Mr. Chair.
Evidence of meeting #5 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #5 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
If we vote against this adjournment motion that came forward, we will continue to debate the motion that Ms. Rempel Garner put on the floor.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
If you vote against adjourning the debate, then the debate continues, yes.
Anybody else?
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
One more time, Mr. Clerk, please commence.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
Therefore, the debate is not adjourned. We can continue.
Mr. Fisher and Ms. Rempel Garner have their hands up.
Do you wish to speak again, Mr. Fisher?
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Again, I don't know where we're going now. I guess we're going to debate Ms. Rempel Garner's motion to reschedule this meeting. It's a shame. Again, I apologize to our witnesses. We have the opportunity to get a really good hour of fulsome discussion in here, so I apologize for all the waste of time here. It certainly wasn't the intention on this side of the House. We want to get down to work.
Thank you so much. We'll wait to see where the debate goes.
3:10 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Like many of us here, I've sat on committees for a long time. What is customarily the case when we ask the minister to appear is that the minister appears for one hour on estimates, and then the minister's staff stays for the remaining hour. That was specifically and explicitly not done in this case. In fact, it's the first time I can remember a committee saying that it wanted the minister there for two hours, and why wouldn't we? We have the Minister of Health in the middle of the biggest “pandemic in a century.” Those are the words she uses, and she's right to use them.
By the way, it's also the governing party, the Liberals, that chooses when to schedule votes. They control the Order Paper in this case, and they chose to have a vote today in the middle of this meeting. One of the reasons that committees, which are the masters of their own business.... If we decide that we want the minister here for two hours because in our wisdom we believe that's the amount of time we need in order to have a fulsome explanation of the issues, then that's the will of the committee. If the government decides to schedule a vote during that time and to deviate and interfere with the committee's ability to enforce the very motion that we all passed...including the very same Liberals who are speaking today saying an hour is okay, who voted in favour of having the minister come for two hours, or if they didn't vote in favour, the majority of the committee said that's what it wanted, so that's what we need to do.
If you take this argument to its extreme example, the minister could have come, given her 10-minute statement and left, or she could have come and given a 10-minute statement and stayed for 10 or 15 minutes to answer questions. That's not what this committee requested and what we passed.
I think it's very unbecoming for a member of the government side to suggest that we're losing time when it's his own government that scheduled a vote that made it impossible for us to carry out a long-scheduled, two-hour meeting to have the Minister of Health come to answer questions.
I'm going to also say that one of the reasons we want two hours is that there are so many issues to canvass, and it's important to hear our colleagues' questions and the minister's answers so that we can actually follow up with further questions. When you only have one hour, that process is interrupted.
Where I'm going to conclude is where I started at the beginning of this. This motion says that she has to be here for a minimum of two hours. If she says that she can't be, then the motion cannot be respected, and we have no choice but to reschedule this. I sincerely hope that the minister will be available sometime next week to come for two hours. She has already offered generously to come for an hour. I'm sure we can find another two hours.
I'll conclude by saying that I realize there are a lot of important, busy people before this committee. So are the members of this committee. We are elected here by Canadians as the health committee, the Standing Committee on Health, to hold this government accountable. We haven't heard from the minister or Dr. Tam or staff for many months now. It's not an indulgence or a favour that the minister and these staff appear before this committee. It's their duty. It's their responsibility. The only question that we have here is that, of course, out of respect for the minister's schedule, we need to find an appropriate time. I'm sure we can do that. After all, we found two hours with the minister on slightly less than two weeks' notice already.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I have a quick point of order on Mr. Davies' comments.
The minister agreed immediately to two hours. The committee all supported this. We all supported this. We see that this is a good thing. The argument is whether we can do an hour today—
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner. I'll step in when I feel it's appropriate.
Mr. Fisher, that is debate. We need to go to our next debater.
Mr. Thériault, you have the floor.
3:10 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, we have Ms. Rempel Garner's motion before us. I'm not sure whether Ms. Rempel Garner would agree to amend her motion. I will not repeat all the arguments made by my colleague Mr. Davies. I agree with them. On matters of substance, he always gives very good advice, keeping the committee on the right track.
That said, we have all prepared for this meeting. We clearly wanted two hours and we worked very hard to prepare for it. However, we did not have a session scheduled for the coming week. Some members of the committee—and I'm not the only one—also sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is already scheduled to sit for two days next week.
I would like us to be able to include in Ms. Garner's motion the exclusion of the time slots for the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, taking into account the minister's availability. That way, next week, we can all participate and work together when the minister appears. Not all the work we have done will be done by others. At the same time, we will ensure that there will be no conflict in scheduling. I have been very flexible, and I'm open. I think it's very important that we stick with the motion asking the minister and all her officials to answer our questions for two hours.
Would Ms. Rempel Garner agree to that addition to the motion? If not, I will make a subamendment.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Monsieur Thériault, it's up to you to make the amendment if you wish to do so.
3:15 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
If I understand correctly, there is no answer from the Conservatives. I am therefore making a subamendment.
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Sorry, Chair, I have a point of clarification.
I support what Mr. Thériault is saying. I understand that, procedurally, he has to make the amendment in order for it to count, but we would support that.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Mr. Thériault, if you wish to move that amendment, please do so.
3:15 p.m.
Bloc
November 6th, 2020 / 3:15 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes, if the motion passes, I'll make sure they are not the same time slots.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is the committee comfortable with the amendment that Mr. Thériault has proposed?
We have the opportunity now to debate this amendment. Does anyone wish to debate Mr. Thériault's amendment?
I see that Mr. Kelloway's and Mr. Van Bynen's hands are up.
Mr. Kelloway, go ahead.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
I'm wondering, first, if you could read Mr. Thériault's amendment again, so I'm clear on it.
The other aspect of this is with respect to some of the discussion that has come up today, in particular Mr. Fisher's discussion on an hour here and an hour the following week or the week after.
I'm new to elected office. I know many here have been around for a long time. Maybe I'm looking at this differently, I guess, but I look at the fact that we have an enemy in COVID. It is certainly rearing its ugly head again in round two or maybe round three. We have the generals here, the advocates, who can speak for an hour. It's not an indulgence on our part. I think that's rather coarse.
They're here. They're serving like you are and like I am. We're elected officials. We want to ask them questions. We want to ask them tough questions, too, just like you do. We want to be fair, just like you do. The fact of the matter is, we can have one hour and then look at another hour very soon. In the midst of a pandemic, we need to hear from our officials. I'm just blown away.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Mr. Kelloway, please address your comments to the chair, not to individuals.
Mr. Van Bynen, please go ahead. I believe you are still muted.
