Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2020

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Health

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

Madam Speaker, it really boils down to this. I know the member has been a parliamentarian for a long time. Even in my experience as a parliamentarian provincially, for a functioning committee to work, when there is a discussion or debate we find ways to amend each other's motions to move forward on the things that are important.

We know a number of things are important within this motion. There are a lot of things that are information-based, so that we can all make the correct decisions to be able to move forward.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

We can agree on the fact that we are going through a public health crisis that requires heavy investment in health care. As the critic for status of women and seniors, I have been hearing a lot about that. People tell me that, in order to provide care to everyone, we need more PPE and support workers, and we need to pay support workers better. Nobody I talk to says we need national standards. In fact, my colleague talked about the importance of respecting each region's unique needs.

I would like him to comment on why health transfers were reduced from 6% to 3%. Why does he think it is important to restore health transfers to 35% to help the provinces take care of people with COVID-19?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

This is an important issue that affects Canadians' health. Health care is provided by the provinces. The provinces are responsible for Canadians' health. We have to give them what they need and understand the decisions they have made. They are independent. We need to support them in their efforts to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We need to help the people in the provinces.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's comments today were very insightful and interesting. We have heard from the government, time and time again, that it is not able to produce these documents: that it is too much, too onerous and too difficult.

I wonder if the member could speak a bit about the need of the opposition to have these documents so we can do our jobs, and if he could talk a bit about whether he believes transparency and accountability are critical for combatting misinformation and maintaining the public's trust in the government's response to COVID-19.

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

Madam Speaker, this is kind of what this is all about. It is about the transparency of decision-making. The Government of Canada spends billions of dollars. We need to know, especially within this response to COVID-19, exactly where those dollars have gone, how they were invested, who they actually helped and who they are going to be helping, so that we can see where those gaps are and we can make a decision on whether we are going to continue to support one program or another.

Transparency is utmost in everything any government should be doing in Canada. I do not understand, in this particular case, why the government continues to hide behind this notion that it is too much work to be able to provide it. If Liberals have amendments, let them provide those amendments. We will talk about it like grown-ups.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond Hill.

This motion from the member for Calgary Nose Hill includes six exhaustive orders for the production of an extraordinary number of documents. I am not going to go through each of these requests one by one, but I will make some observations.

First, it is premature to request documents in the manner set out in this motion. Receiving a massive package of documents that we will all need to sort through is unproductive. I suggest that instead, as each topic is studied, documents can be requested from the witnesses who appear before the committee, as they often are. This suggestion would ensure that the committee receives the relevant documents when they are studying each issue. It would also help the members of the committee to know what documents are pertinent to their study, as witnesses can point them in the right direction through their expertise. Indeed, that would be a far more efficient and helpful way to request documents. The way the Conservatives are requesting to proceed in this motion is problematic in part because of the challenges it will present for committee members. It will not enable them to do their jobs effectively.

There are also human and financial costs. I remind all members that the public service continues to work around the clock with real objectives to help all Canadians. Every time documents are requested, whether the request is large or small, our hard-working public servants have to look for the documents, compile them and translate them. This country's bilingualism is one of its greatest strengths, but it also requires that time and money are spent on translation. It means that documents cannot be produced as quickly.

It is also essential to consider the amount of time these document searches take. Every person involved does their utmost to ensure their examination is thorough. A search can take days, weeks and even months, and each person involved in it is taken away from doing other work, which means that fewer people are working on the issues that matter most to Canadians.

This production of documents request does not only apply to our hard-working public servants who work in government departments. When document requests relate to ministers and their offices, the same logic applies to all these same people. Ministers' offices must stop doing their work, stop preparing important legislation, stop critical engagement with stakeholders and go through every email, every memo and every note to ensure that these requests are satisfied.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting in any way that transparency is not essential. I know that my Conservative colleagues will try to paint this as the government trying to avoid being open and transparent with Canadians, but that could not be further from the truth. The truth is that there is a balance between transparency and efficiency. All I am suggesting is that the right balance needs happen to not unduly delay or restrict the government's capacity to do the work that Canadians want and need us to do. Canadians are counting on us.

