House of Commons Hansard #17 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pandemic.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his question. I enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

I touched on this briefly during my speech, but at the beginning of the pandemic, scientists all over the world were saying that we needed to work together and that research should, ideally, be open source, which means that everyone would contribute. We need to prevent this research from being commercialized.

There is a company in my riding that takes an innovative approach to manufacturing vaccines. Once the vaccines are produced, could the company share them? It could share the part it worked on, without disclosing everything, and invite others to do their own testing and contribute to the research. This is one possible way to go.

I understand that there is a whole commercial aspect to this. Everyone wants to make a profit at others' expense. Is this really the time to be going for profit, especially when it is the government investing?

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague.

Unfortunately, the Green Party is not represented in the House committees. My colleague, the member for Fredericton, has been working hard in an attempt to join the Standing Committee on Health.

I agree with my colleague that there needs to be transparency and access to documents, especially on a key issue of our response as a government, as members of Parliament, to this very serious pandemic.

I have a question for my colleague. What does she think—

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

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

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but we need to leave time for the member from Beauport—Limoilou to answer. Her comments will have to be very brief.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I would have liked to hear what my colleague had to say.

She worked on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates this summer and she asked very relevant questions.

I believe I know where my colleague was going. It is very important to work together for the good of Quebeckers and Canadians. In order to do that, we need to share information, and both the opposition and the government need to think on it and take a step back so that we can better plan. We call that stepping back to better—

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

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

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, I am honoured to speak to this motion as health critic for Canada's New Democrats.

I think there is broad agreement in the House that since early 2020, COVID has clearly been the number one public health issue facing the country. It is the most serious pandemic our world has faced in the last 100 years. It has profoundly affected the health of our population, costing some 10,000 Canadians their lives so far. It has profoundly affected the way our society operates and, of course, has caused unbelievable damage to our economy and the financial well-being of millions of Canadians. It has caused incredible dislocation and emotional, physical and social damage. It has also exposed pre-existing and serious deficiencies in our health care system.

In March, in the last session, the health committee started studying the COVID pandemic and the government's response to it, in broad terms. We were tasked with looking into any issue that related to COVID-19. We met twice per week, almost every week, until mid-July. We heard from many experts and stakeholders, some 170 witnesses: epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, public health officials, health professionals from every discipline, unions, emergency room specialists, researchers and international officials. What follows are some of the deficiencies the evidence revealed.

Canadians were horrified to see the appalling conditions in which many of our seniors in care lived. We witnessed a terrible spectre: 80% of the COVID-19 deaths in Canada were in Canada's long-term care homes. This is the highest percentage of deaths in long-term care of any nation in the OECD. This crisis was so severe that the army had to be called in to Ontario and Quebec. They detailed hundreds of examples of outrageously poor treatment of our seniors, ranging from poor nutrition to forced feeding to outright neglect. Seniors were left alone for hours, crying in pain, soaked in their own excrement, crammed four to a room with no proper infection control, being administered expired medication and dying alone without access to their families.

This exposed the absolute precariousness, inefficiency and inequity of job-based health benefits. Millions of Canadians have seen their coverage for prescription medicine, dental services and ancillary health services of all kinds disappear. They join the tens of millions of Canadians who have never had coverage for the medicine their doctors prescribe and the dental care they desperately need. The government and all governments before it at the federal level have allowed this to develop.

The evidence also exposed a decade of inadequate planning by successive Conservative and Liberal governments to properly prepare Canada for a major health emergency. Indeed, Canadians were shocked to see our health professionals, our nurses, our care aides, our hospital staff and first responders have to go without basic personal protective equipment such as masks, gloves and gowns because there was a national shortage as a result of poor public health planning.

We witnessed the government have to throw out over 2.5 million pieces of personal protective equipment because they were left to expire in a warehouse, the casualty of successive federal Conservative and Liberal governments that neglected to set up a proper inventory control management system for Canada's emergency stockpile of equipment. We faced the spectre of being caught without a sufficient number of ventilators, and narrowly dodged forcing our intensive care doctors to make the terrible choice that some countries had to make as to who did and who did not get access to life-saving intubation.

