Health Committee on April 6th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Dr. Ellis.

Next is Mr. Lake and then Mr. van Koeverden.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

What I fear is that we're going to get into this interminable loop of conversations in committee business planning. I think we have to take some action here.

Don, with respect, you had the floor and had an opportunity to put forward one of your motions. Right now, as we're sitting here discussing the committee plan, there is no NDP motion to even discuss in the mix because you haven't moved one yet. I think you have at least four on the Notice Paper for our committee, and we'd like to hear what the NDP priority is because we don't know it right now. That would be helpful to the discussion as we're discussing what's on the table. Right now, I think four or five motions that we've passed are on the table for discussion. It would be helpful to know what the NDP priority is and I'd like to move forward.

I join the consensus that seems to be emerging around having officials come, especially three weeks from now. I really do think it's going to be important for us to get a lay of the land as we decide how we're going to move forward as a committee. We may decide that we want to dedicate more time to COVID, or we may decide, as some have suggested, that this may be redundant to other briefings and public information out there. However, we have to put something on the table.

I think dedicating two meetings to the suicide prevention hotline—and I'm not saying when they should be—should be prioritized, because it's something this committee can shed some light on. It's been a long time since we passed that unanimous consent motion. The debate didn't end when we passed the unanimous consent motion, but there's been zero action on it up to this point, and I think it's incumbent on us as a health committee to do that. We make the argument that mental health is health, so when we have an opportunity to shine a light on why something is delayed or taking so long, it's incumbent on us to do that.

We have this opportunity to invest two meetings to bring in the minister and have the CRTC come. The minister has pointed to the CRTC as the reason we can't get a hotline passed and put in motion. It's a chance to call them as witnesses, hear from them, ask questions and have a public discussion with some of our expert stakeholders about what's taking so long. Maybe there's a really good reason. As a committee it would be good to understand that, and as parliamentarians from all sides, since this is something we unanimously agree on.

I'll throw that out there, but Don, I really look forward to hearing which of the different motions you have on notice you would like to put into the mix.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Mr. van Koeverden, go ahead, please.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we are more or less all agreeing right now. We're just doing it in a political way and kind of asserting ourselves a bit, which is fine; we're politicians.

To my understanding, there are up to 16 meetings left between now and when we rise in June, and the 25th and the 27th would complete our human resources and health care study. Then on the second we could have a briefing from the Public Health Agency of Canada, at which time we can determine how many COVID meetings we need going forward. There are a lot of things that could arise and we don't know what they are. We don't need to make a decision between now and May, so we might as well not.

The next meetings could be all about children's health, they could be a mix or they could be fifty-fifty. We can do that later. I also don't think we have to concern ourselves with this too much, although we can.

I'm interested to hear from Don, as everybody else is, about what we're going to study in September.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. van Koeverden.

Next is Dr. Hanley and then Mr. Davies.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thanks. I'm trying to digest what Mr. van Koeverden just said and how that all merges with this.

I want to go back to Dr. Ellis's comments, because I actually agree with him.

I think we could use COVID time.... This is different from what I said before, but if we include the effect of COVID on children as part of the COVID studies, it would allow us to catch up on some of that efficiency and hopefully fit in Mr. Lake's studies. That would allow us to keep moving. Then we could always pivot if we needed to. If something bad happens with COVID and we really need to discuss it, we could pivot and move the child health studies along. Not to throw too many things into this, but it could also be useful to move one of the health care workforce studies so that we have a COVID catch-up, as it were, the first week back. That would allow us to plan from there on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Mr. Davies, go ahead, please.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm flattered at all the interest in hearing what my priorities are, and I absolutely look forward to putting those forward.

To be quite frank, the reason I haven't moved any motions on a study right now is that, as I said, we had a fulsome debate a month or two ago and set the calendar to June. That's why I didn't move any motion today. I think what we're doing today is really re-examining a schedule that's already been set. Again, I haven't heard any things that would cause me to disrupt the agreement that we came to about the schedule between now and June, as important as they are.

The other thing is that it's a little bit premature for me because one of my three motions was to study substance abuse and addiction, but, of course, my colleague Mr. Johns has placed a bill before the House that deals with that subject. So if that passes—and it will be coming up for a vote, I understand, in May—it will be going to a committee for a study, whether that's ours or justice, and that's why I've held off on that.

The issue of childhood nutrition, which was in another motion I moved, has been kind of incorporated into the motion we passed on children's health, so that's been subsumed.

I also have one on breast health, which is still on the books.

I just thought it was premature to be talking about the fall. I'll certainly revisit and move some more motions and then at a certain point I'll give all of my colleagues a heads-up about which one I would like to proceed with.

