Health Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Is there any further discussion on this amendment?

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

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

Is this on the main motion now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

No, this is on the amendment, which is to slot another vaccine meeting into one of those three COVID-19 meetings.

Are we all clear on the amendment?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Chair, could we get clarity on exactly what the amendment is? I know people have been just saying things at committee. It's in the record; I understand that. Could we just be clear on what we're voting on right now? I know it's an amendment, but I would like the wording of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We have Mr. Davies' motion as amended by Ms. Sidhu, which allows for four meetings on the mental health aspect of the COVID-19 study. According to Mr. Davies' motion, that would.... According to the meeting we had last week and the process motion, the order of study is determined already. Mr. Barlow's motion was to modify that to make one of the meetings on COVID-19 that we're having before Christmas on vaccines.

Is that clear?

All right.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, that means the committee will meet once on vaccines, twice on mental health and once on the PMPRB?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That is what Mr. Barlow's amendment would achieve.

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Mr. Barlow's amendment is defeated, so we will go back to Mr. Davies' motion as amended by Ms. Sidhu.

Is there any further discussion on this motion as amended?

Monsieur Thériault, go ahead.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to make sure I understand what's happening.

I gather from the votes and the parties' voting positions that three meetings will focus on mental health and one will focus on the PMPRB before Christmas. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That is correct.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

That is correct. Okay.

Mr. Chair, a moment ago, Mr. Davies was calling for consensus and co-operation. He talked about the importance of getting the ball rolling.

Mr. Barlow is proposing a subamendment on an issue that the population as a whole seems to care a lot about. The first thing we see happening is that the government is realizing its desire to make mental health the main priority of the Standing Committee on Health before Christmas. However, we, the opposition members, spent opposition day trying to make sure that the COVID-19 study would cover a series of issues. Mental health is one we could have added to the list, but today, the government is successfully imposing mental health as a topic of study before Christmas through a work planning motion.

I have nothing against mental health, but people are wondering why the committee is not getting anywhere. Because we keep being tripped up at every turn, because the government keeps putting a spoke in our wheel at every junction. There is no genuine willingness to co-operate. The government is going to study what it wants to study. The meetings that were derailed were used by both sides to stonewall.

All of this is being duly noted. Today, I hope the folks who thought we were going to make progress on the PMPRB issue are not questioning our intention as lawmakers. These kinds of political games are unacceptable. I don't understand Mr. Davies' position or the way he is voting. Although he can vote how he likes, he should walk the talk, as the saying goes, and he isn't doing that right now.

I was sure there was support for the study on vaccines, which is one of the NDP's priorities. Nevertheless, we find ourselves conducting a study on mental health before Christmas—and that comes as quite a surprise. I am having a lot of trouble understanding how we work on this committee and what each member's real intentions are.

Perhaps Mr. Davies still means to condemn the fact that the government is focusing on mental health instead of vaccines. He did make that point earlier, but he voted with the government, so I'm totally confused. Consequently, I'm going to abstain from the next vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Mr. d'Entremont, go ahead, please.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Definitely, I have the same sentiments that my colleague Mr. Thériault has. We always sit in these meetings and we all say that we should find ways to get along, and yet when we make reasonable suggestions, it seems that the government tries to avoid them.

Mr. Chair, we don't have any answers on vaccines, and even though we got to ask a few questions about vaccines on Friday, we still don't have the answers we need to understand how people are going to be getting the vaccines, when the vaccines might become available, or how they are going to be transported from place to place to place.

I thought that in this new era, when Mr. Davies got going, we were actually going to find a way to manage the next few meetings so that everyone could be on the same page. Unfortunately, we're finding that is not the case. We're finding that since they were not able to get their way the last time around when Mr. Van Bynen tried to run the motion on mental health to try to take up the time of this committee and was turned down because of the motion in the House of Commons, here we are again today, with their taking up the four meetings consecutively, except for the PMPRB meeting that is going to be stuck in the middle.

I find it unfortunate that we cannot get along when it comes to the number one issue that comes before us, which is for us to have a vaccine and to be comfortable with how it's going to transported across the country and how people are going to be able to get it. That will alleviate the anxiety that most Canadians have—not all Canadians, but a good chunk of them—because they are worried about the vaccine.

The example is really good here in the bubble, and I know that a number of my colleagues on this call—

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Is this comment on the main motion?