The evidence showed the negative effects of decades of neo-liberal trade policy that left Canada vulnerable and dependent on countries like China and Donald Trump's United States for basic medical supplies and equipment, made offshore by the cheapest manufacturers with no regard for the health threats this caused Canadian patients in their time of need. It revealed that the Liberal government inexplicably and irresponsibly dismantled Canada's excellent emergency early warning health system, the global public health intelligence network, just months before the COVID-19 pandemic erupted in Canada, costing us precious time, preparation and, in fact, the very lives of Canadians. It highlighted the totally misguided and poor public policy choice, first made by the Harper Conservative government, to limit federal health transfers to the provinces to 3% when actual health care costs in Canada rise by an average of 5.2% every year, causing a chronic and ever-worsening funding problem in our provincial health systems. This policy was adopted by the Liberal government, which had promised to do better but simply continued this damaging and dangerous health care underfunding.

Why is this motion before the House? Before adjourning in the summer, the health committee was preparing a report summarizing evidence and preparing recommendations to the government based on the excellent information we received. The government then prorogued Parliament in mid-August. This eliminated the health committee, along with all other committees, and wiped out all the evidence we had accumulated.

Upon returning to Parliament this September, we had to start from square one. We had a brand new throne speech. We had to reconstitute the committees. We had to re-elect the chairs and vice-chairs. We had to re-adopt the rules of the committees. We had to determine our new order of business.

I want to pause for a moment and mention the positive impact that the New Democrats have had on the throne speech from a health point of view. Through working with the government and using our leverage for Canadians, not our party interests, we successfully enlarged the Liberal plan to award paid sick days only to those with COVID-19 or awaiting diagnosis, giving them to all Canadians who have an underlying condition that may make them vulnerable to COVID-19. This brought the amount of Canadians receiving paid sick days from the thousands, the amount the Liberal plan would have helped, to millions, because of NDP work. This pleases me, particularly as health critic, because ensuring that Canadians can stay home from work when it is necessary for their health is a critically important health measure, and one that is especially important when we are dealing with an infectious disease.

Because of the Liberal prorogation delay, since July and to this date, October 22, the health committee has met twice. For the record, as health critic for the NDP, I want to register my deep objection to the unnecessary and politically motivated prorogation, which was done transparently to cut off committee examination into various political scandals of the Liberal government, including the WE matter. I say this because in a global pandemic, every day, week and month matters. Canadians deserve and expect their political representatives to be focusing their attention on their health and economic needs, not on the partisan interests of the Prime Minister, the Liberal Party or his family. We have lost valuable time to do our important job as the House of Commons health committee not only to hold the government accountable for its decisions, but also to develop positive recommendations that can help it improve its delivery of health services to Canadians.

What happened at HESA in the last two meetings? The Liberals came to committee suggesting we study singular aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. One was the impact purely on long-term care and the other was the impact purely on mental health, each as a separate study and limited to those issues. They did not deal whatsoever with the evidence that had been given so far this year, presumably leaving that evidence to wither on the vine. The Liberals also had no suggestions for the production of any documents that may aid the committee in its work.

On behalf of the NDP, I served notice of three motions, proposing a study of the following, in this order. First I proposed to continue our study of COVID-19, adopting all of the evidence we heard in 2020, so that we did not lose this vital and valuable information. I proposed that we continue on with our COVID-19 study, unlimited in scope, and focus on any and all issues of concern now.

I also proposed that we did not need to go over already well-tilled areas, and that instead we should focus on the most important and productive things for preserving and protecting Canadians' health now. These are things such as the following: Where are we with vaccine development and access for Canadians? What is the distribution protocol for vaccines going to be? What is the status of potential treatment therapies for those with COVID-19? This is especially important in case we do not soon develop a vaccine. Why was the GPHIN dismantled by the Liberals, and more importantly, what is the status of this vital early warning system now? What considerations and resources are needed to deal with the second wave, which is clearly upon us, and maybe a third wave in the new year?

