Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2020

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Health

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

If I have the honour of becoming prime minister of Canada, the best country in the world, unlike the current Prime Minister, I would take a collaborative rather than a confrontational approach. It is about respecting the jurisdictions of the provinces, whether it is Quebec or any other province. I would use a partnership approach and not a paternalistic approach.

I had an excellent meeting with Premier Legault. We talked about the issues that are important to Quebeckers. As prime minister, I would invest more in health and ensure that funding is stable, predictable and unconditional. We must respect our partners. We must not adopt the Ottawa knows best approach, because it is inappropriate, especially during a pandemic.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is really concerning me with the Liberal government's approach right now is that, in March, we were all in this together, but now we are being told, “Well, you can't have documents because you're being unreasonable.”

It is perfectly reasonable to say that we may have difficulty getting the documents in time, but we will work together. We hear the Liberals now saying, “How dare you want to know about contracts,” as though the number one issue in Canada right now is protecting the secrecy around contracts as opposed to ensuring the safety of Canadians in the worst medical catastrophe in a hundred years. It is now the Liberal line.

What happened to our Prime Minister who used to come out the doors every morning? Our family would stop doing our work and listen to our Prime Minister, because he said we were all in this together. Now it seems that the Liberals are hunkering down and refusing to work with the rest of us.

This is about a pandemic. It is not about contracts. It is not about documents. It is about finding a solution.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with that member, and particularly with some of his interventions for indigenous Canadians during the pandemic.

There was a team Canada approach. At least we tried to have that and “all in this together”. We are finding those slogans only apply when we agree with the government. If we ask any questions or ask the Liberals whether they are sliding contracts to their buddies, then it is not team Canada. It is delay, deny, obfuscate and threaten an election over the well-being of Canadians. It comes from arrogance. It comes from entitlement.

Canadians know, whether it is the NDP or it is our party, that we are asking reasonable questions to make sure we make things better. “Better is always possible” was one of the Liberals' hashtags from 2015.

I asked about contracts yesterday. Seven days before a big contract was awarded to their friend Frank Baylis, a shell company was created. These are troubling questions, to think that Liberal-insider help to their friends would still happen during a pandemic.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to address the motion from the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill. I share the member's deep concerns for Canadians during this unprecedented health crisis.

The emergence of COVID-19 has changed how we live, how we work and how we interact with friends and family. It has disrupted our lives and our communities in ways that we could not have conceived of a year ago.

As we emerged from the first wave, we saw cases go down over the summer, giving Canada a bit of a reprieve from this terrible virus. However, by fall, case counts began to increase, first in young people but then spreading to others, including, most alarming, to elderly people, who we know are most at risk of dying of COVID.

Most Canadians are worried, and many are frustrated to see our country experience, like so many others around the world, a resurgence of the disease. With winter approaching, Canadians are looking for information. They want the facts. They want to know what is happening and what we are going to do next, as leaders and as citizens, to protect one another.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of false information circulating on line and in social media. This amplifies the anxiety that many people are feeling right now. Earlier this week, Dr. Tam spoke about false information that is spreading faster than the virus.

This is a dangerous development. We have to work together to combat false information. That is why strong public health leadership is essential during a coronavirus pandemic, and why upholding confidence in our scientists and researchers, indeed in our experts, is so important. The Public Health Agency of Canada has consistently provided strong leadership since the first reports of COVID-19 started coming in late December. The agency has provided clear and direct information to Canadians about how they can protect their health and what they can do to protect the health of each other.

A critical part of the agency's work has been to bring together the public health officials across the country to coordinate our nation's response. Provinces and territories have stepped up measures to contain the spread, declaring states of emergency, closing schools and day cares, and providing other public supports. They have prepared their hospital systems, while continuing to deliver needed services, increasing intensive care capacity and making sure that they have the equipment on hand to deal with every situation. Governments at all levels are taking every step necessary to protect their residents.

Canada has demonstrated an organized and collaborative approach, with partners working together and supporting each other. In fact, this collaboration is exactly what Canadians need so that they can have the tools, the support, the information and the confidence to slow the spread of this virus.

Our government acted quickly to help Canadians during the first wave. We put more resources online to help them take care of their mental well-being. We also developed apps to inform Canadians and better combat the virus. In May, we confirmed a $240.5-million investment to work with the provinces and territories to provide better access to virtual health care services.

