Health Committee on Feb. 1st, 2021

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It could be just me, but that's not at all how I understood it. Even judging by the comments of Mr. Van Bynen and other members, I think most members are understanding that the purpose of this would be to have a report prepared for us. We would go over it and of course we would issue it. It wouldn't be of any assistance to anybody to produce a report on mental health for our own purposes. I would think the value of it—once we come to an agreement—would be in issuing that report both for the public and for the government.

You may be correct that it just wasn't mentioned in Mr. Van Bynen's motion. In my mind, the purpose of an interim report would be to produce something productive that we could then issue as a committee.

I like Mike's suggestion. I think that's a reasonable one. I want to make sure I understand it. To me, it seemed that his motion would have the analysts prepare an interim report on each of the four priorities, but not release them until the end of the meetings on the four priorities. Then we could discuss as a committee all of them at the same time. Then I would think we would issue an interim report on the four priorities at that point.

I see the thumbs up.

Once again, I think that's not exactly what I was talking about before, but I think it's a good idea. As long as we haven't lost sight of the fact that we have this mountain of interim evidence we have received from many witnesses who took time out to come to our committee from February until the end of 2020. I still think we have to get that evidence summarized. Perhaps that's a larger project to do after we do this.

I think Mike's suggestion is a good one. It's fair to all the parties. It will be released at the same time. I also think it pays respect to Tony's idea on mental health, but also respects the other parties' priorities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Mr. Van Bynen, please go ahead.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you.

I agree with what Don has said. The intent would be that each one of these segments, as we've identified them, would a be a chapter in the overall study. I think the recommendation and the amendment Mike is proposing is a good one because it allows us to consider each one of these chapters and the effect of the overall study more effectively.

I appreciate that amendment and I would be supporting it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.

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

I'm not sure anyone's clear on what's being proposed here.

This is how I would like to proceed. The analysts do their job, as they've been admirably doing. They're reviewing the material that's coming in. They're preparing a draft report. Since this amendment doesn't really have any date on which we would be reviewing that, we're kind of just proceeding normally anyways.

I'm not comfortable with wording on an amendment that could potentially be used to weasel out of one of Conservative-selected meetings on vaccines. The amendment has now been amended so many times that I think the Liberals should have gotten their ducks together and actually formally crafted this. Maybe they should've just picked up the phone and given me or any one of our colleagues a call ahead of time.

I would like to move to adjourn debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

The motion is to adjourn debate. There is no debate on that.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

We go now to Monsieur Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to point out that, by definition, an interim report is just that: an interim report. The problems around vaccination will probably continue until we submit our final report. At any rate, the issue will remain until we reach herd immunity.

The committee did not decide to hold only four meetings on the topic. Depending on the situation, we could add meetings. The committee is free to determine its own schedule, in a united and sovereign manner.

One thing is certain: we will not work on the report until we have studied the priority topic of each party. At this point then, the member's argument does not make sense. If ever the need arose to hold more meetings, there is nothing stopping us from doing so.

Be that as it may, methodology-wise, I think it's extremely important to have a document that shows where we are. For that reason, I support the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

I should remind the committee that we are operating under the terms of Mr. Davies' motion of November 13, or so, which is that if we wish to do more than four meetings on any given topic, we require unanimous consent to do so.

Mr. Fisher.

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

I hear Luc and it makes sense; I hear Don and it makes sense; and I hear Mike and it makes sense. I think we're going to get to a place where I hope the whole committee wants to get. Nobody wants to weasel out of anything. Everybody wants to get this work done.

I'm not sure. I guess the next step would be to finish out debate and then move to the vote on the amendment, but I get the sense that what Mike is proposing and what Don is saying and what Luc is saying are all in that same ballpark. I certainly hope that's the case, because I think that's a reasonable way forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

Mr. Davies, go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

It's really important that we're all clear on what we're saying, and Michelle's comments left me with some concern that maybe we're not.

To make sure that I have it right, what we're talking about is hearing all the meetings on the first priority. We've already done four on mental health, we're going to do four on vaccine, and then we have the Bloc's priority. We have not determined how many meetings, what that will be, up to and including four, and then we have the NDP priority, up to and including four on whatever our priority is.

The motion is to instruct the analysts throughout the process to prepare an interim report on each of those topics. At the end of all those meetings, we will schedule our meetings to go over the reports all in one shot and we'll issue, hopefully, one interim report on all four priorities.

The reason I want to clarify that is because Michelle tended to be concerned that we would be taking up meeting time of our priorities, but that's not how I understand it, given the order, and I see a lot of heads nodding. I think what I expressed is what we are getting at.

If that's the case, taking a meeting or two at the end of the first round of priorities to assess the interim report and issue that interim report before we then start the round of second priorities of parties I think makes sense. It usually takes a couple of meetings to go through a report. I don't think we need to take more than two meetings to do that.

