Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2020

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Health

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will keep this short.

I believe that the Liberal government has downloaded a lot of the responsibility for the pandemic to the provinces and it behooves it to ensure that those provinces have the resources they need to do the job that is asked of them.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent speech by my colleague from Alberta.

Essentially, he told us that our most important job here in the House is to be here for Canadians and implement effective measures to fight the pandemic.

That is exactly what we are talking about today. Basically, the motion before us is asking the Standing Committee on Health to do everything it can to ensure that the government's response works. We have to implement effective measures to fight the pandemic and be transparent.

The issue we are tackling today is the lack of transparency and effective measures to fight the pandemic. Would every member agree that we are here in Parliament to make sure the government helps businesses?

One such business is Autocar Excellence in Bellechasse, which has some beautiful brand-new buses in Bellechasse but cannot use them for obvious reasons. Another is Prevost in Sainte-Claire, maker of those very buses, for which demand is very low now that we are in the second wave.

Our role is to mitigate the impact of the pandemic, especially on health. The Standing Committee on Health has important work to do, and that is what we are asking of it today. Unfortunately, it appears that the Liberals are trying to hide something. If they are so proud of how they have handled the pandemic, they should open up the books so we can see what we can improve and how.

The fact is, when the Conservatives sounded the alarm back in January about what lay ahead, the Minister of Health said that closing the border would not be a very effective tool for fighting the pandemic, and yet that is how the virus first got here, across the border. From day one, the government has been caught with its pants down, as we like to say back home.

What we want is to be able to respond better. In the first wave, the measures that were implemented were improvised and took away Canadians' motivation to stay at work.

The Liberals then started giving contracts to their friends. Yesterday, we had a vote on the WE Charity scandal. When the Liberals felt things starting to heat up at committee, they shut down Parliament and the finance minister resigned. Yesterday, they made the ultimate threat that they would trigger a general election. As my colleague stated, the Liberals were willing to hold an election to cover up a scandal.

We want to dig deep by demanding transparency and dealing with the pandemic efficiently. That is our job as parliamentarians. From the Bloc Québécois to the NDP, MPs are saying today that they want to work together to ensure that the government's response is effective.

In its throne speech this fall, the government listed many priorities. Once again, however, it was all over the map, with no clear proposals and nothing about efficient testing measures.

We want efficient testing. Right now, people are being diagnosed with COVID-19 and having to stay home. The faster we can identify these cases, the faster they can go back to contributing to the economy. I am thinking of parents in particular.

No one is talking about all the indirect effects of the pandemic, such as loneliness among seniors and many other people. That is why the government must adopt the most effective response possible. We Conservatives and the members of the other opposition parties are prepared to make the effort to implement effective measures. Unfortunately, as I was saying, we are up against the less than transparent Liberal Party, which appears to have something to hide.

This week, it was reported that friends of the Liberal Party obtained contracts to supply medical equipment at almost twice the going rate. We understand why the Liberals would want to hide these types of things.

There are lives at stake, and there are also colossal amounts being invested in the fight against the pandemic. That is one more reason why we should be vigilant and implement effective measures. The Liberals' mismanagement of the pandemic makes the opposition’s work all the more important.

Unfortunately, the parties' hands are tied because the Liberals seem to be hiding something.

In today's motion, we are calling for effective tools. Alberta, Quebec and the other provinces need targeted measures, such as testing, effective vaccines or treatments, so that their floundering health care systems can meet this challenge.

Back when the Liberals were saying that there was no danger, they sent PPE to China. That is pretty outrageous. They sent hundreds of thousands of masks, gloves and gowns from our stockpile to another country. A few weeks or months later, we had a shortage. On top of that, we used to have an early pandemic alert system, but it was shut down before the pandemic.

Not only did the government not have the right tools in place, but it also implemented measures that turned out to be counterproductive. That is why it is important to let the Standing Committee on Health do its job. Starting now, how can we work constructively to make sure the government's pandemic response is effective and supports businesses, families, the health care system and the provinces?