Virtual tools allow Canadians to engage safely with their regular health care providers via phone, text or video conference. They have also allowed patients to access specialist services during this time of uncertainty. Virtual tools have also provided access to trusted information, including the Canada COVID-19 mobile app, so that Canadians can understand and track their symptoms, and learn more about how to stay safe during the pandemic.

We also recognize that Canadians have been coping with the effects of COVID-19 from a mental health perspective, and they are facing different degrees of stress. That is why we launched Wellness Together Canada, a free online portal that offers virtual mental health, well-being and substance use supports to any Canadian who needs it.

Our government is working closely with provinces and territories, innovators and others to support the rapid expansion of virtual care services and to continue to make these tools available to Canadians and their families. This is a key component of our government's work to keep Canadians safe.

For months, scientific teams around the world have been racing to develop a vaccine against the COVID-19 disease. Some of the vaccine candidates are now in phase three clinical trials, the final stage of the process before their potential approval. Today I will give the House an update on our work to secure a COVID-19 vaccine for Canadians.

Health Canada has now received submissions for authorization of three vaccines, from Pfizer Canada and BioNTech SE, from Moderna, and from AstraZeneca in collaboration with the University of Oxford. The safety and effectiveness reviews of all of these vaccines have begun and will continue in real time as more data become available. These are very important steps on the path to a vaccine, and we expect to receive submissions from other manufacturers soon.

Health Canada has a rigorous and independent scientific review system in place to ensure that vaccines are safe and effective in preventing the disease they target. The decisions are always rooted in evidence and science. Health Canada will only authorize a vaccine after careful review if its benefits clearly outweigh any potential risks.

As the work continues on vaccines, we are also pursuing new tools, as quickly as they are invented, that will help us live safely with COVID-19. This includes fast and effective testing and screening. Health Canada is working full speed to improve rapid point-of-care diagnostic and monitoring tests based on nucleic acid and antigen technologies to meet Canadian testing needs, without compromising on standards for safety, effectiveness and quality.

As of October 21, Health Canada has authorized two antigen tests for the diagnostics of COVID-19, the Abbott Panbio and the Bd Veritor system. Antigen testing is one of the several emerging technologies that can be used to determine if a person is, in fact, infected with COVID-19. The test works by detecting specific proteins associated with the virus. Samples for these tests need to be collected using a nose swab and are designed to provide results within twenty minutes, and the test needs to be carried out by a health care professional. To date, Health Canada has authorized 41 COVID-19 testing devices for sale in Canada, and a complete list of authorized testing devices is available on Health Canada's website, along with many that are under review.

In addition to this, as Minister of Health I signed an interim order that has helped speed up access to COVID-19 test kits. This follows the interim order I signed in March, which allowed for the exceptional importation of products related to COVID-19. When drugs are not available, Health Canada now has a legal pathway to bring alternative supplies of drugs to the Canadian market. A similar approach is also in place for medical devices. Health Canada is also doing what it can to plan ahead so that our country is in the best possible position to access drugs to treat and prevent COVID-19 as they become available.

The health and safety of Canadians is the government's top priority. Before any test is authorized for use in Canada, it is subject to a thorough assessment by Health Canada's regulatory process to ensure that it is supported by sufficient evidence of safety, effectiveness and quality. We continue to engage with international regulators so that we can share this knowledge about new developments related to testing. We proactively approach companies that have received approvals for testing technologies from other regulators, and we invite those companies to apply for authorization in Canada.

We are also committed to global collaboration to end this pandemic, because this government knows that we will not see an end to COVID-19 unless we work together with all other countries. We are supporting multiple organizations that are working at unprecedented speed to develop candidate vaccines. Last month the government committed $440 million to the COVAX Facility. Of this amount $220 million will secure additional options for Canada to purchase doses of vaccine for Canadians. The other $220 million will finance the procurement of doses for low- and middle-income countries through the COVAX advance market commitment. We have also previously provided an initial contribution of $25 million to the COVAX Facility.

By joining this initiative, Canada is contributing funds toward collective efforts to develop a safe, effective and accessible COVID-19 vaccine for 172 participating economies across the world. This mechanism also allows Canada to secure additional options for vaccine doses for use here. This approach complements the bilateral arrangements that we have in place with vaccine manufacturers and diversifies our investment in potential opportunities, but supporting other countries in their fight against COVID-19 is an investment to protect Canada and Canadians because this virus truly knows no borders.