What is the status of testing and contact tracing? We have heard repeatedly that both are essential components of any successful battle plan against transmission of the virus. How can we develop safe protocols to help reunite families that have been cruelly separated for many months? How can we best utilize the best science and evidence-based advice, whether it is from global health organizations, other countries or within Canada? I propose this as the first order of business for the health committee as the COVID crisis is without doubt the most important health issue gripping our country.

Incidentally, I also served notice of two other important areas that I believe we need to study after we complete our COVID examination, whenever that may be. The first is universal dental care as an insured service for every Canadian, because some 12 million Canadians do not have any dental coverage whatsoever. Many more have substandard coverage for an aspect of our health that has been ignored and treated as a private matter for the wealthy or those who can afford it for far too long.

I also proposed we study indigenous health because indigenous people rank among the lowest in virtually every major metric of health. This is a statistic that ought to cause all parliamentarians to hang our heads in shame.

Procedurally, I tendered two motions to request the production of documents to the committee. These concerned necessary documents to help us understand the very secretive activities of the Liberal-appointed vaccine task force, a body that is filled with a mixture of industry and corporate representatives who have not disclosed their conflicts of interest, even as they make recommendations to the government for specific vaccine investments. The other motion concerned details about the government's plan on how it intends to roll out vaccines for Canadians, if and when they become available.

I will also note my disappointment that the health minister has refused to answer my question in this House on whether vaccines will be made available at no cost to Canadians. The NDP believes this ought to be the case on the grounds of social justice and public health. The Conservatives tabled a motion very similar to that in the House today.

What happened at committee? The Liberals stalled consideration of this motion, arguing, in turn, that it is too broad or not inclusive enough. They have not made up their minds. They adamantly refused to consider any production of documents of any kind to the committee whatsoever, arguing mainly that their government and public servants are much too busy to be bothered to gather this information for Parliament.

They used the valuable time of the health committee during a pandemic to filibuster debate by talking out the clock to avoid any vote on this motion, which they knew a majority of committee members and parties, namely, the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP, supported. Therefore, nothing was done at either of the first two health committee meetings in any substantive manner because the Liberals refused to respect the will of the majority of the committee.

I will point out at this point some important facts. First, we are in a minority Parliament. In 2019, Canadians, in their wisdom, saw fit to give no party a majority claim on power. This means that it is the Canadian people's democratic determination and expectation that we work together and seek a majority across party lines. No one party can have a veto in this Parliament.

Second, this Parliament requires co-operation among the parties and parliamentarians. Canadians want us to make this Parliament work. They expect us to put down our partisan guards, at least to some extent, and make the necessary compromises that reason and fairness dictate. Therefore, I and my NDP colleagues intend to support this motion because it represents the will of the majority of members of the health committee.

We support it because it places COVID where it should be, which is as the health committee's number one priority. I support it because it would allow the committee to focus our attention in any area we deem most helpful and important, just like we did in the first session. It would provide each party with an equal number of witnesses at every meeting, ensuring that balanced and diverse viewpoints are heard and every committee member could call witnesses in the area they want to delve into. It would also allow each party to provide witnesses in the area they want highlighted, whether it is rapid testing, mental health, long-term care or vaccine development. All of these are priorities identified by each of the parties at committee, including the Liberals.

The motion would give the committee access to documents that are reasonable and necessary to hold the government to account in a responsible manner. On this latter point of disclosure of documents, the current Prime Minister pledged to Canadians, upon being elected in 2015, his government would be “open by default”. He said that he would unmuzzle scientists and civil servants. The Prime Minister promised that his government would be transparent and would not utilize the tools of secrecy and redaction that had become the hallmark of the Harper government that came before him.

How times change. We have seen far too many examples of this pledge being broken by the Liberal government, which now routinely refuses to produce documents, heavily redacts them and violates instructions to have redactions performed by parliamentary counsel instead of ministry officials. This must stop.

Committees have the powerful duty and right to order production of documents in unredacted or properly redacted form. This is a long-standing and crucial power of committees in a responsible and democratic government. It is essential to hold the government accountable. When a government refuses to disclose documents or heavily redacts them, as has unfortunately become routine practice by the Liberal government to avoid political embarrassment, it does much more than damage its own reputation. It tarnishes the authority of Parliament itself.

