Health Committee on Nov. 6th, 2020

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Where do I begin here? We all agree that this is absolutely the issue of our times. We want to have questions for the minister and Dr. Tam.

Looking at my clock, I see that it's 4:34 Atlantic Standard Time, so for 34 minutes, we've been debating and making subamendments, which we as parliamentarians have the right to do. Meanwhile, the minister is just to the left of me. If this were the Brady Bunch set, she would be right down in the left-hand corner and we could ask her questions about it.

But, instead, some of us are making good points, and I would argue that some are pontificating on their points and repeating their points. Right now we have issues with long-term care. Right now we have issues with airports not being open. Right now this is going on, and we're talking now in minute 35 saying that we want to ask the minister questions. I do. I would have loved to. I would have loved to hear her statement for an update. I would have loved for Canadians to hear that, but now we're into minute 35 of this committee.

I am absolutely floored by this. I think most Canadians would be, too. We can look at a time that we can get two hours or we can look at a time that we can get an additional hour. I don't know the minister well. I know her schedule is busy, because she's one of the top people who, along with a lot of people in the public service, is ensuring that Canadians are safe.

Come on, folks. Canadians are expecting us to get to work, so let's get to work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.

Mr. Davies, go ahead, please.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Just briefly, I want to make one point. I do hope that colleagues will stop just hitting their microphone and interjecting when someone is speaking. I'm not going to single out anybody—maybe we're all responsible for that—but we really do have to respect whoever has the floor.

I must say that Ms. Rempel Garner made a point that I thought was valid, which is that next week is a break week. I do know that we're all busy, but at least the duties in the House are not there for the minister or for the parliamentary secretary, so that should be, I think, a little bit easier to schedule.

Once again, I also want to add my voice and say that I guess it's up to the minister. She controls her schedule, and it's up to her whether or not she feels she can rearrange it and whether or not this committee is important enough or priority enough for her to appear before this committee next week for two hours, given the fact that the estimates are on a bit of a timeline here. I know she's very, very busy doing a lot of very important things, but I would say that this committee ranks up there in importance in terms of her responsibilities.

I'm going to repeat that it's been months since the minister last appeared; I want to say since March, but I'm not 100% sure of that. I apologize if I'm wrong on that, but it has been a number of months.

I also hope that we don't keep going back to this issue of what we could have done in the last hour. I'm going to say, again, that the motion this committee passed was to have the minister here for a minimum of two hours, so you can't show up for the meeting and say, “Well geez, how about half an hour?” and act like it's a waste of time if we don't use the half-hour, when this committee explicitly debated and passed a motion that said a minimum of two hours. It doesn't lie in the mouth of anybody in this committee to now second-guess that and make it seem as though people aren't interested in working.

I came to this committee today prepared to work for two hours as well. We all did. It's not a comment on anybody's work ethic if suddenly some people behind the scenes make a decision that subverts the very meaning of the motion we had. That's on them. That's not on this committee. I don't want anybody's work ethic questioned here when the motion that we passed is being violated.

I'm going to finish by saying this. There are a lot of parliamentary games that are played. There are a lot of tricks on everybody's plate. The government has probably the biggest plate of tricks, and whoever on the government side chose to schedule a vote today on a subamendment that did not have to be scheduled today, knowing that they had cabinet ministers coming to committee, did that knowing that it would interfere with the ability of this committee to hold the minister accountable.

Again, I'm not going to hear any government-side witnesses talk about how sad they are that they missed this opportunity, when it was their side that interfered with the ability of this committee to carry out the precise terms of the motion that we passed democratically, and they should be ashamed of themselves for trying to proceed in derogation of that motion. It makes a mockery of the motions we pass.

I'm going to agree with Michelle Rempel Garner on this. There is no reason that this cannot be scheduled for next week. I know we're all busy, but we can find two hours next week to discuss the myriad health issues. I'm going to ask the health minister to rearrange her schedule and treat this committee as a high priority and find two hours next week that work.

On that point, in terms of our time next week, we don't have to have everybody who is sitting at this table at the meeting next week. We can send substitutes, and we also have quorum rules, so every party can easily have someone representing it at this committee next week, no matter when it is scheduled, and no matter what other committees are being conducted at the same time.

If we really want to stop wasting time, let's get to the motion and just pass the motion that asks the minister to come to this committee next week if she can. I understand that this motion still has built into it the ability subject to the minister's schedule, in any event, so if she really can't come next week, if there really aren't two hours next week during which she can come to the Standing Committee on Health to hold herself accountable for questions, then she can make that decision. We can't compel her to come. But let's get to it and let's pass this motion and leave it in the hands of the minister and her scheduling.

