because of the continuous disregard by some members of this committee for any of their colleagues from other parties on this committee.

With this proposed motion, which only proposed to convene one of the two remaining meetings required to complete the PMPRB study, it means that Luc's study likely won't be tabled before the summer, and perhaps Luc is okay with that, I don't know.

While I'm discussing the specific contents of this motion in front of us, I would be remiss to not realize the obligations that this motion puts on some of the busiest public servants in Canada right now, who are working around the clock to guide Canada safely out of this pandemic. They have been working around the clock since early 2020.

Again, it seems as though there is little consideration given to the fact that, for officials appearing at this committee, there is a lot of time and effort in the preparation work to come here to answer questions from us here at committee. Just last week, officials appeared at this committee for three hours and some only received a couple of questions during the entire time they were here.

Officials have repeatedly appeared at this committee and various other committees to answer questions. I crunched some numbers. At HESA alone, officials have answered questions for almost 40 hours. When you consider their appearances at other committees as well, they have answered questions for over 70 hours, collectively.

Nothing in the Conservative motion, Mr. Chair, even indicated that there are any new topics that have not yet been comprehensively answered. As I said last week—and I think this is important—I will always welcome the opportunity to hear from these folks. After all, they are the ones leading the charge and, as the health committee, we should be able to ask them questions. We all know there is no shortage of questions to be answered.

Mr. Chair, let us think about this for a moment. The deputy ministers of Health Canada, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and 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 are the very officials who are actively responding to the COVID-19 pandemic in real time. They are responding to surges and emergencies across this country. They are in constant contact and having ongoing negotiations with vaccine manufacturers to speed up and increase deliveries of vaccines coming into Canada. They are revealing data and science from around the world, carefully monitoring Canada's epidemiology and constantly updating Canadians on that. They are responsible and they are responsible for rolling out and delivering the procured vaccines to provinces and territories.

What do we think they are doing with their time? Do we think they are doing nothing?

Mr. Chair, the fact is that since the beginning of this pandemic, Liberal members on this committee have sought to put politics aside and do real work on behalf of Canadians. We worked with other parties to develop reasonable plans to study the pandemic and get answers for Canadians. That's what we all want on this committee. It seems like whenever we turn to do real work and try to convert that real work into results, things tend to not happen.

Take, Mr. Van Bynen, for example, who sought to table an interim report on the mental health impacts of COVID-19. The opposition said no. Now, think about that. Let that sink in. They said no.

We have heard countless times from hundreds of witnesses that this pandemic has been an unbearable strain on the mental health of Canadians. We've all heard it on this committee. Just earlier this month, we heard from one witness who said burnout is real for the people at home and especially those working on the front lines. Beyond that, I'm sure all members of this committee are hearing from their constituents about mental health. Colleagues, I know I am. That's why Liberal members proposed studying this. When we did, others immediately said no and sidelined the study with procedural games.

When we finally got back to the study, we heard substantive testimony from witnesses across our country. We heard directly how this impact is affecting the mental health of Canadians.

Mr. Chair, this testimony should have been turned into a report and tabled with recommendations for the government to respond to. That's exactly what my colleague, Tony Van Bynen, proposed. But, do you know what? The other party said no. They seem to prefer to focus on some of these games instead of allowing the committee to finish the interim report on mental health.

Let me be very clear. The very preparation and tabling of this interim report would have taken no time from the work of our committee. If the Conservatives had allowed the interim report to go through, the recommendations now would be tabled in Parliament and we would be waiting for a government response to the recommendations and expert testimony that we heard.

Let's get real here. I get that we're on different sides here. Some of us like the colours blue, red and orange, but we're all on team Canada. I'll say it again: We are. The opposition seems to be clearly working well together when it comes to voting down ideas we propose, so we know there is a desire to work together, but many times it appears that there is just a little lack of willingness to work together with the government side.

I make this point, Mr. Chair, because this isn't just any committee. This is the health committee and we're in the middle of a global pandemic. It's an existential crisis that impacts everything and everyone. I think that everyone recognizes that the opposition parties will sometimes use procedures or delay tactics to impede the government's work. That's fair enough, but that shouldn't be at the expense of the actual work that this committee should and can do.

Mr. Chair, we're here to work. We're all here to roll up our sleeves and work. We want to work with other members to study this pandemic, and yes, to hold the government to account. That's what I expect us to do, and, quite frankly, that is what Canadians expect us to do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.

We go now to Dr. Powlowski.

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

I'd like to begin by thanking my colleague from Cape Breton for his very succinct way getting to the point on this discussion. At least the first time around I, too, will try to be equally succinct in talking about this issue.

There are two sides to every story. We have our side, and I know those of you have your side. I'm amused by the fact that, on my computer, Michelle with her dog is right beside Jennifer with her cat, which I think is a very convenient metaphor for what happens in Parliament. The Conservatives and the Liberals are like dogs and cats. They just are not going to get along.