Hard-working public servants are doing the critical work of helping Canadians. Instead of keeping Canadians safe, they would be forced to redirect their efforts to filling these orders. It is worth noting that most, if not all, people are working from home, and locating these documents therefore poses more of a challenge. Most people are not in their offices right now, because they cannot be.

Just yesterday, Ontario reported 790 new cases of COVID-19 and nine new deaths from the virus. Of these, 57 were in Ottawa. In total, 260 people are hospitalized in Ontario because of COVID-19, including 71 in intensive care, and there are 144 new COVID-19 cases related to schools, including at least 66 among students. People need to be able to work from home. This reality makes locating documents even more time-consuming and challenging.

The Conservatives do not seem concerned about helping the many Canadians who find themselves in dire straits because of the pandemic. They do not seem to care about helping millions of Canadians suffering from mental health issues. However, Canadians care about these things, and we are here because Canadians elected us. I would like to do the work that Canadians need us to do.

The member for Calgary Nose Hill has stated, “the committee is the master of its own business” and “I think it behooves all committee members to remember that the committee is the master of its own destiny”. Why does she refuse to work with the other parties at the health committee to find a constructive way forward? She could easily have withdrawn her initial omnibus motion and reworked it in collaboration with her colleagues on the committee. I would argue that if she wanted to get work done on these issues, as she so often says she does, that would have been a more logical approach. Instead, she has chosen to ask the House to dictate to the committee what work it should undertake. She could easily present a motion at committee requesting a briefing from officials on specific topics. She could submit individual motions on each unique and vital area that she would like the committee to study so it can prioritize the issues that are most pressing and begin the important work that all members are here to do.

I obviously cannot support this motion as it is presently drafted and, frankly, I am not sure how anyone can. However, I am hopeful that colleagues across the way will do the right thing and support us in voting down this motion, allowing the committee members together to decide what work they should undertake.

[Derek Sloan, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague seemed to be painting a contradiction that the Conservatives do not care about fighting COVID because they are putting forward a motion to look at ways to deal with COVID better. I am wondering how that could possibly be a contradiction. In my mind, this is to help Canadians faster and better.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I suggest, as I mentioned in my speech, that providing a vast trove of documents that are unfocused and not curated will not help us to get to the bottom of all the things we need to get to the bottom of. This is a massive number of documents for the public service to produce, to translate and so forth, and it would be a massive amount of work for committee members and all other interested parties to go through and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I am trying to understand the chain of events. Last night, we voted on a motion that would have created a committee to analyze things like the government's spending over the past six months. It would have looked into WE Charity and the new $237-million Baylis scandal. The government refused, saying that we would not have time, that there were too many documents, that it would paralyze Parliament and that we could not study this, so we will not be studying it.

Today, the opposition is proposing another committee, this time to look into the government's handling of the pandemic and management of health care in the midst of a global health crisis, and the government is preparing to vote against it.

My hon. colleague talks about transparency and says we will accuse them of trying to avoid being transparent. It is true that we would like the government to be more transparent.

Could my colleague explain to me how the government plans to be more transparent if we cannot look at what it has been doing for the past six months?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I point out that in the last session, the health committee conducted somewhere in the order of 30 meetings on COVID-19, involving something like 78 witnesses, and accumulated about 1,000 pages of documentation. I would very much like to see that report created and delivered to the House with our appropriate recommendations, so we can actually learn from what went on before, before we take on a massive new responsibility that is unfocused and undirected.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to serve on the health committee with my hon. colleague.

I understand his two main objections to this motion, but I respectfully suggest that they are completely incorrect. First, he says that there is no focus to this motion. The production aspect of this motion specifically directs the committee to request documents related to Canada's early pandemic warning system, our testing protocols, our PPE readiness and our vaccine development and distribution. This is very focused and targeted. Second, in terms of where the motion directs us to go, it specifically says that we can go anywhere we like and lists a bunch of potential topics for the committee to study.

If the member believes that the motion is too broad or the production is too broad, why is he not proposing an amendment to the motion that sets out what the Liberals would agree to?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly enjoy working with the member on the committee, as I have for a number of years.