And if she can't come next week—and I suppose she can't—we'll do it the week after, but let's move on. If everybody really believes their own rhetoric here and wants to move on and quit wasting time, let's get to the vote on that and try to get this meeting for two hours scheduled as soon as we can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

We go now to Mr. Van Bynen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The debate is on Mr. Fisher's amendment.

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

The concern I have is that we hear that there's a sense of urgency. Frankly, the urgency is in the field. The urgency is in delivering the services that our constituents and our residents need.

If I understand it correctly, these supplementaries are not due until December. If the debate and the discussion are about the supplementaries, then why is next week so urgent? Unless we're going to be discussing something other than supplementaries, I don't think that was the intent.

I agree that we should go ahead and make sure we vote on the issue, but I'm just not quite accustomed to all the finger-wagging and the finger pointing that I'm seeing in some of these discussions. I would hope that we would all focus on moving forward and doing what we can for our constituents.

I'll leave it at that, but it's not an issue of its being priority enough; it's an issue of how we are creating a sense of urgency on the supplementaries, which are not due until December. I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

Is there any further discussion on Mr. Fisher's amendment?

Ms. Sidhu, please go ahead.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Fisher's amendment is very reasonable, and we all should think about it.

The other thing is that we are not playing any games. We all want to work together. The minister is here and all her health officials are here. They are amazing people who are very busy. I think Mr. Fisher's amendment is very genuine. We should look into that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Sidhu.

Is there any further discussion on Mr. Fisher's amendment?

Seeing none, I'll ask the committee if everyone is comfortable with what the amendment is.

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

Mr. Chair, would you please repeat the amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes. Mr. Clerk, if you would, please.

[The Clerk]

I will ask Mr. Fisher, because it's not clear to me what the motion actually says. I'm sorry.

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

My apologies.

Thanks, folks. I just have the motion adjusted to have the minister appear in the week between the 16th and the 20th, not next week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Is everyone clear on Mr. Fisher's amendment? Seeing no dissent, I shall ask the clerk to call the vote on Mr. Fisher's amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Mr. Fisher, the amendment does not carry.

We go back to Ms. Rempel Garner's motion as amended by Mr. Thériault. The debate resumes on that matter. Is there any further debate on the motion as amended?

Dr. Powlowski, I see that you're waving your hand. If you could do it on the side thing, that keeps everybody in the same thing.

I see no conflict there, so please go ahead, Dr. Powlowski.

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

I think and hope that we're just going to vote it out. I do suggest that in the future we try to have more harmony. This has been how many weeks with us spinning our wheels and doing nothing.... One way or the other, we have to actually start debating COVID. It's getting kind of crazy. How many weeks has it been now that we've basically been in procedural wrangling?

I do want to discuss the issues. This is the number one issue. The blood is squirting on the ceiling. As an emergency room doctor, that's what I get worried about. Yes, okay, it's not real people's blood, but it is public health blood, and people are dying from this. We do need to start addressing the issue and stop the procedural wrangling. Please, let us all keep that in mind and for the next meeting come here and actually start doing the work instead of wrangling over procedure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Dr. Powlowski.

We'll go now to Mr. Van Bynen.

Please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a comment. I would have hoped that there might be some flexibility on the other side from the individuals who put forward the motion to give some consideration to extending it by one week. I still don't understand what the sense of urgency is, and I'm concerned that this may become a tempest in a teapot.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

We have Mr. Kelloway next.

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

It just seems like we're going to a vote. In Atlantic Standard Time, it's almost 10 minutes to five, so let's vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. Sidhu, you're next.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to apologize to all the health officials and the minister. This team is at the forefront in fighting COVID-19, and I think we've wasted their time. I just want to apologize.

Everyone is watching. This is the health committee. I'm very disappointed today. We had an hour. We've wasted that hour while our residents are watching us. They are asking me questions, so I have many questions about long-term care, mental health and rapid testing, and there are many other things.

We all have hard questions to ask our officials and our minister, and we've all wasted our time. This is not what Canadians want to see, and I want to apologize to the minister and all health officials.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Sidhu.

Is there any further discussion on Ms. Rempel Garner's motion as amended by Mr. Thériault?

Seeing nothing else, is everyone clear on the motion as amended? Seeing no dissent, I will ask the clerk to conduct the vote. The vote is on Ms. Rempel Garner's motion as amended by Monsieur Thériault.

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

Mr. Barlow, did you have an interjection at this point?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Yes, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your giving me the floor here for a moment.

I'm wondering if we can save some time and have more opportunity for questions for the minister. I'd like to table a motion that the minister table her opening statement that she was going to give today so the members of this committee can review it in preparation for the meeting, which we are rescheduling, hopefully, for next week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Did you actually want to move that motion?