We think keeping the border closed is important. Once again this week, American billionaires came over to hang out in COVID-19 hot spots. How could Canada's Minister of Health let these people in and put others in danger, when Canadians are being told to stay home, limit their activities, and self-isolate when they return to the country? We do not want a double standard. These are legitimate questions that opposition members are asking themselves. We want answers from the government, but it is like talking to a brick wall.

When it comes to mask wearing, the government initially said that it might not be effective. In fact, the government actually advised against wearing masks, but we now know that wearing a mask gives us the best chances to stay safe. In fact, what we want to do at the Standing Committee on Health is give ourselves the best chances to have effective measures.

We want to speed up testing. I will come back to that because it is important. As my colleague was saying, many countries have a host of mechanisms to allow people to get a quick diagnosis and take the necessary measures when they have reason to believe they contracted COVID-19. Time is money, as the saying goes. The government's slow response is costing us a lot of time.

I am asking my Liberal colleagues if they are prepared to work with us on fighting the pandemic and taking effective measures. We are prepared to do the work. We are reaching out to the government and saying, let's work together. These are exceptional times. We are in a health crisis. It is time to pull together, work together and have a Parliament that works.

Why are the Liberals rejecting our offer of help to turn this pandemic into nothing but a bad memory?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

From what the opposition is saying, one would think that we never produced any documents. My colleague knows very well that the documents that the opposition is asking for today were submitted to the Standing Committee on Health and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The only difference was that trade secrets were protected. Paragraph (y) in this motion mentions the COVID-19 vaccine task forces. That is the only exception with regard to trade secrets.

Did he have a chance to talk to Quebec suppliers? Are they prepared to disclose the content of all their contracts, including conditions, to all of Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, I am reaching out to my colleague. If he wants to improve the motion that was moved today, what is he waiting for? Why does he not move an amendment?

We are open and, of course, we are proud. Bellechasse businesses are helping in the fight against the pandemic, contributing in the fields of health care and pharmaceuticals. I am thinking of Moore Plastics in Saint-Damien, Alifab and CFR Group. We have companies that are prepared for that.

The motion basically says that we do not want the government to give us redacted documents, documents that have so many things blacked out that it is impossible to even get the gist. What we want is effective measures. This is an open motion that says, “Let's work together”. I repeat: We are reaching out to the government.

What does the government have to hide? Otherwise, why will the Liberals not simply support this motion?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The Conservatives' motion is especially relevant because the priority at this time is the pandemic.

The people we represent are already being asked to do a lot. They are being asked to make sacrifices and to follow public health guidance. The least we can do is to show them what the government is doing to prepare for the second wave and what guidance it is following, among other things.

In his speech, my colleague spoke about the border. I think this motion offers the perfect opportunity to find out why the government waited so long to follow the WHO's recommendation to close the border and prevent the spread of the virus, which likely came from elsewhere.

I would like him to comment on that.

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

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

We have to learn from past mistakes to avoid repeating them. We know that we are in the midst of a second wave. The virus is still with us, and we must look to the future to see how we can avoid repercussions on our activities, whether on our health or our economy.

Members will recall that the City of Montreal started controlling access to the Montreal airport because the government was asleep at the switch.

We want to give it a wake-up call, and that is precisely the role of the Standing Committee on Health.

Why are the Liberals refusing to let the committee do its job? Lives are at stake, as are large amounts of money and, above all, the future of our country.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the key points of the motion is to have discussions and investigations into the global public health intelligence network. It is interesting to me that the Liberals do not want to look into some of the facts, considering a lot of the resources were allocated away from that intelligence network. They weren't allowing it to do the work it needed to do leading up to this pandemic. In fact, the funding has been significantly cut to that network and our Public Health Agency.

I would like to hear from the member on how important getting those documents are to see what that underfunding has done.

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

Madam Speaker, it is certainly important to have the best transparency we can expect. Unfortunately, we are faced with a wall, which I would call a wall of darkness, from the government. We need to know if the right decisions have been made, especially in ensuring that the health system is well supported and that appropriate measures were taken. Because of the refusal of the Liberals to move forward, we cannot get into that and avoid mistakes being repeated as we continue to fight the pandemic.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Newmarket—Aurora.