I don't think we have to decide that today. Again, I'm pretty sure we're going to have to have a meeting in early June to see where we're at, because we may not be finished the children's health issue by June either, so I don't think we need to set the calendar for October and November here in the first week of April. I still think the calendar we have, as we've set it, is broad enough to encompass the concerns of everybody I've heard today.

I must say that I don't think having a watching brief on COVID is a waste of time or that we're not learning anything at all. I think there are a lot of aspects of this that are still fascinating. For instance, where are we at in terms of domestic vaccine production?

We're coming to the end of our boosting. We've heard some evidence about boosting not being a viable long-term mechanism of dealing with this. We have 45% uptake on boosters. I'll tell you that one thing I'm hearing a lot about now is long COVID, which I don't think our committee has heard any testimony on.

I could list 25 different aspects of COVID right now that are current, pressing and important to Canadians and that the committee hasn't plumbed yet. I must say for the record that I can't agree with any of my colleagues who suggest that studying COVID is a waste of time or that we have nothing left to learn.

If anybody is running out of witnesses to put forward, just fire your list over to me and I'm happy to fill up the witness spots because I have a million of them to put forward if we need to.

I think we should just stay the course. Again, I think if we stay with COVID being once a week, that gives everybody the flexibility to call witnesses on any aspect that they wish, including on children. Then we can finish off these two very important studies, which are on human resources and on children's health. Maybe we can squeeze in the Bloc Québécois study. I'm not optimistic that can be done before June, but we could.

Mr. Lake's excellent suggestion on the suicide-prevention hotline is something that obviously we can get at in the fall. I have reason to suspect that it may even be legislated before we study it because of the unanimous agreement we had in the House on that idea.

I just think that given the volatility of COVID, I don't think it's worthwhile planning much beyond June at this point.

I think we should just agree to adopt the current calendar as we have it, finish that off, and be nimble, if we have to, over the weeks and months ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Mr. Jowhari, go ahead, please.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I agree with what Dr. Ellis talked about. From this angle, from the lens that we've been looking at COVID with so far, we have gotten all the information. The fact that when we come back we'll have officials come back, who will give us an update so that we can plan going forward, really makes sense.

Also, I think there is agreement on how we should move forward. It's just on what those studies will be that I think there's a little bit of a different approach. I don't believe anybody in the committee is saying that we should stop the COVID study. From the lens that we were looking at COVID with at that time, we got the information that we needed. What we are saying is that at this time, we're going to get an update. Then we'll move on. In the meantime, let's change the lens that we are looking at COVID with.

We can definitely take the lens of looking at children. We can definitely take the lens of looking at COVID and children's mental health. That's still part of the study. It also supports what our colleague MP Davis is saying, that, look, we have a thousand things we can talk about when it comes to COVID. I think there is a general agreement between all our colleagues that we will continue on with COVID, but we will look at it periodically with a different lens.

Now, having said that, I have heard over the last half an hour about six different themes. I want to quickly tell you what my thoughts are on those, and then we'll move on.

The first theme I heard was let's continue on with COVID. We'll come back and have the officials back. I think our colleague MP van Koeverden talked about May 2. On point number one, I agree. I support it.

Then we heard about the fact that we should ensure that we are in a position where we could start giving the analysts enough time to be able to pull together the report for the human resources. On that one, I agree. The implication is that we have only two more sessions on that report. It will give them ample time for the initial report and do the translations so that we can look at it. That gives us at least one and a half sessions to be able to look at the report and make sure it's there for you to be able to submit it. Therefore, on number two, I definitely agree with what MP Barrett brought up.

We've also thought about, if I understood it, refocusing or repurposing or looking at COVID with a different lens. I've already talked about how we could look at it through a children's lens. We could look at it through a mental health lens, etc. On that one, I agree. I think we've gotten whatever we could get from that specific lens of COVID.

I also believe that we are going to get two PMBs. At least the data so far strongly suggests that we're going to get two PMBs. One is on opioids, on the NDP side, and another one, Bill C‑224, is coming in from the Liberal side. Those studies, depending on when they will come to our committee, will need to get scheduled. I believe when we vote on them, it will probably be either on the first Wednesday we come back or the second Wednesday we come back. Those will probably be referred in late May or early June if they're going to this committee, and we need to be able to schedule them.

Number four is the focus on children and specifically the mental health. You know me; I advocate for mental health, so I support it. I also definitely support the hotline. That's item number five.

Finally, I think there may be an opportunity for us to have two or probably three sessions, depending on how the report goes, on the human resources, and we could take either the NDP study or the Bloc study on the medical devices.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Jowhari.

Ms. Sidhu, go ahead, please.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with what Majid or Mr. van Koeverden said earlier. It seems that members want to proceed with the suggestion that we should be flexible with our topics as we plan to move forward with other topics like children's health.

