Evidence of meeting #45 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Excuse me. I am speaking.
I will leave it up to you to respond or not, and then I will start your clock and carry on with your time.
Go ahead as you will.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Stewart, do you intend to comply with both components of the privilege motion passed before the House of Commons yesterday, as I described earlier in my line of questions?
2:15 p.m.
President, Public Health Agency of Canada
Mr. Chair and honourable member, I replied to your question when you previously posed it.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
You did not actually have a specific response of yes or no.
2:15 p.m.
President, Public Health Agency of Canada
Mr. Chair and honourable member, I answered the question.
Thank you.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Chair, through you, I would argue that Mr. Stewart did not answer the question. Does he intend to comply with both components of the motion passed in the House yesterday—yes or no?
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I think the question has been asked and answered.
I would ask you to move on, please.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Stewart, do you intend to deliver documents ordered by the House on June 2, to be produced so they may be deposited with the law clerk and parliamentary counsel under the terms of the motion provided in the House of Commons yesterday?
2:15 p.m.
President, Public Health Agency of Canada
Mr. Chair and honourable member, I am not going to be able to respond about intentions for Monday at this time, but I appreciate the question.
I will point out that previously similar motions have created tension that is difficult to manage between the requirements of the Privacy Act and the Security of Information Act, both of which place limits on the ability to provide documents of the nature being requested.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I will point out that the Speaker of the House of Commons ruled on the point that was just made, and ruled against that argument in his ruling in the House yesterday.
He also pointed out that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act makes clear that despite its composition, the body is not a committee of Parliament. That's why the ruling was made.
Going forward, Mr. Stewart, do you believe that your opinion on this matter supersedes an order of Parliament and a ruling of the Speaker of the House of Commons?
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Once again, where is the relevance? If she would like to point to the section on the supplementary estimates, I am still waiting.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.
I would also request of Ms. Rempel Garner that she let the witness answer as he deems best.
Please go ahead.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I have outlined relevance already.
I'll ask Mr. Stewart, again, do you believe that your opinion on this matter supersedes an order of Parliament and the ruling of the Speaker of the House of Commons?
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, this isn't the Canada-China committee where the motion originated, so if the member is not going to stay relevant, I'd ask that you rule that she point out the section she is referring to. This is the health committee where we're dealing with supplementary estimates.
Thank you, Chair.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Chair, on this point of order, the national microbiology lab, as well as the research contained therein, has a significant amount of funding, which is material to these estimates. I could point to numerous other things, but I would ask that you rule on whether or not you think that my line of questions is in order so that.... My clock keeps being cut off. I have lost a lot of time. I would ask that you rule on this so that the committee may decide whether to sustain your ruling or not.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We'll go to the point of order of Mr. Davies, who we haven't heard from yet.
Go ahead.
2:15 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you.
I think it's important to clarify what we're doing today. First of all, we are here to discuss the supplementary estimates and there is historically an incredibly wide berth not only to ask about anything that's in the estimates but even about what's not in the estimates. Second, we are also here and these witnesses are here pursuant to the motion of this committee, which is to deal with matters that deal with the government's handling of COVID.
The issues that were before the House originated over concerns raised at the Winnipeg laboratory, which was dealing with viruses, and there is a clear connection between that and potential interference or involvement in compromising Canada's COVID research, etc., so there are nexuses between this line of questioning and the purpose of which we heard today.
What I am concerned about is that Ms. O'Connell has interrupted, I think, four times now with the very same point of order, and you have ruled on it repeatedly. I think there is a certain point where a member who is being repetitive and vexatious and is raising the same point of order repeatedly, given your ruling.... It interrupts the flow of questioning. I think it's a privilege of every member here to have their six minutes to do with what they will. There is no question that these questions are relevant, so I would ask that all members not interrupt each other, particularly when their points of order have been ruled upon and they have not prevailed on that point of order.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Davies.
Ms. O'Connell, do you also wish to speak to this point of order?
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
While I appreciate Mr. Davies' intervention, my ability as a member to raise points of order, as any member does, is a privilege point that we all have.
Mr. Chair, to that, the member mentioned that she was referring to a section of the supplementary estimates, and then did not cite it. I appreciate Mr. Davies' comments, but Ms. Rempel Garner opened that door and then did not provide the facts or the receipts to back up her comments.
My final point on this argument is the fact that Ms. Rempel Garner suggested that she has questions about the microbiology lab that would be relevant to the supplementary estimates and spending, which I would agree is in bounds. However, her entire questioning to Mr. Stewart has been in relation to a motion in the House—a procedure—and whether he will comply, and she hasn't asked a single question on the lab. She has simply asked questions about a procedural motion that came from another Conservative, and that has nothing to do—
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Chair, this is now debate and we are wasting time.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Excuse me, I have the floor. You have not been recognized by the chair.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Please don't interrupt the member. She has the floor on a point of order.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, as I have the floor, the point is that if Ms. Rempel Garner would like to speak about the lab, by all means, go for it. However, I have raised a point of order based on the fact that she is not speaking about that. She is speaking about a procedural matter being dealt with in the House. I would ask that that be ruled on. That has nothing to do with supplementary estimates, as wide of a scope as the chair permits on it.