Health Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay. I'll open discussion on the motion.

Madame Gagnon.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

That brings me to the motion that I tabled.

I tabled a restrictive motion because it did not look like there was time to have Health Canada appear on the topic of theCanada Food Guide. I simply requested that the publication of the report of the proceedings be postponed. However, if additional meetings are added, I would like Health Canada officials to come and speak to us on the Canada Food Guide and that we have an opportunity to ask them questions. I would like to go further than the motion that you tabled.

I requested a report of the proceedings that led to the creation of the Canada Food Guide, but it would be better to have health Canada officials appear before the committee. I would agree to having additional meetings on condition that Health Canada officials agree to appear before the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Now, just for clarification here--

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

That is consistent with the agreement to increase the number of meetings. Are we not calling for some additional meetings?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

That's absolutely right. I agree.

Because your motion is really asking for another meeting for the department to deal with Canada's Food Guide, I would ask if you would consider making that amendment to incorporate yours into this motion. Would you be prepared to make yours an amendment to Mrs. Davidson's motion? We have to deal with the motion.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

No. I would like to keep my motion, but I would put forward an amendment so that Health Canada officials appear before the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We can do that when we get to your motion, though. We have to take them one at a time, then. I'm sorry.

Is there any other discussion on this motion?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Chair, I tabled the first motion. So why are we starting with the last motion that was brought to our attention? We are going about this the wrong way around. I put forward the first motion, which was followed by a second and a third. We will proceed in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Let the clerk explain that. One is a procedural motion. That's the only reason it was introduced without notice of motion. But yours had notice of motion.

Is that right?

[The Clerk of the Committee]

It wasn't necessary to have the 48-hour notice for this motion because it has to do with the subject under discussion today, which is childhood obesity. It wasn't required.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

That's the only reason we're doing it ahead of yours. If you want to do yours first, you certainly can. I don't think it's a big issue.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

The motion I tabled deals with child obesity, and theCanada's Food Guide is linked to obesity. I brought it forward as part of our study on obesity, and after hearing from witnesses who told us that people were disappointed because they had not been consulted, and that the guide did not meet their expectations—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Let's not get bogged down on this. We have two motions on the floor. If you see a reason why this motion would compromise your motion, we can take yours first. It doesn't make any difference. It's already been introduced on the floor. That's why I think we should have the discussion on this motion, accept it or reject it, and then move on to yours.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I find that having to develop work plans by motion is a sign of total dysfunction in a committee. We need a steering committee meeting, and we need to be able to figure this stuff out without going motion by motion. Having duelling motions is not the way to work collaboratively. One is dropped on the table, and then there's no capacity to have a consensus to find compromise. This means you end up doing yes, no, reject, amendments, and all of this stuff, which is just a waste of time. We've already said we don't have enough time for this committee work, and we're wasting the committee's time doing work plans.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Ms. Bennett, my office has been trying to contact yours for the last two days. We were trying to get a meeting together. This was my intent. I had a chance to talk to Madam Gagnon about it. That is what we were trying to do, but time didn't allow it.

You're right in the sense that what you say would be ideal. We did our best to make it happen in this situation. But that doesn't change the motion here before us. I think we need to deal with this motion and move on. It's a separate issue. I did my best to contact your office, and you know that.

Mr. Lunney.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

I appreciate the discussion on this motion.

We've come this far with the study, and I think we've all found it interesting. But there are some key players who would like to present. I would like to appeal to colleagues to consider that we make room for the professionals like the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Pediatric Society. There are provincial representations from the Pan-Canadian Healthy Living Strategy as well as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. They all have something they'd like to contribute to this discussion.

Having come this far, I hope we would find room to make room. I think we could find room for a compromise. The motion from Madam Gagnon proposes to include a discussion of Canada's Food Guide—which probably wouldn't be inappropriate, given the subject matter—within the four meetings. Perhaps we can find room to arrange it in such a manner that we could include Canada's Food Guide discussion as well.

I appeal to colleagues to consider that this can be done. We're talking about four meetings. It's not an inordinate commitment of time. This would allow us to complete the study and enable our report to be as representative as possible in addressing this important issue.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I want to build upon what Dr. Bennett was saying, about this committee trying to work in a spirit of collaboration and cooperation. Of the last four or five meetings we've had, at every single meeting we end up talking about whether or not we are going to extend our topic and add more sessions. Everyone ends up with a bad taste in their mouth, because we've discussed this issue from day one.

We had decided on a game plan. Realizing that there were other groups to hear from, we had also suggested last time around, off the record, that we might want to extend the sessions and add on another hour. Many members, I understand, would be willing to sit past 5:30. We could add an extra hour and stay with our original game plan to go on and discuss another topic afterwards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I'll clarify that. We had one working session during the first session back in September, and then we did not discuss future business and what we would go with until the last meeting. This is why Ms. Davidson never had an opportunity to bring it forward. That meeting, if you remember, was cut short at the end because there was quite a heated discussion about this issue. So really there has only been one time when we've talked about it, which was the last time, and now this time.

It's done in the form of a motion. I believe Ms. Davidson is trying to do it that way so that we can just get to a conclusion rather than into discussion on it, because we've debated it considerably. So we either say yes or say no. I think it's very simple.

So if I see no other debate on this issue, then—

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Chair, I also believe that it is important that we have a few additional meetings. There are some people we have not heard from. However, I do not quite agree with the list we have here. The provincial representatives are very important. For having heard him, I believe that Dr. Després, of Laval University, can provide us with a very different perspective on obesity. I also believe that it is very important to hear from the Canadian Medical Association. It is absolutely essential that we deal with theCanada's Food Guide, because it has governed our food habits for too many years. It is sent to dieticians in school, and they forward it to us. It is not a good food guide. It was not done according to what Canadians should eat, but according to their food habits. It is not a good guide.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. Fletcher.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Actually, I agree with Madame Demers.

Madame Demers, if I may, I will ensure that representatives from Health Canada come to this committee to answer any concerns that this committee has—and that goes to Ms. Gagnon's motion. In the interim, I think there's a motion on the floor, but I will guarantee you that we will have people from Health Canada in to discuss Canada's Food Guide, because I share those concerns.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I think the debate was whether or not, in the motion, there are specific witnesses. You wanted to include perhaps a few others. Is that right, Madame Demers? Is that what I heard you to say?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Fair enough.

Ms. Priddy.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

It helps me to understand. I've heard three different groups from Madame Demers. I've seen the ones Ms. Davidson has brought forward. I'm not saying they're not all important, but I'd like to know, if this passes.... I'm not quite sure at this stage what “this” is, because I'm not sure if this is seven more meetings, or four, or what. I don't quite know where we are with it, unless we're voting on Ms. Davidson's motion only, which is why we probably could have done a compromise. The way it looks now, though, it's seven more meetings, which is more than we planned for.

I'd like to know when we're going to start. Could you help me to know the date on which this committee would begin a debate about pharmacare? Let's say the motion passes and Madame Demers' motion passes. When will we...?