Do you know what? I'm not even going to take the position that the Liberals are right on everything and that the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc are wrong on everything, nor am I going to take the position that all the Liberals are better people than the Conservatives or the NDP or the Bloc. There are two sides to every story. We have our reasons for our position, as was stated by Tony Van Bynen. I thought the agreement was that after this initial round of each party getting four sessions to talk about their subject of interest, the subcommittee would meet, and then it would be decided where we would go after this.

Now, I know that with this motion something different is being proposed. Which is right? Which is wrong? Which is more right than the other? I'm not even going to say our position is more right than your position, but we have a reasoned position. We are firm in our position.

As a result of that, you know where this is going, which is unfortunate given the fact that it's such a beautiful day out here in Thunder Bay. I only got part of my garden planted last weekend. I do have to get the rest of the garden in. It's not going to plant itself.

There are a lot of things we can talk about with respect to what we're going to do in the next number of weeks before the end of Parliament. There are all kinds of issues, and directly related to this motion. What are we going to study in the upcoming four or five sessions? I guess we have more than that number of sessions. We have three and a half weeks, and so we're going to meet on a lot of things. There are a lot of issues we could talk about directly related to this motion. What are we going to study about COVID? I have all kinds of things I'd like to talk to about COVID. Heck, if I can get in Hansard as talking about these things already, that's not so bad.

I know you've heard today that a big interest of mine has been monoclonal antibodies, and the fact that, largely as a result of the policy made by the provinces, this could really be a second front in the battle against COVID. But for one reason or another, which I haven't quite managed to fathom, we're not doing this, even though in the United States this practice is widespread.

On that subject alone, I could talk for quite a lengthy period of time. I brought fairly extensive notes, knowing that Dr. Morris was going to appear, and I wanted to have all my facts before me. Certainly that's related, because what are we going to talk about in these studies? Certainly the monoclonal antibodies are one of them.

Another thing I would like to see our talking about in the upcoming sessions—and maybe we'll end up talking about it here—is the proposed WTO waiver on intellectual property rights related to COVID therapeutics and vaccines. I wrote a letter on that with some of my colleagues on this committee, and I'm very proud of it. I'm very proud we all came together and came to a mutual agreement as to where the world ought to be going. Certainly we could talk about that in the coming weeks, or we could talk about some of it today. There are so many different variants from so many places. We could talk all about the risks of the variants as well.

There are other issues, though, and it's unfortunate we haven't been able to address these other issues because of COVID. But I think we have, in response to Mr. Thériault's questions, pointed out the fact that a lot of people are suffering, and will continue to suffer because they haven't received medical services because of COVID. People haven't had their colonoscopies done, and things like that. There are a few actual issues that I would like to deal with which are medical, which we haven't been able to deal with because of COVID.

Certainly the PMPRB is a great example, and something I didn't know a lot about. Since Mr. Thériault brought it to our attention, I've looked into it and spent a lot of time trying to figure this out. It is an extremely relevant topic that I would like to talk about. We can talk about it now or we could talk about it at the meeting. It depends—whatever the opposition wants. Here is another opportunity. We're going to talk probably for some considerable period of time about what we should do in the coming weeks, and that certainly is one issue that I have definite interest in.

Another one—again, I know this is something that some of my colleagues on this committee have also been interested in—is the concern of the dense breast people about the national guidelines on screening for breast cancer in women. There are allegations by some very high-up, well-placed specialists in breast imaging and breast cancer, who say that the current recommendations on screening are inadequate, that the studies they looked at and based their conclusions on were flawed. As a result, they're saying that up to 1,000 women a year may be dying of breast cancer because of these flawed guidelines. They would like that addressed. I would like this to be something that comes before the committee to be discussed nationally.

There are other issues, because, heck, here's an opportunity to talk about what we're going to talk about in the next number of weeks.

Another thing I would like to talk about is the difficulty of accessing generics. This affects a lot of people who find the prices suddenly going way up on their generic medications. I may have to talk about this for longer, because we obviously want to talk about what we're going to do in the future about some of the problems we face in accessing generic medications in the hospital.

I was certainly frustrated over the last number of years with the fact that, one by one, many of the medications we routinely used in treating patients in the emergency room were no longer available. These are cheap medications, for example, stemetil. I don't know if anybody out there has migraine medications, but the best medication, intravenously, for controlling migraines is Stemetil. You can probably buy stemetil internationally for 20 cents a shot. You can't get it in Canada. If you go into an emergency room, you have to get something lesser. You'll have to get something lesser, like [Inaudible--Editor]. I could talk for quite a long time about various treatment for migraines. I don't know if anybody wants me to, but I'm certainly willing to talk.