Today, I am giving my comments on a hyper-partisan motion from our Conservative colleagues.

I am proud to have sat on the health committee since the beginning of the pandemic. The committee has been working hard studying COVID-19 and the government's response. Since January, the health committee has held 34 meetings and heard from 171 witnesses as part of its study on COVID-19. The motion's goal is not to continue the good work for Canadians, but to send our health committee down a road of never-ending, counterproductive work.

The opposition says they are acting in the best interests of Canadians. However, in speaking about the motion, this is what the member for Calgary Nose Hill has to say to her Facebook audience. I am going to read the titles of the member's Facebook videos before speaking about the health committee. I want to see if members can get the tone she is conveying to her audience. She posts a video about a “Snap election alert” with a link to her website. Then she adds another “Snap election update”, another “snap election update” and then finally, a full election alert titled “Confidence motion on Trudeau scandal—full breakdown on what’s happening in Ottawa!!!!”

I am hearing the member opposite say we should work shoulder to shoulder. We are ready to work shoulder to shoulder for Canadians.

I ask all those listening, “What is the member concerned about?” If the Conservatives were really concerned about long-term care or even health transfers to the provinces, they would present studies on these specific topics at the health committee.

The members of the party opposite continue to be focused on political games. On this side of the House, we are focused on Canadians. As many members in the House have said previously, what happened in our long-term care homes in the first wave of COVID-19 was without a doubt a tragedy. I think the majority of the House would agree with that fact.

This is why I am disappointed that this motion only briefly mentioned long-term care homes, among a wide range of 16 other topics. When the member for Calgary Nose Hill brought the motion to the Standing Committee on Health, it was disappointing to see long-term care referenced among 16 other topics. What happened in our long-term care homes deserves its own separate study at the health committee.

The motion would send the health committee on a never-ending study to look at issues that are most important in the member's riding. Many members are concerned about that. However, maybe for some members of the Conservative Party this is important.

From our very first meeting, the Liberals at committee came forward with a motion to study the impact of COVID-19 on mental health, and my motion is to study its impact on long-term care. While respecting provincial jurisdictions, we want to continue to get good work done for Canadians on committee. This unreasonable motion does not do that.

The conditions reported by the Canadian Armed Forces in five long-term care homes in Ontario are deeply concerning and disturbing. One of these long-term care homes is located in my community of Brampton South. What we are seeing is the result of a pattern of neglect of long-term care facilities in Ontario. There is no excuse for the conditions that were reported. A lack of proper use of personal protective equipment, mistreatment of residents and poor facility conditions are unacceptable.

I would like to thank the CAF for their service to Canada and their bravery in coming forward with this report. It is up to us as elected officials to be part of the solution to this problem. Over 80% of all COVID-19-related deaths happened in long-term care homes. Our seniors deserve so much better than what they got.

Some homes saw over one-third of their residents pass away. Over 1,900 seniors died during the first wave in long-term care homes in Ontario alone. This is not to say that all long-term care facilities are bad. In fact, there are many excellent facilities across the country. Deaths in Ontario have occurred in only 60% of the homes, and half of all deaths occurred in just 23 homes across the province.

It is about figuring out what went wrong in the homes that had COVID-19 deaths, in many cases while respecting provincial jurisdictions, which my motion at the health committee acknowledges. It is extremely important to analyze how we can better protect our seniors in the future. The federal government and I, as a member of Parliament, have no interest in stepping on the toes of the provinces when it comes to long-term care. This has been a long-standing issue, and COVID-19 has presented a moment where all of us can step up and say, “No. We will no longer allow seniors to receive less than they deserve.”

Now we are being hit with the second wave. We are seeing cases start to trickle into long-term care homes once again. Experts are ringing alarm bells once again:

“I absolutely am very terrified and worried,” said Dr. Amit Arya, a palliative care physician specializing in long-term care who witnessed first-hand the devastation of the first wave in GTA facilities. “We have to really realize that long-term care is not a parallel universe. More spread of COVID-19 in the community increases the risk of an outbreak starting in long-term-care facilities.”

