Health Committee on March 21st, 2024

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

I believe your characterization is hyperbolic and not representative of facts. I think you are seeking to extract partisan advantage from a matter of national security.

These were Canadian citizens who were eminent scientists, who lied to PHAC and who worked in the area of virology. You would know as well as I do that in China, every aspect—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Minister.

This is your last question, Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Minister, did you really think you were going to get away with spreading disinformation? Either you didn't read the documents and you're not on top of your brief, or you were spreading disinformation in a pathetic attempt to further the cover-up of this massive national security breach that happened under your government's watch. Which is it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Minister, you have 30 seconds. You won't be interrupted. We're past time. Go ahead.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

I think the truth, and frankly, it's evident in the way you posed your question, is that your interest is a partisan interest. Your interest is to play games with a matter of national security and not to give me the opportunity to contextualize the circumstance. I think that's unfortunate. I think it's unfortunate that we've moved to a place where matters of national security are used as partisan footballs.

Yes, it is deeply disturbing that these Canadian citizens, who were eminent scientists, behaved the way they did. PHAC acted appropriately, and they were fired.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you—

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

There's an investigation that's ongoing. An attempt to characterize it as some grand conspiracy is inappropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Jowhari, you have five minutes, please.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me start by thanking you, Mr. Lucas, for the great work you've done. Often as politicians we roll out policies, stand in front of cameras and microphones and blow our horns, but it's really amazing individuals like you and your team who make sure these policies are actually translated into benefits for Canadians. Whoever happens to be filling the shoes you'll be leaving has a great infrastructure under him but also big shoes to fill. We thank you.

Mr. Holland, since you didn't get a chance to really respond, I'll give you as much time as I have in order to be able to respond to the what I believe is misinformation in the narrative that's being built here. I think you deserve to have the time to be able to set the record clear.

You can take as much time as I am allowed to have, sir. The time is yours.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Thank you so much.

First of all, I think it's important to see how unfortunate it is, the way this is being played with. To go back in time, when I was in the public safety committee, we received reports from Justice O'Connor and Justice Iacobucci that said that parliamentary oversight of our national security apparatus in all matters of national security was essential. We begged the government of the day to act, to create parliamentary oversight and to create civilian oversight of the security and intelligence apparatus. The Conservative government of the day refused. There's some great irony in the fact that I'm being attacked when the documents they're talking about would never have come to light—we would never have seen the documents, and neither would we be having the debate—if the Conservative government had gotten to continue. They completely ignored creating those oversight mechanisms.

When I was House leader, members of Parliament at the time said they wanted to see...and you'll remember that there were ridiculous conspiracies being spun about what was in those redacted documents. At the time, I said that all parliamentarians should have an opportunity to see into them. Somebody made the comment—I can't remember which opposition party House leader it was—that NSICOP wasn't enough, because they wouldn't have the ability to challenge the redactions.

It was this government, and I was House leader at the time, that said, that's fair; let's create a process where those redactions can be challenged by an independent arbiter. We had a committee of parliamentarians who looked at all the documents. The arbiter made the decision to waive the normal considerations of privacy that involved employee data so that we could have that information. I think that was entirely appropriate.

Everything that's being discussed, the entire report, which I think is positive.... It's unfortunate for the Conservatives. They can now try to spin conspiracies, but there are no more shadows for them to hide in or pretend things are there. You can now read the document yourself. What you will see in those documents is two eminent scientists who were Canadian citizens who lied to the Public Health Agency about the interactions they had. Those interactions were in the area of virology.

In terms of the attempts to characterize it in some darker or more sinister way and that somehow the government was trying to hide it, in fact, the government is the reason that they have the documents. It was their government that would have shut the door from those documents ever being seen. It is the height of hypocrisy, because you know what would have happened. The same events would have occurred with a Liberal or a Conservative government. These are happening inside of our Public Health Agency. If you believe differently, then you would be believing that the Conservatives in government would reach their hands into the Public Health Agency and decide whether or not they would hire a Canadian citizen who's an eminent scientist and override public health officials on who's there. Of course that's ridiculous. It wouldn't happen.

