Health Committee on Feb. 7th, 2022

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have just a few things.

Again, on the issue of bringing up what this committee did in the last Parliament, it isn't because I'm asserting that what we did in the 43rd Parliament means that's what we have to do now. I've pointed that out in response to those who have said, somewhat erroneously, that committees don't adopt a system whereby each party is entitled to submit an equal number of witnesses.

I just brought up the example where this very committee did that the entire last Parliament, so I'm offering that as an example of where it is done. By the way, I have said this before: There are other committees in Parliament that do that as well. In fairness, I think it's true that the majority of committees probably distribute witnesses in proportion to their seats in the House of Commons, but not all do. The other thing I would point out, of course, is that committees are the master of our own process. We can do whatever we want.

I am disappointed in this. I can't help but point out the complete logical fallacy of at least two Conservative members expressing frustration at the fact that we're taking time at this and they really want to just get on with doing the people's business, while at the same time threatening to continue to filibuster unless they get their way. For any Canadians watching this, I think they can easily see through that.

Look, we're in a minority Parliament. Minority parliaments require co-operation between the parties to get things done. In this case here, I don't think it's asking very much for us to say, “Look, this is the health committee.” I've said this before: One of the reasons I very much enjoy the health committee is that generally the issues are non-partisan. We are all working for the health of Canadians. That's what everybody says.

I would venture to say that it is really the Conservatives bringing partisan interests in, because what they really want is 40% of the witnesses and are unwilling, it appears, to provide each party with the opportunity to have the same number of witnesses.

Mr. Lake asks what I expect him to say to his constituents, and I would say whatever he said in 2020. I'd have to go back and check the vote, but I'm pretty sure he voted in favour of the motion that provided equality of witnesses to this health committee then. If he didn't, I apologize to him, but I'm pretty sure he did, because the Conservatives supported that. So this is not—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Yes, Mr. Lake.

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

I have a point of order. It wasn't this health committee. This is a different health committee and a different Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

That's not a point of order. That's an item of debate. Gee, the thin distinctions that are being made here. My point is that this Parliament and the Conservatives have supported equality of witnesses before, and in terms of getting over the apparently extraordinarily difficult philosophical problem that Mr. Lake has and the good doctor has with the Westminster system I don't know but the Conservatives did it last time. You know why they did it last time? Let's talk turkey, it was because it was Michelle Rempel Garner's motion, and the motion passed, she accepted some amendments.

That's why it worked. That's why they voted in favour of it, and the Conservatives had no great philosophical or principled reasons to oppose equality of witnesses by parties then. They were very prepared to sacrifice the principles of the Westminster system when it was their own motion. So enough of this principled stuff. What they are doing here is they're threatening to filibuster the health committee and stop the good work of this committee in the time of COVID, in a time when we want to study children's health, in a time when we want to address the terrible burnout of our frontline health care workers.

You've heard it, the Conservatives are saying that they will talk out the clock and filibuster rather than give each party at this committee the same opportunity to put witnesses forward when they have been told repeatedly by people who sat on this committee—Dr. Powlowski, Monsieur Thériault, me—that it worked extraordinarily well and all it did was bring good witnesses before this committee.

The only partisanship that I'm seeing here is Conservatives who don't want to let go of their ability to use their muscle to get Conservative-oriented witnesses before this committee. That's what this is about.

Incidentally, I also want to say that if we're respecting the Westminster system, why did the Conservatives and Mr. Berthold spend all this time trying to get their motion to study children's health first? They don't have the greatest number of seats. The Liberals do. So I guess the Westminster system and the principles of number of seats only works when it benefits the Conservatives and it's easily dispensed with when it doesn't.

So I'll tell you I am not withdrawing this motion, and you know what? I want a vote on this motion. It's going to be the last thing I say on this, because I want to vote so that we can get to the important issues of the day. I'll leave it to the Conservatives to decide if they want to make a political decision to filibuster and waste time and not let the health committee of the House of Commons study these important issues because they don't want to give each party the opportunity to have an equal number of witnesses at this committee.

