Health Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2020

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, the motion Mr. Davies successfully put forward last week established a rotation among the parties and topics. That rotation was agreed upon.

If we look at the remainder of the committee's meetings leading up to the holidays, it's clear that the rotation is not being respected. That is not at all in keeping with the motion that was adopted. If we hold a meeting on vaccines before Christmas, it doesn't mean that we won't hold more meetings on the issue after Christmas.

I repeat, what I find odd is that we started going adrift and wasting time right when the government members did not want us to move forward with the COVID-19 study. They tried to introduce topics that prevented the committee from dealing with the subject. Today, after spending a number of meetings on work planning and discussing proposals, we are in the same boat we were in five, six or seven meetings ago.

It's absurd that we let the government use a work planning motion to impose a decision on an issue that was the focus of an opposition day in the House. When must we bring forward a motion in the House that does not pass muster, that cannot be settled in committee? When the committee is at an impasse.

We sought direction from the House, and that direction was amended by a motion on the scheduling of committee business. Now, here we are confronted with the Liberal government's initial intention not to discuss hot topics related to COVID-19.

I just wanted to say this. No one is pulling the wool over our eyes. We are more than capable of seeing the alliance between the government and the NDP.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Those kinds of comments are unhelpful, and frankly, they're beneath the honourable member from Quebec. I would remind him that if we don't pass this motion, all of his vaunted comments about the PMPRB will not happen as well, and we won't be getting to that study either if we don't pass this motion.

I resent any implication that anybody is motivated by anything other then the best interests of the committee. I would ask him to retract such an offensive comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Mr. Thériault, did you want to say anything to Mr. Davies?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Although the member found the comment offensive, it was not meant to offend, Mr. Chair.

I think Mr. Davies has to take ownership of his voting position, plain and simple. By voting how he is, by siding with the government, he is supporting an effort that cast the committee adrift for seven meetings. I appreciate that his intentions are good, but this is the first time I have ever heard him say the government has precedence over us and that we must accept it because the government holds the majority in a minority Parliament. The voters in Canada and Quebec were the ones who decided that it would be a minority government.

This is the first time I have heard him say such a thing since we have been in Parliament together. I have a really hard time accepting that a minority government can throw the committee off course for seven meetings and impose its will. That is Mr. Davies' contention. I have the utmost respect for him, but as members, we must take ownership of how we vote. He doesn't want to be lumped together with the government, but his actions speak louder than his intentions.

I do not hear many Liberals jumping into the discussion. I imagine they are waiting until it's time to vote because they know they have the majority and don't need to make their case.

That is what I wanted to say. I did not at all mean to offend Mr. Davies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Thériault, I recognized you to respond to Mr. Davies. Did you wish to make a further intervention? Your hand has gone down.

Is there anyone who wishes to speak to Mr. Davies' motion as amended by Ms. Sidhu?

Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to conduct the vote.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [ See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you all.

I will ask the clerk to distribute to all members the text we just agreed to, as well as the other motions upon which we're operating at this point regarding this study.

As per this motion, you are asked to get your lists of witnesses for the study on the mental health aspects of COVID-19 in by Wednesday and for the PMPRB in by Friday. On that basis, we will put together an appropriate panel.

Note that the House motion allows us one witness per one-hour panel and two witnesses per two-hour panel, so depending on the number of witnesses, we will decide what the panels are going to look like.

The meeting is adjourned.