Health Committee on June 2nd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 40 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.

The committee is meeting today pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), as requested by four members of the committee, to discuss a work plan until the summer recess.

Before I recognize Ms. Rempel Garner to move her motion, I would like to acknowledge and recognize that Ms. Sidhu's private member's bill, C-237, an act to establish a national framework for diabetes, just passed third reading in the House. On my own behalf, and since it passed unanimously, I dare say on behalf of the committee as well, congratulations indeed.

Ms. Rempel Garner, if you please, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I move:

That the following regularly scheduled meetings of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health be programmed as follows:

On June 4, 2021 the committee undertake one more three-hour meeting regarding Patented Medicine Prices Review Board guidelines, that each political party represented on the Committee be given leave to invite two witnesses of their choosing to provide testimony on the topic for this meeting, and that upon the completion of this meeting, the analysts of the committee be directed to commence the development of a draft report based on witness testimony and written submissions received by the committee on this subject to date;

On June 7, 2021 that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, the Clerk of the Privy Council Office, Canada’s Privacy Commissioner and Canada’s Information Commissioner be invited for the duration of a two-hour meeting to discuss issues related to, but not limited to, the production of documents regarding the October 26 House of Commons motion, and that the total time allotted for opening statements be limited to five minutes for each witness up to a maximum of 20 minutes in total to ensure adequate time for questions to be posed by committee members;

For the first hour on the meetings scheduled for June 11, 14, 18 and 21, 2021, each political party represented on the committee be given leave to invite one witness of their choosing to discuss issues related to, but not limited to, the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the total time allotted for opening statements be limited to five minutes by witnesses to ensure adequate time for questions to be posed by committee members;

For the second hour on the meetings scheduled for June 11, 14, 18 and 21, 2021 the deputy minister of Health Canada, the deputy minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the deputy minister of Public Services and Procurement, the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada, the chief public health officer of Canada, the vice-president of logistics and operations for the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the head of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, be invited to discuss issues related to, but not limited to, the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, that the Minister of Health be in attendance for at least one of these meetings, that the meeting that the Minister of Health is in attendance be held on a Friday, be three hours in length, that the minister and officials be in attendance for two consecutive hours, and that the total time allotted for opening statements by officials (and the minister) during this portion of the meeting be limited to five minutes by witnesses up to a maximum of 20 minutes in total to ensure adequate time for questions to be posed by committee members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Mr. Davies, please go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to speak to the motion very briefly and then move an amendment. Having listened to the concerns expressed by my colleagues at the meeting on Friday, obviously this motion does one thing that's essential: It proposes further dates with a more updated calendar, since the motion on Friday would have allocated meetings for Monday and for this Friday, so it had to be changed.

I heard the concerns of some members of the committee. One was that deputy ministers were very busy people and it was seen that having four meetings with the deputy ministers at the health committee might be too taxing on them, given their responsibilities and duties. A second was that there was a desire for more witnesses, Canadians or stakeholders, or experts, or otherwise. I'm going to amend this motion to respect those wishes. Essentially I'll just explain it in plain English and then I'll read the motion into the record.

Essentially what my amendment will do is keep this Friday for the PMPRB meeting. I think there's consensus around the room that we will each have two witnesses, effectively combining two meetings into one, and that meeting will be extended to three hours so we can have a fulsome discussion. That then completely honours the motion of my colleague, Luc Thériault.

It would then allocate the following Monday to be a meeting for the law clerk and the Clerk of the Privy Council to deal with documents. For the first three of the remaining four meetings, the first hour would be one witness from each party and the second hour would be the deputy ministers. At the very last meeting, which is on June 21, there would be no deputy ministers; there would be only witnesses, and each party would have two.

Really what my motion does is remove the deputy ministers from having to attend four meetings down to three meetings. By adding the extra witnesses on the last meeting, it also increases the number of witnesses we'll be able to hear from.

I would finally just say that this motion puts everything under the general rubric of COVID, so it allows each party and each person to put forward whatever witnesses they believe are important. I've heard it expressed that some members have a great interest in long-term care. Others might have other issues they want. I think this gives the flexibility to call the witnesses you want.

I should give a spoiler alert, because I understand there may be a further amendment to this that might improve my amendment, but I'll move mine into the record now so we can deal with that and deal with any further amendments that need to happen.

I move that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the second paragraph and substituting the following:

For the first hour of the meetings scheduled on June 11, 14, and 18, 2021, each political party represented on the committee be given leave to invite one witness of their choosing to discuss issues related to, but not limited to, the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the total time allotted for opening statements be limited to five minutes by witnesses to ensure adequate time for questions to be posed by committee members and for the second hour for these meetings, the deputy minister of Health Canada, the deputy minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the deputy minister of Public Services and Procurement, the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada, the chief public health officer of Canada, the vice-president of logistics and operations for the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the head of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, be invited to discuss issues related to, but not limited to, the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic; provided that

For one of the meetings scheduled on any of June 11, 14, or 18, 2021, the supplementary estimates (A) be discussed and disposed of, and that the Minister of Health be in attendance for this meeting with her officials, including the deputy minister of Health Canada, the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada, the chief public health officer of Canada, the vice-president of logistics and operations for the Public Health Agency of Canada, and that the head of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, the deputy minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the deputy minister of Public Services and Procurement also be in attendance, that all witnesses be in attendance for at least two consecutive hours, and that the total time allotted for opening statements be limited to 10 minutes in total to ensure adequate time for questions to be posed by committee members; and

That for the meeting on June 21, each political party represented on the committee be given leave to invite two witnesses of their choosing to discuss issues related to, but not limited to, the federal government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the total time allotted for opening statements be limited to five minutes by each witness or witness group to ensure adequate time for questions to be posed by committee members.

