Health Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Thériault, this is debate at this point.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, we cannot distort a motion's meaning as it suits us. I did read the amended motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Thériault, this is debate.

We will go back to Mr. Fisher. Please go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm sorry; I think I had the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I apologize; I'm losing track of my mind here.

Mr. Davies, please go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

However Mr. Thériault wants to clarify it, the bottom line is that it sounds like we're in agreement. There is nothing that ever said that the PMPRB study has to be done by January 1. I want to also state that the motion does say that we have to hold at least four meetings, and I believe it even provides for our choosing to have supplementary meetings if we wish to as well.

What I'm talking about is having two meetings of the PMPRB study to be completed before we break for the seasonal break in December. That will be the one we have this week, and then one more, and then three on COVID.

I don't want Mr. Thériault—and if it's my error, that's fine—to consider that I'm suggesting that we do not have the remaining meetings on PMPRB when we come back in the new year, which we can do. What I am suggesting is that when we come back in January or February, we schedule the remaining two meetings on PMPRB and maybe even consider having more, if that's the will of the committee.

I would finally just point out that what was curious about the PMPRB motion was that it spoke to conducting that study in parallel with the COVID study. We did that was because, as we all know, it's the normal course of action for committees to usually deal with one study at a time, but we wanted to have two going at the same time. Of course we have very different, unique circumstances in terms of scheduling committee time in this COVID environment.

The COVID study is going to be going on for months. We have just submitted 16 different topics, and we're going to deal with the very first one next week. Obviously the COVID study will continue in January, February, March and April. We honour the PMPRB motion by having four meetings conducted in parallel with the COVID study. Nothing says we do that first.

I'm going to conclude by saying this: I agree that the PMPRB study is important. What I'm saying is that the COVID crisis must take priority right now for the reasons I indicated before, and we can move the PMPRB study in parallel in due course as we study COVID.

If we don't get to work on the COVID crisis very quickly.... Maybe Mr. Thériault and I disagree on this, but I say that Canadians want us to get to work on the COVID crisis right now and start dealing with the very serious, imminent and pressing health and life challenges that we are dealing with right now as we also move forward on the PMPRB study.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Mr. Clerk, perhaps you could guide me as to who is next.

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

I think it's Mr. Thériault.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead, Monsieur Thériault.

You have the floor.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, this has already been said, and I repeat it.

The sentence saying that the study should be carried out in parallel with the committee's study on COVID-19 was added to the motion because we had to consider two emergencies, which is fairly rare. That is why it was included. Otherwise, it would not have been.

Everyone knows this very well. Even the government representatives here, and Mr. Fisher, who attended a forum on the Trikafta drug, are well aware of this.

January 1 has been brought up several times. I even insisted on this twice, following comments made by Mr. Davies, who was trying to explain it. Absolutely nothing he is doing today surprises me.

However, if it's not down to the emergency issue related to January 1 and the implementation of guidelines, give me another reason why it is being added to a motion that this study must be carried out in parallel with the COVID-19 study.

Earlier, Mr. Davies was talking about one meeting plus three—so one at the end, just before we resume after the holidays again. If you want, we can always hold eight meetings after January 1. What will that lead to? People will realize that nothing will change by January 1. The government's current position is to accept the date of January 1, see what will happen and adjust next year.

Mr. Chair, put yourself in the shoes of someone who is waiting for access to a drug that will save their life. That is what we are talking about today. Saying that we can take the time we need to carry out this study seems inappropriate and insulting for patients that have a great deal of hope for that drug. The clerk could surely attest to this. I'm convinced that people are eager to testify and that they are only waiting for the opportunity. What Mr. Davies' motion is saying to them is that they will be entitled to one meeting. We will have only one meeting, which means a maximum of eight witnesses, before the holidays. Are you really serious?

I am speaking to the Liberal government's representatives around this table. Are you really serious? Many innovative medicines are coming on the market. Are you seriously ready to look rare disease and cancer patients lacking access to two of the six drugs in the eye and to tell them there is no emergency?

Mr. Chair, I will stand by my position and will not accept that, as I'm the one proposing the motion. We can always say that January 1 is not a set date. We don't need to do that because it corresponds to the implementation of the guidelines. However, a 30-day time frame, for instance, was provided in the motion.

I would like us to get back to common sense and intellectual integrity, and to recognize the true intent of this motion. That must be recognized.

If I have understood correctly, people don't even want to discuss my subamendment. That speaks volumes. People watching us with great hope in terms of the work we could do before Christmas on the PMPRB will be able to pass judgment on everyone here.