I should point out that as chair of the committee, I cannot make amendments, but I do not think that is the right approach going forward. It is such a massive all-encompassing motion that we need to break it down into much smaller, manageable pieces. There was the motion to study the mental health aspects of COVID-19, but the opposition voted it down without debate and instead started to proceed with the motions by the member for Calgary Nose Hill. In the two meetings we have had in this session, we have had two hours of debate on each of two separate extensive Conservative motions. This is not productive. Let us focus on the individual—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Richmond Hill.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, today I stand to intervene on the motion introduced by the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

As Canadians are experiencing a devastating second wave of COVID-19 pandemic, it is our duty as a government to ensure that the focus remains on the health and well-being of Canadians and that we continue to do everything to support them. Yesterday, there were over 2,600 new cases of COVID-19 and over 22,000 active cases. I suggest we need to focus on that.

My intervention will focus on four key sections of the motion as it relates to COVID-19, specifically the motion to study the adequacy of health transfers, the adoption of the World Health Organization advice, matters related to the COVID-19 Alert application and the impact of COVID-19 on mental health.

As the co-chair of the Parliamentary Mental Health Caucus, I was delighted to hear that the member for Newmarket—Aurora had tabled a motion to study the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health and well-being of Canadians, including indigenous and racialized Canadians.

The speaker before me, the chair of the health committee, indicated that this motion was shut down without debate. The result of the study would have identified that many socio-economic gaps that exist within our society have been further exasperated by the COVID-19 pandemic. By addressing these gaps in our society, we as a government could address the increasing demand on our health care systems.

However, as I said, the motion introduced by the member for Newmarket—Aurora was rejected by the health committee. I would like to note that the member for Calgary Nose Hill voted against it as well.

Therefore, I was a little surprised to see that the motion on mental health, which was rejected, is now included as a line item in this omnibus motion, with its intention to paralyze the work of the government.

As I mentioned previously, I will limit my intervention to specific sections of the motion today, mainly sections (i), (j), (l) and section (n) from another motion that was put forward at the health committee.

In section (i), states, “the adequacy of health transfer payments to the provinces, in light of the COVID-19 crisis.” I find it interesting that the member for Calgary Nose Hill wants to study the adequacy of health transfer payments as it relates to COVID-19. As we all know, the current formula was adopted back in 2014 by former Prime Minister Harper's cabinet.

Our government has invested more in health care transfer payments since coming to power and will continue to do so. We know that governments at all levels are working together to keep Canadians safe from COVID-19.

Each year provinces and territories receive $40 billion through the Canada health transfer. In March 2020, we committed $500 million to provinces and territories to support their health care systems and their mitigation efforts in light of the crisis. Since then, our government has announced over $19 billion for the safe restart agreement to help provinces and territories restart their economy safely while we continue to respond to COVID-19.

The health and well-being of Canadians remains our top priority and the government realizes that engaging with provinces and territories to address key health priorities is important, now more than ever.

In 2017, we committed $11 billion in health care investments over 10 years to the provinces and territories, with targeted funding of $5 billion to improve access to mental health services. The study of the adequacy of transfer payments also needs to address the need for an appropriate evaluation method and issues related to the oversight of the management of the fund. This cannot be addressed until we clearly identify the existing gaps in the delivery of the program and services, especially those that may disproportionately affect the most vulnerable Canadians.

However, this topic cannot be studied as part of an omnibus motion in the committee. It needs to have its own separate study. We will keep working with the provinces and territories to fight COVID-19.

Section (j) states, “the impact of the government’s use of World Heath Organization (WHO) advice in early 2020 to delay the closure of borders and delay in the recommendation of wearing of masks on the spread of COVID-19 in Canada.” While I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Health, I do follow the study of motions in this committee because of my keen interest in mental health. As such, I am aware that the health committee has already studied these exact provisions over the summer and has already received a great deal of evidence as was highlighted by the previous speaker.

As I was reviewing this section, I was wondering what the scope of this section should actually be to further augment or build on the study that was already conducted rather than opening up the whole box again. Our government has been following the advice of public health officials since the beginning. In January, we took multiple measures at our border. At first, we took enhanced measures for travellers from hot-spot countries and as soon as it became evident that COVID-19 could no longer be traced to a handful of countries, we restricted non-essential travel for travellers from all countries.

