Evidence of meeting #1 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
2:15 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I talk about the motion, I would like to emphasize something. We will have to get organized in order to properly see and manage the raised hands appearing on the table. I raised my hand a long time ago. At that point, we were not many. There were Mr. Van Bynen, Mr. Davies and Ms. Rempel Garner. I can wait for you to give me the floor, I don't want to prolong debates, but the speaking order will have to be managed better, Mr. Chair. At some point, I was turning the raised hand function on and off because I wanted to let you know there was no interpretation. I don't want to keep experiencing this over the next six months. When there is an issue with interpretation, we have to stop. Someone has to let you know, and we have to stop everything, out of respect for the interpreters and for me as a francophone. That said, it's lucky that I received the proposal.
I will not speak for too long. In brief, I agree with all of Mr. Davies' remarks. I just want to talk about the merits of this motion. We worked very hard for five months, and I don't want to throw all that away. During the biggest health crisis the planet has known, the government decided to prorogue Parliament. That is its decision. However, we will not put aside those five months of tireless work.
In my view, the merit of this motion lies in its continuity. What has already been done will be part of what still needs to be studied. Another advantage of the motion is its global vision. After we began our work, five months ago, the problematic issues, the chapter headings, were added week by week. My first reaction was to note that we have a very robust work plan. We have hard work ahead of us, but Canadians deserve that we do it.
This is the advantage I am seeing to this motion, which effectively covers all the issues. That is why I support it.
I will stop here.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Thériault.
The clerk advises me that Ms. Vecchio is next.
Go ahead, Ms. Vecchio.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I recognize that we may go a bit longer than three o'clock, so I just want to make sure we recognize that we will not be suspending or adjourning at 3 p.m. and that we will continue this discussion.
I know many people seem to have reasons for not supporting this motion, but as a member from Ontario, where we're seeing the horrible things that are happening—
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
2:20 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
The issue is likely related to the fact that Ms. Vecchio has no microphone and the interpreters cannot interpret her comments.
My apologies, Ms. Vecchio, but I do not want to begin the committee's work being marginalized.
Thank you.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I have no headset. It's my fault. I can put it back to the floor. That's okay.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Vecchio.
Mr. Thériault, Ms. Vecchio was advising that we can go past the top of the hour and doesn't want to suspend or adjourn at that time.
Now we will go to Ms. Rempel Garner.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay. Going back to the participants' panel, I see Dr. Powlowski is next.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Yes, you keep getting that wrong, Ron.
It's looking kind of bleak for the Liberals here. This seems to be decided upon.
It may surprise those in the opposition to know that I don't actually have a lot of disagreement with a lot of what any of you have said. I absolutely agree that COVID-19 is the number one issue facing Canadians right now. There is a priority. I do in fact like what Ms. Rempel Garner said about getting to work on this. As a long-time emergency room doctor, in that life when we say we have to do something right away, it means within seconds or minutes. There aren't weeks or months for answering questions.
Given the importance of this crisis, I do agree we have to start looking at it. As for the motion itself, there was a very long list of things that we ought to be looking at. I think it was pretty comprehensive in that it dealt with pretty well all of the problems related to COVID. On all those things, I agree; however, I do have some disagreement.
First, you've provided a great big long list of things. I don't know if you had a paragraph (z) for all other matters related to COVID not included in the list, because I don't know if that's a comprehensive list. To accept that motion means that we've accepted this comprehensive list, and I'm not sure that the list is comprehensive. I think other things could be included on that list.
I think this is an evolving situation. As time goes by, there may be other things that we didn't really think about that will become more priorities. For example, I don't know if on that list was concern about COVID-19 getting into isolated indigenous communities. That's certainly been a big concern. Influenza was really devastating in those communities. I don't know if that's on that list. If we vote and say, “Yes, okay, we're going to vote for this,” what about that? It wasn't on the list, so are we not going to do it? That doesn't make sense to me.
Second, there's no prioritization. I totally 100% agree we stay on COVID. This is our number one problem in Canada. It's our number two problem in Canada. It's our number three problem in Canada. For many of those who've spoken, I do believe that the health committee can serve a constructive role in addressing this problem and be a forum to bring up many ideas that we have to look at. We have to prioritize which things in COVID we're going to look at. This list, in setting the agenda, has no prioritization in what we're going to do.
Those are a couple of substantive issues I have with it. In the previous session, I think we worked pretty well together. I think we decided together what things we wanted to study. Together, we called witnesses. In a way, I think we did rise above petty politics in dealing with this issue. That's what we should continue to do. I don't know. This seems to me to be a bit like petty politics in that we've allowed one party, the Conservative Party, to set the agenda, set the table, and then we all follow suit.
