Evidence of meeting #4 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Dr. Hanley.
The debate is on the amendment. Are there any interventions with respect to the amendment proposed by Madam Vignola?
Go ahead, Mr. Berthold.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
I just want to say that I support Mrs. Vignola's proposal. We have no issue with it.
5:05 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, could I ask about the phrase that is replacing, "and how Canada can resolve its current child health care crisis"?
What is the new language?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Mrs. Vignola, I think that we're ready to vote on the proposed amendment. However, we must have the new version. Could you read it again, before we vote on it? That way it will be clear to everyone.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Certainly, Mr. Chair.
We would remove the words “and how Canada can resolve its current child's health care crisis” and replace them with “in order to find potential solutions.”
The text of the amendment will be sent in a few moments.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
All right.
You have the amendment before you.
Dr. Powlowski, did you have an intervention on the amendment?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Okay. Very well.
Is it the will of the committee to adopt the amendment as presented?
(Amendment agreed to)
The motion is amended. The debate is now on the motion as amended.
Go ahead, Mr. Davies.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I'm sorry. I guess this is just one of the difficulties of operating by Zoom. I'm not clear that I have before me the most current version of the motion.
Does this motion have in it a reference to the issue of nutrition for children? Mr. Berthold has assured me that it does, but I don't see those words. I don't know if I have the most current version of the motion. That's my first point. Second, I want to be clear that this study, if we are to undertake it, looks at the issue of health care provision to children and not just the impact that the pandemic has had on health care for children.
By the way, if it is just the impact that the pandemic has had on children's health care, then why isn't this just an issue that is dealt with in the meetings we have allocated towards the pandemic? We could easily call witnesses who speak to the impact of COVID on children in that context.
You know, I'll support this as long as it's clear that if we are going to use our [Technical difficulty—Editor] that it be clear that we can examine health care issues with children that go beyond just COVID or the pandemic but that might affect them generally; and second, that it's broad enough. I would like to see the words—unless it's understood by my colleagues—that we can look at the issue of nutrition for children, because I think that's a very large social determinant. I won't go into it in detail, but the issues of childhood obesity, diabetes and access to nutritional food I think are very important parts of childhood health.
I would just like to make sure that this study is broad enough to encompass that. Mr. Berthold has kindly assured me that this would be, and that he's comfortable with that, but I want to make sure that the words are in there. So far, I don't see the words in there, unless I'm looking at an old version of the motion.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Mr. Davies. I don't want to thrust myself into the debate, but I think the responses to your enquiries are pretty straightforward.
The motion that is before us was put on notice today. There is a date at the top of it that indicates Wednesday, February 2. The motion in point one specifically includes, as one of the items to be studied, “addressing children’s nutritional needs”. I think that covers that one off.
With regard to the other point you made, about whether this is limited to the pandemic, these are the opening words of the motion: “That Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study on children’s health and the recent impact the pandemic had on children”.
So I think both your points are covered. Again, though, I don't want to thrust myself into the debate. If others want to offer commentary on Mr. Davies' preoccupations, by all means go ahead.
Dr. Hanley, please.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Chair, that assures me. I was looking at the motion dated Monday, January 31, 2022. You have totally cleared up my issues, so thank you.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
Further to the point mentioned, there is an explicit line on the February 2 version about children's nutritional needs. Certainly I support the intent of this motion.
I would also like clarification, perhaps from Mr. Berthold, if this is intended to be in the pandemic stream, or not in the COVID half, as it were.
I think in the interests of scheduling, yes, this is a good motion. I think it will need scoping to be limited to six studies. Some understanding of what the intent is—COVID or non-COVID—would help.
I also want to have a sense of which motions we are adopting so that we can then talk about the prioritization. I understood that was the intent from the subcommittee meeting, that we really set on a study that each party would like to put forward and then discuss prioritization.
In particular, the motion that I'm proposing to address on the workforce crisis might be a good way to start the overall theme of health care provision in the context of that crisis. Then we might be able to address many of these related issues, and of course, child health is a primary one.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
I think the wording of the motion looks okay, in that it is children's health and then there's something about the pandemic. I think it addresses Don's concern about it not just being about COVID.