Contrary to what the Liberals have argued and will likely claim today, disclosure of documents to Parliament is not a burden or an inconvenience for public officials that is provided only when convenient or in times of insignificance. It is a core, important and full-time duty that applies at all times to all responsible and honest governments.

I note this motion would permit redaction for proper grounds such as national security, personal privacy, and in the case of the vaccine task force, to protect the integrity of contractual and other negotiations that may have taken place. I believe we are prepared to entertain further amendments if the Liberals propose reasonable ones in this regard. These document disclosures constitute reasonable and responsible requests that are targeted and rational for the health committee to review.

In summary, my NDP colleagues and I will proudly support this motion while being somewhat regretful that this matter had to be elevated to the House. I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Calgary Nose Hill for her initiative in moving this motion today.

I look forward to working with her and all my colleagues on the health committee for the benefit of all Canadians. We do so because the health of Canadians is our paramount concern, and the integrity of Parliament, underpinned by the values of transparency, accountability, democracy and good governments, demands it.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Madam Speaker, I worked with the member for Vancouver Kingsway in the past when he was on the trade committee. I chaired the committee, and we proved that we could work together to get to “yes”. We did that on the South Korea trade deal, where we actually worked with the NDP and the Liberal Party, and we arrived to “yes”. That is just one example of what could happen in committee.

Does the member see any movement on the Liberals' side in regard to amendments, improvements, changes or suggestions so that we could actually get to “yes”?

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, I very much enjoyed working with my hon. colleague on trade matters as well. He is absolutely right. This minority Parliament requires us to work together. So far, though, I have heard the Liberals absolutely refuse to produce any documents. I am also hearing, with the greatest of respect, completely misleading arguments.

One example of this is regarding what the motion says. The motion reads:

That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on the emergency situation facing Canadians in light of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this study evaluate, review and examine any issues relevant to this situation, such as, but not limited to....

The motion then goes on to list the items. I keep hearing Liberals say that this is a terribly broad motion that would require us to look into all these issues. If one just reads the motion, one can see that statement is misleading. It would allow the committee to choose whatever issues it wants to study, and is simply listing a number of issues that are suggested for us to look into.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway for his speech.

We agree on a number of things, particularly the fact that we have before us a government whose policy seems to be one of withholding information to cover up its scandals. Contrary to what it said, the government does not want to collaborate. We agree on all that.

I have a question regarding health transfers. NDP members often talk about centralization and national standards. In the context of the work that will be done once this motion is adopted, or so we hope, what will my colleague's position be when the time comes to consider health transfers?

Would he not agree that it would be much more effective to quickly increase health transfers, which have been extremely low for many years, rather than encroaching on jurisdictions and imposing national standards, for example for long-term care facilities, as he mentioned?

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP share the concern that the federal government is underfunding the provinces, and I mentioned that in my speech. We too would like to see the federal government increase its health transfers to the provinces to at least keep up with the rate of increase, which is about 5.2% per year.

I also agree with my colleague that, while the federal government has the responsibility to fund health care, we must leave it to the provinces to determine the best ways to deliver those services. I do believe in the Canada Health Act's principles of ensuring that each Canadian in this country gets access to relatively similar levels of health. The federal government can set basic general standards to ensure the money transferred to the provinces is in fact used for those purposes, We can then leave it to the provinces to determine the best way to deliver those services. We do not want to be sending money to Alberta—

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

Madam Speaker, here we are today debating what the health committee does, and I certainly agree that we have had a co-operative relationship in the past. I hope that continues. However, the opposition members know that with this motion they are requesting a ton of documents, such as emails, memoranda, notes and other records. This is and would be problematic, just because of the sheer volume.

The member talks of compromise, and I too would really like to see compromise. Would the member not agree that for the committee to get back together and function effectively and co-operatively, we need a more reasonable request in terms of what documents we are required to produce?

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, we have had two meetings where that very goal was attempted. I would throw it back on my colleague and ask them to propose an amendment. Let us see what the Liberals are proposing to produce. They have not sent one document. If they believe that the motion is too broad concerning production, I would ask them to propose a different one. So far, the Liberals have said they refuse to produce anything at all.