The government is also working to ensure that health care and front-line workers have the PPE, medical equipment and supplies that they require to do their jobs. We are doing this through collaborative procurement with the provinces and territories, building domestic production capacity and identifying potential alternatives and ways to extend product life. We have worked very rapidly to allocate PPE, medical equipment and supplies to the provinces and territories. I want to thank my colleagues, the ministers of health from across the country, for agreeing on an approach that is supported by all levels of government.

We sped up the process for manufacturing equipment in Canada to meet our current needs and to plan for the future.

Public Services and Procurement Canada is working directly with suppliers across the country to find the PPE and medical equipment needed to protect Canadians and health care workers.

During the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak in Canada, long-term care facilities suffered a disproportionately high number of cases and, sadly, many deaths as well.

In early April, the Public Health Agency of Canada released evidence-informed guidance for long-term care homes to help resident seniors and health care workers in long-term care homes remain safe and healthy. The guidance provides recommendations that complement provincial and territorial public health efforts to prevent and control health care associated infections. It was developed with the National Advisory Committee on Infection Prevention and Control and endorsed by the pan-Canadian Special Advisory Committee.

Also in April, the Canadian Armed Forces received a request for assistance to help provide care to some of Canada's most vulnerable seniors in response to COVID-19. CAF deployed personnel in support of long-term care facilities across Quebec and in the Greater Toronto Area as part of Operation Laser.

Throughout these deployments, military personnel have worked closely with facility staff to help with day-to-day operations, support infection control and prevention, and provide general support and comfort wherever needed. I want to thank the serving members of CAF for their incredible generosity and kindness.

As we enter the second wave of the outbreak, though, it is incredibly important that we work together to ensure that seniors in long-term care homes are protected. That is why public health officials are closely monitoring COVID-19 cases in Canada and considering public health restrictions needed to protect the vulnerable. However, the epidemiology of COVID-19 is different across jurisdictions, which means that the approach across Canada will not be the same in every place and will need to be tailored to the unique challenges and contexts of the disease in each province and territory.

This summer, our government announced an agreement with provinces and territories that provides $19 billion to protect the health of Canadians, to get people safely back to work and to prepare for a resurgence. The safe restart agreement includes investments in priority areas for the next six to eight months, including supporting the most vulnerable, which includes seniors in long-term care facilities and nursing homes.

Canada has successfully enhanced public health surveillance for COVID-19 in very short order, strengthening our ability to monitor the number of cases, trends over time, severity of cases and demographics of cases. This information is shared with the public, with regular updates made on the canada.ca/covid-19/coronavirus website. I am very happy that all levels of government are working so closely to share this information and to provide timely evidence, which not only informs and supports the public health response but provides access to researchers and scientists who are studying COVID-19 in the Canadian context and providing very valuable evidence that can draw our future responses.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on needed improvements related to public health data systems in Canada, and this includes timeliness, completeness and granularity. Systemic and long-standing challenges affect Canada's health data system, including resources and capacity, IT infrastructure and clarity, and data governance. However, we need to make progress in these areas because federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions not only have an obligation to gather and make good use of data but their citizens require that data in order to stay safe.

In addition, the $19 billion invested in the safe restart agreement, which includes funding to increase testing, contact tracing and data management, included monies to ensure the safety of seniors in long-term care homes by improving infectious disease protocols. Our goal is to ensure that Canada has the data intelligence needed to identify, prevent, monitor and respond to current and future health issues, protect the health of Canadians and support the economy.

Across Canada, all levels of government are pulling out the stops to help slow the spread of the virus, but, ultimately, individual decisions and choices also have a critical impact on public health and safety. The Government of Canada has a consistent message to Canadians: “Protect yourselves and others, wash your hands, practise social distancing, stay home when you are sick and wear a mask.” These things can help manage the spread of the virus. Also, download the COVID Alert app to help slow the spread.

I am so proud of Canadians and the sacrifices they have made to keep each other safe. We need to keep it up until it is safe again to slowly and carefully dial back the measures that we now have in place.

This is just a snapshot of what the government is doing to protect the health and safety of Canadians from COVID-19. As we can imagine, an incalculable amount of work is going on behind the scenes with our many partners across all orders of government and indeed with researchers and scientists who are generously donating their time and energy to help all Canadians. All of this work deepens our understanding of the virus every day. It gives us the scientific evidence and the data we need to inform and evolve our public health response to help with decision-making and planning at local, national and international levels.

We have learned about this virus over the past year. We have learned that if we relax too much or too soon, COVID-19 will certainly come back. We must continue with strong public health efforts to reduce the transmission of the virus and minimize its overall impact, including the social and economic impacts on Canadians. We must also plan and be ready for the future as there is still so much that we do not know about COVID-19. As the situation evolves, so too must our response.

