Health Committee on Jan. 31st, 2019

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

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies, I'm not arguing. We just need more information.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I understand, Mr. Chair, but at the same time you've asked the clerk on the record for his advice and opinion on the very question of whether or not it's appropriate to invite a representative of the law firm when there's a case. The answer he gave was that it is appropriate to invite them. They can come, and they can choose to answer as they see fit. Not all of the questions will be appropriate, perhaps, but not all of questions won't be. There's not a blanket position on this.

The reason I want this law firm to come is that they know the most about what's actually been happening. I think they can come and describe for us in general terms, without giving names, what the evidence is that they're hearing. That doesn't mean that it's been established in a court of law, or that it's proved or anything like that, but we often hear about lawsuits and the allegations. I think all of us around this table can adjudicate that. This doesn't mean that we're making any finding about whether it's happening or not; but if we're going to try to get to the bottom of what's going on in this country, we should hear from the prime actors who actually know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I don't argue that. Again, I would really feel more comfortable if I had some advice, just because of the lawsuit. You're inviting the solicitors in a class action lawsuit to testify at a parliamentary committee, and I just don't know about that. I would like to get some legal advice.

Mr. Ouellette, you're up.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette]

There are a few issues. One is related to the justice department. If there is a lawsuit, would they be allowed to come to testify? I'm not sure if they'd be able to answer questions. It doesn't mean you can't ask the questions, but I think there are other departments that might be more appropriate, because we're talking about an investigation. In this case, that would probably be the RCMP, because they're the ones who would probably have to conduct that investigation.

I'm not sure, but I also agree that maybe we need to take our time on this. It's good to debate it now. I think everyone is in agreement that we want to move forward in some way—I haven't heard anyone say no—but we do need to take our time to make sure that we're doing it in an appropriate way, so that we have success at the end of the day. What we've been talking about is ensuring, one, that justice is done for the women, but also that we respect the conventions and the separation of powers between the judiciary and ourselves. We have considerable powers if we wish to force people to testify, but we do have to be very careful. I think we need to take a bit more of our time.

I'm not sure if we need to specify all of the witnesses. I'm not convinced about that because there is, I believe, the subcommittee that runs the affairs of this committee that could set the witness list with everyone's suggestions. I don't think people would have their suggested witnesses denied.

I think, as well, this might be at a much higher level. I know we have some very capable assistant deputy ministers who have come to committee, but at the same time maybe someone at a more deputy minister level, even higher up in the food chain, might need to come and respond to questions. Not trying to make it overly political is also one of the issues. This goes to basic human rights in Canada, and it's something we have to deal with here.

One final thing: I know we want to move on to the next speaker, but the witnesses are sitting here. I'm not sure if we're going to get back to the witnesses to hear any more testimony. I know there was another round of questions to be asked of them. The issue is, should they continue to sit here for the next 35 minutes and listen to us? Will we get to go back to the questions, or are we done with that portion? I believe a lot of people do wish to speak and debate this issue and think out the best ways forward.

I'm just wondering if there are additional questions that people have for the witnesses. I know that the analysts have prepared a number of questions, which might also shed light on this. If they don't have it on the record.... I know it was the final round.

There are a number of questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

By the speakers list right now, we will not get back to questions today, but you're talking about the RCMP. That's a criminal issue you're suggesting. You just mentioned that we should have the RCMP, and they are for criminal matters. Is the class action suit classed as a civil action?

We have civil actions and criminal actions. I'm in over my head.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

No, there is no criminal action yet, and by the way, the civil action that's been filed has not even been certified yet as a class action.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We all want the answers. We all want to know more about the frequency of this, where it's happening, how it's happening. Is it just happening to indigenous people? Is it people with intellectual disabilities? Who is it?

In principle, most members want to get that information, but I need some legal advice and some parliamentary advice on where we go from here, but we'll proceed with your motion.

Who is next on the speakers list?

Ms. McLeod, you have an amendment on the table.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

It was a friendly amendment that was supported. We all know, as a committee, know that we put motions and invite guests to attend, and sometimes it turns out that the guests choose not to attend for a variety of reasons, and we add to the witness list. However, we're at a point where we should vote on this motion to continue the study. Then obviously in your committee business, at times you have opportunities for people to talk about the additions, and you, I'm sure, will advise the committee, based on information you get, if there's something you feel should be modified.

I would suggest right now that we're at a point that we should have the vote and enjoy our last round of questioning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I still have some names on the list.

Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'm a guest of the committee. The testimony we have heard so far has been excellent and I've learned a lot just hearing from the jurisdictions that are present.

Clearly there are questions on the table that aren't within their jurisdictions, but which the committee seems to want to get answered.

This committee isn't a judge and jury over the prosecution of doctors. We're trying to get some witnesses to the table.