By the way, this motion calls for production in targeted areas. We want documents on the global public health intelligence network, testing, personal protective equipment, and vaccine development and distribution. Those are the areas. This is a targeted search in the areas that are of profound importance to Canadians. Canadians want to know if we are prepared for the next wave, where we are in testing, if our professionals have enough PPE and where we are with vaccines.

I throw it on the Liberals to tell me why they do not think this committee should get access to documents in those areas. If they want to cut it down to a reasonable level, I am happy to entertain that.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to give my hon. colleague an opportunity to expand on the answer he gave to the previous question.

He made a comment on the production of documents, saying that committees have the right to documents and the committee is not getting those documents. We had to bring this motion to the House of Commons to actually be able to get those documents. In contrast, the Liberals are saying that they cannot produce those documents.

I want my colleague to give us a feel for why the timing of those documents matters, as well as why we need a motion in the House of Commons to be able to hold the Liberals to account concerning the timing of what documents they will produce.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, we are here because the Liberals are filibustering at the health committee and talking out the clock so we cannot get anything done, instead of proposing amendments to the motion in a way that they think will address their concerns.

Why are these production requirements so important? It is because the Liberals dismantled the global public health intelligence network, which was Canada's only early warning system for pandemics. There may be another pandemic. I want to know, and I think Parliament should know, where we are with that.

In terms of testing, as I said in my speech, every experts tells us that we need to have testing and contact-tracing protocols to stop virus transmission. Where are we with that?

Regarding PPE, I do not need to say how important it is that our health professionals have sufficient PPE, which we are still not satisfied is the case. Of course the number one issue is vaccine development and distribution. All Canadians, 37 million of us, are waiting for a vaccine to be developed, which is the only way we are going to get back to normalcy and health—

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has the floor.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, I wanted to share some information with my hon. colleague and then proceed to a question.

There are over 300 cases of COVID in downtown Winnipeg alone, which includes a massive outbreak in a seniors residence. People are dying. We have a 6.3% positivity rate in metro Winnipeg. It has snowed. All the shelters are located in Winnipeg Centre. I am worried about COVID hitting the shelters at any moment. We are in crisis, and people are dying.

How is the Liberals' continued filibustering, withholding documents and, most recently, threatening election further placing the lives of Canadians at risk, particularly those whose lives are already at risk?

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, in my opinion, filibustering on the WE scandal is one thing, because it involves politics. Filibustering at the health committee, so that we cannot get to work on the number one public health emergency facing Canadians, is inexcusable.

I want to mention before I conclude that, in terms of production, this motion allows for redaction by the government on national security grounds, personal privacy grounds and interference in contractual relations, so trade secrets are covered by the motion. The government has broad and ample scope to redact these documents of sensitive issues.

In short, while the Liberals are filibustering, the NDP and other parties want to get to work on studying COVID-19. I think it is inexcusable that the Liberal party is putting its narrow political interests into trying to hide documents from parliamentarians because they think they are going to embarrass them instead of—

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Foothills has the floor.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak about this very important issue. In fact, I think there is no issue more important than the review and study of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on Canadians.

I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

Before I get into the basis of my intervention today, I found it interesting to listen to the arguments from the Liberal Party when our leader and the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill opened this debate. I find hearing the health minister say that it is irresponsible for the Liberal government to change its tactics in the middle of a battle to be, in short, completely ridiculous. I am very happy that Sir Julian Byng and Arthur Currie did not have that same perspective and were not like the Liberals. When the Battle of Vimy Ridge was going on, and hundreds of thousands of soldiers were dying, they invented the rolling barrage in the middle of the battle to win Vimy Ridge. I would ask the Minister of Health to rethink her position on this and maybe start thinking of The Art of War by Sun Tzu and not Colonel Custer when she is putting the lives of Canadians at risk.

Also, we have many Liberal members saying that this motion is going to open up trade secrets with corporations and agreements that have been made with corporate Canada. It is interesting that just a couple of days ago there was an interim order granting the Minister of Health the authority, or new powers, to request documents from corporations and drug companies in Canada when it comes to COVID-19. The hypocrisy of that is ridiculous.