In Ontario alone, there are 71 outbreaks in long-term care homes. The federal government has sent the Red Cross into seven Ottawa long-term care homes, in addition to the more than 600 Red Cross workers who have been helping in 25 long-term care homes in Quebec.

There have been 40 COVID deaths in Ontario long-term care homes over the past month. Last week alone, seven people in long-term care died as a result of COVID-19. This issue is not going away and highlights the importance for the health committee to give this issue the study it deserves.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the heroes working in long-term care homes. I thank them for going above and beyond to support our dear long-term care residents. During these challenging times, Canadians are grateful for the work that is being done to protect our seniors.

With that being said, we have all heard about the staffing shortage in Ontario and across the country. This issue must be studied to ensure we can avoid any tragic situation like what happened in the spring. This is a provincial jurisdiction, but, as our government has said before, we are all in this together.

Some provinces have been proactive about this issue, and that is great to see. From the very beginning, we have seen provinces take different approaches to keeping residents in long-term care homes safe. For example, the Province of Quebec launched a recruitment drive in June to hire and train thousands of staff members and a manager for each long-term care home to oversee the COVID-19 response. It would be beneficial to learn from experts in Quebec and other provinces and to hear what actions they are taking to safeguard long-term care homes as we endure the second wave of COVID-19.

COVID-19 is also having a serious impact on the mental health of Canadians. Loneliness is taking a toll on Canadians. The latest finding from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health is that a substantial portion of the population is coping with a mental health issue. My colleague, the member for Newmarket—Aurora, presented a motion at the committee to study the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health and well-being of Canadians.

This silent pandemic is another issue that I have heard about from many constituents. In my riding of Brampton South, one constituent of mine, Michelle, has two elderly parents in long-term care homes and has been advocating for change in these homes ever since the start of this pandemic. She has worked with other families in similar situations and even secured 70,000 signatures on a petition, asking for all governments to take action. People like Michelle are counting on us to do the right thing by their families.

While one small aspect of this motion commits to looking at long-term care in some capacity, this issue deserves its own study by the health committee.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to join with our colleague from Brampton South in thanking our members of the Canadian Armed Forces for the great job they did in stepping in to fill the void in long-term care facilities and helping to care for our loved ones in Ontario and Quebec.

With this motion, we need to ensure we have a chance to look at the role that members of the Canadian Armed Forces played and whether we will need them again as we go into the second and third waves of this pandemic. We need to ensure that the provinces have stepped up to fill some of the problems they have encountered and that those problems have been addressed. That is why it is so important that the work be done by the health committee, as requested by my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill.

The member talked at length about long-term care facilities. My wife works in long-term care as a nurse. My father is in long-term care. If we had rapid testing, we could screen all visitors coming into those facilities, keeping our loved ones safe as well as the staff so they can continue to work. When staff members have to go into quarantine, it means shortages of staff, nurses, doctors and health care aides in those facilities.

Why will the member not approve rapid testing more quickly? Manitoba asked for rapid tests months ago and the Government of Canada, under this Liberal regime, said no. Why did she allow that to happen?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is under provincial jurisdiction, but we want to work with the provinces to figure out how we can support them better. As I said in my speech, 80% of all COVID-19-related deaths are in our long-term care homes. That is why it is so important in many ridings.

The member raised the question on rapid testing. Testing is one of the most important tools we have to respond to COVID-19. We know that the rapid response tests work. They must be able to detect the virus reliably and accurately. Health Canada officials are working—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on what my colleague from Brampton South just said.

There is a very simple reason why my colleague and the entire government have been able to repeatedly bash the provinces' management of seniors' homes. Quebec and the other provinces were honest and transparent about their figures and their management. They even took steps to address the situation long before that infamous report from the Canadian Armed Forces. Yes, the same armed forces that we all pay for.

Here is the situation. There is a simple way for the Liberals to show their support. They need to increase health transfers to at least 35%. In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, transfers were at 50%, or around $91 billion a year for the entire country, as opposed to $40 billion.

