Industry Committee on Dec. 1st, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

MP Erskine-Smith?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I have two questions, I guess, for those who support the wording as is.

One is this. If we are holding separate meetings for each individual minister and the president of PHAC, that would represent four meetings, by my count. How are we going to hold four meetings before December 11? I just don't understand.

Second, to speak to the point about urgency, I'm struggling a little bit to understand, as I read the motion.

There's a strong accountability function, unquestionably, that if a decision were made and it impacted in any way the vaccine rollout, we should be asking those tough questions. However, I don't understand, based on the text of the motion as is, how anything that we learn or recommend is going to be actionable in an emergency way by the government going forward.

On the idea that we're going to jam ourselves before December 11 with four separate meetings on an emergency basis, I would ask, for what? What are we seeking to learn that is going to be actionable by the government?

When the Conservatives were banging the drum on rapid tests, I understood that there was something that could potentially change in the government's approach that would maybe make a significant impact for Canadians. But what, out of this, is going to lead to a positive impact for Canadians, other than the accountability function—which is important, but it's important in January, it's important in February, it's important in December. It doesn't make a lick of a difference, as far as it goes.

First, then, how are we going to do separate meetings before December 11? Why separate meetings on this particular issue? What's going to come of this that's going to be actionable for this committee and Canadians?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

I have MP Lambropoulos, then I have MP Jaczek and MP Ehsassi.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

In order to accommodate everybody—I know Monsieur Lemire has one more day to do his study on telecoms, and then we have four ministers whom we're going to be asking to come in—I would suggest adding an hour to two of our meetings, making them two meetings of four hours' length, instead of four meetings of three hours, at which we can combine two ministers. We'd at least be adding time, so that we have more time to ask witnesses questions, and then we get to really do everything we need to do with regard to both studies before we break, before December 11th.

I'm just wondering what people think of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

To clarify, we cannot actually extend our meetings more than an additional hour. Our current slots are Tuesday and Thursday from 11 to 1. We could possibly go from 11 to 2, but then we have question period, and we cannot add an hour earlier in the morning because of other committee slots and time differences.

Unfortunately, then. we cannot add a fourth hour to our current slots, just to clarify so that folks are aware.

We now have MP Jaczek and then MP Ehsassi.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to ask whether three hours per minister is really reasonable. It strikes me that we can hear salient points in less than three hours. I'm wondering why the specificity—“for three hours”. It seems an invitation for repetition, and frankly, I just cannot imagine that even with the most intense questioning there will be a need for three hours per minister.

I would prefer to have the kind of flexibility that I believe is being proposed—that essentially we have each of them appear before the committee—and not necessarily tie ourselves down to a three-hour time slot.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Next we have MP Ehsassi, and then MP Cumming.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to reiterate the point that Mr. Erskine-Smith made. The math simply does not add up.

Also, having heard my colleague Dr. Jaczek, I wonder whether I could propose an amendment. I can provide you with the wording right now.

The motion currently reads, “each to appear separately before the committee for at least three hours, provided that”. I would say we take that out and just simply put in, “each to appear before the committee, provided that”.

I think that would give us all the flexibility we need to examine this emergency motion, provide information to Canadians, but also ensure that scheduling can proceed smoothly and that we can hear from all the ministers.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

MP Cumming.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's important that we have the ministers independently. That's a critical component of this.

Also, what we haven't discussed, and I understand it hasn't been decided by the House, is that there is the potential that hybrid sittings will be extended for the week of December 11, which could give us some opportunity to extend into that period in hybrid fashion and will give us ample time to be able to get all the witnesses in place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much, MP Cumming.

I want to make sure that everyone is clear.

Right now we're asking for three ministers, plus the president of PHAC, to come for three hours before December 11. There is a possibility, and again, I don't know what the discussions are amongst the parties, to extend hybrid sittings to the week of December 14. That has not been decided as of yet.

I'd ask the clerk to jump in here in terms of the logistics, because I want to make sure everyone understands what is possible before you make agreements as to what the committee would like.

I'll turn it over to the clerk to clarify what is possible for this committee between now and, say, December 18.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Michael MacPherson]

Basically what we have are the time slots that we were provided that were agreed to by the whips. That's Tuesday to Thursday, from 11 until 1. We have three such time slots left.

Outside of that, we don't really have any time. There are possible evening sittings, but my understanding is that they've already been booked by other committees.

If it is the will of the committee to try to take one of those spots, basically it would be up to the whips to decide which committee is going to have that event.

Aside from that, even pushing a meeting to three hours is a bit problematic. It's not a guarantee that we can run right until 2 p.m. I'll have to double-check on that, because I don't want to leave the committee with the impression that it is something that's doable. There are impacts that follow. Every single time a committee runs over its allotted time slot, there is an impact on resources that cascades throughout the day. I will get back to the committee on whether even pushing for a three-hour meeting is indeed even possible.