Why was the health minister here arguing today that we should not be asking for government documents because they are not important, while at the same time she is giving herself new powers to do the exact same thing to Canadian corporations and drug companies?

When the Liberals argue that asking for these documents is going to put those agreements in the public eye, she is going to be doing the exact same thing. The hypocrisy of this, I find, is quite ridiculous.

In my discussions with my constituents, they want a strategy. They want to see a plan from the Liberal government on how we are going to deal with COVID and the pandemic. When the Prime Minister prorogued, it was the last step in what has been a very predictable process. When Canadians needed their elected officials and were relying on us the most to deal with one of the biggest threats we have had in a generation, this pandemic, the Prime Minister first shut down Parliament, then he prorogued Parliament. Now we are finally back and he is filibustering committees: ethics, finance and now health. Then, when he is not getting his way, he threatens an election in the middle of a pandemic.

When we went through prorogation, the whole idea was to have a reset, and that we would come back and have a clear vision of where Canada was going. We have seen none of that. We have wasted months of Parliament's time getting nowhere. All that we saw in the throne speech was a rehash of broken Liberal promises. We have seen nothing about a plan to access vaccines. We have seen nothing about a plan to access rapid testing. The only thing that we have seen from the Liberal government this far is planning an additional round of closures for businesses across Canada. Our economy cannot afford that. We cannot afford for closure to be the only alternative, especially knowing that there are other alternatives that jurisdictions around the world are using.

Germany, Japan, Austria and Iceland are all using rapid testing technology and reducing quarantine times to keep their businesses open, to keep schools open, to keep families united, to keep regions and communities connected, and to ensure that they can resurrect their airline and tourism industries. However, in Canada, we are falling well behind other jurisdictions around the world. We are using a 14-day quarantine that most of our partners are not using. In fact, more than 80 countries around the world are using this new technology, but Canada is not among them. It is very difficult for us to go back to our constituents and say, “You know what? Other countries have that technology.” We do not have to rely on a 14-day quarantine or closures. Most businesses will not survive a second closure.

How do we look them in the face and say we could be using this rapid testing technology or even home-based testing, but we prefer not to? That is absolutely out of touch with what is going on in our communities. I will give a quick example. In my riding, as I know many of my colleagues have done, we started what we call the Foothills recovery task force. We surveyed hundreds of businesses in my riding. We wanted to be a one-stop shop for them to come to with questions: to be a resource, when it came to federal and provincial programs, so that they knew what was available to them. What I found very interesting was that, when we surveyed these businesses, fewer than 30% of them could access, or were eligible for, federal programs like the emergency business program, the wage subsidy or even the rent subsidy, which we know has been an absolute failure. For months, the Liberals have been promising to change these programs to make them more broadly accessible.

That is not what is happening in my rural southern Alberta riding, where these businesses cannot access these programs. What they need is the ability to stay open, keep their workers employed, keep their business doors open and keep food on their families' tables. Rapid testing is one perfect example of a way for us to accomplish that. When that technology is being used in other countries and not here in Canada, I question that. That is really the basis of what the motion is today. We want to look at what got us here. What decisions did the Liberal government make to get us to this point?

We can use that as a starting point of where to go from here. What vaccine technology has been reviewed? How close are we to rapid testing? How close are we to home-based testing? What has been the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of Canadians? Those are the things that we want to discuss, which are quite prudent at the health committee.

What have we been faced with? Thus far, we have been faced with ridiculous filibustering by Liberal members at the health committee. We have heard that it is too much work for them to go through all these documents: that they want their Thanksgiving weekend and really do not want to have to do this right now.

Do those members of the health committee realize why they are here? They were elected by their constituents to come to the House of Commons, get their hands dirty and go to work. Yes, if we have to spend a weekend or a long night session reading documents that are pertinent to the health and safety of Canadians, damn right. That is what we have been sent here to do, and no excuses are good enough for that.

