Health Committee on Feb. 1st, 2021

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello to my colleagues.

Like MP Van Bynen, I reflected on Friday's committee meeting over the weekend. I think it's pretty clear, at least from my perspective. I want to break it down a little bit, and I promise to take only a few minutes. I believe that there's consensus that an interim report would be great, but it seems to me that we're on the fence or just can't decide on what the topic should be.

Like I said last week, none of us on this committee have any intention—zero intention—of delaying a vaccine study. We're simply suggesting that an interim report be written on a concern for millions of Canadians: mental health.

Now no one is saying that when we conclude the four meetings—or five meetings, if you include the minister's appearance—we can't do another interim report on vaccines and so forth and so on. All members of this committee know how important the mental health study is to Mr. Van Bynen, to all of us. It's important to Canadians, and it would be great to work on this together.

Last week, I think—and I hope I have this right—Ms. Norris said—and we can check the blues on this—that “an interim report would be...helpful” and really allow the study to be produced in easy-to-consume chunks, a comment Mr. Van Bynen referred to. I look at that as a real, practical and effective approach, in my opinion.

Mr. Chair, I'm wondering.... We have the analysts here. We have the researchers here. Can we include them in this conversation? After all, they're part of team HESA.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

If the committee agrees, I can ask the analysts to step in here and give a response. Is there any opposition to that?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes, Mr. Chair. I think we should hear from more than just the Liberals on the committee before we hear from the analysts. There are different perspectives on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay, well, we'll carry on.

We have Mr. Fisher next.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Everything that I was going to say has already been said, and I think Mr. Davies is right. We'll hear from members of the opposition. I'm glad that Don's.... I think that Don's up next. I always like hearing from Don and the way that he finds a hybrid for what we're all saying, so I'll put my hand down.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

Mr. Davies, please go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do think I will have a suggestion, but I think it might be a better approach to have a couple of preliminary remarks.

I don't think interim reports are a bad idea, particularly given the current issue before us. I must say in 12 years I don't recall our ever doing one. I've never done an interim report. That includes some very lengthy studies too. We studied pharmacare, as Mr. McKinnon and Ms. Sidhu will remember, for a good two years. We didn't issue an interim report in that.

Having said that, I'm not opposed to the concept of an interim report. The question really is what should that interim report be on.

Of course, we opened this study back in February of last year, and we heard a lot of evidence from February into mid-July, I think, when the committee stopped sitting on many issues. Some of those were extremely important issues.

We heard today about vaccines. We've heard about issues on domestic production, transmission reduction strategies and the impact on racialized communities. In fact, I think today we've heard some evidence on an extremely important issue, which is whether the world is even using the right model to get vaccines to the population. We're using a private, corporate commercial model that is clearly unable to get enough vaccines to people instead of a global approach.

The question really is, out of all those things should we issue an interim report on mental health based on four meetings that we just heard?

I think mental health is important. I think it's as important as many of the other issues I've mentioned, but I'm not sure it's more important than many of the other issues we've heard about.

The other thing, of course, is that what Mr. Van Bynen's motion is really asking is for this committee to issue an interim report on mental health based on four meetings, which happens to be the priority of the Liberal Party, and to issue that report. Although we're all interested in mental health, that was the Liberals' choice for the first priority, and we have not heard the first priority of the other three parties yet.

If I understand Mr. Thériault's approach correctly—and he can correct me if I'm wrong, and the error in reciting this is mine not his—I prefer his approach. If we were going to issue an interim report, what I would like to do is have the analysts summarize all of the evidence they've heard to date, and then wait until after we've at least heard from each one of the four parties about their first priority, which will take about another maybe 30 days or so. Then we would issue an interim report that summarizes the evidence to date in a global, comprehensive way. At least it's fair because we've heard about all parties' first choices not just the Liberal Party's.

I would point out as well that although I don't think it is a big deal we were hampered a little bit by the prorogation. I don't think it mattered a great deal, but it did cause the committee to lose three or four meetings in order to get up and running again back in September, as we had to rejig. I think what that has done has made us forget a little bit of the incredibly important evidence we've heard on profound issues of importance to Canadians from February until now.

I would say as well that I also trust our analysts very much, but this committee time will be taken up in reviewing a report. We have to. We can't just say to the analysts to go write a report and then issue it. The report has to come back before this committee, and we are obligated to go through it line by line, and have debate, discussion and amendments on that report, so that will take committee time.

I'm not necessarily opposed to doing that except I don't want to be doing that now before we've even had a chance to hear from the Bloc or the NDP on our first priorities.

For those reasons, I'm not in favour of this motion at this point. I would suggest that maybe we can go back and think about this: that all members of this committee reflect on the suggestion I've made, to wait and hear about the first priority of all four parties in the first round. Perhaps even now we can instruct the analysts to begin the very laborious process of summarizing the evidence heard to date, which has to be done at some point. Then we can revisit this issue and discuss issuing an interim report after we have heard the first priority of the four parties.

My final comment will be this. I have great respect for this committee, and I think when we speak, we speak with a force to Parliament. We are fortunate in having the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Mr. Fisher, serving on this committee. There's nothing preventing the Liberal members of this committee, or Mr. Fisher, from going to the health minister at any time. They sit in caucus every week with the Liberal Party, the governing party, and could bring this information to the government to influence policy. The government does not have to wait.

In my experience, they generally don't actually listen to what the health committee tells them to do in any event. I mean, this committee issued a majority report urging the government to, in a timely way, bring in public pharmacare. That was three years ago. We can't get the Prime Minister or the health minister to even commit to the concept.

For all those reasons, I'm going to vote against this motion. I do like the idea of an interim report on a broader array of issues, not limited to just one issue. As important as it is, it is not the only important issue facing Canadians.