In this case, I certainly welcome this motion. I think children have largely been forgotten about during the pandemic. They've been asked to sacrifice a lot for the sake of those who are at the highest risk of dying from COVID. They were asked not to go to school, not to have parties with their friends, not to have hockey. This has been very difficult on children.
Do you know what? The one part of our population who is not represented in Parliament is kids. I would certainly welcome the opportunity to talk about issues from the children's perspective and the effects COVID has had on kids' health. I agree with Don's premise, which is that we talk about kids' health in general, so I think the angle of COVID is a useful launch board for a general study of kids' health.
The bottom line is that I like your studies, Luc. Thanks.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thank you.
I wanted a little bit of clarity as well as to whether we were focusing on the effects that COVID has had on children.
I think that would be a good way to spend our Mondays. I'm assuming that they will be Mondays for the COVID half of our meetings. They will need to be topical. We will need to focus on specific issues, not just COVID in general. Some clarity on that would be helpful.
I'm in favour of studying all of the effects that COVID has had on children, but also in the broader context as well. A little bit of clarity there would be great. Thank you.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Health is a very broad topic, whether we're talking about children, seniors, adults or teenagers. We must take this topic seriously.
Some of you are doctors, and others were athletes. You know the importance of a holistic view. Physical health and mental health are based on different factors, including diet and exercise. All these aspects must be covered, in my opinion, to have an overall vision. If we leave any one of these aspects out, we've taken away a piece of the puzzle. We've just upset the balance, which is essential for children and for monitoring children. If a doctor or other practitioner focuses on only one aspect of our proposed solutions for children's health, they may be overlooking a bigger issue.
We need a holistic view. I like Mr. Berthold's motion because it gives us that view of health and the status of the systems and supports for children right now.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll first try to answer the questions about COVID‑19 and the aspects unrelated to COVID‑19. The study must focus on [Technical difficulty—Editor] children, but there have been effects because of COVID‑19. I couldn't move a motion without saying that we also had to consider this given the current situation. The study focuses mainly on children's health. The choice of witnesses will be up to each party. As Mrs. Vignola said, this will allow for a holistic approach. We won't be compartmentalizing ourselves into one area. We'll be conducting a study that can provide an accurate picture. We'll be hearing from people who can provide information on the issue as a whole.
I must admit that six meetings aren't a lot, but we have to start somewhere. I think that, at the end of this meeting, if we find that more meetings are needed, we'll make a decision accordingly. I also think that, in six meetings, we could establish an overview of the situation, see whether we should proceed and propose solutions at our level. We aren't experts. However, many people have approached us as committee members to talk about children's health.
I think that we should do this. It isn't just a COVID‑19 study, but a study on children. That said, we can't ignore the impact of the pandemic that has been going on for the past two years. I made sure that the study speaks to my concerns so that we don't miss anything. If, during a meeting, we find that we've missed something, we'll be able to continue the study anyway.
If I had started listing the current situations, I'd still be reading the motion. I think that the motion gives us the opportunity to study [Technical difficulty—Editor] and then expand on a specific point afterwards. That said, we need a general overview of the situation, and this study will provide that. That's my proposal to the committee.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
First of all, I think it's a very excellent subject for all the reasons that my colleagues have said so far. I also like the fact that I think the issues that are mentioned give us a really broad range of perspectives.
I have two things I wanted to raise for our consideration. One is whether or not we really want to have the Minister of Health come to one of those meetings because that wipes out a meeting generally, pretty much, for witnesses, so you're really talking about five meetings for the general public and stakeholders.
The second thing I wanted to raise is that it should be clear that each party be entitled to an equal number of witnesses. I can move that as an actual amendment, if we wish. The reason that that's a good thing—you can hear me say this a lot—is you get a real diversity of perspectives when that happens, and issues.
One thing I've learned is no party has a monopoly on good ideas or on perspectives. It's been my experience in this committee that when each party is bringing a different issue or a different angle with different witnesses before the committee on a subject, it really adds a lot of depth and diversity to the perspective.
I'm going to move a formal motion to amend to say that the study consist of a minimum of six witness meetings, with each party entitled to propose an equal number of witnesses, or however that could be phrased, with each party to be entitled to an equal number of witnesses.