Health Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Yes.

We have two more speakers and they have to speak.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

In response to Ms. Harder's comments, again it's my understanding that fentanyl is included in opioids, so when I said “opioid crisis”, absolutely fentanyl is one of the main opioids that are getting attention, but there are others. There's OxyContin and there are other issues as well. I want to be clear that my intention, when I say “opioid crisis”, is to include the full scope of opioids, including fentanyl.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I don't want to pretend I know a lot about this, but just from the TV program last night, I saw they also mentioned another opioid that is even more dangerous than fentanyl. Carfentanil is what I think it was.

Mr. Webber, you're up. Then we'll call the vote on the amendment.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Again, I want to just reiterate the emergency here and the immediate action that we have to take on this. I guess I would suggest this then. Can we put in the amendment both “immediate” and “emergency”? Can I do that on a second motion, or can I include it on the original one that I'm suggesting? Or are we discussing my original amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Can he amend the amendment?

[A voice]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We have to vote on the first amendment, first.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Then I can always submit a second amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Either way, we can't do it any sooner than Tuesday.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Okay, I'm not going to belabour this either.

Mr. Chair, I have the floor here, do I not?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I'm sorry. I thought you had finished.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Again, I want to say that the presentations yesterday indicated to us that on average, there's one person dying every 14 hours, and Tuesday is a significantly long time when we're in a situation like this.

I would like to get this committee and the clerk and the preparation going so that.... An immediate study means next meeting. There have been 488 deaths to date in B.C. In nine months there have been 488 deaths due to fentanyl. I see this as an immediate emergency. I know all of you do as well. I just can't reiterate enough how important this is. To even focus right now on the pharmacare study, to me, is difficult.

In any event, let's vote on this, and I suspect we'll just move forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

The amended wording is that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake an immediate—rather than emergency—study of the fentanyl and opioid crisis in Canada, in light of the alarming and growing number of deaths caused by this substance, to determine what action can be taken by the federal government.

(Amendment negatived)

Now we're going to vote on the main motion. That is:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake an emergency study of the opioid crisis in Canada.

(Motion agreed to)

Perfect, that is settled. Thanks very much.

Mr. Webber, I mean, we all know you raised this issue in the beginning, so....

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

It's not my issue at all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We'll get to it. I don't see how we can get to it any quicker than a week from Tuesday anyway with the work plan and the scheduling of witnesses.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I gave notice of a motion in the spring. It has been submitted in both official languages and is in order. It reads, “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee immediately undertake a study into the government’s rejection of an expert-panel’s decision to locate the future Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus on federal land across the street from the existing Hospital; and that the Committee call the Ministers of Environment, Heritage, and Agriculture and Dr. Mark Kristmanson, CEO of the National Capital Commission (NCC), to discuss the matter.”

I'm here today to introduce this motion. I thank the chair for giving me the floor. As I said, the motion is in order as notice was given in June. I had intended to move it then. However, the schedule did not permit, so I am moving it today. Today is a particularly important day in the matter because the National Capital Commission is holding two meetings, one for so-called VIPs in the Ottawa area and another for the public at large, to discuss 12 locations it has identified for the possible location of the Ottawa Civic Hospital.

To give background to members of the committee, normally we wouldn't be talking about the location of any particular hospital in a federal Commons committee as health care is a provincial jurisdiction. This is a very unique circumstance, however, because the previous government had allocated approximately 50 acres of land on the federal experimental farm, which is immediately across the street from the existing hospital campus.

Upon taking office, the Minister of Environment, Catherine McKenna, slammed the brakes on this decision and asked the hospital to go back to the drawing board and find a different location. The hospital then came up with four possibilities for situating its new campus. The minister was still not satisfied, so she has asked the heritage minister to task the NCC, the National Capital Commission, with finding a location that is suitable.

The NCC has since identified 12 possible sites where this hospital could be located. Most of the sites—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I have to interrupt. I welcome you to the committee and it's nice to see you here, but I have to rule your motion out of order. This is not our jurisdiction at all whatsoever in any way. I know how strongly you feel about this, as I feel about my hospital in Amherst and everybody here feels about their own hospitals, but this is not something for us to deal with. My hospital can't be dealt with here. Your hospital can't be dealt with here.

