Health Committee on Oct. 26th, 2020

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

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, but could I make a quick point of order, or, again, a point of clarification?

The House motion that we vote on today takes precedence over everything. Is that the case?

Is this amendment, then, going to create some type of parallel...? I want to make sure that Mr. Thériault gets what he wants, but if the motion passes today in the House, my understanding is that we wouldn't get to this study. That's the clarification I'm seeking.

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

On that point of order, Mr. Chair, my understanding is that the way that Mr. Thériault has worded the motion, this motion would happen concurrently should the House motion pass. I believe it's right in the wording of the motion.

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

Okay, I have just one more point then. Can a motion of the committee do that when the motion of the House supersedes the committee's?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'll stop debate here as we're kind of on a side issue.

The motion of the House will give us a reference that we are committed to, that we're obliged to follow. It is not necessarily exclusive; however, as long as we can fulfill the intent of the House motion, we can do other things. It's kind of up to us to manage our business.

Anyway, let us carry on with Mr. Davies.

Mr. Davies, you're up next on the amendment. Please go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to my colleagues for moving the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Thériault, for your indulgence.

Yes, I think we need a little bit more shape to this. The beauty of the amendment is that, if it's adopted today, we can invite the stakeholders immediately to start sending in their feedback to us in written submission form. As Ms. Rempel Garner said, if we don't do that, we're not going to be able to have any input from any patient groups of any type for at least three weeks. This way it gets action on Mr. Thériault's motion immediately.

I want to be clear. I think it also has the additional benefit of helping the committee once we get those written submissions. I think there's a deadline in Ms. Rempel Garner's motion of November 6. Do I have that correct, that it's the deadline for written submissions?

It will allow us then to select from those submissions if we have many to focus on from representative groups. For instance, I don't think we need to hear from 11 patient groups who are going to tell us about the same issue. Nor do we need to hear from many pharmaceutical companies that have the same testimony. It will allow us to zero in on what the committee wants to focus on in terms of the oral testimony.

I do want to state for the record that I think it's very important that we do provide an opportunity, particularly for patient groups, to appear before committee and give us their views on the changes in person. I know there's frustration with the process so far. I think it needs to be said that there have been a number of opportunities for stakeholders to submit their written submissions to the government on the PMPRB changes over the last several years. I think what patient groups want is a chance to get in front of parliamentarians in a personal-appearance format, and I think that needs to be encouraged. We need to facilitate that.

As a matter of pragmatic scheduling, the way I'm viewing this, and I want to just be clear that I understand this, is that we give everybody until November 6 to get their submissions in. Then the committee will take a look at those submissions and decide as a committee whom we need to hear from, and we will schedule—I think it's up to four meetings in the motion, if I understand correctly—a representative sample of the viewpoints.

That's where I'll conclude. I think it is important to get a representative sample because, again, I will point out that there are patient groups and experts who very much support these changes, and there are those who do not. I think the committee needs to hear the full range. I think that by getting the written submissions, it will give the committee a really good sample from which we can choose to make sure that, when we do have our meetings in person, we will have canvassed a very good representative sample of those different points of view.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

We go now to Mr. Fisher.

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

Thank you.

I wonder, Mr. Chair, if we could ask the clerk about the concurrent portion in ensuring that, when a House motion comes to us, we can still run something. I know what Don is saying. We can certainly get the written submissions, but when it comes to scheduling a time to have people appear before us virtually, I just wonder if the clerk could chime in on what the House motion is going to direct the health committee to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

I will ask the clerk accordingly.

Mr. Clerk, if the motion before the House at this time passes, what is our ability to do a concurrent study?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Jean-François Pagé]

It depends on the resources, of course, but we can do two things at the same time. Let's say we get a bill from the House and it's an order from the House; we can do further studies or other meetings on estimates, or whatever. It's up to the committee to decide. Of course, it depends on the resources, but we can do it at the same time. It's up to the committee.

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

Can the committee determine to do a separate study even though the House has demanded that the committee do a particular study?

[The Clerk]

If we have more meetings, yes, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher. Are you done with your intervention?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We'll go now to Dr. Powlowski.

Please go ahead.

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

Sorry, I withdraw that. I lower my hand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I know that was difficult, but there you go.

Mr. Kelloway, please go ahead.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I will be quick because MP Don Davies actually brought this up. It's about our ability to hear from patient groups or pharmaceutical companies, whatever representative sample or whoever makes up that representative sample. We need to also take into account the ability to hear from people by Zoom, in addition to written statements and things of that nature. I think it's going to be really key here for this particular motion.

Thanks so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.

Mr. Thériault, on the amendment, please go ahead.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I said earlier that I was very much in favour of the amendment. I even said that, to save time, I was prepared to put this amendment in the motion. We could simply reread my motion and include the amendment, and then proceed to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

I don't think it helps. We do have the amendment on the floor being debated. Once debate ends on that amendment, we can have a vote.

I see no more hands raised to speak on the amendment. Seeing no hands I shall ask the clerk to conduct a vote. First of all, let's see if we have unanimous consent to adopt this amendment. Is there anyone who does not agree with passing this amendment?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, I just want to be clear. I think we have consensus here, but Ms. Rempel Garner moved a motion on the written submissions. Do we have broad agreement? I don't know that I need to move an amendment to this effect that we are supporting the course forward that I suggested—that is, we get the written submissions and then as a committee we determine when the meetings will be and who we will hear from. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We can't entertain another amendment at this time. We can vote on the amendment that is on the floor by Ms. Rempel Garner. If you wish to move another amendment following that. it would be up to you. At this point, the vote before us is whether to accept Ms. Rempel Garner's amendment or not.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Can you then read the motion as amended please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I will ask the clerk to do so.

Mr. Clerk, if you would please.

[The Clerk]

I don't have the text so it's hard for me to read it. Perhaps Ms. Rempel Garner could read it.