Finally, colleagues, you'll know that the one thing that's in there is that whichever meeting the Minister of Health chooses to come for, because it's in the second hour of the meeting after we've heard the first hour of witnesses, changing that wording to say they'll be here for two hours ensures that the meeting will be a three-hour meeting, so that we have ample opportunity to question the minister. She will be appearing on the supplementary estimates.

I would take it that that meeting would probably have to be on a Friday, because I think that's the only day we can get a three-hour meeting on.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Can you submit that in writing to the clerk as well?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes, I will.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Would you happen to have that in French as well?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

If you could get that to the clerk, he can distribute it to all the members ASAP.

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

On a point of order, Chair, I think the clerk might already have it, in both official languages. Things happen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That would be great. Things happen like that.

Mr. Clerk, if you have it, please distribute it to the members.

Next up, after Mr. Davies, I have Mr. Kelloway. Do you wish to speak to Mr. Davies' amendment?

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

I think so, and it probably does touch to some degree on Michelle's main motion, but I'll be brief.

Number one, Don, I think you deserve a glass of water or a large bottle of water after that, so I won't take up too much time.

We've been talking a lot about the issues contained in the 106(4), and I think we have agreement, or we're almost there in terms of coming to some kind of conclusion here, which is really beneficial. What I normally did in the past, when I taught at the University of Calgary, or elsewhere, in Cape Breton, was I wanted to try to sum up the main components of what I was hearing.

Don and Michelle, please correct me if I'm wrong. I know there's a lot in what you said, Don, but I want to maybe bring it down to just some modular points. We have one PMPRB meeting for three hours. Following that we would have three meetings with the witnesses for the first hour, and then I believe the deputy ministers for the second hour. For these meetings, each party would select one witness. I don't think that's changed. In addition, we would have one three-hour meeting with the minister and one meeting with another of the officials in the motion.

It seems like we're really trending towards that right spot, from what I'm seeing. After I finish speaking, which will be in a few moments, I am going to read Don's amendment to it, to see if it captures what we're hoping to achieve here.

I don't know if I can ask this to Don, through you, Chair. Is that basically the meat and the guts of what we're talking about here?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

May I respond, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes, please do.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

It's pretty close, Mike. Again, I understand that there may be a further tweak we want to make to this, but we're going step by step.

Basically, what my amendment would do is nail down three hours this Friday for the PMPRB, with two witnesses each. The following Monday would be the law clerk and the Clerk of the Privy Council on documents. That's two meetings done. The next three meetings would be that structure of the first hour being a witness from each party and the second hour being the deputy ministers.

To one of those three meetings we invite the minister to come. We don't know which one that will be, but it likely would have to be on a Friday. She would come for the two hours on top of that one hour, so that would be a three-hour meeting. The last meeting, the sixth meeting, which is specified on June 21, is just a plain witness meeting, with two witnesses from each party.

I think you had it, but sorry if I didn't quite get up to that. I think it's important to be clear.

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

I appreciate it, Don, and I appreciate the cliffhanger to come. It reminds me of one of those serials back in the 1930s and 1940s.

I just wanted to make those comments and try to capture, in my own mind, where I think we're going, which I think is a better spot than we were in last week, and just to capture the key elements of what you're proposing in the amendments.

I appreciate that and I yield the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.

We go now to Dr. Powlowski, please.

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

Yes, I wanted to make an amendment too, but my wish is to do so after we've dealt with Don's amendment, as we want our amendment to apply to the motion as a whole.

I'd like to note, in passing, that Mike Kelloway talked about when he taught at the University of Calgary and elsewhere in Cape Breton, thereby implying that Calgary was part of Cape Breton. I'm glad to see Cape Breton is expanding its borders across the country there, Mike.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It's clearly an expansionist government.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I'd like to express an opinion, actually.

The result is indeed what is important, and given the analysis of the proposed amendment, the result seems to be good.

What is also important is my colleague Mr. Thériault's proposal. Indeed, if I am not mistaken, there is also a deadline. It is not in the amendment, but I am quite happy that it still falls under section 106(4) in terms of June 4.

Otherwise, I look forward to hearing other people's opinions, because that is very much in keeping with the objective we would like to use to get there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

Seeing no further hands up, we can proceed with the vote on Mr. Davies' amendment.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Thank you, Clerk.

We'll go now to Dr. Powlowski.

I believe you indicated you wished to make a further amendment.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move the following amendment: that all dates be removed from the motion, with the exception of the date for the PMPRB meeting, which is to occur this Friday for three hours.

I believe this leaves the minister still appearing on Friday with that change, as stated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Dr. Powlowski.

We have Ms. Rempel Garner.

Go ahead, please.

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

I'm concerned that with this amendment, by removing the dates and not specifying that these meetings happen before the end of day on June 21, that might allow for wiggle room on when the meetings are going to be scheduled.

I'm wondering if the mover can clarify what the intention of the motion was. Was it to, in fact, have these meetings scheduled before the end of day on June 21? I realize that the motion is on the floor and I would ask the clerk, procedurally, if you can amend a subamendment? I think you have to have one on the floor, but if we were to support this, we would then put forward another subamendment that would clarify that these meetings would be required to take place before the end of day on June 21.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

My understanding is that we can have a subamendment. It's certainly my understanding, as the chair, that all these meetings need to be conducted prior to when the House rises.