We also know that masks have been recommended for symptomatic people suspected of or confirmed to have the virus. In most cities and towns, masks are mandatorily worn to protect against exposure. The policies and practices around masks have changed as medical professionals have learned more about the virus.

Section (l) states, “the development, efficacy and use of data related to the government’s COVID Alert application.” Our government, in collaboration with other sectors, has developed the COVID-19 Alert app to let users know if they have been exposed to COVID-19. With most illnesses, early detection plays a key role in improving health outcomes for those who may be infected, but also protecting our loved ones and limiting further infections.

The COVID Alert app is an important public health tool that will help Canadians identify if they may have been exposed to COVID-19. While downloading the app is voluntary, we are encouraging Canadians to download it. So far over four million Canadians are using it. It has been great to see that most provinces have already integrated this app into their health system and more jurisdictions will be joining soon.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, I know this provision has already been studied and results have shown that the rate of adoption of 60% to 80 % is needed for any application to perform at its highest capacity.

As all members can attest, our government has approved and promoted the use of this application at the highest level of our government. All information collected under this application is anonymous and provided voluntarily by users. The app uses Bluetooth technology and does not record the locations of users or other personal information.

It is worth noting that Canada’s Privacy Commissioner has called COVID Alert “an example of how privacy respectful practices can be built into the design of an initiative to achieve public health goals.”

Applications and portals, such as the Wellness Together app, play a key role in integrating access to health care services to Canadians in this incredibly difficult time. Since the launch of the portal, more than 428,000 Canadians have used the supports. In July, the Canada Suicide Prevention Service responded to double the requests from March.

Then there is section (n), the impacts of COVID-19 on mental health, from another motion. As mentioned at the outset of my intervention, Canadians have been worried about the second wave and what it means for their jobs and livelihoods. It has increased the prevalence of depression, psychological distress, substance use, PTSD and domestic violence. The all-party Parliamentary Mental Health Caucus in the 43rd parliament, which includes members from both Houses and all parties, is actively investigating all of these.

In light of the pandemic, our government has invested $11.5 million, distributed through the Public Health Agency, to promote mental health and well-being in our communities. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research has invested more than $10 million in 55 research projects during the COVID-19 pandemic.

By introducing an omnibus motion that sets out 17 different areas of study and six requests for production of papers that have already been studied in committee is tying up our administrative capacities, and that cannot be allowed. Our committees are tools that allow us as parliamentarians to better serve Canadians by delving further into the issues mentioned earlier in my speech. This motion minimizes the importance of issues that are currently affecting Canadians. As such, I am not supporting the motion.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the reason the opposition has put this motion forward today in Parliament is because we have been unable to study COVID at the health committee. Therefore, the purpose of this motion is to get the information required and make the health committee do the study. The opposition is united and Canadians want this information, but they have been unable to do it at committee. We have had to bring it to the House of Commons in order to direct the committee to do that work and get those documents so it can do it.

I would like to understand from my hon. colleague how he would propose the health committee do the work it needs to do without these critical documents.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, as it is said, committees are masters of their own destiny. As the previous speaker mentioned, there were two sessions of debate on this. The issue is not whether we should do these studies; the issue is how and in what manner will we do them.

As I stated in my speech, when the motion on mental health was rejected, it was quite surprising to see it as part of the omnibus motion. The key thing is that the scope of the motion is so large and the amount of documents it needs to produce is so inhibiting that it will take our focus from doing surgical activities at the committee as well as serving the Canadian people.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member gave a speech, much like his colleague before him, and for 20 minutes we heard him argue extensively about what is wrong with the motion.

What does he want, then? Basically, they say it is bad and that is why they will vote against it, but what is it that they want? Yesterday the Liberals were lecturing us about how important it is that we all co-operate and work together to combat COVID-19 and protect the health of Canadians. When the time came to vote on a motion to create a special committee, the Liberals made it a confidence motion.