If I understand it properly, then I'm in favour of what I just said, if Mike and Tony are okay with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That's my understanding as well.

We'll go now to Ms. Rempel Garner, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Given the fact that it would be tough for me to trust the government, because sometimes they say some things and do different things, I wonder if Mr. Kelloway could read the motion exactly how it would be as amended, just to make sure that what is being said is actually what is being prescribed in the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Just as a point of clarification, you're not being asked to trust the government. You're being asked to respect the members of the committee before you, who—

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

Point of order, Mr. Chair. Actually, Mr. Fisher does have a government appointment and has been part of debate and is part of committee. I'm assuming that as a quarterback of the Liberal side, he's speaking on behalf of the government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Be that as it may....

We have Dr. Powlowski next.

Following that, Mr. Kelloway, if you wish to restate your amendment, I'll invite you to do so.

Dr. Powlowski, please go ahead.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

In response to Don's point, I think that if we took a meeting or two after completing everybody's round of their topic, I think this is a good idea to summarize things, but it would also be an opportunity to at that point decide that we may need to revisit some of these issues. This is going to be a couple of months down the line. Maybe the situation with respect to vaccines will have changed, and we will want to bring it back to have more discussions on vaccines, but I think that would be a good opportunity to figure out where we are and where we ought to be going.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Doctor.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Could I just have a point of order, Mr. Chair? It's really more of a point of clarification.

I didn't mean to suggest that we have a meeting after each priority. It's that the meeting where we discuss the report would be after all four priority meetings are heard. I see that Marcus is okay.... Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm going to ask Mr. Kelloway to restate his amendment, but I'm also going to encourage us all to wrap this up quickly, because we're very quickly going to get booted from this room for the next group.

Mr. Kelloway, if you please, go ahead.

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

It is, “instruct the analysts to prepare an interim report for each of the topics of study as we conclude their meetings and from them to be reviewed at the end of the first round of topics”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is everyone clear now? Are we ready to vote on Mr. Kelloway's amendment?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Ms. Rempel Garner, I understand that you wanted to take up some procedural matters. We are really running out of time. I know that you're concerned about the time we spend during the preamble of each meeting. I should advise you that the clerk has given me an indication that he's going to tailor those scripts a bit, depending on whether or not we have members in the House.

Is this something that you absolutely need to raise now or is it—

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

I do, because, Chair, I think the average amount of time that you're taking to read housekeeping items at the front of each meeting, which are repetitive, actually takes a full question round away from members. I think that needs to probably be changed so that it's more efficient. I think most of what you're reading is known operating procedure and could be emailed to members and also advised to witnesses prior to the start of committee meetings.

The other thing I would say is—I've said this many times—that witnesses should be sound-tested before the start. When a meeting has really already started, especially when we're doing two tight panels....

I move that, in an effort to maximize witness testimony and MP questioning time, the clerk and the committee communicate to all witnesses and members all protocol, procedure and technical information prior to a meeting to ensure that this information does not need to be repeated during a meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Mr. Davies, please go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I support what Ms. Rempel Garner's saying, and I also want to raise the issue that Mr. Thériault is repeatedly struggling with.

I think witnesses have to be instructed that they have to have a headset, because that seems to be the problem. If they don't have the headset, then the interpreters can't get the audio. I think Mr. Thériault's holding back. I think there are more interpretation issues and he's graciously trying to not interrupt the meetings, but it's completely unfair that he has to be put in a position of interrupting.

I don't think any witness should be allowed to testify unless they have the proper headsets or arrange them, or in the case of Dr. Bogoch, I think he had an acceptable...looks like he had a pretty skookum microphone there.

The interpretations have to be ironed out before the meeting starts. I understand there could a glitch here and there, but it shouldn't be an equipment-based one, because equipment can be worked out in advance.

The other thing I want to serve notice on, just to get my colleagues thinking about, I will probably move a motion on this coming up. We have these superb witnesses coming. We just had two powerhouse panels of some of the best witnesses maybe in the world, and we could barely scratch the surface. Giving them five or six minutes to talk and then six minutes of questions is not enough.

I know we're constrained by the motion from the House in some respects, I would like to have us all think about how we can maybe change this. It would be nice to have maybe four witnesses for the two hours so we can give them a full 10 minutes, and then we have second rounds of questions.

Also, I know that certain members I speak to have not been able to ask questions because we only get the first round.

Again, I know we're dealing with the House motion but maybe this committee can change that, or we can go back to our whips and maybe amend that motion somehow, because hearing eight witnesses in this time period, in this format, does not do justice to them nor to us.

I just wanted to throw that out. I would be interested in my colleagues' thoughts on this at a future meeting.