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.
Liberal
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Chair, can I chime in on this?
In my experience in the industry committee, we had a couple of meetings cancelled because of technical difficulties with witnesses. My preference would be—and I'm not sure if we can write this into the routine motions—that any scheduled witnesses be required to connect with IT well in advance, the day before if possible, on the computer and headset in the room that they are going to be using, so that these issues don't occur. That's where a lot of the friction came from. It was because witnesses hadn't done that.
It would be my preference for that to become a requirement.
The second thing is that if we're having technical difficulties with a witness and the technical difficulties go longer than their required statement, we move directly into the questions for that witness, if possible and if it makes sense.
I don't like to see technical difficulties with witnesses precluding a meeting from happening. It happened several times to me in the previous committee that I vice-chaired. I'm not sure it's as much a function of the chair as it was of witnesses not being tested by IT ahead of time. Sorry, Joshua.
I think that's the core of the issue here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I think that's a separate motion on how to deal with those kinds of technical issues.
The motion before us right now, which I'm looking for amendments for, is about the time they have for an opening statement and so forth.
I see Mr. Davies has raised his hand. Please go ahead.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm happy to speak to this motion. I think the motion needs an amendment that says witnesses be given up to 10 minutes.
I noticed something else that I think needs to be addressed. The motion goes on to say, “that, at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated six minutes for the first questioner”.
I would like to see you given discretion over the witnesses' 10 minutes, not over the six minutes that is given to the speakers. I don't think it's the intention of these routine motions to have you determine whether the Conservative Party, Liberal Party, Bloc and New Democrats get six minutes in our first round.
I think there might be a punctuation error. It should say, “that witnesses be given up to 10 minutes for their opening statement at the discretion of the chair”, and then a semicolon. Then it should say, “during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated six minutes for the first questioner of each party as follows”.
You'll notice that in the second round, there is no discretion—which, by the way, is where you actually do exercise discretion occasionally—where it says the “order...be as follows”. We know that in the second round, you sometimes have to reduce our questioning time proportionally, which is fine. I don't even think we have to say “discretion”, because you've always asked for permission and we always give it to you.
I think we should straighten out that problem in the first round, because the six minutes is certainly not at your discretion. The six minutes should be set down as what it is for each of the parties.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Sure.
Where it says now, “That witnesses be given...”, I propose we amend it to insert the words “up to” in front of “10 minutes for their opening statement”, then remove the semicolon, the word “that” and the comma. The sentence continues “at the discretion of the Chair”, then semicolon. Then it continues, “during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated six minutes....”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'm going to speak up for “the discretion of the chair”. Perhaps we should have an amendment...well, we'll deal with that separately.
We have an amendment on the floor. Is there anyone who wishes to speak to that particular amendment?
Go ahead, Mr. Powlowski.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
I support Don's amendment. It seems like a good idea. I like the fact that we leave open the possibility that people can speak for 10 minutes, because some of the issues we're going to be facing require some explanation, such as testing. The value of testing—its positive and negative predictive value, and those kinds of things—is pretty hard to explain in five minutes to people who aren't familiar with it; however, I think 10 minutes would probably be enough time.
There are a number of issues we'll be looking at that will take more than five minutes to understand. I think this allows enough flexibility, and it also addresses the possibility of cutting people off because we don't have enough time. I support Mr. Davies' amendment.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Yes, I have a quick comment in terms of Don's approach. It's a good catch. I like the addition of “up to 10 minutes”, and of course, the discretion is in the second round, not in the first round, which is a great catch. I think it's a good move.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
We have people raising their hands physically on the screen. We also have people raising their hands on the participants' panel. I'm not sure which of the ones in the participants' panel are related to Mr. Van Bynen's motion, after we're done with the routine motions. For the moment, everybody wave to me on-screen if you wish to make a comment on this particular amendment.
Mr. Maguire, please go ahead.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
I was going to go back to what was said earlier about the technical difficulty.
We are certainly faced with a different situation in the virtual meetings. I agree with the 10 minutes, if you're sitting in the House all the time or if we are all together in the committee room. However, we're not, and I think the instruction that we received was that there would have to be co-operation from witnesses in providing written statements well ahead of time. If that's the case, five or six minutes might be enough for us to understand what the witness is saying, even though in a regular setting it would take 10 minutes.