I want to know what the Liberals are so desperate to hide that they are so opposed to this new motion concerning the Standing Committee on Health.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, we do not have anything to hide. Second, as I stated, the best idea would be to break the motion down into very clear, distinct motions that already build on the great work the committee and many other committees, such as the industry committee and the OGGO committee, have done on these fields. Why can that not be done?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I join the hon. member on the mental health caucus and I appreciate his work. We know that transparency and accountability are critical for combatting misinformation and maintaining public trust in the government's response to COVID-19. Right now we have Liberal members claiming to be filibustering at the finance and ethics committees to maintain focus on their government's response to COVID-19, yet they are also filibustering the health committee to prevent a study on the government's response to COVID-19. Could the hon. member explain this contradiction?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is truly an honour to work with the member on the all-party Parliamentary Mental Health Caucus and I thank him for his continued advocacy and the leadership he shows on that caucus.

Transparency and accountability is one of the pillars of our government. We have continuously demonstrated that. The fact that we are dealing with an omnibus motion that is so large, so weighty in its scope and does not build and capitalize on the great work we have done prior to the Speech from the Throne is the reason we are asking to break it down into distinct motions. Let us look at it motion by motion, section by section and ensure it is very well defined and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Niagara Falls.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to let the House know I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

Today I rise in this place to speak on a topic of great importance, not only to my constituents but in fact to all Canadians, as we seek to navigate a way forward as we combat and eventually tackle COVID-19 and its impacts in Canada.

We are nearing eight months now of this enduring pandemic, with no immediate end in sight. As we enter what some are calling a second wave, Canadians should be rightfully expecting the Liberal government to have been better prepared this time around. Sadly, if the Liberals' actions at the Standing Committee on Health are any indication, the government is simply not prepared to present and defend a plan that will give Canadians the tools to quickly detect and prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Canadians need these tools now to ensure a second full-scale shutdown of our economy does not occur. Too many have made great personal sacrifices to get to where we are today, yet still thousands of lives have been lost, thousands more fall ill by the day and millions find themselves out of work and are losing hope the jobs they once had will still be there whenever this pandemic is finally conquered.

I come from a tourism community, where 40,000 people work in the sector. There are over 16,000 hotel rooms in my riding alone that traditionally accommodate 14 million visitors to our community. Prior to this pandemic, these visitors would generate $2.4 billion in receipts per year. That is quite a significant economic impact.

COVID-19 hit the travel and tourism sector hard. It hit us first, it hit us hardest and we will take the longest to recover. Niagara is a microcosm of the Canadian travel and tourism sector. Overall, this segment of our national economy employs almost one in 10 Canadians, generating over $102 billion. Sadly, we still wait not only for an economic plan but a proper response in terms of our health planning so we can begin to move forward to help achieve the economic recovery that is badly needed in this country.

When dealing with this pandemic, vigilance in providing for the health and safety of Canadians must always be our top priority. However, where is the vision and way forward to lead us out of this pandemic and back to a somewhat normal lifestyle? Where is that vision? Where is that plan?

The recent Speech from the Throne was 32 pages in length, contained almost 7,000 words and yet only mentioned the word “tourism” once. How many more sacrifices can Canadians be told to make by the Liberal government as it continues forward without any plans for a recovery? Canadians are suffering and the government needs to do more. Doing more does not always mean giving out more money or adding more blanket restrictions or limiting more freedoms and civil liberties of Canadians. Sometimes doing more means finding the best innovative solutions quickly to fix some of the root causes of the issue. That issue is COVID-19.

Again, the health and safety of Canadians will always be paramount, but moving forward to address the economic pain brought about by this pandemic need not be mutually exclusively concepts. As we moved to immediately address COVID-19, the Liberal government implemented policies that, while needed at the time, brought about tremendous pain to the Canadian economy and the millions of Canadians it employs. These were measures such as the Canada-U.S. border closure, travel bans prohibiting foreign nationals from entering Canada, 14-day mandatory quarantine restrictions and federal government advisories warning Canadians to avoid all air travel, even within Canada.

Under these restrictions, our travel and tourism industry has been devastated. Nearly eight months into this pandemic, the consequences of these restrictions are starting to be exposed. Last week's announcement from WestJet to cancel many key routes to eastern Canada may just be the beginning of more painful changes coming to the travel and tourism industry in our country, but it does not have to be this way.