If the Liberals want to show their support, that is what they need to do.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, governments at all levels are working together to keep Canadians safe from COVID-19. As part of our response to the pandemic, we have announced $19 billion for the safe restart agreement to help provinces and territories restart their economies safely while we continue to respond to COVID-19. This funding is in addition to the $40 billion we already provide to the provinces and territories each year through the Canada health transfer.

We will keep working with the provinces and—

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

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her comments on long-term care homes. Currently a long-term care home in my riding is suffering from an outbreak. My feelings are that the government has not done enough. Its current filibustering at the health committee, threatening an election, while I am trying to keep people alive in my riding, certainly does not make me feel very good about the government's commitment to fighting for the lives of Canadians right now.

Is my colleague's government willing to stop filibustering, get to work on saving lives and stop playing political games?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, we all need to work together, shoulder to shoulder, for all Canadians. We do not need political games. We want to work, but this—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, since the beginning of the pandemic, the Standing Committee on Health has worked long hours to ensure that we heard from stakeholders across Canada on the government's response to the outbreak of COVID-19. I am proud of the work we have accomplished and I am especially proud of the way committee members were able to work together collaboratively to do our jobs and support Canadians.

A lot has changed since then. While claims have been made on intentions to collaborate, there has been no action to prove it. I am frustrated and disappointed in the Conservatives' new approach on the health committee. We did not always agree before, but it was always clear that everyone on the committee had a common goal to be productive rather than play partisan games.

The motion before us today sets out 16 areas of study and six requests for the production of papers, again 16 areas of study. This will prevent the committee from doing a proper study on any of these issues, looking at key issues and hearing from important witnesses across the country.

Earlier this year, in over 34 meetings of the health committee, we heard from 171 witnesses and received 51 informative briefs covering many important issues. However, only one of the 34 meetings that we held over the spring and summer focused on mental health. While it was enough to open our eyes, it was certainly not enough for us to get a better understanding of the situation we were facing relative to the mental health of Canadians.

With this in mind, when we met again on October 9, I introduced a motion to the committee to study the impacts of COVID-19 on the mental health and well-being of Canadians, including recommendations to specifically look at the impacts on indigenous peoples, racialized Canadians and vulnerable populations, the effectiveness and availability of virtual mental health services and how our government could assist the provinces and territories. I was disappointed when my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill moved to adjourn debate on this study, without so much as an opportunity for us to discuss its importance, so her motion could be introduced, but not before saying:

I really do find a lot of encouragement in the spirit of this motion that's on the floor. I try not to put my personal life into the public domain, but as somebody who is separated from her family due to COVID-19 measures, I understand the impact on mental health of some of these measures. Talking to other people who are in situations similar to mine, I know that's tough, and that's just one group of people. There are people who have lost their jobs or who are experiencing domestic violence or mental health breakdowns. It's certainly something that I think is important for our committee to look at.

However, her own October 19 motion had mental health listed as only one topic of 17 to study, only one out of 17.

In the motion before us today, that number is zero. That is unacceptable, but apparently that is how important my colleague sees mental health to be, not even worthy of mention. While I appreciate the member for Calgary Nose Hill finding encouragement in my motion, I wish I could say the same for the one that was presented in committee and the one that is being debated today. In fact, I am actually discouraged by these motions and their complete disregard for Canadians during these challenging times.

There is no doubt that COVID-19 has been one of the greatest challenges we have ever faced. Across the country, we are hearing lots of anecdotal evidence about the increased risk that some people may have in terms of depression, psychological distress, substance abuse and PTSD surfacing as a result of the pandemic. Many experts have labelled this mental health situation as a second pandemic, that is how serious it is. However, there is no doubt that mental health needs to be a priority for all of us right now.

We need an informed strategy on mental health going forward and, most important, we need to act while we have time before this crisis becomes worse. I am by no means suggesting that this is the only good idea, much less the only key issue, surfacing from the pandemic. The essence of committee work and of compromise is to work as a team in the best interests of Canadians in setting priorities to study.