Where I'll conclude is, if there is one issue which I think we should be issuing an interim report on right now, it should be on vaccines. The reason is that it's vaccines that are going to actually provide the answer, as we've heard from these witnesses today, to the health crisis facing us. The mental health issues are a derivative. They are a secondary impact of the fact that people are dealing with an out-of-control pandemic. If there were a need for an interim report and advice to government on anything right now, to me it would be on giving the government advice on how it could expedite the delivery of vaccines to Canadians. If we do that, I think we'll start seeing amelioration of the mental health impacts to some degree.

Those are my comments on the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

I'd like to clarify, however, that Mr. Van Bynen's motion did not ask to issue a report, only to instruct the analysts to prepare one.

Next we have Mike.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Don, thank you for that. I'm just playing with wording on my screen here. I wonder if I could read something to you and by no means is it something to commit to at this moment. I just want to make sure I got what you're saying.

What if we amended the motion to instruct the analysts to prepare an interim report for each of the topics of study as we conclude their meetings and for them to be reviewed at the end of the first round of topics? Is that where you're heading with it? I just wanted to make sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Davies, did you wish to respond to that question?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes.

Thank you, Mike, for that question. That's one derivative. I actually hadn't put it that finally, but I think it's a fairer issue to perhaps do an interim report just on the first four priorities. What I was saying was summarize all the evidence heard to date, but I think your suggestion is one that would be worth considering too.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

I see no other hands up.

I should remind everyone that the vote at this moment is on Mr. Maguire's amendment, which is to require that any consideration of the report mentioned in the main motion would not happen except on a constituency week.

Still seeing no hands raised, I will ask the clerk to conduct the vote on Mr. Maguire's amendment—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, could you remind us of Mr. Maguire's amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Certainly.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Van Bynen's motion was to ask the analysts to prepare an interim report. Mr. Maguire's amendment was that we restrict any consideration of such a report strictly to constituency weeks.

Are you clear now on what we're doing, sir?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

If I understand correctly, the amendment pertains solely to timing. All he is requesting is that we consider any such report outside our parliamentary schedule. The amendment has nothing to do with the discussion that just took place. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Well, it does, because if we pass Mr. Maguire's amendment, and then if we pass Mr. Van Bynen's motion, we will instruct the analysts to prepare a report and that such report, if and when we choose to consider it, would have to be done during a constituency week. That's the upshot of the motion and the amendment.

Ms. Rempel, I see that you have your hand up.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

For me, I think, Mr. Davies has raised some good points. On the mental health study, I think the testimony we got was just devastating. It really showed the impact of the continued, prolonged lockdowns and the impact of not having an adequate vaccine supply and rapid tests. I think it really sets the scene for some of the recommendations that I expect will come forward in the vaccine component of the study; perhaps rapid tests.

To Mr. Thériault's comment, I'm comfortable voting against Mr. Maguire's motion and then against the main motion as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Mr. Maguire's amendment does not carry. We now go back to debate on the main motion.

Mr. Kelloway, please go ahead.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move to amend the original motion to instruct the analysts to prepare an interim report for each of the topics of study as we conclude their meetings, and for them to be reviewed at the end of the first round of topics.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We now have a new amendment on the floor.

Ms. Rempel Garner, do you wish to speak to this amendment?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I do.

In my 10 years in Parliament, analysts were preparing a summary of evidence and working on the report while witnesses were coming forward. I'm not sure what this amendment would do.

I would also note the situation we're facing is changing almost daily; it's getting worse. I'm concerned if we're just coming up with interim reports right now, and that's what this amendment would do, that if new information came forward with regard to the lack of supply on vaccines, on mental health in health care workers, it wouldn't be fulsome. Other witnesses might want to submit written briefs.

I'm wondering if perhaps, Chair, after our fourth set of topics, we could have a business meeting at that point to look at what comes next and review evidence. I think that's standard operating procedure.

At this point, after we dispense with this motion, I want to talk about a couple of procedural things. We're having amazing witnesses at these committees and we're barely being able to scratch the surface of their testimony because we're taking up six minutes of housekeeping on the front end of the meeting.

I'd rather let the analysts do their job. If there is a moment when we need to issue an interim report, the committee can do that. At this point, I would rather keep the process open for Canadians to submit written briefs that the analysts and committee members can use in their deliberations, and that we do one set of topic selection. Because of that, I will be voting against this amendment, with the hope that more Canadians can participate in the process.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

I should note again there's no suggestion of issuing such a report on these bases. It doesn't preclude the briefs. In effect, it implies the briefs received certainly to date are going to be considered.

Mr. Davies, please go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have something to say, but I'm also a little confused. This is the second time you've referred to not issuing a report. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. I thought the whole purpose of the motion is to have the analysts prepare a report. Obviously we'd have to go through it. That's what an interim report is.

Maybe you can come back to me, Mr. Chair, for my comments on the main thing, but could you clarify what you mean when you say there's no suggestion we would be issuing an interim report?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes. My understanding of Mr. Van Bynen's motion is we ask the analysts to prepare a report. That report could be made available to us as a committee, but it doesn't go on to say that we issue it to Parliament on any particular time schedule. It's up to us as a committee to decide whether or not to issue that report or whether to consolidate it with other reports as we accrue them over time.

Certainly if we wish at some point to issue the report to Parliament, we would have to take some time to go through the report and make sure the recommendations were appropriate from our respective points of view and so forth. But Mr. Van Bynen's motion is simply to ask the analysts to prepare such a report.

That's how I understand what we're dealing with. I hope that adds clarity.

Go ahead, Mr. Davies, if you wish to resume.