Two other members of the Liberal Party at the health committee said the font of the motions was too small and they could not read them. Are they kidding? Are they serious? Zoom in. They say it is going to take too long for our public sector workers to be able to access these documents. I have a lot of pride in what our public sector workers have done through COVID-19 and the response that they have had. Some of these programs could take months if not years to develop and roll out, but they have done it in sometimes days or hours. I applaud them for that. However, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and it does not take that long to type “search” into our computers and press print. That is what we are asking the public sector workers to do on this file. I understand it is a big job, but I am willing to do the job of reviewing these documents. It is absolutely not right for the Liberals to block this information that is crucial to Canadians. It is crucial that we keep our businesses open and resurrect our airline industry. What is clear, for example, is that rapid testing gives us a pathway to economic recovery.

In closing, I find it extremely frustrating that the Liberals are blocking this important debate, discussion and review at the health committee, but it seems to be that the government's hostility to the truth is only matched by the Prime Minister's penchant for ethics and corruption violations.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

What I find interesting about this motion is that it calls on the Standing Committee on Health to study the inadequacy of health transfers. We have been talking about that a lot since the throne speech. I actually received a note from one of my constituents talking about how badly the federal government has been neglecting seniors and driving them further into poverty.

I replied that of course we need to increase old age security starting at age 65, not 75. I also talked about the importance of increasing health transfers, because seniors are supported by the provincial and Quebec health care systems.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Madam Speaker, my colleague is exactly right. One of the topics that we want to address in this study that is before the health committee is health transfers and the impact that COVID has had on long-term facilities or seniors' centres.

I have one of the oldest demographics in the country, so the health of our seniors is critically important to me and the constituents in Foothills. Of course, one of the things that we want to look at is to ensure that there are proper resources for the provinces to do the jobs that, jurisdictionally, they have been asked to do.

I find it interesting that the Liberals keep wanting to study things that are not in federal jurisdiction. They want to continue to invade or impose their will on provincial jurisdiction, but we should be looking at the role the federal government has to ensure that the provinces have the federal resources they need to do the job that has been asked of them.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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, this is very rare and, in fact, it may be the first time where I quote something from Twitter. It comes from Flavio Volpe, an industry leader who continuously promotes industries throughout Canada to very much support what is taking place. He tweeted that, “Canada's response to the COVID19 crisis was lauded around the world because we did not politicize what we needed to do, we just did it. Urgently. Together. Safely.” There is an individual who is concerned that we might be seeing politicalization of a very important issue to Canadians.

The member asks for much information, but we have to be concerned about protecting our supply chains. The amount of information is being requested at a time when we have civil servants working with provinces, territories, indigenous leaders and so many other stakeholders. There is a priority in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. Would the member not agree that to say that we should get all this information even though we already have lots, and to give 15 days to do it in, is completely unreasonable?

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Madam Speaker, I would absolutely not agree with that. The only party that is politicizing COVID-19 is the Liberal Party.

If the Liberals are so proud of the programs that they have rolled out over these past few months, then why are they filibustering the health committee? Why are they not allowing those documents to be released? If they are so proud of what they have done, what are they hiding it for? I would be putting it out there for everyone to see and say, “Look at what I have done.” If that is the case and the documents come back, and we read them and see that we are on the right track, then that is fine.

I want to know, as Canadians want to know, whether we are on the right track. Are we failing? Are we losing? If so, how do we change tack? Where do we need to go?

That is what we are asking for. We are not politicizing this. We are doing this what our constituents are asking us to do.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to know if my colleague agrees that health transfers need to be increased. It seems like everyone in the House thinks so, but we cannot seem to agree. Promises are made and broken.

From 1958 to 1977, the federal government covered 50% of health care costs. From 1977 to 2004 there was no minimum. It was decided that funding would be left at the federal government's discretion. In 2004, former prime minister Paul Martin decided there needed to be a minimum, a floor that he set at a 6% annual increase. That was in effect from 2004 to 2017. Since 2017, the increase has been tied to the growth rate of GDP and subject to a floor of 3%.

In 2012, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the federal government was nearly driving the provinces into bankruptcy. He said that the government was not taking into account the aging population. According to him, Ottawa was ensuring its own long-term financial viability while jeopardizing that of the provinces.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of that. Are we in a situation where the federal government is impoverishing the provinces?