What we have found in front of us today is a motion that sets out 16 areas of study and six requests for the production of papers. A general, all-encompassing motion such as this one takes away the opportunity for the committee to properly focus on priority areas like the ones recommended by the 171 witnesses we heard earlier this year. One of the strengths of smaller studies is that we are able to make well-informed, targeted recommendations that will have a real impact on the lives of Canadians. A scope as large as 16 areas of study waters down our ability to do that.

I am genuinely concerned that out of the 16 areas of study before us today, there is not a single mention of looking at the impacts of COVID-19 on the mental health and well-being of Canadians. This is unacceptable. I also do not see a mention of looking at the impacts of the pandemic on high-risk groups, such as indigenous people, racialized Canadians and vulnerable populations. We need to consider these groups so we can develop programs to effectively help them.

As I have said before and will say again, if we have too many priorities, 16 to be exact, we have no priorities at all. Do members want to know what is not a priority in the motion presented today? The mental health of Canadians during these challenging times.

I will not be supporting the motion and I hope my colleagues will follow suit. All members in the House have an opportunity to get ahead of the second pandemic, but what is being proposed today will not get us there. If we do not take the appropriate steps to act now, while we can, the outcome will be on all of us and especially on those who choose to move forward without giving this matter the attention it deserves. This second pandemic cannot be fixed with a vaccine, but we can get ahead of it if we collaborate and focus our work on how we can best support Canadians.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, we heard all day Tuesday, with the threat of an election and a confidence motion over creating a committee to examine Liberal corruption, that we were not talking about the right thing; we were not talking about COVID-19. Here we are, 48 hours later, talking about COVID-19 with a very comprehensive request for documents and examination of best practices. However, now the Liberals say that while we are talking about the right thing, they do not like the format. There are too many questions. There are too many requests for papers. We are talking about COVID but not doing it right.

Is this not about the government refusing to accept any input from the opposition and simply trying to ram everything through without input from parliamentarians, who are elected from across this country, because it does not like to be challenged?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, but quite frankly, the member has raised a concern that has been discussed. In fact, there is a dialogue going on to determine what the priorities are. This is about priorities. This is about the committee collaboratively agreeing on studies that we should undertake on a go-forward basis. This is not about going into the forest, turning over logs and looking for slugs and ants. This is about what we can do on a go-forward basis.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out to my esteemed colleague that this morning's motion states, “and that this study evaluate, review and examine any issues relevant to this situation, such as, but not limited to”. A list follows, and I have no objection to adding mental health to that list.

My colleague knows full well that mental health is overlooked in the health care system and has been for at least 25 years. This happened because health care systems are chronically underfunded.

Why does my esteemed Liberal colleague not convince the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health to increase health transfers, as Quebec and all the provinces are calling for?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is also a member of the health committee. He knows as well as I do that there are a number of issues the committee thinks should be priorities and should be brought forward. In fact, he himself has brought forward a motion to study two important issues. A member from the NDP has put forward 12 motions that could be dealt with fairly specifically.

The proposal we are considering at this time is that we get together as a team, at the health committee, and establish the priorities of the committee. Once we are able to agree on that, we can go forward and focus our energy, rather than dispersing it to produce no viable results for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, in my 16 years I have seen all manner of committees. I have seen committees where we have worked together. I have seen committees that were dysfunctional. I have filibustered with the best of them. However, I have never seen the health committee engaged in a filibuster because the Liberals were refusing to accept the will of the majority, so we have had to move this issue into the House today.

I hear my colleague talking about how we are going to be collaborative and how we are going to work together. The government just threatened an election over the set-up of a committee it had agreed to. Now we are seeing, in the middle of a pandemic, the Liberals monkeywrenching the work of the health committee and forcing Parliament to take this into consideration.

I would like my hon. colleague to come clean with Canadians and explain why the Liberals have been shutting down the work of committees that need to get answers and why we have had to make the extraordinary move of bringing this issue to Parliament for a debate.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, an important role of all members is to focus the dialogue and ensure that the energies of a committee are productive and serve the purpose of Canadians. When they see this is not happening, it is our obligation to speak up to make sure that we focus on and build the collaboration we need for moving forward.