We've been unable to access drugs like this. It was certainly something I looked into when I was working in the hospital and tried to get support.... Why don't we address this issue? Having worked in many developing countries over the years, I certainly found that with some of these medications you couldn't get in Canada, you could get them freely all around the world, in all the different countries I worked in. There again, I could talk about that too. In Canada, why can't you get them?

This is something that's been very frustrating. You can go to Ethiopia or Vanuatu or Swaziland, and you can access stemetil, so why can't you get it in Canada? That's something that I think would be worth our committee looking into, because this is a real problem that certainly affects a lot of people. I have my own thinking. I think this is a thing of national jurisdiction under the Food and Drugs Act. It is federal jurisdiction, and it's probably overly regulated.

Anyhow, this is something I won't bore you with the long details of. However, if I'm not planting my garden this afternoon, I'm certain I could talk more about the subject, which I'm sure interests all of you.

Also, another thing came up today—and I talked to Dr. Morris about it—on the silencing of doctors. You won't silence a good doctor, because sometimes when some doctors start talking, they just keep talking and talking ad nauseam. I don't know who that would be, but I think it's the social duty of a good doctor to speak up when they see injustices in the world.

On the other hand, many doctors, under COVID, found that when they did speak up on public health policy, when they did oppose government policy—often the provincial government here in Ontario on what they were doing—they ended up being disciplined or threatened with discipline.

Is this in our best interest that the people who work on the front lines are unable to do the things that they think need to be done, because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? These people are all paid with the federal...out of tax money, our tax dollars.

Is it right that doctors and nurses are paid with taxpayers' money and people who work in the hospitals, in administration, who are paid with taxpayers' money, aren't letting the story come out because they don't want anybody criticising the government or the hospitals?

There are very many topics we could talk about. I think we all see where this is going. We have our position. We are firm on our position that we think this ought to be left to the subcommittee on Monday, and I would suggest that we all want to do something other than listen to Marcus Powlowski speak.

I know Mike Kelloway is a more eloquent speaker. I'd like to have him speak rather than me, because I enjoy that Cape Breton lilt. However, I think even that wonderful Cape Breton lilt, after five or six hours, will grow quite tiresome.

Mike, I'm sorry to say that to you.

Anyhow, I'm suggesting that there are better things to do on a Friday afternoon, and I apologize to the analysts, the translators and the clerks because I know you too have other things to do and might want to plant your gardens.

With those brief words to begin with, I'll pass it on to whomever is next in line.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Dr. Powlowski. Let us know when you have something to say.

We'll go now to Mr. Van Bynen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What we're doing here is we're dragging a lot of people away from a very important mission and that is to get the better of COVID. To give you some perspective of what these individuals do, I'll read into the record the statement made by the chief public health officer of Canada yesterday, May 27:

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to create stress and anxiety for many Canadians, particularly those who do not have ready access to their regular support networks. Through the Wellness Together Canada online portal, people of all ages across the country can access immediate, free and confidential mental health and substance use supports, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Over the past weeks, we have seen Canada make huge strides in ramping up our COVID-19 vaccination rollout. As vaccine supplies have increased, provinces and territories have opened eligibility to many more people, and it has been heartening to see so many of you rolling up your sleeve as your turns have arrived. As of yesterday, over 21.9 million doses have been administered across Canada. These successes have required coordination with communities across the country to make vaccines available and accessible, and have benefited from community leadership and innovations like local pop-up clinics, multilingual clinics, and support from groups like Vaccine Hunters to help you find and book appointments. We have also seen efforts to support equitable access to vaccination by allocating vaccine clinics to the places where they are needed the most, such as clinics specifically for those experiencing homelessness or living in social housing, and prioritized vaccine access for those in hot spots.

Widespread immunization is an essential component towards allowing us to get back to many of the things we have been missing. We can all do our part by getting vaccinated and supporting COVID-19 vaccination within our communities. One way of helping with this is to learn more about COVID-19 vaccines and to share evidence-based information with those in your network. You can find evidence-based information about COVID-19 vaccines in 15 different languages on our COVID-19 portal to help you and your family make informed decisions.

As COVID-19 activity continues in Canada, we are tracking a range of epidemiological indicators to monitor where the disease is most active, where it is spreading and how it is impacting the health of Canadians and public health, laboratory and healthcare capacity. At the same time, the Public Health Agency of Canada is providing Canadians with regular updates on COVID-19 vaccines administered, vaccination coverage and ongoing monitoring of vaccine safety across the country. The following is the latest survey on the national numbers and trends, and the actions we all need to be taking to reduce infection rates, while vaccination programs expand for the protection of all Canadians.