The same events would have occurred. The only difference is that, if the Conservative government were present, these documents would never have come to light. Canadians would never have seen the information, and certainly parliamentarians wouldn't have, because at every step of the way, they blocked efforts to have the process that's here today. In its full light and character, it is absurd.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

That leaves me 15 seconds, which I will yield back to the chair.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Jowhari. I appreciated the opportunity to say that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Jowhari.

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, a person's free choice, their autonomy, is an imaginary or abstract concept. It is manifest in the bodies of people who are suffering.

What do you have to say to Sandra Demontigny, who has early-onset dementia? She's in her early forties, and she came here to tell us that she will have to take her own life if the federal government doesn't proceed with this. You're telling me you're still thinking. Talk to her. Tell her why she has to take her own life now. Have the courage to tell her why you still haven't introduced a bill on this.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

First of all, I want to speak in English for a second, just for the sake of clarity. I want to express the appropriate compassion for the person in that circumstance. I can't imagine it. My grandmother was lost to Alzheimer’s. I had to go visit her in a long-term care facility. For 15 years she suffered, and it was horrible. I can't imagine that circumstance.

What I would say to her is that we have to work through these issues very carefully. I'm so sorry for her suffering. The ability for people, as you say, to have determination over their own fate is essential, but one of the challenges with advance requests is that you are talking about a future date in which you are not living. I can tell you that I had no idea what it would it be like to be 50 years old. When I was a kid, I had many ideas of what it would be like. When you live an experience, it's totally different.

When you make a decision for a future self that you do not know, and for circumstances that you do not understand, there is a complexity to that. That's what I'm trying to convey. For anybody to imagine the situation that they would be in in the future, to consign themselves to a fate of death when they don't know what they will be feeling and thinking in that moment, is complex. We need to work through it carefully.

When you get into families and how families will feel about those things—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Excuse me, Minister. This lady has early dementia. She will have no choice but to take her own life, which goes against the Carter decision and the Baudouin decision. You know that, but even though you know that, you're deliberately doing nothing to alleviate her anguish and suffering. You haven't done anything since the last time we talked.

How can you ignore the Carter decision and the Baudouin decision and not respond to this woman's suffering? That's my question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Give a short answer, please, Minister.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

In the first order, I of course have the same compassion that you have. I watched my grandmother in that exact state. As her grandchild, I watched her slip into dementia as that disease took her, so I couldn't have more compassion for her. I understand all too intimately, as do too many Canadians as well, those circumstances.

However, when we make a decision, it isn't just for now. It's forever. It's not just for one person. It's for millions, if not tens of millions of people in the totality of history. One of the hardest things, frankly, as health minister—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Quebec has made that decision, Minister. Follow Quebec's lead. Go and read Quebec's legislation. There's nothing complicated about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Mr. Davies, you have two and a half minutes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, to pick up where we left off, has any vaping product or nicotine pouch received any approval by Health Canada as a smoking cessation device?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

For sure. There are applications for vaping—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Have any been approved, Minister? It's my understanding that no vaping device has been approved by Health Canada as a smoking cessation device. It's often marketed as such. Has there been any official approval by Health Canada as the result of an application made that establishes these products as effective smoking cessation devices?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

You're correct in the instance of vaping that there has been no product approved for the purposes of cessation.

You're right that it has been marketed and held out as a cessation tool. Of course, I'm deeply concerned, and I expressed this when I was at Heart and Stroke. As I watched the beginning of it, I talked about how the disastrous the potential health impacts of it were. It was a mismanaged situation. I think there was hope that it would be a cessation tool and that it would be used for the purposes of cessation.

At that time, I worried very publicly about the future that we're now in. It ended up becoming something that was a new delivery mechanism for people who weren't otherwise—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

As health minister, that's the issue. Many think that big tobacco is using devices, under the guise of marketing them as smoking cessation devices, as frankly just another vehicle to hook a new generation of Canadians on nicotine.

At any rate, Minister, I'll move on to a different subject, if I can. Many health practitioners, small business owners and consumers across Canada have expressed serious concerns to this committee and others that the government's proposed regulations, including labelling requirements and new fees for natural health products, will result in increased costs and reduced choice for Canadians.

Minister, would you be willing to pause those regulatory measures to ensure adequate consultation with those groups and others on the potential impact on Canadians?