Other advanced countries like the United Kingdom and those of the European Union are moving forward using science-based approaches and implementing viable alternatives to blanket prohibitions and quarantines without compromising safety. We are not seeing this here in Canada from our federal government. We have not seen a sector-specific tourism recovery plan from the Liberal government, something our Conservation opposition has been asking for from the start.

There is no reason Canada cannot be a leader in the COVID-19 response and recovery, just as these countries have. The longer this pandemic drags on, the more we are seeing the Liberal government in policy paralysis.

Although the policy environment is quickly changing and extremely dynamic, the Trudeau Liberals fail to keep up, consult, adapt and change, and only do so when pressed by the opposition. This is even more frustrating to see when we know businesses and industries are desperately trying to forge ahead with their own solutions in the interests of their own survival.

For example, a number of aviation and academic stakeholders have been spearheading a rapid-testing pilot project at Pearson International Airport in Toronto since early September. After about 23,000 COVID-19 test samples from incoming travellers, 99% returned negative. Their success rate is truly encouraging and an initiative like this offers a beacon of hope for the survival and future return of travel and tourism in a dark time. Unfortunately, Health Canada and the minister had to be brought into that process begrudgingly to learn more about the encouraging results coming from industry-led research on rapid testing. We absolutely need to know why.

As the member of Parliament for Niagara Falls and as a special adviser to the leader on tourism recovery, I hear many stakeholders in the travel and tourism industries pushing for more support from the federal government in the areas of advancing vaccine development and rapid testing.

Earlier today, news broke that the federal government is going to allow a rapid-testing pilot project in Alberta as a means to replace the mandatory 14-day quarantine measures currently in place. Despite this encouraging lead, no timelines have been announced yet.

Travel and tourism stakeholders have been pushing for rapid testing advancement for months with a strong sense of urgency, a sense that is reflective of the opportunity costs and the real cost being incurred every day by businesses both large and small. Many small business owners have been forced to close, either temporarily or permanently. Larger businesses are inching toward being forced to make difficult decisions, such as restructuring, taking on more debt, slashing services or deferring capital improvements. The speed at which government acts on these files can literally determine whether a business keeps its doors open or closes them forever.

Considering all this, it is only appropriate that my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, who serves as our Conservative shadow minister for health, has introduced this comprehensive opposition day motion. Her motion will compel the Standing Committee on Health to undertake a study on the emergency situation facing Canadians in light of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study is needed and her motion has my full support.

I find it astonishing that it takes the official opposition to propose such an obvious study. One would think the government would have been eager to launch such a study itself far earlier in the pandemic, unless, of course, they are concerned such a study could expose and highlight their abject failures of mismanaging Canada's pandemic response. The longer we are in an emergency crisis, the more urgent and important it is to undertake this study so we can ensure the federal government is developing science-based policies that are helpful and adaptive to our ever-changing circumstances.

Speaking of which, many stakeholders from the travel and tourism industry are extremely supportive of rapid testing. They hold high hopes that a proven method will soon reduce the days needed to quarantine or possibly eliminate quarantine all together some day in the future. Would it not be nice if our federal government could demonstrate confidence in a science-based approach for implementing viable alternatives to blanket prohibitions and quarantines without compromising safety?

Throughout this pandemic, the Liberal government has advocated for a science-based approach to tackling the health issues brought about by COVID-19. Then when industry takes leadership to launch its own initiative, the federal government has to be brought along all while maintaining restrictions that are devastating to travel and tourism. When science can benefit industry and support the health and safety of Canadians, the Trudeau Liberals choose to ignore it. We need to know why and this study will help us understand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member should know not to mention members' names.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[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]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting. We are in the second wave of the pandemic. We look at what is being asked within this motion and being demanded within 14 days. We have said, and even members of opposition have said, that standing committees have that responsibility themselves.

It is not the first time there have been filibusters in committees. I know first-hand that filibusters are often used as a way for committee members to sit down and figure out what is important to them. I understand that many members want to talk about the impacts of COVID-19 on mental illness and what is going to happen after the pandemic. That is a very serious issue. I have trust in the Standing Committee on Health.

Why do the official opposition members feel they have to trump the health committee and bring it here, because they do not have confidence in their members on that committee to be able to negotiate and work with all members?