Since the start of the pandemic, there have been 1,368,106 cases of COVID-19 and 25,361 deaths reported in Canada; these cumulative numbers tell us about the overall burden COVID-19 illness to date. They also tell us, together with the results of serological studies, that a large majority of Canadians remain susceptible to COVID-19. Multiple safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, with unique advantages, are authorised for use in Canada. As vaccine delivery continues to ramp up at an accelerated pace, there is increasing optimism that widespread and lasting immunity can be achieved through COVID-19 vaccination. Benefits are being seen among groups targeted for priority vaccination and as vaccine coverage increases across Canada, we can expect further benefits to protect more Canadians over the coming weeks and months.

We're making steady progress, with 44,785 active cases, 50% fewer compared to the peak of the third wave in mid-April. However, as COVID-19 activity remains elevated in many jurisdictions, strong public health measures must be sustained where COVID-19 is circulating[,] and individual precautions are important everywhere to drive infection rates down to low and manageable levels, while getting our vaccination rates as high as possible.

While the latest national-level data show continued declines in disease activity with an average of 3,674 cases reported daily during the latest 7 day period (May 20-26), a decrease of 30% compared to the week prior, infection rates remain high in some areas of the country. Until vaccine coverage is sufficiently high to impact disease transmission more broadly in the community, we must maintain a high degree of caution with public health and individual measures and not ease restrictions too soon or too quickly where infection rates are high.

Elevated infection rates continue to impact lagging COVID-19 severity indicators, particularly in areas with sustained levels of high disease activity. Although we are seeing some decline in these trends, persistent high numbers are severe and critical illnesses are placing a prolonged and heavy strain on the health system and [the] healthcare work force. Provincial and territorial data indicate that an average of 2,934 people with COVID-19 were being treated in Canadian hospitals each day during the most recent 7-day period... [again from May 20-26. This] is 17% fewer than last week. This includes, on average 1,178 people who were being treated in intensive care units..., 11% fewer than last week. Although the mortality trend has levelled off, with a 7-day average of 42 deaths reported daily (May 20-26).... continued high rates of infection and high numbers of hospitalisations and critical care admissions could continue to impact this trend.

We are continuing to monitor and assess genetic variants of the virus and their impacts in the Canadian context. Overall, variants of concern...represent the majority of recently reported COVID-19 cases across the country. While all four [variants of concern]...have been detected in most provinces and territories, the B.1.1.7 variant continues to account for the majority of genetically sequenced variants of concern in Canada. The most recently designated VOC, B.1.617, has been identified across all provinces and one territory, as of May 26.... There are three sub-lineages that are being studied, which may have different properties. Early data from the United Kingdom indicate[s] that the protection offered by two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech or AstraZeneca vaccines were generally similar for the B.1.617.2 sub-lineage and for the B.1.1.7 variant. In addition, data from the United Kingdom suggests that the B.1.617.2 variant may be more transmissible than the B.1.1.7 variant. B.1.617.1 and B.1.617.3 sub-lineages are less well understood but carry mutations that are similar to mutations observed [in]... P.1 and B.1.351. These mutations occur in an area of the virus genome that may have an impact on vaccine effectiveness but there is limited data available to the extent of the impact, if any. While the impact of all VOCs continues to be monitored in Canada, we know that vaccination, in combination with public health and individual measures, are working to reduce [the] spread of SARS-CoV-2.

As vaccine eligibility expands, Canadians are urged to get vaccinated and support others to get vaccinated as vaccines become available to them. However, regardless of our vaccination status, Canadians are urged to remain vigilant, continue following public health advice, and consistently maintain individual practices that keep us and our families safer, even as we're beginning to see the positive impacts of COVID-19 vaccines: stay home/self-isolate [and] if you have any symptoms, think about the risks and reduce non-essential activities and outings to a minimum, avoid all non-essential travel and maintain individual protective practice, avoid all non-essential travel, and maintain individual protective practices of physical distancing, hand, cough and surface hygiene—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I'm well aware of the confines of filibustering, but there is a rule of relevance and I would ask my honourable colleague to tie his comments to the motion under consideration.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm happy to do that.

First, I want to put my position into context and I think this is the appropriate document with which to do so. If you'll permit me, with the last few parts of this document I will make that connection as we go.

Now, where did I leave off?

She said:

...even as we're beginning to see the positive impacts of...vaccines: stay home/self-isolate if you have any symptoms, think about the risks and reduce non-essential activities and outings to a minimum, avoid all non-essential travel, and maintain individual protective practices—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I'm sorry, but the member is just continuing to read instructions on COVID without tying it in. I'm asking him to demonstrate how this is relevant to the motion under consideration, which is a motion that deals with the committee business. Unless he can tie what he's talking about, in some at least remote way, to the matter under consideration, he's not allowed just to simply talk at length about issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the motion under consideration. I'm asking him to tell the committee how what he's talking about now relates to the motion under consideration.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, this hardly seems egalitarian.