Health Committee on April 27th, 2023

[Mélanie Bourassa Forcier]

I think we've all heard about threats of this kind in the media.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Well, you're the chair of the PMPRB. I think you're certainly in a different position from all of us.

You said you were concerned about that—that if we proceeded with PMPRB reform, maybe—

[Mélanie Bourassa Forcier]

Yes I was worried about that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

—pharmaceutical companies might withhold vaccines. Did you ever hear that from any pharmaceutical lobbyist or representative, directly or indirectly?

[Mélanie Bourassa Forcier]

I would ask you to read the submissions that were made in connection with the last consultation period. They are available online. They show the various concerns that were expressed, including from groups of patients. There was also a peer-reviewed scientific paper on the subject.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Dr. Ellis, go ahead for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize for interrupting the meeting, but I'm going to introduce a motion that I think is really important. There is no disrespect towards the witnesses, but I think this motion is very important.

The motion, sir, as written is:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108.1, a) that the committee order the production of all inter- and intra-departmental communications related to the cancellation of the PMPRB consultation.

These shall include: (a) emails, (b) text messages, (c) memoranda, and (d) messages sent on platforms including (but not limited to) WhatsApp, and Signal.

The information is to be provided to the committee no later than May 9th, 2023.

Again, I apologize to the witness, but there's so much back-and-forth here that I find it very confusing and absolutely necessary to understand exactly what the communication was.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Dr. Ellis.

The motion is in order and the debate is on the motion.

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would move to adjourn debate on that motion out of respect for the witness and to complete the periods of questions we have before us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

A motion to adjourn debate is not debatable, so we'll go straight to a vote.

Shall the debate be adjourned?

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The debate is on the motion.

Go ahead, Dr. Kitchen.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I'd like a clarification there, please. Are we debating the motion at this point in time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That's correct. There was a vote to adjourn debate, which was defeated, so we'll pick up the debate.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

We've heard from the minister today. We've heard throughout that there's been correspondence answered or not answered. At this point in time, we don't have any of that. We have someone's word, so we need to get copies of the correspondence that's been done so that we can determine what exactly was said and not said, and basically whether what was said was actually transpiring or not. Without that information, we are crippled in that manner.

I think it's important that we do that and I support getting this motion passed.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Can we suspend briefly to review the motion while it is circulated, especially for members online? I don't have a copy yet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

The motion will be emailed to you, Ms. Sidhu. We're going to continue.

Next on the speakers list is Mr. Doherty.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have sat quietly throughout both the minister's testimony and Ms. Forcier's testimony. I can appreciate Ms. Forcier's position on this matter, and I think it's very difficult. I have read extensively about how, when you were asked to come on to the PMPRB, you felt that your expertise and your background were going to be used, and I can see the frustration that it has caused. I think Madame Forcier has provided some heartfelt testimony today.

I think the question needs to be answered. I have said all along, whether it is this minister or other ministers, that it is the responsibility of a minister to do the job. Earlier today we had the minister, who couldn't answer simple questions.

There is a lot of discussion out there. There's a lot of direction that there were emails sent, and the minister is going back and forth and saying that he did not receive a request, although we know there were some. I think emails and text messages are germane to this study, and this motion captures that.

I would hope that our colleagues would all support this motion. It would clear up some of the concerns we have. It would probably put to rest some of our witnesses' concerns as well that they did indeed do their jobs.

I think it's only fair to be able to have that information, as parliamentarians, if we're truly going to make a difference on this file.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Are there any further interventions on the motion?

Go ahead, Monsieur Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I made a mistake, Mr. Chair. I voted to adjourn the meeting, and then said that I was voting against the motion. You had asked me whether I was opposed to it. I have it in front of me here.

Nevertheless, I think it's a bit much to request all the messages that were sent out on different platforms, like WhatsApp. The Conservatives always look for a way to derail serious matters. To the best of my knowledge, the witnesses are now testifying sincerely and honestly. We're unlikely to find many items of correspondence, because nobody writes to anyone anymore.

I believe this motion should be moved once we have heard everyone's testimony and when we are wondering whether we need more information. That might perhaps lead to another round of questions. If I propose an amendment before withdrawing the portion of the amendment that requires the production of messages sent on platforms like WhatsApp and Signal, then I'm convinced the Conservatives will vote against it and end up in an endless discussion.

I'd like my Conservative colleagues to consider the idea of moving this motion once we have seen all the witnesses, because we won't have the time required, between the end of today's meeting and the beginning of the next, to obtain the information being sought in this motion. It would be a shame to approve a motion that is not serious. We need to take this issue seriously. That's why I'm asking my colleagues to take all of that into consideration. Otherwise, because a motion to adjourn cannot be debated, I'm going to move another one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Just to be absolutely clear, Mr. Thériault, would you like to move a motion to adjourn debate?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Yes, that's right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

So it's a new motion whose purpose is the same as for the previous one.

Okay.

We have before us another motion to adjourn debate. It is not debatable.

The question for the committee is whether the debate shall now be adjourned.

All those in favour of adjourning debate—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to challenge the ruling of the chair. There is already a motion on the floor. I'm unsure whether another motion can be brought forward, so I would like to challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

All right.

As I understand it, what's being challenged is my decision to allow the dilatory motion—

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

That's correct, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

—and your feeling is that I should have ruled that out of order.