Health Committee on Oct. 18th, 2022

[Dr. Theresa Tam]

Thank you for this timely question.

I think we are absolutely in a better spot, of course, than we were even a year ago, despite the arrival of the omicron virus. I think what one would say is that we are carefully monitoring the situation. We will indicate what we know as we go along and provide that data to Canadians, but the bottom line is that we do have tools.

We have vaccines. We have these bivalent boosters. We know how to layer on our personal protective equipment. We can do something about reducing transmission and severe impacts much better than we could before.

While there is uncertainty and we keep monitoring the data and the different variants that we talked about, there's agency. People can do something about this to keep us doing the things that we value the most, like going to school and going to work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Dr. Tam.

I now give the floor to Mr. Garon for two and a half minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you know, the House of Commons is referring Bill C‑31 here to the committee for clause-by-clause consideration. That will begin no earlier than next Monday at 7:00 p.m.

I would like to table a motion regarding committee work so that we can keep the last 25 minutes of today's meeting to begin planning our work on Bill C‑31.

Since there is probably a willingness to hear witnesses, this must be done with additional resources before Monday.

So I move a motion that we reserve the last 25 minutes to plan our business, witnesses and additional meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

I'll consult with the clerk, because it's really a procedural matter, but, if there's unanimous consent, we'll proceed.

I would ask you to wait a minute, please.

We have a suggestion. For my part, I think it is more than a suggestion. I guess you could say it's a motion that we plan now for the study of the bill that we're going to have to do.

Colleagues, the suggestion that has come forward from Monsieur Garon is that we now move to a discussion around the planning on Bill C-31.

First, I would like to ask whether the committee is comfortable to dismiss the witnesses now and embark on this discussion. If we can't proceed by consensus, then I think we probably need to have a discussion and a vote on it.

The floor is open. What's the will of the committee?

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank Mr. Garon for his good idea.

I don't think it matters. I don't think the motion was in order, but I understand the purpose of it and I think we could probably move on. I don't think we need 25 minutes to discuss witnesses for Thursday, but I do think that we need to do it today if we are to have witnesses on Thursday.

With respect, I think there is still time with our witnesses. I don't want to disrespect our witnesses and their presence by suggesting that the last 27 minutes of the meeting are somehow disposable, but we are happy to discuss witnesses for Thursday at the end of this meeting, whether or not that starts now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Next is Dr. Ellis.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly, from our perspective, we're happy to proceed at the current time. We understand, though, the good nature of the witnesses in front of us, and that they will appear regularly, anyway. I think it has become very clear today that the COVID situation is ongoing and will require our attention in the future, so moving into a discussion of witnesses, at the current time, makes good sense.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Dr. Ellis.

Go ahead, Monsieur Garon, and then Mr. Blaikie.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the witnesses and then tell them that we are very pleased to have them here today and that it is not our intention to be disrespectful to them in any way. When we invited the witnesses to testify, we obviously could not have known that the government would impose a gag order to expedite Bill C‑31.

Now the situation is this. The government and the NDP want C‑31 to move quickly. We don't agree with that, but we respect that. We can probably start clause-by-clause on Monday night. That means that, because of the gag order, we have very little time—I agree—to call witnesses and begin our planning.

On the other hand, the motion that has been tabled in the House of Commons gives us priority in accessing the resources of the House if we want to hold additional sittings. Mr. Chair, that means that if those sittings are not held tomorrow, they should be held on Thursday or Friday.

First of all, I hardly see how we can wait until next Thursday to plan this work. That makes it impossible; indeed, the mission is almost impossible. From my point of view, democracy is already suffering.

Then we need to be able to plan what additional resources we are going to ask for, and how we are going to operate in relation to witnesses. When we finish talking about the motion, we will have 15 to 20 minutes left. That is already a tour de force.

For that reason, I will stop talking. I think we should get on with it, with a heartfelt thank you to the witnesses from the Public Health Agency of Canada for being here with us today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Of course, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, being a sub on the committee. It sounds like an important conversation for planning out committee business that I will not be a part of. My preference would be that the committee find time to do this after there has been a bit more opportunity for discussion among the parties, in advance of decision-making. I think that would be very useful, which is why I'm not keen to proceed to a discussion of committee business, where I'll be making decisions for others without what I take to be the appropriate context for the committee.

That said, if this is about responding to something happening in the House and there's a need for witnesses—and I'll speak from my experience, not at this committee but at others—that can often be resolved by the submission of witness lists. If, with the chair's discretion, there's going to be an additional meeting held tomorrow, or if the business for the meeting on Thursday is going to change and it's about ensuring we have appropriate witnesses for the subject matter at hand, that's something that needn't be done right now, at this table. It can be done through discussion among the parties shortly after this meeting. Parties could submit their witness lists by the end of the day, for instance.

I am not sure we need to lose what time we yet have with our witnesses in order to have a well-functioning and productive conversation about how to have witnesses in time for Thursday, for example.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We have Mrs. Goodridge, and then Mr. van Koeverden.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Blaikie.