With that, we have three meetings. The issue I'm going to run into, as clerk, will be inviting four separate people for three meetings. The committee would have to specify who would be invited for which day. If a person I invite for this Thursdays says they can't come on Thursday but are ready to appear on Tuesday, if Tuesday is the preferred day of a different witness we're going to run into some scheduling issues in that sense. It's not that someone wouldn't be declining the invitation; it would just be a matter of scheduling, and then we're looking at our motion there and the parameters that kick in with regard to reporting to the House or even issuing a summons. I'm going to need significantly more direction from the committee in order to set up these meetings.

Our House order only covers up until December 11. It would be extremely difficult to try to book witnesses for dates after that time, because we have absolutely no guidance from the House and no authority to meet in a hybrid fashion. As well, starting on December 19 and running until January 17 inclusive, there is a massive shutdown of the House of Commons infrastructure on the technical side due to upgrades, and I'm told that is not negotiable. Those upgrades need to occur.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much, Mike.

MP Masse, and then MP Jowhari.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'm going to try a compromise here to see if this could potentially get us moving along. Maybe we just move it to one and a half hours to at least get this going. Two hours was the tradition for a minister to actually appear before a committee. That's tradition used to be in place until the last six or seven years. I'd say that's a friendly amendment because I'd like to see this get done.

It will allow the facilitation of the clerk and perhaps this is a way of compromise on both sides to get it going forward.

I would ask the clerk if that would potentially work. If not, what else would we have to do to make this happen?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Okay.

I have a few speakers on the list. I have MP Jowhari, MP Lemire and MP Rempel Garner.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I just want to build on MP Masse's comment. Given the fact that we can go three hours with three meetings, if we go to one and a half hours for each minister and then one and a half for PHAC, that would give us two meetings of three hours and four witnesses. Then we'd be able to go back and finish Monsieur Lemire's study, which will be our third one. I would suggest that if the ministers cannot come on short notice, we'll go to the study that was in front of us, get that completed and then push those two meetings back.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Next we have MP Lemire.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, our former colleague is back to visit us, and I would like to welcome her.

I am really looking forward to what she has to tell us. Before that, however, I would like to check with the clerk whether it is possible for our meetings to start earlier than 11 a.m. Is it possible to start a four-hour meeting at 9 a.m., so that it would then finish at 1 p.m.?

[The Clerk]

It's a matter of human and technical resources.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

As I understand it, the leaders and the whips are having discussions. It's possible that what we are talking about at the moment will become moot and that we will have to start the discussion again shortly. Perhaps this is not the ideal time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

Next is MP Rempel Garner. Welcome back.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

It's a pleasure to be back, Madam Chair.

I think that we can come to consensus here.

I have a couple of things just for my colleague's edification. It's my understanding that the motion that was passed by unanimous consent in the House, which allows for virtual or hybrid sessions, expires on December 11. That's under renegotiation by our parties right now. I anticipate that there will probably be some capacity for us to meet over the break, I would hope, even within the bounds of whatever IT is saying about whether we can or cannot meet.

What I would suggest is this. If I understand what my colleague Mr. Masse is saying, the ministers would appear for one and a half hours each by themselves with some ability for the clerk to finagle when that happens. I think that would be sufficient.

This motion shouldn't be rejected just because of scheduling issues. Again, I would put on the record here that I think it is incumbent on the whips of our parties to figure this out. If we were in a normal situation, this wouldn't be an issue and we would just be scheduling meetings. We shouldn't be getting into a situation where technical issues supersede our rights as parliamentarians to conduct the business of the nation through this committee.

I would support giving the clerk some latitude with an hour and a half per minister by themself to be slotted in as is possible with the current technical limitations, but which shouldn't be an excuse for us to not be able to do this in a timely manner given that this is, I think, the number one topic on most people's minds in Canada right now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much, MP Rempel Garner.

Next I have MP Erskine-Smith.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I think we maybe have a path forward then. It would be great if we had one and a half hours per minister and we were able to get it done in, effectively, two meetings by extending our meetings a little bit. That seems more reasonable as far as it goes.

I still question.... It looks a little like partisan jabbing to see the language that if the ministers don't attend, we're going to do something, that is, by referring this to the House. It is what it is.

I think that, effectively, two meetings to combine the four witnesses would be useful. I'm comfortable with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Are there any other comments?

Right now we have a proposal for one and a half hours per minister. Obviously, if this motion passes, the clerk and I will immediately contact the offices of the ministers requested to see their availability to schedule all of these things in.

In the event that the parties do negotiate a capacity for us to have hybrid meetings the week of December 14, we can let you know once that is possible. I understand that the December 19 to January 17 shutdown, though, is non-negotiable. The actual House has to do upgrades, but the week of December14, if the capacity for the committee to meet in a hybrid mode is there, is something we can look at.

Is there any other debate on that amendment to replace “each to appear separately before the committee for at least three hours” with “each to appear before the committee for one and a half hours”?

MP Rempel Garner, I see that you have a little blue hand up, but I don't know if that's left over from last time.