Health Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mrs. Vignola, you have the floor.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Davies.

At this point, should we focus first on Mr. Berthold's motion and then on Mr. Davies' proposal, which is more of a procedural proposal?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Right now, the debate concerns the amended motion passed. However, it's completely acceptable and appropriate for another member to move another amendment. I agree that it's a technical amendment, but it's still a formal amendment.

This debate concerns the amendment, and Mr. Davies has the floor.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

If we have an understanding at the committee that procedurally that's how we'll go, that's fine with me. I'm [Technical difficulty—Editor] but if we're clear that there's an equal number of witnesses, that's fine.

I am curious about my colleagues' thoughts, and maybe Mr. Berthold's opinion on whether or not he wanted to devote one meeting to the Minister of Health on this subject. I'm happy to hear his reasoning for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Davies, before we go on, I need to be clear. Are you proposing an amendment to the motion, or are you indicating that we should be able to work this out without the formality of an amendment to the motion?

If there is an amendment to the motion, that's what we need to proceed on.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'd be okay, if it's easier, to do a straw poll. If everybody is in agreement that there will be an equal number of witnesses allowed, I don't need to move the amendment. If there's any issue about that, I will move the amendment and we'll have to have a vote on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Colleagues, is this going to be easy, or do we need to have a formal debate? This is an informal question that I'm posing to you.

How do we feel about an equal number of witnesses on the panel for this study?

[Mike Lake]

I have a point of order.

I think we need to have a conversation about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

All right.

I would suggest, then, Mr. Davies, that you need to put forward a formal amendment to deal with this formally, as opposed to informally.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will do so.

I think it would be most appropriate to move that we amend item three to read: “That the study consist of a minimum of six witness meetings, with each party entitled to an equal number of witnesses”

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

The debate is now on the amendment.

I recognize Mrs. Kramp-Neuman.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

With regard to the amendment, perhaps I'm not completely clear on the rules, because this is my first committee. I need some clarification on the assignment of the witnesses.

Is it not true that it reflects the composition of the House? I have watched committees before and that's generally how it's reflected. Perhaps I could get some clarity on that, because I don't want to abandon that precedent.

Could you enlighten me as to how we're going to move forward with this, and whether or not we're going to have a true reflection of the composition of the House with regard to witnesses? If we didn't do that, we would be deviating from normal practice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mrs. Kramp-Neuman, you are absolutely right. That is the normal manner in which we proceed, which is why Mr. Davies has proposed an amendment to vary from the normal practice.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

It's probably more accurate to say that it is the practice at the majority of committees that witnesses are allocated by [Technical difficulty—Editor], but there are committees that go with equality of witnesses. In fact, that's how the health committee operated in the last Parliament, for all of the second session, so it can be done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I don't dispute that it can be done. I provided my advice based on my 10 years of experience, but I haven't been on the health committee in those 10 years.

Go ahead, Dr. Powlowski, please.

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

I agree with Don. We did it last time and had an equal number of witnesses, and it worked out quite well. We had a good spectrum of opinion on various issues and we always had someone from Quebec, so it worked out to everybody's interests.

I support having an equal number of witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Lake, please.

[Mike Lake]

This is just an observation. This seems very unusual. I've not been on a committee where this approach has been taken. I'd be interested to hear the rationale, because as I look at the results of the election, I think the Bloc was around 8% of the vote and a little bit less than 10% of the seats. The NDP was around 16% of the vote and I believe around 7% of the seats. I don't really understand the rationale, because it would be a significant deviation from any committee that I've been on in my 16 years as a parliamentarian.

We're dealing with enough issues around trust in terms of the way that we proceed. Canadians voted a few months ago. Canadians want to see themselves reflected in the witness lists as a proportion that comes from a part of the country or a proportion that comes from any community in Canada. It's incumbent on us as the members of the committee to have those discussions.

Of course, not every witness who comes before committee is assigned to a political party. Many witnesses who are experts or interested in coming before committee will put their names forward, submit their names to the clerk and propose to be a witness before a committee in that way.

If anything, as a health committee studying important issues that over the last couple of years have tended to divide Canadians, assigning witnesses by political party seems to be just about the worst way to go about apportioning witness time. We have a discussion in terms of a party. We put forward suggestions for witnesses, but as I explained, taking a look at the numbers, I don't really understand the rationale.

Don, I've served with you for a long time. I have a lot of respect for you. I'd like to hear a bit more about the rationale in terms of this proposal, because it is highly unusual, at least in relation to the committees I've been on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Mr. Davies, do you want to respond? Then we'll come back to Ms. Vignola, who seems to be having some technical difficulties.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Maybe briefly. Thanks for those comments, Mr. Lake.

