Health Committee on June 13th, 2018

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

May I have a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Certainly.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

That was a “close” one.

I think it will be an interesting study, and I think a lot of people will appreciate it.

Mr. Oliver, do you have a motion?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Yes, I do.

This deals with trying to bring to a close the food guide review that we were doing and the consultation that we were conducting. As I said at the last meeting, the consultation website the government had opened is now closed. Over the summer they'll be working on the food guide, so if the testimony we heard is going to be included, we need to finish this before the end of this session.

A number of witnesses we had scheduled have not been able to provide testimony. Some were cut short because of the bells and the votes that have been happening. My motion is to deal with that, to make sure that the witnesses we have not heard from are welcome to submit written submissions to the committee, and that the chair then write to the Minister of Health. Our letter to the minister would be more just a summary of testimony versus any conclusion by the committee. It's just a recording of what we've heard from the witnesses we've had.

That letter could be sent in by you, as the sole reviewer, because it won't have an opinion. It would be just a summary of testimony.

The motion is as follows:

That the Clerk of the Committee write to all witnesses who were scheduled to appear before the Committee to testify on the study of Canada's Food Guide and were unable to do so because of the schedule of the House to ask for written submissions to the Committee; that the analysts prepare a letter from the Chair of the Committee to the Minister of Health that contains a summary of evidence from all testimony and briefs received by June 22; that the letter express that the Committee has received said testimony and briefs and would like to make the Minister aware of the testimony; and that the Chair review and approve the letter on behalf of the Committee, ensuring that it contains only a summary of evidence; and send it to the Minister of Health.

That's the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Are there any comments or questions on the motion?

Mr. Webber.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Just for clarification, you're saying that this letter should contain all testimony, all written submissions, and not just from the witnesses who appeared before us. Correct?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Yes. We're expressly asking everybody who didn't get a chance to testify to make written submissions. That would be included in the summary of evidence.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Excellent.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Marie-Hélène Sauvé]

Perhaps I can clarify.

We have already undertaken to contact all the witnesses who were scheduled to appear. They have all sent in written submissions. Some have been distributed already to all committee members. The other ones are awaiting translation and should be ready by the end of the week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

How many?

[The Clerk]

I think we're still waiting on two or three.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

How many would there be altogether?

[The Clerk]

I have not counted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

What's your guess—six, 10...?

[The Clerk]

There would be 12 to 14.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I wonder if the committee has any interest in perhaps having a meeting early in July. It could be late June as well—I won't judge—but I feel that it's so important that we have the guests, or at least offer an invitation to the guests, who weren't able to appear, for parliamentary reasons I guess, so that they have an opportunity to appear before committee.

I say that because the ones who were on the list...and then there were some industry groups who probably would like to have attended, but they just couldn't for a number of different reasons. Even though they're submitting a brief, I think it would be a disservice to the guide and to them, the industry, if they were not able to present their briefs in person, answer some questions, and provide, perhaps, a little more detailed information about how serious the proposed changes are.

For example, last week when I asked the minister a question about Mr. Eyolfson's private member's bill, Bill C-228, about the cost the industry would face for reformulation, retooling, etc., which was $1.8 billion, it appeared that the department was either completely dismissive or unaware of the cost to industry.

I would ask if my Liberal colleagues would be interested in holding even a day of meetings, or however many we could fit into a day, to make sure that everybody who wanted to have a say would have a say. I think if you polled those who are in the industry—which obviously represents the farmers and growers who produce the food the industry does process—they would indicate they didn't feel as though they'd had their fair say. I also think they would feel that, whether it's the minister or the government or the departmental officials behind it, the outcome was determined before the process began.

I think they would like to have an opportunity to appear and have their say. I know I can speak for my two colleagues beside me here, but I can't speak for the Liberals or the NDP as to whether they're interested in it. I know that if they can't appear, there are likely MPs in their respective parties who are close enough that they could appear for a day of meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We have Mr. Oliver's motion on the floor at the moment. You're talking about a completely different motion. Are there any more comments on Mr. Oliver's motion? They don't have to be mutually exclusive. We can do both, but it's Mr. Oliver's motion that we're considering right now.

I share your concern, Mr. Lobb. It's my intention as the chair to phone 14 people, the 14 organizations that were denied the opportunity to speak. That's my goal. I'm going to do that. I feel it would take three or four meetings, or maybe even more, to cover all the people we missed. If there are 14 presentations to be heard, that would be three or four meetings. I just don't know if we can do that. It's going to be up to the committee. It's my intention to contact them. I've already contacted some of them and I'm going to contact all of them, because I share your concern that they have not had an opportunity to present their case. Mostly I'm going to reach out to them; I'm not going to take testimony from them. I'm going to tell them how the committee misses their testimony and we're sorry that it happened the way it did. That's my intent.

Mr. Oliver has a motion on the floor. Is there any other debate on the motion?

Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Before we vote on this motion, is there any interest from the Liberals in having the guests or the witnesses who were on the list and weren't able to present to appear? I'm curious about that before we vote on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Are there any comments on the Liberal side?

Mr. McKinnon.

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

My schedule is pretty tight from now for a month or so, but I think the point of Mr. Oliver's motion is that in order to get this evidence before the people who are going to write the food guide, so that they can have some input into it, we have to take this step.

Even if we did have one or more meetings over the summer to write a report, that report would probably land after the food guide is launched, so it wouldn't provide any input to the food guide. I think this is an unfortunate circumstance, but it's one we have to live with. I think the best way to deal with the issue is to get the evidence before the people who are going to write the food guide, so they know what we've heard and they can act accordingly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

One organization that I was hoping to hear from was the Dairy Farmers, and they were on the list to be invited. It was insisted that they be taken off the list, and that was very disappointing.

Anyway, Mr. Oliver, go ahead.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I think Mr. McKinnon said it. It's an important topic; there's no question about it.

We aren't providing opinion; we're providing a summary of the evidence as submitted. While I would have liked to hear from all of the missed witnesses first-hand, I'm not sure.... I mean these are expert people; they're professional people, and they know exactly what their industries are about and what their issues are. Even if we had the time to do a Q and A—because that's really all we are missing, since their evidence is being submitted in written form—I just don't think having that would add to the summary of the evidence they'd be providing.

As I said, these are professional people. They know their business. They know what they need and want to say about the food guide, and I think the written summary would be good. If we were providing opinion or if we were trying to corral a committee response, I think that might be different, and the Q and A would help us formulate an opinion, but as my motion says, we are really just going to submit a summary of the evidence—unqualified and unedited.

That being the case, I don't see a need for the Q-and-A component of a formal sit-down with the committee. It is an important topic—I don't disagree with you—and I think all witnesses should have an opportunity to make their submission.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Will this be public? Are you proposing that the letter be public?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Well, I think it would be as it's a summary of evidence, so I think it should be posted on the health committee's website, like any other report we do. There is no committee opinion being reflected. We're just giving a summary of evidence. I think all the witnesses have been in public to date. All of the meetings have been public. I don't see why the written submissions then would not be made public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Lobb.