I think it's also important that we look at breast health, but this is a different topic from the specific regulatory question that Mr. Thériault had in mind when he introduced it, and I hear that Mr. Davies also has it on his agenda. That sounds like another topic that we can all get behind. Maybe we could aim to have a report done for October, which is Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

Next, we can always come back to COVID if we need to, but I think a lot of us agree that we could pause that for a little while. Mr. Davies mentioned that he had important topics he would like to hear about, so we can come back the next time and revisit it when he presents those.

We will have some room in our schedule when we come back, but we need to decide on the agenda items we have in front of us before we really consider new topics and see if we can pass this calendar as it is now and continue to be flexible when we come later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Sidhu.

Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair. I am glad to hear the comments from all of my colleagues.

With one exception, I'd like to support the calendar as it is. Then we can reassess as we need to, which is the committee's prerogative at all times. With respect to April 25 and May 2, currently April 25 we are scheduled to have the HR study, and May 2 is a meeting on COVID.

I would propose—if there's any visible consensus that can form before I conclude my remarks here, and if so then I would move a motion—that we swap May 2 and April 25. The clerk tells me that there are no witnesses scheduled for April 25 at this time. I would propose that we as a committee invite Drs. Tam and Njoo for the 25th, as well as any officials they would like to bring with them if they so choose, to provide the committee with a COVID update.

On May 2, we would have the HR study.

If making that change to the calendar is amenable to committee members, perhaps we can do it by consensus, Mr. Chair, and I won't even need to move a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

And—

I'm sorry. Finish your comments there, Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I'll go on all day if you don't interrupt me, Chair.

I was looking for that consensus, and it looks as though there is a bit of consensus.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I want you to hold off before you seek consensus, because I want the committee to be aware that if the meetings of April 25 and April 27 are not the last two meetings on the workforce study—so if we go past April 27 in terms of giving drafting instructions to the analyst—we will not be in a position to table the report in June.

If we have consensus to finish the workforce study after the 27th, everyone needs to be aware that that means a fall tabling of the report. If that's what people want, that's fine, but I want you to know that before you determine whether we have consensus on the point.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I appreciate that context, Chair. I would just ask then if the committee could invite our top doctors from PHAC for that May 2 meeting as was discussed by members of the committee.

That said, for today, having heard from everyone, I think we can move ahead with the calendar as it is and adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay. We still have at least one person on the speakers list, so we're not going to move adjournment right away, as attractive as doing that may seem.

Do we have the consensus of the committee to follow the calendar on the 25th and 27th, which would mean having the last two meetings on the workforce study, and then have the COVID briefing on May 2 with Dr. Tam and officials? Is there consensus on that point? Do we need a formal motion on it?

I see thumbs up. I'm looking to—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, can I just clarify...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Yes, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

If I understand Mr. Barrett correctly, we're all in agreement with the calendar as is, but for that change, which is to have Dr. Tam and Dr. Njoo on the 2nd, do I understand that to be the case, or are we just dealing with that one issue? I'm unclear what....

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I think that is it.

Mr. Davies, the problem with adopting the calendar as presented is that there are a couple of options further down, where we see “COVID or “children's health”.

I think what Mr. Barrett put forward would certainly make it crystal clear what we're going to be doing for the next three meetings, without a doubt. Once you get past that, when you get to May 4, you see an “or” in there. If we were to only do children's health, there would be a chance that we could present the children's health report in June.

I'm not hearing any appetite to stop hearing about COVID. The only question is whether it's 50% of the time or less. I guess my view is that if we adopt the calendar as is, that still merits further discussion as to how much of our future business is on which side of that “or”? Is it COVID, or is it children's health?

I think Mr. Barrett's suggestion certainly gives us clarity as to the next three meetings.

With that, we have a speakers list.

Did you want to respond to that, Mr. Davies, before I go back to the list?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

That's very helpful. Thank you.

I have just a brief response, and maybe Mr. Barrett can clarify it.

I agree with you: I think we do need to make a couple more decisions. However, I'm still left with this idea that if the Conservatives want to hear from Dr. Tam, they can call her as a witness. That's why I'm a little confused on why the issue of dedicating May 2 to Dr. Tam—allocating a whole meeting to Dr. Tam—is not linked with whether or not we're going to have one meeting in each of the successive weeks on COVID. They are linked to me.

Now, if Mr. Barrett says that's okay, and we can agree that the rest of the calendar will have one meeting on COVID each week after that, then I would agree that we could have Dr. Tam and Dr. Njoo on May 2. If that's not the case, then I would probably not agree to the May 2 proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Davies.

We're going to go now to Monsieur Thériault.

Mr. Thériault, we are listening to you.