We could have a timeline to get a witness list to the analysts if the motion is to continue the study until we are able to get some of the questions answered. That's a whole different spirit of things. We could think about witnesses and give a list to the analysts, the way we do at any other committee. The analysts could work with the House of Commons to see what is legally appropriate for the committee to be asking or studying in terms of a witness list. Getting a witness list to the analysts in a period of time so they can call further witnesses to continue the study to get to the questions...but I don't think we need to go as far as to specify the witnesses at this moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Ayoub.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

As I said earlier, I think that we're all very concerned and that we want answers, but that we want to make sure that we do things properly.

I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, Mr. Davies. However, sometimes certain motions seem to be introduced quickly in response to presentations, as is the case today.

Until now, the Standing Committee on Health has always been very collegial. It has always worked for the best interests of Canadians and in a non-partisan manner.

In my first comment, I said that we would be able to study and improve the motion later. We mustn't make decisions on the spur of the moment. We can't say that we want to study this issue and obtain information immediately without even having a game plan.

We could go all over the place to try to obtain all kinds of information. In the end, we must avoid having the analysts base their report on something improvised. I'm calling into question this aspect. I'm not against the motion. We may adopt exactly the same motion later, once we've established a framework.

I want the committee to conduct a proper study of the issue. The study would be much more extensive than if we were simply to hear the presentations of certain people, regardless of whether the presentations are relevant.

I also think that we're wasting time. We have four witnesses before us who likely have answers. The issue isn't whether the answers are good. They could provide an overview of the current situation and tell us where the Department of Health stands on the matter.

We can continue to debate the motion or we can introduce a friendly amendment. Ultimately, I find that we don't have a plan. Our committee is reacting on the spur of the moment to a very serious situation. Three additional witnesses won't change the committee's current recommendation. Our committee is much more serious than this.

I want us to establish and approve a plan, as we've done for our other well-documented studies. We should have a list of witnesses from across the country, since all regions will be affected. Our analysts must propose a game plan that will enable us to submit a report to the minister, if necessary.

If my colleague so desires, we can always listen to two or three more witnesses. However, I would like to do more than this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. McKinnon, give brief remarks if you could.

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

I agree with Mr. Ayoub. I think this could be an important study, but this committee has not agreed to do such a study. We do have our work plan laid out for the next several months. Frankly, I think it's premature at this point to do a study. The testimony we've heard so far indicates that the task force, the federal-provincial task force, is just getting started. The RCMP will never be able to comment on any ongoing investigations, or even if they exist. The justice committee likewise will be fairly reticent until they have more information to go on. I think it is way too premature to launch a study of this kind and, frankly, we haven't agreed to do a study. We agreed to hold an information session.

I appreciate the witnesses being here. I apologize for the fact that they have to listen to our internal debate.

I would ask Mr. Davies to withdraw his motion and let us present it in a more orderly manner; otherwise, I'm going to have to vote against it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Ouellette.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette]

Do we have copies of the motion so that I read it? I'm not a very aural person; I like to read a lot of stuff. I'd like to get a copy of the motion to be able to know what I'm actually voting on, to be honest, because it is very important to me. I'm very interested in doing this. I don't remember all of the witnesses who were potentially going to be called. I would like to make sure that we would have the provincial authorities from Saskatoon, from all of Saskatchewan, who might be involved in this or might have information to share with us. I'd also be interested in hearing from the College of Medicine.

The question we also need to debate is how large we wish to make this study. This could go on for a very long time and look at a lot of issues. I think we need a bit more time to think about this. We can debate this publicly and how many days we wish to debate this issue, whether it's another two, three, four, or eight sessions. There is a lot of information that's missing and things we don't know about, which is rather unfortunate. We have innuendo in the media. I'm interested in whether there is an investigation and what has occurred potentially in that investigation. I'm not sure what the RCMP could share, I'm not sure what the justice department could share, and I'm not sure how that relates to the civil case.

There are an awful lot of questions where, if I had a couple more days, or a week.... I don't think it's going to change the course of history if we wait just one more week to lay out a bit of a working plan for us. We could have a discussion amongst the people who really run the committee, who I'm sure are Ms. McLeod, Mr. Casey, as well as Mr. Davies, to lay out a good working plan for us. Obviously, there are the questions of where are we going to end, and how much work can we get done efficiently to ensure that we offer justice to the women?

I suspect there won't be people doing any more sterilizations in Canada in this way. There are probably people who are actually quite nervous within the health care system, I'm certain, and who are worried about lawsuits. Nonetheless, there are some potential witnesses we could call.

I'm concerned that if we set the list now.... I know there was an amendment and we could add more witnesses. How many people were on that witness list so far?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I think Mr. Davies only had three.

Just before we go any further, what we're really talking about now is starting a study. We haven't agreed to do a study—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have a point of order.

I'm waiting my turn to speak, but this conversation has gone right off the rail because the comments by Mr. McKinnon and Ayoub are actually incorrect. The motion does not call for a study.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I didn't say that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes, both of you did.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

No. I never said that.

What I said, if I may, Mr. Chair, is that I would—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

You talked about preparing a report.

Do you remember those comments, Mr. Ayoub?

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Yes. I was talking—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

We don't do a report.

I'm going to read the motion again, if I may. This might help.