The delay of this committee is squarely on the Conservatives.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We need to get along on this committee. We need to work this out and we need to get to the business of serving Canadians. I fully agree with Ms. Kramp-Neuman and I wasn't even here for the first 45 minutes because I was talking about cellphone data in the House of Commons. I find it a little bit absurd to say it's undemocratic. It's democratic to have a vote right now. Everyone, let's just have a vote on it.

This is one study. If we don't like it, if it doesn't work, then we'll review it for the next study. We're not changing the constitution of this committee. We're not arguing about how this committee is going to do its business for the next year or two years, it's for one study. And I think it's in the spirit of making it less partisan and working together. We are going to call mutual witnesses to testify here. We are going to have witnesses in common. We're going to hear from nurses, doctors, physicians' assistants and nurse practitioners.

With all due respect to Mr. Lake, we had this discussion before you arrived, and you're a huge addition to this committee because you've been working on issues pertinent to health and mental health for so long. But we need to get on with it, and we can only get on with it if we vote, and that's the democratic thing to do here. If it doesn't work, then I think we can have a discussion offline and say, that was a mistake, we'll do something different next time. There are about four witnesses per meeting and to select one from each party is fine. I think it's going to work really well.

So I hope we can get on with it, and try something a little bit new for those of us who haven't tried this before. For those who were on the committee last time, we carry on with what was working. I hope we can vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mrs. Kramp-Neuman.

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

With respect to those of you who are not familiar with my past, my father served as a federal member of Parliament from 2004-15. I had plenty of opportunities to listen and watch him. He is a huge role model for me in the way he did business, and how he acted. He always took so much pride and shared with me, before I was elected, that the most productive work is at the committee level.

From time to time, there can be the theatrics of question period, and then sometimes there are more or less sound bites. He spoke so highly of so many members from all the opposing parties, and really encouraged me to work productively at the committee level. I really take a lot of pride in that. I think we can recognize the traditions, precedents and politicalizations that this country is based on, and we need to set the tone. We could have been halfway through a study by now, and it's disappointing.

I recognize that many conversations and studies are important. I don't think that arguing which study is more important is the issue here. We need to set the tone with some collaboration and co-operation, and move forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Mr. Berthold, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We have been talking a lot about cooperation, consultation and non-partisan collaboration for a while.

Since 2015, I have sat on a number of committees. But I have never heard a party complain about the number of witnesses participating in studies. We have always managed to find a consensus. We have always been able to invite good witnesses without limiting ourselves to a witness per party. I could actually propose that the committee hear from three excellent witnesses, and my colleagues and I could agree to hear from the three witnesses on the same day. Why not continue to operate in this way? I would like to hear from the witnesses proposed by Mr. Davies, for instance.

I want to make sure that the committee will hear from the best witnesses. The analysts need an opportunity to make a witness list, as usual. Those proposed witnesses are not necessarily people we would have thought about. We then have to decide which of the proposed witnesses we want to invite to testify before the committee. We must ensure that the witnesses will talk about the same topic. We shouldn't go from nutrition to pediatric care during the same meeting. Every testimony must provide additional information.

That has always been the way the committee has operated. I don't understand why my Liberal colleagues suddenly want to change that formula. I understand why Mr. Davies would ask for this, as his recognized party has the fewest representatives in the House of Commons. Among the members around the table, those from the top two parties are clearly more numerous than my colleagues from the two other parties, and that is okay.

We have talked about the Westminster system and about democracy. Members who are here are those Canadians decided to send to Parliament to represent them. That is what democracy is.

I think it is normal to proceed in this way. So I have no objection. I often support Mr. Thériault's proposals. I often ask that the committee hear from francophone witnesses from Quebec. He knows this, as we have talked about it. We have very good experts, in all fields, who can testify before the committee. I am sure that the witnesses Mr. Thériault and I will propose will often be the same ones. Does everyone really have to choose what names will appear on the witness list?

Mr. Thériault must provide the best list of witnesses, and I must do the same. Mr. Thériault will surely invite excellent witnesses I will not have thought of, and I will want to hear what they have to say to us. That is how the committee should operate. We mustn't impose limitations or rules that will make this unmanageable. That may have worked well during previous parliaments, but I what I want is for us to be able to work together, collaboratively. I have always said that this is an important committee.