Finally, it is unfortunate that this motion is specifically designed by the member for Calgary Nose Hill for the government to have such a challenge to respond. Our initial analysis of the motion indicates that the very officials who are working day and night on Canada's response will be removed from their immediate tasks. In fact, instead of working together to protect Canadians during this difficult time, the member would prefer to divert their focus to an unnecessary task that does not help Canadians in any way manage the months to come, this at a time when COVID-19 cases are surging across the country and posing unprecedented challenges on Canadians.

We need to stay focused on what matters now. We do not do the post-battle review in the middle of the fight. I can assure everyone that the Government of Canada will continue to do everything within its power and jurisdiction to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic to protect the health, safety and well-being of Canadians during these difficult and challenging times.

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

She just cannot help herself, Mr. Speaker.

We do have to do a review right now because the number of cases in Ontario today are a record, which means that the government's response has failed. Therefore, we need to understand things like the question the minister did not answer from The Canadian Press yesterday: Who is getting rapid tests, when, how many and what criteria? She failed to answer that question. She told me to take a briefing and then she hung up two minutes into the call. This is why this committee needs to exist. We need answers.

This is Parliament. I would like to remind members what we do here. We debate and talk about different changes and things. Just saying that we cannot have the documents is not up for debate today. If the minister thinks that this production order is unreasonable, what is a reasonable timeline and when does she think they could reasonably be produced to Parliament? By the way, six months or three months are not on the table.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a perfectly reasonable question from the member opposite. Should we sit down together and discuss this with the House leaders, I am sure we could determine a time that would be reasonable and would actually suffice to produce the documents for which the member opposite is looking, but within a time frame that would allow health officials to stay focused on what their priority is right now, which are the many tasks they have to protect Canadians as we move forward with the virus.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the worst health and economic crisis in the world.

I imagine that the minister is following the work in committees. All of the experts who have testified in committee have said that chronic underfunding has destabilized our health networks, which means that when something unexpected like this crisis happens, the system breaks down in areas where we failed to act preventively.

Will the minister tell us today that she has learned her lesson and has finally come to acknowledge that the government must absolutely increase transfers to fund health networks?

There is the economy, the immediate needs and the crisis, and there is the recovery. If the Minister of Health wants to get our health networks back up and running, she needs to ensure sustainable, predictable funding that addresses all of the needs in our communities.

When can we expect this to happen?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's focus on prevention. Early on in the pandemic, I was asked a question about public health and prevention. I said that all governments at all levels and all stripes had failed to invest enough in prevention in public health. I stand by that statement.

This is a lesson for the world that in fact the investments we make to prevent the outbreak from happening are the ones that will pay the greatest dividends. It is hard to remember that in between pandemics. For example, investing in public housing, in health care systems, in the wellness of every citizen and reducing poverty and inequality is some of the best money that we will spend.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest when my hon. colleague talked about reducing poverty as a health outcome.

Today, in her riding, hundreds of people have been evacuated from Neskantaga because they do not have access to water. This community has gone 25 years without having clean water. The system is so broken in Neskantaga even after the Prime Minister's promise to clean it up. The sewage lifts are not working, they cannot get water to the school and people are getting water in buckets. As of last night, the government was refusing to even pay for the evacuation, but it has now been shamed into that.

What will the minister do, today, to deal with the crisis in Neskantaga? People in her riding are being put up in hotels because they have no homes to go back to and no access to safe drinking water in their community.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I completely concur with the member opposite that not having running water and access to clean water is not acceptable in Canada today. That is why it has been such a priority of our government to address the significant deficit in drinking water and sanitation of water in first nations communities.

I feel for the people of Neskantaga. I am happy they are in Thunder Bay while this problem gets sorted out. I immediately reached out to my colleague, the Minister of Indigenous Services, because there is much to do. We will be there for the people of Neskantaga as we sort through what needs to happen next.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is for the Minister of Health and the member for Calgary Nose Hill, I hope Parliament will find a way to move forward so the questions being asked in this motion can be addressed in a way that does not sidetrack Health Canada's response in the midst of a pandemic.

In that spirit, I want to ask the hon. Minister of Health if she see ways that, perhaps, communications staff can answer questions without diverting other resources. Health Canada is a big organization. We do not just have a handful of people in the Public Health Agency or in Health Canada. Surely parliamentarians are allowed to investigate how we have handled the pandemic thus far without completely denying the Government of Canada the tools it needs to continue to fight the pandemic.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her, as always, rational and solution focused offering. There is a path forward where we could work, through House leaders, on a time frame that might be more manageable for the department.

