Health Committee on Feb. 9th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number six of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Today we are meeting in public to continue our discussions and reach decisions on the committee's future business.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Regarding the speaking list, we'll do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether participating virtually or in person.

Please be reminded that screenshots are not allowed. We would discourage you from doing that. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

Given the ongoing pandemic situation and in light of the recommendations from public health authorities, as well as the directive of the Board of Internal Economy of October 19, 2021, we will be following all appropriate protocols to remain healthy and safe.

I do not intend to offer anything more by way of preliminaries.

This is committee business and the floor is open.

I recognize Mr. Lake.

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

I'll start by thanking the clerk for arranging to have name tags here so that we know who we are. That's great.

Colleagues from all parties, I appreciate that many of us have had many conversations since the last meeting so that we can move forward productively on the committee. It doesn't necessarily matter what order we go in. Maybe we'll start with the human resources study. In the spirit of co-operation, we'll move to finish that particular motion with the understanding that we will then move to the children's health study motion.

Is that fair?

This is a bit tough for me, because I really don't believe in the principle of apportioning witnesses. I think I made that clear enough last time around, but we have had some conversations. I don't want this to be a precedent. Within that motion, we're prepared to amend it to say—wherever we put it in the motion; I can't remember exactly where it was—that witnesses be allocated one-third to the Liberal Party, one-third to the Conservative Party, one-sixth to the NDP and one-sixth to the Bloc Québécois.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

I appreciate the intervention. I want to make sure that procedurally we are sound here. What I take from your intervention is, first, that you are proposing we continue the discussion at this meeting where we left off at the last one and that, further, you are proposing an amendment.

I guess I'll start with this. Is it the consensus of the committee to proceed in this fashion and that we pick up from where we left off at the last meeting?

Do we have consensus in the room?

Just before I give you the floor, Mr. Davies, if we are to proceed from the point where we left off in the last meeting, we would actually have to deal with your amendment, but I'll recognize you because I'm guessing that if we have agreement, then you'll withdraw your amendment.

It's over to you, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I find it unwieldy when we begin a meeting by saying we'll pick up where we left off, because I'm not sure that we [Technical difficulty—Editor] helpful. I'm not really sure that we were all on the same page where we left off. I think we should just start afresh at this meeting, but I think we all understand what Mike has suggested.

It might be wise, procedurally, for the clerk to read the two motions.

If I'm understanding it correctly, I think we're going to go with Mr. Hanley's motion to study the health care human resources crisis first. I thought I understood that there might be a change to the number of meetings proposed in there for witnesses. I'm not sure. I'll leave that to Mike to clarify. Then we're also going to move after that study to the study on children's health that was moved by Mr. Berthold, I think.

I think we'll need to have both of those motions formally read for your benefit, Mr. Chair and Clerk. One thing I wanted to clarify is that the witnesses in both cases will be as per the formula that Mr. Lake described.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

All right. Thank you, Mr. Davies. I think you're bang on.

We can deal with one motion at a time. I see that Dr. Hanley is next on the speakers list.

Dr. Hanley, it's your motion. If you would please read the health study motion that is before us, then we can have Mr. Lake—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

In order to do it in the correct way, I think we should continue what you just said, continue the discussion on the amendment from Mr. Davies. He should withdraw it, and after that, we can go back to the motion.

Another motion would be proposed by Mr. Lake about the number of witnesses, and another motion will be moved to change the number of meetings. I think that is the correct way to address it.

After that, we will do the same for children's health, because there is already a debate on the children's health study, so we need to do that procedurally correctly to be sure that we deal with everything.

I think it will be easy today, Mr. Chair, because what I'm feeling in the room is that everyone wants to achieve something, so if we do it in order, we will be able to do it correctly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

Mr. Clerk, could you please read the motion that is before the committee from Dr. Hanley.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Naaman Sugrue]

Absolutely. Mr. Hanley moved:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee, in recognition of exhaustion and burnout amongst health care 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 health care 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 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.

There's a pending amendment to that motion by Mr. Davies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Mr. Davies has his hand up.

It would be in order if we proceeded as Mr. Berthold has suggested, and I think it makes sense to withdraw your amendment for the sake of clarity. Then we can go forward with Mr. Lake's suggestion.

Mr. Davies, you have the floor.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes, I am happy to withdraw it. Again, for purposes of the next two, three or four years of the committee operating, as it may be—or one more year—I think it's important that we get straight whether or not we pick up a new meeting with the business that was pending at the end of the previous meeting.

It's my experience that it's not. It's my experience that the last meeting is done. The order of business died, and we start a meeting afresh.

I'm happy to withdraw it, but I think it would be helpful for us all to be on the same page so that we know procedurally how we're going to operate.

I would suggest that you start every meeting fresh. Dr. Hanley has moved his motion. My amendment last time ended in indeterminate debate.

Otherwise, if we do it the way Mr. Berthold suggests—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

In order to move ahead, no one in the room.... Don, I know you're not here, but no one in the room is disagreeing with you. Can we just move on?