We have managed to agree on withdrawing a motion on the first study, which shows that we can agree. I think that setting too many rules limits the committee's ability to carry out good studies. At some point, I attended a two-hour committee meeting, during which we heard from four witnesses, all of whom were all proposed by the same party. That was unimportant, as it enabled us to move the discussion forward. Why have rules that will limit us? I invite my colleagues to think about this seriously. We have already shown that the committee can operate well.

If we set rules concerning the first study and witnesses, we will always have to start over. The motion on child care is exactly the same as Mr. Davies' motion when it comes to the number of witnesses. We said we would try and would then see. That is what I wanted. I wanted to see if we could carry out a study. Unfortunately, this is included in all the motions. The argument according to which we will try it for one study does not hold. In fact, we were unable to agree previously on the order of precedence. We could not say that we would study this, that we would try to see how it works. Everyone wants us to quickly move on to their own study, but that is not how this works.

We have been here for nearly two hours, but we have unfortunately not adopted any motions.

We have not even managed to adopt a single motion. Last time, we talked about a motion for a study on children's health care, but we were unable to adopt it. We are still talking about it today, and we are still unable to adopt it because we want to set a host of rules of all kinds.

I sincerely invite you to think about voting on this motion to ensure that, while reaching a consensus, we could move on to something else. I am sure there are excellent witnesses in Mr. Davies' region, and I would like to hear from them in committee. There are also some excellent Quebec witnesses you will want to hear from, Mr. Hanley, whom you may not have thought about inviting because you do not know about them.

I think that is how our committee should operate.

In closing, I would like to give a nod to my colleague Mr. Thériault, who said that the Conservative Party had difficulty recognizing the Quebec nation. The Quebec nation has also sent Conservatives to Ottawa, Mr. Thériault, so my voice is as valid as yours.

I may represent fewer members, but, when it comes to the number of individuals and voices, I don't think anyone can designate themselves as the representative of the entire Quebec nation. I also represent it, and I am proud of that, Mr. Thériault. My comments and those of my colleagues testify to that. That certainly does not mean we have to share the same objectives, with me being a member of the Conservative Party and you being a member of the Bloc Québécois, a party that aspires to separation. However, we can at least agree on the fact that we want to defend the Quebec nation and that we in the Conservative Party recognize it as such. We don't share the same goals, but I will take no lessons from the Bloc Québécois when it comes to defending the Quebec nation.

I think that we are here, that we want to continue to defend it and that we will do so together if we can. If we manage to initiate a study, we will do it together and will invite Quebec witnesses whose expertise could be presented to all our colleagues here. I think we can agree that we have a great deal of expertise and talent in Quebec.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

Mr. Lake, go ahead, please.

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

Could I start by getting the clerk to read the motion as it would be amended?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Clerk.

[The Clerk]

I would ask Mr. Davies to perhaps clarify after which words he would be inputting “and each party be entitled” and so forth.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

It was near the end of the motion, where the last words were “on the study”. I think it was in the second-last paragraph, if you can find it.

[The Clerk]

That is clear enough for me. Thank you, Mr. Davies.

I will read the amendment and then I will read the motion as it would be amended.

Mr. Davies moved to add after the words “that the committee hold a minimum of eight (8) meetings with witnesses on this study” the following words “and each party be entitled to an equal amount of witnesses”. So the motion, if it were amended, would read as follows:

“That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee, in recognition of exhaustion and burnout amongst healthcare professionals, undertake a study on how the federal government can facilitate the recruitment and retention of physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners and other health care providers to the public healthcare system; including a focus on rural and northern communities. That this study be prioritized by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health in the 44th Parliament. That the committee invite experts and representatives to appear; that the committee hold a minimum of eight (8) meetings with witnesses on this study; that this study be prioritized by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health in the 44th Parliament, that the committee present its findings and recommendations to the House; and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request a comprehensive response to the report by the government.”

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

What is just the amendment itself?