I will be able to look in the mirror because I am not distorting the motions that have been passed. If we were to look at the blues to consider the entire argument, we would see that what I am presenting has been voted on. I have presented the same thing I am talking to you about today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Mr. Barlow, please go ahead.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I'm speaking on Mr. Davies' motion, Mr. Chair. Are we done with Mr. Thériault's amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Not until the debate on the amendment is done. If you—

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I will wait until we talk about Mr. Davies' motion. When we have the vote on Mr. Thériault's amendment, I will speak afterwards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay. Thank you.

Is there anyone who wishes to speak further on Mr. Thériault's amendment?

Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, will you please conduct the vote?

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. The amendment is defeated.

We now go back to Mr. Davies' motion, the main motion. The debate continues on that.

Mr. Barlow, go ahead, please.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your patience with my hand raised there.

I have a comment on Mr. Davies motion, and maybe Mr. Davies can correct me when he has a chance to intervene as well.

On his motion for the three meetings that we're going to have on COVID, he doesn't discern how many are going to be for the Liberal topic, and so on. I know that in the motion we've approved, there will be up to four meetings per issue. My concern would be with this, and I look to Mr. Davies to maybe clarify in his motion.

The Liberals' first priority is mental health, which I think all of us here would agree is extremely important. It's something that we all want to address. Certainly, mental health issues and the opioid crisis and things like that are reaching numbers never seen before. However, my concern is that I would like to see us have at least one meeting before we rise in December on a vaccine distribution, which is the Conservatives' number one topic.

The reason I raise this point, Mr. Chair, is we could very well have a vaccine of some sort ready to be distributed in Canada by the end of January or early February when we return. We haven't had a chance to even discuss potential vaccines that are being assessed and any sort of distribution plan. To put that in context, the United States has Operation Warp Speed. They have already started an assessment in co-operation with the military, the CDC and the health department to ensure that when a vaccine is ready for distribution, there is a strong, solid distribution strategy in place to make sure that every American gets access to that vaccine.

In contrast, as far as we know, Canada has no such distribution plan in place in partnership with the provinces and territories. It may or may not with the Canadian military. I think if we are going to have a vaccine ready for distribution, we haven't had any insight as parliamentarians, and certainly on the health committee, on questions such as what that distribution strategy looks like, how it will be distributed, who will distribute it, infrastructure on storage and transportation, the role of the provinces and territories and which provinces get what. We don't know if remote and rural communities and first nations communities will have access to an amenable number and whether it will be based on per capita or what. We don't have any answers to any of those questions. I think as a committee and as the health committee, this is a critical issue right now that we need to address.

I know Mr. Van Bynen is a strong champion for the mental health issue. I think all of us on here would agree that it is important. My colleague Todd Doherty, with the 988 helpline, has been pushing on this very hard as well. I think it's something we should include as part of that discussion, but I don't think there's any question that when we talk about COVID, we have to prioritize this. We have to triage the issues that are coming through. I completely understand that for the Liberals, mental health is number one, but I would say that the number one top-of-mind issue for Canadians is to know when a vaccine is going to be ready, how many doses we are going to have and how it is going to be distributed.

That is the Conservatives' number one priority. I would like to see us at least address that topic with one meeting prior to rising at Christmas, as we likely won't have a chance to come back to talk about it until February, when that vaccine may be ready and some process may be in place.

To Mr. Davies, I don't think you specified in your motion how many meetings of those three would be for a specific topic, but I would like to see two meetings on mental health and at least one on vaccine distribution before Christmas.

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

Ms. Sidhu, please go ahead.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, first of all, can we confirm if we're all good with four meetings on the topic of mental health? Three meetings would be before Christmas, and one would be after that.

Can we ask the analysts when they would prefer to receive witness lists for the Monday meeting? Then we can start work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Sure. I will ask the analysts if they want to speak up to answer that point of information.

If we are to get witnesses for Monday, in what time frame do you need to get those lists?

[Karin Phillips, Committee Researcher]

I think I might actually pass it over to the clerk. I think he needs them Wednesday. I'll let him speak to the exact time.

[The Clerk]

My only concern is time. We need to do some testing in advance. We need to send headsets in advance. If you send your witness list by the end of Wednesday, I'm afraid it will be too tight for Monday. It would be great if I could get those names before that. If not, I'll do my best, obviously, but it would be a bit tight for Monday.

I'll do whatever the committee decides.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Ms. Sidhu, were you looking to amend the motion regarding the number of witnesses for the mental health study?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Sure.

Mr. Chair, can we clarify that it's four meetings?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I guess that was what I was trying to say. Are you moving to amend Mr. Davies' motion to specify four meetings on mental health?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Sure, if everyone agrees. Yes, Mr. Chair, you can amend.