That's the way it's always been. We agree that that's the way it's always been. That's the way it was at the last meeting. No one's disagreeing with that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

If I may, Mr. Lake, Mr. Berthold said I had to withdraw my motion to amend. That's exactly what I'm responding to. My motion to amend was in the last meeting, and the meeting was talked out and concluded with that motion never being voted on.

What I'm trying to clarify is that when we come to this meeting, there's nothing for me to withdraw. That's what I'm trying to clarify. It was Mr. Berthold who raised that.

Procedurally, if we're going to proceed on the basis that the thing we were last discussing at the previous meeting is what we open a new meeting with, I can deal with that. That has not been my experience. I don't think we should go that way. That's the only reason I wanted to clarify, Mike, just to make sure that there's nothing for me to withdraw.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Davies, you are exactly right. If this helps clarify things, what you have said is entirely consistent with the rules of procedure. I've come across this question before. We considered it at the start of the last meeting. You are right that technically there is nothing for you to withdraw. I simply asked you to do it for the sake of clarity and because it was suggested by Mr. Berthold. Technically, it isn't necessary.

We now have a motion on the floor.

I will go to Mr. Lake, because I believe he wishes to propose an amendment.

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

Yes.

For simplicity, I'm going to move both of these at the same time, because they're right at the same spot in the motion.

Where it says “eight meetings”, we're going to replace it with “six meetings”.

After “on this study;” we're going to add “that witnesses for this study be allocated in the following fashion: one-third for the Liberal Party members of the committee, one-third for the Conservative Party members of the committee, one-sixth for the Bloc Québécois member of the committee and one-sixth for the New Democratic member of the committee”.

Then, of course, it would just continue on with regard to the committee presenting its findings and recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

The amendment is in order.

Colleagues, it has been pointed out to me that to the extent that there was a withdrawal of Mr. Davies' amendment, and I would say that there was, we actually require the consent of the committee in order for it to be withdrawn.

Do we have it?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

(Amendment withdrawn)

Thank you. We have that cleaned up.

The debate is now on the amendment proposed by Mr. Lake.

Dr. Hanley, you put your hand up some time ago. Is it still your wish to intervene?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

No. I'm good. Thank you. I appreciate the initial intervention by Mr. Lake.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I recognize Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to clarify matters to make sure I understand.

Are we talking about the number of witnesses who would be heard or the number of witnesses proposed? For the past while, members have been referring to the last meeting, where we were preparing lists. Some of the witnesses we propose may be the same in some cases, but I'm wondering about the constitution of witness groups.

To take a specific case, let's say there are two groups of three witnesses at a meeting. That would mean six witnesses. From what I understand, in that case, two witnesses would be proposed by the Liberals, two by the Conservatives, one by the Bloc and one by the NDP. Is that correct? I'd like someone to confirm that for me if that's what we are aiming for.

Then what would happen if we adopted this amendment as drafted but it were to apply to the number of witnesses who must be heard, not to the number of witnesses we can propose? There's a difference there.

Furthermore, would that be a binding or not? For example, what would happen if a witness wasn't available? In other words, would the meeting absolutely have to be held based on those proportions or not?

I'd just like some clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Lake, please.

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

This is precisely why I hate this process. We are moving ahead with this process because it was pretty clear in the last meeting that this was the will of Liberal and NDP members. However, I would indicate that if we go ahead with this process.... Obviously we don't want to stop having meetings. I would hope that we see how it works in this study and maybe the second study, that common sense will prevail as we move forward with those studies, and that if a circumstance like that arises, we can find a way together, by consensus, to figure it out. We will make every effort to have the actual number of witnesses who appear before the committee meet this allocation.

In reference to your mathematical understanding, Mr. Thériault, yes, that is clear. The example you gave of two, two, one and one is what we're shooting for with this proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

First of all, I would just like to say thank you to all my colleagues, particularly to Mr. Lake and my Conservative colleagues. I appreciate the compromise they've made and that everybody has made.

At this point, with that clarification, I'm prepared to just trust in the process and to trust in Mr. Chair and Mr. Clerk. Nobody is going to be—at least speaking for myself I'm not going to be—looking for mathematical certainty to the second decimal point. This is a rough approximation and as long as everybody is working in good faith toward that number, I'm not going to sweat a witness here and there.

We're talking about a first study. I think maybe the first two are probably going to have six meetings; this is what I'm anticipating. If you're looking at 24 witnesses—four witnesses per meeting, that's 24—it's going to work out very well. One-third is eight so it will be eight witnesses for the Conservatives and eight for the Liberals, and the remainder will be split four and four for the Bloc and the NDP.

It will work for three meetings when there are 12. It will be four, four, two and two. There's a problem if we only have two meetings, but I think you've clarified that very generously, Mike. I appreciate that.

If there's one meeting that we have on something and it turns out that it's two Liberal witnesses and two Conservatives, if that's how it is, I'm okay with that. As long as we do our best to roughly approximate this number, for my part, again, I'm not going to be sweating supreme accuracy for this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Are there any further interventions?

Seeing none, are we ready for the questions?

Go ahead, Mr. Thériault.