[The Clerk]

Mr. Davies moved to add after the words “that we hold a minimum of eight (8) meetings with witnesses on this study” the following words: “and each party be entitled to an equal amount of witnesses”.

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

I'll just move a subamendment to replace the word “party” with “member of the committee”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Lake, let me take advice on whether that's in order. I believe it is. Bear with me. It seems to be confirmed that it changes the substance of the amendment, but I'm consulting with the table on it.

Colleagues, I'm going to suspend for five minutes to take advice on whether the amendment is in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call the meeting back to order.

Mr. Lake, based on the advice received from the table, the effect of your proposed subamendment nullifies the amendment, and the appropriate course to take would be to vote against it. It can't be amended in such a way that it's nullified.

Your subamendment is out of order, but you still have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I respect your ruling.

I guess I'll continue to make the points that I was making.

There's a lot of terminology thrown around, which is kind of interesting here. Don throws around this “equality of witnesses” over and over again, but the point I'm making is that, if every member of Parliament on the committee, every member of the committee, had an equal number of witnesses, we would have an equality of witnesses, just as Mr. Davies is proposing.

If you extend the arguments he's making in terms of democracy and equality, then regardless of the outcome in the last election where the NDP got 17.8% and the Bloc got 7.6% of the votes, why not just have equal seats in the House of Commons? Why wouldn't the Bloc, the NDP, the Liberals and the Conservatives all just get the same number of seats in the interest of equality of parties? Why wouldn't we just have an equal number of seats on the committee if we're talking about equality? Why wouldn't everybody just get the same number of seats on the committee? Why wouldn't we all get an equal amount of time in terms of questioning of witnesses?

I don't understand this principle. This principle just flies in the face of the Westminster system and in the face of democracy. I've been here 16 years. I think Don might have been here 14 years or pretty close. He's been here a long time. We've both been here a long time. We get along usually, but not on this.

I was parliamentary secretary to the Industry minister for eight years, a similar position to what Adam is in right now. You can go back and talk to your colleagues, to my Liberal friends, Frank Valeriote, Martha Hall Findlay and Marc Garneau. They were on committees with me. In the NDP's case, Brian Masse and Glen Thibeault are pretty reasonable people. I think all of them would say that we took a very co-operative approach on committee. Certainly, of course, we represent different constituencies, and we work within different parties, and there are partisan considerations in that sense in terms of the conversations that we have and the approach we have in committee, but never have I seen an approach—again using Don's terminology of “partisan interest”—that would attach the party name specifically to witnesses. That seems about as partisan as it gets.

It's not something that I understand. We have the ability down the road to make whatever decision we want to make as a committee, but it seems to me the health committee.... When I take a look at these studies that we have before us from members of all parties on children's health, on the public service, on substance abuse, on the 988 suicide prevention hotline, we have all of these issues before us, and of course our COVID response. We have all of these issues before us that are so critically important, and I think all of us look at these.

We've had some side conversations where we're all in agreement that these are really important and that we need to move forward. If we're going to make the argument that something partisan is being thrown into the mix, a partisan wrench is being thrown into the mix, it's this amendment right now that would attach political party names to witnesses coming before committee. I've never seen that before.

Once again I think that we have to get to a place where we recommend witnesses. We might each recommend witnesses who don't necessarily affiliate with our party. I don't want to be tied to a place where the witnesses we recommend are tied to my party name. I want to be in a place where we might put forward a list of witnesses, including some who we have relationships with who might not be hard-core Conservatives, but we might put them forward anyway because we think that they have good ideas, and we think that it would be a good idea for them to come before the committee.

The Liberals may have them on their list, too, and the Bloc may have them on their list, too, and then we agree that would be a great witness because we're all in agreement. That's the way I think this committee should operate, of all committees in the House of Commons.

Again, I just can't possibly support this amendment for those reasons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Colleagues, we've now reached the time that was designated for the end of the meeting. We can go another 10 or 15 minutes with the House resources that are available to us.

I'm prepared to entertain a motion for adjournment if anyone is inclined to make it over the next 10 or 15 minutes.

The next person on the speakers list is Dr. Ellis.