As the member knows, and the member opposite knows, we are talking about thousands and thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of documents. I certainly would be more than happy to work with the department to ensure we have a reasonable time frame that suits the purpose of the House.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated that she was very concerned about the misinformation being spread about the coronavirus. I would like to read a quote from February 17, “The long-term implications of shutting borders is they are not very effective.” Who said that? The Minister of Health.

The Minister of Health also said that the risk remained low and that there was no evidence that this virus was spread without symptoms. She even praised the Government of China's handling of reporting to the WHO and other countries about the coronavirus in its country. If the minister is concerned about spreading misinformation, maybe she should stop doing press conferences.

We are dealing with a request for information. Canadians were told that by going through great sacrifice, seeing their businesses close, going bankrupt and watching loved ones die alone, they were buying the government time to increase the number of PPE that Canada had, fast-tracking approvals and purchasing ventilators. Here we are months later and all those things still have not happened, which is why parliamentarians are trying to get to the bottom of this.

When it came to the WE scandal, the government was able to hit print and dump thousands of documents on the committee. It even took the time to redact them. If the government can take the time to try to throw a smoke screen away from its corruption, why can it not take the time to provide this information to the House of Commons?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite's comments reflect a lack of understanding about how scientific theory evolves. In fact, we did not know a lot about COVID-19 when it first emerged. It emerged in curious circumstances, as viruses always do, and we had very little knowledge.

We did know how it spread. However, we did not know how to protect ourselves, and we did not know the nature of the virus. There is still so much about the virus that we do not know. For example, does it cause long-term impacts in people who acquire the virus?

Every step of the way we have worked with our researchers, scientists and public health officers, and we have provided information through the lens of science. It is incredibly important that the member opposite understand that science evolves.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, here we are in the second wave, and the motion proposed is requesting a huge amount of information within 15 days from a department that is already in constant contact with the different provinces, territories, indigenous groups and so many others.

Does the minister believe that is reasonable?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the health committee and the provision of documents, we have provided hundreds, if not thousands, of documents, as well as hours and hours of testimony from officials, researchers, scientists, Dr. Tam and me. We continue to be there to provide information and documents to HESA, as required.

The challenge is that the motion is written in a way that is intentionally meant to overwhelm the department. I believe that right now it would be best for the department to stay focused on what is really important, which is how we will help Canadians through the next wave. It is how we will ensure the provinces and territories have what they need. It is also how we will ensure that we have the vaccines and that they will unfold in way that access is available to Canadians.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

The first words out of my mouth when parliamentary activities resumed in the House were about patients who had been really hard hit by COVID-19. I expressed my compassion for the families, for those who are still suffering the after-effects of the disease, and for those who did not survive it. I also expressed particular concern for patients with diseases other than COVID-19, because the pandemic has definitely caused collateral damage.

Today is an opposition day, during which we will be debating a motion that should have been adopted on October 9. I will give a shout out to all patients with rare diseases who, had it not been for the Liberal Party’s systematic filibustering, were expecting us to adopt my motion on new guidelines for the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board on October 9.

Had the motion been adopted, we could have invited these patients to tell us how these guidelines are affecting their lives, their right to life and their access to innovative medications. I salute these patients because we often forget those who are currently suffering the collateral damage caused by this unprecedented global health crisis.

I hope that the House will adopt this motion and that my Liberal colleagues will set aside the powers of their executive authority. To sit in the House, a person must first be elected a representative of the people. Since democracy is based on legislative power and not on executive power, I am asking the hon. members of the Liberal Party to take on the role of legislators in their capacity as representatives of the people, and to take a step back from government requirements. I am asking them to do the same thing we are doing in the opposition, namely to review the Liberal government’s management of the pandemic and hold the government accountable, rather than act as the lackeys of the executive.

I am asking the House to adopt this motion so that the Standing Committee on Health can move on. I would have expected the representatives of the Liberal Party to be prepared, at the meetings following October 9, including the one last Monday, to introduce amendments. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government told us that it would be helpful if we were a bit more flexible with wait times. What is he waiting for to propose amendments to the motion?

Now, this morning, we are discussing a motion in the House that should already have been adopted. During the first wave of the pandemic, there was a spirit of collaboration among colleagues, as we tried to find solutions and to understand what we were up against and how we could help fight the pandemic. All of the experts who came to see us told us that there would soon be a second wave, and that it could be even more deadly and more difficult to handle. Why? Because there is currently no vaccine, no medication and no reliable serological testing.