Again, I won't repeat what I said before other than to reiterate that it was the practice of this committee in the last Parliament and that other committees have done it too. They've gone to that practice of equal witnesses.

There are always some slight deviations. For instance, there are certain committees, not very many, that are chaired by the opposition. Why is that? That's a deviation from the number of seats in the House of Commons. It's simply a reflection of the fact that sometimes [Technical difficulty—Editor] exception to the rules.

In my experience, one of the great advantages, and frankly pleasures, of sitting on the health committee is that when it's working at its best, it is a committee that is most unlike others in that there are usually not a lot of ideological issues. Everybody who's involved in health care is generally motivated by the same thing, which is they're in health care because they want to improve the health of people. Maybe COVID has upset that balance a little bit. There's been more partisan behaviour in the past two years than certainly I saw in the years prior to that. I think that's regrettable. I think we're at our best when we're operating in a non-partisan way.

The other thing I would point out is that every Parliament has a different dynamic. This is a minority Parliament. Let's face it. If we were in a majority Parliament, it would be a different dynamic. In this case here, it takes all of us working together and there are compromises in a minority Parliament that have to be made in order to get things done. I'm sure the Conservatives will be asking for the support of other parties, which they wouldn't have to do in a majority, but those are just the compromises that are made in a minority.

Overall though, and I really appreciate the remarks by Dr. Powlowski, it worked very well. There's a little bit of trust here in the sense that the witnesses that I put forward, and that I know my Bloc Québécois colleague put forward, often added perspectives that were extraordinarily helpful and were not ideological.

I think it's a good thing and we can see how it works. I think people will see that sometimes equality is a very good thing in the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Colleagues, I am mindful of the fact that we have now reached the appointed hour, but we don't have a motion before us to adjourn. However, I am advised by the clerk that if we go much longer, we're going to have to suspend to ensure we have resources to continue if that is the will of the meeting.

I propose the following. There are two people who are presently on the speakers list, Madam Vignola and Mr. Berthold. I propose, unless there is a will or a motion to adjourn, that upon hearing from Mr. Berthold we suspend to allow for us to have the resources we need to continue.

Mrs. Vignola, you have the floor.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I support Mr. Davies' motion, Mr. Chair.

I have been a member of the House of Commons for only two years, so I may still be very naive concerning procedure. That said, I think that children's health is not a partisan issue. I also don't think that potential solutions are a partisan or an activist issue or that they depend on party lines.

When I call witnesses, I don't ask them who they voted for in the last election. Instead, I look for witnesses who have the expertise needed to answer my questions. I even call witnesses before they appear to let them know what kinds of questions I would like to put to them, and I ask them whether they have the knowledge needed to answer them. If the witness tells me that they do not, I find another witness, as I want to invite witnesses who have the necessary expertise to appear, be it before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, or before another committee.

I am sure that Mr. Thériault does the exact same thing for the Standing Committee on Health. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about 8%, 7%, 16%, 32% or 34%. In my humble opinion, as professionals who care about the issues we discuss, we will not select witnesses based on who they voted for in the last election or based on the amounts they may have contributed to parties during election campaigns. We select them based on their ability to answer our questions and to help us see things more clearly and suggest possible solutions, especially when it comes to children's health. So I agree with Mr. Davies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mrs. Vignola.

Mr. Berthold, go ahead.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think it is important to point out two things.

First, this is not a precedent that was created in a number of committees, but rather a motion adopted in the House that pertains to a broader study carried out by the Standing Committee on Health, which called for an equal number of witnesses during the first hour and stakeholders during the second hour. We just need everyone to have the same understanding of the situation. This is not a precedent or a habit of the Standing Committee on Health. It is not part of the Standing Committee on Health's tradition to adopt this kind of a motion.

Second, in order for us to move forward, I think it would be a good idea to try out this work method in this first study, which concerns children's health. That will enable us to see whether we can work like this and to note the results. That is why it is important for us to adopt this motion not for all studies, but for this study alone, to see how this approach works.

Mr. Chair, I have no issue with Mr. Davies' amendment concerning this specific study. I propose that we adopt this motion, which will help us move forward and will help the analysts in their work. We can plan to begin studies like this, and then we could continue prioritizing, as next week will come quickly, and we will have to have a topic to study next Wednesday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

My understanding is that you wanted to suspend the meeting to continue our discussion. Is that indeed the last point you raised?