It's simply out of order. I appreciate your—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The reality is that the committee is the master of its own domain and it can study whatever it chooses. As the committee's mandate on its website says, “The Standing Committee on Health may also study matters the Committee itself chooses to examine.” If the committee decides that it's going to study this hospital or any hospital, it becomes in order.

I'd normally not bring a matter related to a particular hospital to a federal Commons committee. This is not a normal circumstance. We now have multiple federal ministers involved in the matter. We have a federal agency, the National Capital Commission, which is exclusively the mandate of the federal government, involved in identifying possible locations for this site. One of the locations proposed is Tunney's Pasture, which is, as you know, a hub for federal public servants. It's entirely federally owned land.

In other words, all of these matters are in the federal sphere. I wish they weren't, quite frankly. I think a lot of times local Ottawa residents wish that the federal government weren't so involved in localized decisions of this nature, and if that were the case, then I wouldn't be here today.

Mr. Chair, I can assure you, you being a very assertive representative for your area, if the federal government were involved in locating a hospital in your community, you would be at this table pounding your fist very aggressively and you would insist that it was in order. Fortunately, for most communities, the federal government is not involved in selecting a site location for a hospital. In my case, unfortunately, it is involved and, I would argue, far too involved. Because of that, it is appropriate that we, as a committee, study that question.

Why the health committee? Very simply, the facility in question is a hospital which is by definition a health care issue. I ask that we have a vote on the matter and if members agree with you that this hospital should not be studied in the health committee, then they can cast their vote accordingly, and if they agree with me that we ought to consider it, then we can work with your clerk to schedule times for hearings.

I'm not here to waste time. I'm not going to run out the clock; I know you have witnesses. All I'm asking for is a vote on my motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I've made a ruling and I need to know whether the committee supports my ruling or not, so we're going to have a vote on my ruling.

Mr. Davies.

Do you have a hospital?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I do.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak briefly to this, because from a matter of structure, I think Mr. Poilievre is correct that on this committee, we can study whatever we want. I think health care in Canada is a very complex issue, because, of course, it is split between the federal and provincial jurisdictions. I wouldn't want to support a ruling that would suggest this committee couldn't study something that may tie our hands in the future because it was within a local or provincial area.

I'm not going to be able to support your ruling. I'm not going to support his motion. As important as that issue may be to this local area, we have in front of us a study on pharmacare. We have passed motions on studying antimicrobial resistance, aboriginal health, community and home care, and now an opioid crisis, which we've just passed.

As important as Mr. Poilievre's issue may be about the location of a hospital in his area, those other issues have, in my respectful opinion, a far greater impact on Canadians. I just wanted to explain my reasoning. With great respect, I will be voting against the motion that we can't study it, but against the motion on the merits.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Ayoub.

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

Mr. Chair, for information purposes, and out of respect for the committee members and witnesses, I would like to know how the committee works.

I am wondering whether we are cheating the witnesses out of half an hour of their allotted time. We spend a great deal of time on finding good witnesses. However, we take time to pass or introduce resolutions. We could do that after the witnesses' question period, even if it means exceeding the normal duration of the meeting. That way we would not encroach on the witnesses' time.

I may be wrong. Perhaps a committee must work this way. However, if that's the case, I find it unfortunate.

I am currently speaking, but we should be speaking with the witnesses instead. The result is that we spend the first hour on resolutions that lead nowhere.

That's my comment. I would appreciate if you could inform me of the procedure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I couldn't agree with you more, but we have a process and rules, and we follow the process. Our plan was to hear from the witnesses first, then do our committee business after because we know some of the witnesses have already been bumped once. Out of respect, we wanted to do our witnesses first, but members have the right to raise issues and move motions.

I'm going to call a vote on my ruling.

(Ruling of the chair sustained)

Sorry, Mr. Poilievre. We understand. I know you've been passionate about this for years, and I respect your bringing it forward.

Now we're going to hear from the witnesses.

Welcome to the committee. Some of you have been here before, so welcome back. To those who were bumped before, we're glad you're here to make a presentation to our committee on pharmacare.

We're going to hear from Mr. Keon from the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association.

We're going to try to limit your remarks to five minutes so that we can have questions.

[Jim Keon, President, Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association]

Okay. I have a 10-minute presentation, but I'll cut it back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

If you could tighten it up a little bit, we sure would appreciate it.