We are simply managing time and space: personal space of two metres and the time needed to develop a vaccine. Until we have a vaccine, we remain vulnerable. We have spent a considerable amount of money. We have spent billions of dollars, and that is okay because we need to support people and the economy. Of the $340 billion dollars spent, barely 2% went to health care, at a time when we are experiencing the world’s worst health crisis. There is a problem here.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that we must be careful, because if we incur deficits of $340 billion in the next two years, we will have a serious problem. To get through this crisis, we need to distinguish between one-off investments, or one-off spending, and sustainable investments that will help us get back on our feet. Health transfers, one of the items on the motion’s agenda, are a major component of the solution for fighting future pandemics—because there will be others.

Since Parliament resumed, the Liberal government has been playing the bully. It says that we failed in long-term care facilities and that it was forced to send in the army. In passing, Quebec taxpayers pay for that army. Sometimes we even send it on missions abroad. It was not unreasonable to ask it for help on the ground.

There was a shortage of personal protective equipment. Personal support workers and front-line workers were not properly protected at first, because there was a shortage. We quickly learned that the national stockpile was empty. We also learned that we had sent aid elsewhere, since we were certain we would never be affected. Cuts have been made to health transfers for the past 25 years. When you are managing health care and there are needs in your own back yard, you try to cover all bases and attend to the most urgent things first. Unfortunately, some employees had to work in two or three different long-term care facilities to make ends meet. That does not help when it comes to limiting contagion in a pandemic.

I would like us all to do some soul-searching and assume our responsibilities. We are able to impose standards on ourselves to ensure that we never again abandon our seniors living in long-term care facilities. That is clear. We are able to assume our responsibilities, but we do not want someone who has a 25-year record of broken promises to come and tell us how to work and how to do what is good for us. The Liberals are also saying that it is going to take money to implement standards. They do not even know what they are talking about when they talk about standards, because the issue of long-term care facilities is not the same in every province. I wish them luck. One need only look at the differences between Quebec and Ontario. The government does not have the expertise or the skills required.

Since everyone is concerned about health, the federal governments want to have a say. However, they have had 25 years in which to keep their word and allocate the funding needed to take care of people. It is our money and they need to give it back to us. We want transfers of 35%, not 22%. Now it looks like they might be more like 18%. We need $22 billion now just to make up for lost ground. The federal government is always saying that it gives a lot. However, the provinces contribute $188 billion, while the federal level contributes $42 billion.

There is not enough money, and it is time for the federal government to contribute instead of lecturing us. What we want the government to do now is tell us that it will support all the networks, invest, and do what Quebec and the provinces are asking it to do so that we can, at long last, rehabilitate our networks and take care of people in Quebec and elsewhere.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech and his contributions to the committee.

Opposition members are responsible for making sure that the government's pandemic response is up to the task of helping families, businesses, and people who are isolating because of the pandemic, are they not?

I applaud my colleague's work at the Standing Committee on Health, where we work well together.

Why do the Liberals not want us to help them do a better job of fighting the pandemic?

Why does he think the Liberals are refusing to let the committee do its work and refusing to make sure that the Government of Canada's response does a better job of helping the people of Canada and Quebec?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion says that we want to verify and understand the entire testing process. That is important. I do not see a problem with that.

We want to understand the vaccine procurement process. There have been conflicts of interest and we need to know what is going on. Are we ready? Will we get enough doses when a vaccine comes out? I do not see a problem with that.

We want to know what happened with the Global Public Health Intelligence Network, which should have had the capacity to look at what was happening around the world instead of relying on people who were asleep at the switch, including the WHO.

We want to look at whether health transfers are adequate. I hope the Conservatives will do the honourable thing and acknowledge that reducing indexing from 6% to 3% was a mistake. I would have liked the Leader of the Opposition to say so earlier.

We want to look at the availability of equipment. We know there was a problem with that. We want to have access to the documents to understand the situation and ask more informed questions in committee to determine what the problem is.

The Liberals do not want MPs to do their job. They do not like being held accountable or being transparent.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too am on the health committee, and I share with the member many of the frustrations we are dealing with at committee in trying to get back to studying this issue.

There are two big issues I have with this motion. The first is the sheer volume of documents that are required. Second, in the motion there is a list of what the Conservatives and other opposition parties want to study, and we were certainly not consulted on that list.