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

This is on the main motion. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

I love the interruptions in the middle. The frustrating part is that people are anxious. We've already had two provinces drop out of the bubble because of the anxiety those provinces have about the number of cases we now have in Halifax and in New Brunswick, so there is the challenge that we have.

We have the opportunity over the next few hours, the next few days, to be able to go back and discuss this, to have a better presentation on vaccines, to be able to talk about these things, and yet here we go. We've found a way to—

I see Mr. Davies' hand is up. Maybe he can explain a little bit more what his intention really was, but unfortunately we seem to have gotten railroaded by the Liberals on this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Monsieur d'Entremont.

Mr. Maguire, please go ahead.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to agree. I thought we were operating in the spirit of co-operation and moving rather well there for a while. We have three meetings on COVID and one on the PMPRB. We know the work schedule here for the next while. I don't think it was too much at all to ask for one meeting on vaccines, and I don't want to put all the pressure on Mr. Davies either. There are Liberals on this committee who know that the vaccine is a big issue. They said so today, and I appreciate that.

Back home in Manitoba, I can tell you, where we have the highest per capita COVID cases in the country on a per 100,000 basis, vaccines are the big issue.

Now, not everybody is going to want the vaccine when it does come; don't get me wrong. For those who do, though, this is a big issue. How to spread those around, how to deal with the people who are in long-term care homes and how to deal with the workers in those homes I think is a huge issue.

People would be able to be a lot more relaxed over the Christmas holidays if we actually had a discussion about vaccines, how they are going to be distributed and where the priorities would be in these areas. A lot of these people are seniors. A lot of the people who are dying are in their eighties and nineties. Many are in their seventies, and some are much younger. We could really still help ourselves here by being accountable to people in Canada by dealing with vaccines as the number one issue, and it will help everyone's mental health—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead, Mr. Van Bynen.

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

I believe the discussion of vaccines has been had and the vote taken.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Chair, I'm speaking to the main motion, and I think that's a fair assessment of where we need to be. The Liberals could still just say that we'll have one meeting on vaccines, or even even half a meeting on vaccines. They're not even willing to do that.

We all know how important mental health is. My colleagues have stated that, and everyone on the committee agrees. I agree with Mr. Davies when he says that just because you vote for something or against something doesn't mean they aren't all important. They all are important, but I think you have to go back to the number one issue on people's minds in Canada today, and it certainly is vaccines. It's about how they can help with everyone's control of their mental health by providing more understanding to the general public in regard to the priorities for making vaccines available to people, whether that priority is in the long-term care areas or whether it's with the workers in those facilities and our hospitals.

I'll leave it at that. I just hope that our Liberal colleagues will be able to accommodate one of those. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Maguire.

Mr. Davies, please go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I only have one point to make, and that is, to the extent that there have been some minor aspersions about people's motivations, I think all of us are on the same page here. Look, I drafted the motion last week. Where did I put the NDP? Last. I'm going to be getting my issue maybe in March or April.

What I would say is this: Vaccines are important. As I said, it's my number one pick. If I were picking first, that's the one that I would go with, but we passed a motion giving the Liberals first choice and the Conservatives second. I assume the Conservatives will choose vaccines as their second pick.

Having one meeting on vaccines in December can't begin to plumb the depths of the issue of vaccines. Yes, it would be helpful, but vaccines are going to be incredibly important in January and February as well.

I agree with the Conservatives. It would be nice, if the Liberals saw fit, to have two of the four meetings and then one on vaccines. That would be helpful and it would be collaborative, but they're not required to do that. They're entitled to go first. They're entitled to pick their issue. They chose mental health. The question is, how many meetings do we want to allocate to that? I could go either way. There were sensible arguments made all around, but I'm warning us all again that if we don't make a vote on this right now, nobody's talking about anything next week. We will render meaningless all the profound commitments to all of these important issues if we don't pass this motion now.

There are many other vehicles to discuss issues. I think it is a very wise move on the Conservatives' part to have a debate in the House in committee of the whole with the health minister. That's an excellent venue in which to bring up vaccines, as well as in question period and other things.

Let's not make perfection the enemy of the good here. Let's proceed on this, and we can come back. I'll go on the record right now to tell you that I'll be supporting the Conservatives in having four meetings on vaccines when we return in January. Let nobody here think that vaccines aren't going to be a ferociously hot issue in terms of health care in January and February, because they will be. I don't think we're losing very much by getting this thing moving now.

I urge my colleagues: Let's just pass this motion, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

We have Mr. Thériault.

Mr. Thériault, you may go ahead.