Included in that, you throw in the request for procurement of a bunch of documents with no redactions. Maybe I'm just a stupid doctor and not quite as complex as you people, but that was a very long motion, and by the end of it, I can't say I was falling asleep, but I was starting to lose track of all the things that were in the motion. I'm not sure what was actually said about redactions, but obviously this is a big issue.
I think almost everybody agrees that there probably ought to be some redactions of, for example, personal privacy issues. If there are things in documents that are related to individual names, I think we can probably all agree that we don't want that kind of information coming out. There might be things to do with national security. You've thrown it all together in a kind of omnibus motion.
There's a lot of good stuff in there. Yes, you've outlined a lot of the important measures related to COVID, but you've thrown in these other things that are problematic. I don't think the redaction issue is really nice and clear and that we can come to an easy agreement on it.
I think we ought to collectively decide that, yes, we're going to deal with COVID, but decide what issues we want to pursue with respect to COVID, what meetings we want to have, and then take the procurement of documents issue as a different thing, rather than addressing it all together in one omnibus motion.
Thank you.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Dr. Powlowski.
I believe we go now to Mr. d'Entremont. Go ahead, please.
October 9th, 2020 / 2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Chris d'Entremont Conservative West Nova, NS
Thank you very much.
I have just a little point of order before I get going. A number of hands are going up, and I know some have spoken and some haven't. I just want to know if it's going to be the clerk or the IT folks who will be taking their names off the list or whether we as members should take our names off the list once we've spoken.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That's a good question. I actually have a conversation going with the clerk about that very matter. I'm hoping that we can focus on the participants panel and the hands raised there to manage our speaking list. If you've spoken and your hand does not go away from the speakers list, please take it off, but I believe it should be up to the administration, the staff, to probably do that. I'm getting the thumbs-up from Mr. Clerk on that.
Please go ahead.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Chris d'Entremont Conservative West Nova, NS
Perfect.
I just wanted to support the motion the way it is. I've had the opportunity in the time that Mr. Davies and Dr. Powlowski were speaking to read it a couple of times, even to the point of what Dr. Powlowski was talking about when it came to personal privacy. Paragraph (f) clearly lays that piece out within the motion that we have before us.
There's a reason that some of this is here. As a new member of this committee, I've been paying attention to what the committee had been doing previously. I think it's a very good way to take information that should have already been compiled in the previous run of the health committee and be able to bring that stuff forward for our consideration as we've started to look at the number one issue in Canada today, which is COVID. Which part of COVID do we want to focus on? I think all are as important as each other. I think this motion is able to prioritize it a little to understand that this is a very complex health situation that is before us. There should be nothing here that is a surprise to the previous members of this committee, or even to the new members.
Here's the part that upsets me a bit as you bring these things forward. The Prime Minister uses it and other members of cabinet use it. We continually hear that we're all part of team Canada. We should be working together on things that are important to Canadians, and I agree with that. I do agree that we should all be part of team Canada and make sure that our constituents are getting the services they require to get over this issue, but I can tell you, as an opposition member, that I do not feel like I'm a part of team Canada. It's team Liberal; it's not team Canada. I ask for information. We try to get stuff shared with us all the time and we continue to hit the blocks. We hit issues. We're not getting what we need.
I think this motion tries to put some of those things back on track so that we understand where the government is, where it has been and where it is going so that we can all continue to be part of this so-called team Canada.
The last point I want to make is that I know Mr. Van Bynen wanted to bring the issue of mental health forward, one that we all think is very important, and of course looking at the effects on mental health of COVID-19 is included in this motion. There's already some appreciation of what everyone in this committee is looking for.
Those are my quick comments for today.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Chris d'Entremont Conservative West Nova, NS
You had it right on—d'Entremont. You used the best French word you can use there.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Hello, from self-isolation in Nova Scotia, in a friend's basement where I have my Surface Pro, which is where I read my email. I'm on Zoom on my Surface Pro.
I've not read this motion. I think Dr. Powlowski called it an omnibus motion. There's a lot in there, guys.
I think it would be reasonable, since we talk about transparency, that we should be able to take a look at this. I have not seen this in print. I try to take a quick glance at it when I take my eyes off the screen for a minute.