The motion sets a menu, and it was set without the input of the Liberals. Frankly, I think the menu left out a whole bunch of things, such as how we managed the risk faced by northern indigenous communities and how we managed the risk faced by the homeless. There is also nothing on that list about the global response to the pandemic and our desire, perhaps, to ensure that people around the world have access to vaccines through COVAX. In my mind, it is an inadequate list.

Does the member agree that perhaps in setting out this motion, we should have first gotten some co-operation, including co-operation with the governing party?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I would like to draw his attention to the part of the motion that states, “and that this study evaluate, review and examine any issues relevant to this situation, such as, but not limited to”, followed by the list.

What he just mentioned could simply be added to the list and I would not have a problem with that as long as we start working in committee and collaborating. We owe it to the people listening today. We owe it to them to be serious and rigorous, and to bring solutions to the table at the Standing Committee on Health.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, dealing with a pandemic is not part of our normal routine.

The last pandemic, the Spanish flu, was over 100 years ago. Obviously, no one here today was alive at the time, not even the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel—I love you, Louis—despite what some people may think. As much as we would have liked to draw lessons from that last major pandemic, it would have been difficult because the context and realities were so different back then.

Over the past few months, we have experienced huge disruptions in all areas of our lives, including the personal, social, economic, technological and other aspects. We came together and worked shoulder to shoulder. We needed to act quickly to help our fellow citizens. What I have heard in my discussions with representatives from the Regroupement des gens d'affaires de Beauport is that the programs were not perfect, but quick action was needed.

We have not won the battle yet: The virus is still here. Our fellow citizens still need help and support, and they need reassurance about the future. Do we have everything we need to face another wave or another pandemic? How can we ensure that we can meet our health care needs as well as those of the public without getting so far into debt that we cannot get out again? How can we hold our heads high and still be a country aware of its own needs and those of less fortunate countries?

My training is in high school history and geography. Knowing our history helps us learn about our successes and failures both as humans and as a society. Knowing and understanding our past, even our recent past, helps us prevent certain errors and build on our successes. To accomplish that, like historians, we need more than one source of information. Today, my aim is to emphasize the importance of planning, openness and collaboration.

Let me go back a bit. In October and November 2019, when many of us, including myself, were barely starting to understand our responsibilities and duties as members, we learned of a new disease raging in Wuhan, China. The disease was so contagious that the authorities quickly decided to lock down the city. In fact, one of the first issues I was entrusted with had to do with repatriation. I made sure that, once citizens were back home, they quarantined. I also made sure that they had access to a support network during their 14-day quarantine.

Not long after that, we learned that the Chinese authorities had built two new hospitals in record time. I began wondering about our level of preparedness. What did we learn from the SARS crisis in Toronto? What would we need? Did we have it? If we did not have it, or if we did not have enough of it, how would we get it? Could we produce it ourselves? How long would it take? What would it cost? Are our health care infrastructures prepared? Are our government infrastructures prepared? What is our plan to help the population deal with the lockdown?

Essentially, I wanted to know whether Canada had an emergency plan. Anyone who knows me knows that I am always asking 15,000 questions. Unfortunately, today, I cannot say that we had a plan, despite the fact that we lived through SARS and had a unique opportunity to see what was going on elsewhere in the world.

We rapidly established contact with Asian suppliers to obtain surgical and N95 masks, latex and nitrile gloves, and gowns. Ordinary folks stepped up. Distilleries like Stadaconé Distillery in Beauport—Limoilou and Vice & Vertu Distillery in Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures began using their facilities to produce sanitizer.

Others retooled their production lines to manufacture respirators. A sewing cooperative in Montreal managed to recruit sewing enthusiasts to churn out thousands of masks. Individuals like my friend Daniel Carré used their own 3D printers to print face shields. Not only did the parties in the House work side by side, but the entire population joined in.

In terms of procurement, the contracting process was shortened to be able to meet demand promptly. Despite all the good will, there were shortcomings. We must learn from these shortcomings to avoid repeating them. We must protect our constituents’ health and our public finances. After all, we must never forget that the money we spend comes from somewhere, namely from the taxes paid by the public.

Procurement is a complex process. It involves keeping a lot of balls in the air, because every government department and agency has needs that require contracts for goods and services to be negotiated with suppliers.

History has shown us that preferential treatment does happen in times of crisis and only gets found out once the crisis is over. We need to prevent this from happening. We need to maintain public trust in our institutions and in what we do.