We also don't always get copies ahead of time. We're supposed to, but in this particular direction I thought that was where we were. I expected that even if we were participating virtually, we would receive copies by email or text prior to any witness coming forward, so we'd have a good understanding and it would be to the point, particularly with members of the departments.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on this amendment?
Go ahead, Mr. Van Bynen.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
I'm sorry. I think I saw Ms. Sidhu raising her hand. I wanted to alert you to that.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with Don's suggestion. I think it's necessary to ensure everyone has to ask questions in the second round. It's more important.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on this amendment?
Mr. Davies, you have your hand up on the panel, as does Ms. Rempel Garner. Are these points on this amendment?
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
No. I would just conclude that in answer to Larry's concern, if we give you the discretion of up to 10 minutes, then—as Mark has pointed out—if we have a professor from Harvard who's going to be talking about some complex issue, that's something they may need 10 minutes on. A different witness may have fewer points to make, so you can use your discretion. When we talk to witnesses, we can maybe communicate to them that it's a hard 10 minutes, and if they send their statements in advance, we would appreciate their taking as little of the 10 minutes as possible to allow time for questions. I think we can achieve what all of us are saying here by the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any further discussion on this amendment? Seeing none, I'll ask the committee if there is unanimous consent to adopt the amendment. Is there any dissent?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We now go to the main motion, which has been amended.
Is there any discussion on the motion as amended? Seeing none, I'll ask if the committee is in agreement with this motion. If there is any dissent, please indicate that.
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Ms. Rempel Garner, you had comments about process, such as requesting written copies in advance, and so on and so forth. If you wish to go ahead with that, I think that would be a routine motion.
I should point out that when we ask for written statements from the witnesses, sometimes they don't give them to us in time for them to be translated and distributed, so I would ask that if you have a motion there that you would like to put forward around technical issues and so forth....
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I would say, Mr. Chair, just for the record, if you could encourage IT services to test witnesses where possible ahead of time, as well as request written statements, then that just becomes a practice, and I don't have to raise it as points of order if we have a meeting that is shut down due to technical difficulties.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We will certainly do so. We will get our clerk to request that when we invite witnesses, they get their statements in, as I think we need them 72 hours in advance, ideally, to get them translated. We can certainly make that request, absolutely.
Seeing no other discussion on the routine motions....
Mr. Van Bynen, as promised, I said that you would have first shot on substantive motions following the routine motions.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, tomorrow, Saturday, October 10, is World Mental Health Day. The motion that I am proposing is to study the impacts of COVID-19 on mental health and the well-being of Canadians.
Over 9,500 Canadians have tragically died due to COVID-19, and every day we're seeing case numbers rise as Canada enters into a second wave. In the spring, we heard from many witnesses who spoke about the physical impacts of COVID-19 and what we need to do to protect ourselves from the virus. I believe we had 34 meetings, 171 witnesses and 51 briefs.
With the exception of one meeting, we didn't hear about the real psychological impacts that we know are happening. Many Canadians are struggling. In April, the CMHA put out a statement that said that Canada must now act to prevent an echo pandemic for mental illness due to COVID-19—a pandemic, unfortunately, Mr. Chair, for which we have no vaccines.
My concern is for a brewing issue that we should address, and we should make sure that we have the effectiveness and efficiencies in the programs to go forward and deal with that before it gets out of hand.
My motion, Mr. Chair, is:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study, of no less than eight (8) meetings, in order to (a) understand the impacts, including the gendered impacts, of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health and well-being of Canadians (b) analyze the impacts on Indigenous peoples, racialized Canadians, and vulnerable populations in an effort to identify and address support gaps; (c) study the availability of mental health-promotion programs and supports for those experiencing new pandemic-related stress and anxiety and how those supports have been affected since the pandemic began, (d) study the effectiveness and availability of virtual mental health services, (e) analyze how the Government of Canada can assist provinces and territories in alleviating potential new demands on their healthcare systems resulting from the increase in depression, psychological distress, substance use, PTSD and domestic violence; that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than December 7, 2020 and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee request that the Government table a comprehensive response to the report.