Mr. Chair, as Mr. Kelloway said earlier, he wants to break it down and read this motion to see exactly what this is. Maybe there are amendments to be made. Maybe this is something that this committee supports with amendments. I can't even think of an amendment right now, because I haven't seen this motion in print. I would love to take Thanksgiving weekend.... By the way, I won't be with my family for Thanksgiving weekend because of isolation.
I would love to drill down on this to see what's in there. I have some concerns with regard to Mr. Thériault as well. I'm not sure what he got, but this came in at 2:52 on Nova Scotia time.
Again, if this were a short little motion and we got it at 2:52, I think it would be fairly reasonable to have a conversation about it. We could look at it and we could decide whether there are things we'd like to suggest amendments on. This is too big to look at to even suggest amendments on a Friday afternoon before a long weekend, when I would have to basically shut off my Zoom screen in order to scroll through this omnibus motion.
Maybe—and I'm looking at all your pictures here—no one else minds the fact that they got this motion.... I'm assuming that everybody got it at the same time. I know Don Davies is a speed-reader—my gosh, he had a really good handle on this motion—but I just don't feel that I have a handle on that motion. I would seek that transparency we talk about, and that level of reasonableness. Give us a chance to look at this motion and maybe propose amendments, and maybe the next time we meet, we could sit down and come up with something that works for everybody.
Those are just my thoughts on something that's really a very large motion.
Mr. Chair, I would love to have the weekend to take a look at this.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Fisher.
We go now to Ms. Sidhu. Ms. Sidhu, go ahead, please.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with what Mr. Davies was saying. We are having Canada's worst health crisis. I have seen these impacts, including in my own riding. The CF report on long-term care homes included one home in my riding. These issues are extremely important. We need to analyze these things properly. PROC had a similar long motion that came forward, and they had to take time to analyze it properly. As Mr. Fisher was saying, it's long. I know we have to analyze it properly in the next three days before moving forward on it.
All of us on this committee want to do good work for our constituents and for the country. We have to be reasonable and work together. I think it's reasonable to take some time to go through this very long motion. As Mr. Davies said, we were working through COVID for seven months. We did a lot of good work. We heard many, many witnesses from many parts of the country.
I would also like to speak on the importance of my friend Tony's motion. It's so important. Limiting the discussion of COVID-19 by studying what he proposed, and narrowing it to the part of the pandemic is important. The mental health of many Canadians is affected. The mental health impact of COVID-19 is real.
It is here, and things are only worsening with COVID-19. I was at my youth council yesterday, and they were telling me horrible, horrible stories. That is why it's so important, as well, because in different parts of the country people are being told to stay home once again. I'm from Peel, and the cases there are rising. We need to prioritize issues. May I mention the Canadian Mental Health Association and its CEO, Margaret Eaton, who also came to HESA? Members know that. There were mental-health-related COVID-19 meetings. She phrased it as, “We are experiencing two pandemics. The first is obviously COVID-19. The second is the mental health impacts of it.”
She also said we are at the tip of the iceberg in understanding the impact this pandemic is having on Canadians' mental health.
CMHA did a study and found that Canadians are feeling more isolated then ever. According to CMHA, 47% of people are feeling more alone than before. Luc said earlier that we were looking at many issues under COVID-19. I think it is important to focus on one area and then move forward on the next one.
I appreciate what my other colleague said about the importance of being on team Canada. I would agree. We must work together, and Canadians expect us to work together. Providing an extremely long motion during a meeting and not allowing members to have time to review it is not exactly operating as a team.
I have not had the time to properly assess the motion, but I want it. There's so much to it that we need to use a reasonable time to take a look into it. I think my other colleagues agree with that. I ask how we are able to prioritize paramount points for the health of Canadians. I ask who decided on how to support provinces for long-term care on mental health. It's very, very important.
In my riding, the cases are rising. Long-term care is an issue. Mental health is an issue. This is not the time to play politics. Just prioritize, and focus on, the health of Canadians. I sincerely believe that we are not prepared to properly study this issue, and we need time to. Let's prioritize issues one by one. I can say over 80% of all COVID-related deaths occurred in long-term care homes.
This issue is very close to my heart. I know many colleagues agree. I know one of the issues is this, too: I think we need to prioritize, one by one. It's extremely important for this committee to study how the federal government can work with its provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure what happened in our long-term care homes, and the first wave, won't happen when we hit the second wave. This is very, very important.
Is it more important than issues raised by all our colleagues? It's hard to decide. Are we going to have another chance to do it? Therefore I ask you all, why this rush?
Let's set up our priorities and prioritize the issues. I hope we will all understand this, and then we can properly study this issue, which is more important to Canadians.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