What we need most, as I have said before, is personal protective equipment. I will not go through the whole list again. Every week, the members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates held conference calls with Public Services and Procurement Canada to track the procurement process and ask questions. In particular, they wanted to know why we were not prioritizing Quebec and Canadian suppliers, and they were told that it was because of a lack of resources.

How can we access these resources? What is the plan for reducing our dependence on China? Why did two planes come back empty? Why are we receiving so much non-compliant PPE? Can it not be tested over there instead of over here? How many companies have procurement contracts right now? Why did two million masks sit in a warehouse until they were five years out of date? Why is there no plan for purchasing and restocking supplies?

We have yet to get answers to some of these questions, even with a so-called “made in Canada” plan. It might be a good idea to have a “made in Canada” emergency plan. We have the innovation skills to pull it off.

To fight a virus, we need research on the virus's RNA, immune responses, treatments and vaccines. At the beginning of the pandemic, everyone agreed that we needed to ensure that industrialized countries did not monopolize access to the vaccine. Everyone agreed that if governments blindly invested public funds directly in private companies, it could result in a monopoly. Everyone agreed that the studies should be collaborative and should not lead to a new form of competition between countries. The boys' club culture among government leaders is getting tiresome. It used to be “my missile is bigger than yours”, and now it is “my country can produce a vaccine faster than yours”. Could we not all just work together for a change? That would be better.

Canada announced in April that it was going to invest in research for a homegrown vaccine. The day after this announcement, a company from British Columbia was given money. A committee was magically formed overnight, and no other company received money. Months went by before companies in Quebec and the other provinces got research grants to develop a vaccine. Meanwhile, contracts were being signed with foreign companies. Could we see those contracts?

Let us talk about rapid testing. The government invested in a company that was supposed to produce rapid tests. However, if I remember correctly, the tests cost $8,000 apiece and had too big a margin of error. What is happening with that contract? Is the company still doing research? We do not know. We need rapid tests, and we just found out that we have 100,000 available. That is great, but that number of tests would last Ontario and Quebec just five days, and then that is it.

Now I will move on to respirators. A Canadian consortium was created to manufacture innovative, lower-cost respirators with fewer parts. What is happening with that project? We do not know. However, we did find out that two guys set up a company and became multimillionaires 10 days later. Forget the American dream, this is the Canadian dream. How many of us could set up a company and become multimillionaires 10 days later? Not many.

I gave just a few examples, but I could go on for another 30 minutes. I am a teacher, so I am used to talking for an hour.

As I said, procurement is a big file, but it is also a hot topic. Procurement is where each and every procedural gap and error will stick out and every aspect of the process that needs to change will become obvious. This is the area where most scandals seem to come to light.

Quite frankly, my constituents and I have had quite enough of these scandals. We are sick of them. Like me, my constituents want us to act honestly and transparently. Not only are these values important to me, but they are what my constituents expect from me. I would hope that honesty and transparency are values that the government members and their constituents care about, too.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate what the member had to say. There is common sense on this side of the floor. It is very good.

We have tools in the House when a motion comes forward and we are not happy with it. We can make amendments. We can make amendments on this side of the floor and this can also be done on the other side of the floor. We heard from the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River about the things he thought should have been included when it was at the health committee, and I do not sense that anything happened there. The member for Winnipeg North is saying this has too tight a timeline, as did the minister.

I am wondering what the member's perspective is on the complaints and the inability of some members to realize that maybe they could come up with some good suggestions so that we can all work together and pass this motion.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the excellent question.

Last year, the Speech from the Throne mentioned that the government and the opposition parties had to work together. What is being proposed is what was asked. It is even more necessary now, during the pandemic, to protect our citizens and our public finances.

Moving amendments is one way of working together. If everyone agrees to make the amendment, we should do so. Let us show good will and work together. Members on this side of the House are prepared to do so. We are waiting for the other side to be ready to collaborate just as they say they are.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.

As we both sit on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, I want to remind her that a motion was adopted on June 5, 2020, concerning the production of documents by Health Canada and the Public Health Agency, as well as Public Works and Government Services. That documentation was provided. In contrast, trade secrets are not covered by the motion we are debating today. The opposition members have stated that paragraph (aa)(ii) refers to documents “vetted for matters of personal privacy information, and national security, and, with respect to paragraph (y) only”. Paragraph (y) refers to all vaccination companies.

I want to ask the member the following question: Has she spoken to Quebec suppliers who would potentially like their trade secrets to be available everywhere? We know this will have a direct impact on people in Canada and Quebec.