The original conversations that were happening were to have these conversations around witnesses for Thursday, which would effectively leave no time to hear from witnesses before we embark on clause-by-clause.

I think a very intelligent compromise was found by our Bloc colleague, one that allows some space for witnesses to present. We're not saying we are going to pick witnesses in this meeting. This is about setting the agenda, through committee business, so we can proceed to having some witnesses appear on this bill prior to doing clause-by-clause, which is forced by government motion to happen starting on Monday.

This is simply to give a bit of space. I would think the New Democratic Party, a party that has always supported the democratic process, would be in favour of hearing witnesses on an important bill such as this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are now about to discuss upcoming witnesses.

Out of respect for our witnesses, I would recommend that we excuse them. If we are to discuss witnesses, we should go in camera for that discussion, instead of having that chat in public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

All right. There are no further speakers. I'm not sure that we have a consensus.

Mr. Blaikie, go ahead.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I guess my question is whether the purpose of the discussion that's envisioned by the motion would be to set additional meeting dates or whether it would be to talk about which witnesses would come to provide testimony. That's still unclear to me.

If I just had a better sense of what the decision points are that people want to arrive at, then I'd have a better sense of whether I can meaningfully contribute to those decisions in this moment, or whether we would need some time to consult with our critic, who's obviously not at the table today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Garon, go ahead.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I am moving this to serve the committee and the parliamentary process. There's absolutely nothing partisan about it. We have a choice to make. We can either hurry up and start planning meetings and resources today, or we can plan nothing, call no witnesses, decide on nothing and do the clause-by-clause consideration without even settling on the process. We still have a bit of leeway right now.

I will even tell you that I don't have any witnesses in particular to call right now. I have no ulterior motive in introducing this motion. I just feel that if we don't do it now, we'll never get the chance to do it. Given that we have a gag order and we're facing an expedited process, it's only right that we move quickly to change our schedule now and work effectively.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Seeing no further interventions, I guess we're ready for a vote.

Is it the will of the committee to dismiss the witnesses and embark on a discussion on planning for Bill C-31?

(Motion agreed to)

It appears that it is in fact unanimous.

To our witnesses, first of all, thank you so much for your patience. Sometimes democracy is a bit messy. We always appreciate your expertise and how willing you are to come before the committee and answer some challenging questions. Thank you so much for your service to us and to Canadians. I wish you all a great day.

Colleagues, let me set the stage as follows and summarize some of the discussions that have been had and where we are in respect of Bill C-31.

The first thing I want to point out is that we are presently in public. If there is a wish to go in camera, that's going to take some time—probably all the time we have allotted. Normally, if we're going to get into discussion of witnesses, we would do that in camera.

Let me say this: If the motion, which I understand is being debated, passes without amendment, it will mean that we will be obliged to proceed with clause-by-clause on Bill C-31 on Monday. We are not allowed to commence that clause-by-clause before 7 p.m., but at midnight any debate on clause-by-clause amendments will be finished and, as of midnight, the only thing left will be voting.

The motion does not preclude us from starting, at any time, to hear from any witnesses we wish. The informal discussions that have been had were headed towards this Thursday's regular meeting slot being dedicated to planning whether to call witnesses other than officials and who they might be. That meeting would be in camera. If we had time at the end of that meeting, we would continue with the consideration of the health human resources report.

In any event, it was my intention to invite a legislative clerk to Thursday's meeting because for many this will be the first time actually going through the clause-by-clause process. I thought having a resource from the House here to either brief us or answer questions with respect to that process would have some value.

I know we have limited time. I would like to pose this to you: Given that we are in public, I don't think it would be appropriate to get into specific witnesses. I think it would be useful if.... Do we want to hear from witnesses other than officials after 7 p.m.? If so, how much time should we allocate to that?

We take precedence over all other committees with respect to House resources to get this through. We will allot as much time as the committee wants and then perhaps call for submission of witness lists so we can boil it down to who.

I would prefer if this discussion is about how much time and not about the specific identity of witnesses, given that we are in public.

The floor is open.

Mr. van Koeverden, go ahead.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Can I ask the clerk briefly, considering that everybody is in the room, would it take more than a minute to go in camera?

[The Clerk]

We're looking at that right now. The question is.... Party officials aren't in the room. The committee rules do allow party officials to join Zoom. If we were to proceed in that fashion, that would exclude those officials.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. van Koeverden, we can, by unanimous consent, waive the requirement for allowing officials, members from the government House leader's office, etc., to participate virtually. We can do that, but we'd have to do it by unanimous consent.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I feel like that's above my pay grade a little bit.

What I could ask is whether we want to discuss specific witnesses or discuss whether or not there are witnesses. We can do this out of camera, I think, if we're just discussing the broader concept of whether or not we're having witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We'll go to Monsieur Garon, and then Dr. Ellis.