Health Committee on Feb. 9th, 2022

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

I'd like to make a proposal to Mr. Thériault.

Instead of requesting four mandatory meetings, we could say “at least two.” Then we can add more if we need to hear more witnesses and gather more information.

I think it would be more efficient and easier to obtain everyone's consent if we proceeded this way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

It's nice to see everybody virtually. I'm sorry I'm not there with you in Ottawa.

I appreciate that we are still focusing on committee business until, likely, the end of today's meeting. I believe that with about six meetings for human health resources and with the child health care study, in addition to our 12 or so meetings on COVID, it probably brings us until June.

I'm wondering aloud here if it wouldn't be prudent to discuss a third study at a later time and move on to focus on bringing witnesses and ensuring that our meetings next week on Monday and Wednesday are productive ones.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. van Koeverden.

Before I go to Mr. Thériault in response to Mr. Berthold, I'm advised that the motion as presented already indicates a minimum of two meetings, but I took it that Mr. Thériault was proposing that that number be changed to four.

I recognize Mr. Thériault at this time.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

That's right, Mr. Chair. In presenting the motion, I could have immediately said “four”. But I was reading the motion for which I had given notice and said that I wanted it to read “four”. This may of course have looked like an amendment, but I didn't move an amendment. I simply told my colleagues which motion it was, because people often don't recognize the motions that were introduced.

I think the subject deserves four meetings. Other problems might also come up…

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm not entirely sure that you can amend your own motion, so it's a bit of a moot point, if I'm not mistaken.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

No, you're not mistaken, which is why I asked for the unanimous consent of the committee for it to happen. That hasn't happened yet.

Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Do I have unanimous consent or not?

I won't spend any more time on that. But I would prefer to begin with four meetings. Earlier, Mr. Davies spoke about a program that could continue until fall. Given that the first two motions will take us into June, I don't believe that adopting this motion to have four meetings is problematic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Before we go any further, Dr. Ellis is quite right. We should bring this to a head. Is there or is there not unanimous consent for Mr. Thériault to amend his motion to a minimum of four meetings? If there is not unanimous consent, then someone else will have to move such an amendment and we can vote on it.

Is there unanimous consent to allow him to so amend his motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

There isn't consent. The debate is on the main motion. It would be in order if anyone else wishes to move the amendment for us to do so, but the motion that Mr. Thériault made is receivable; it's before us, and the debate is on the main motion, which prescribes a minimum of two meetings.

I recognize Mr. Lake.

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

I just want to somewhat support Adam in moving on. The easiest way to do that, if we're all in agreement with pursuing this study, is to keep debate to a minimum. It doesn't put this study third in the order. It just says that we're eventually going to study it and we agree at some point that we'll study it. Let's pass it and move on to other business. We've had a productive meeting so far; let's keep it going.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Dr. Ellis.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to support my colleague's comments and agree with Monsieur Thériault. This is a very important study, and it should be included in our list, absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to return to Mr. Berthold's comments.

The motion does mention a minimum of two meetings. As our meetings continue, I would imagine that our colleagues would understand the importance of this issue, as Mr. Ellis pointed out, and that they would agree to hold however many additional meetings are required to produce a report containing the appropriate recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Are there any further interventions in respect of the motion?

Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I appreciate the support from Mr. Lake. I think it's something worth considering later on. I would just offer that my honest assessment of the situation is it's really outside the realm of an emergency pandemic time.

I think there would be a rationale to study breast health in a broader context. I recognize the relevance and the timeliness of the motion, but at present I hope we can move on to the business of our next 24 meetings or so and commit to coming back to this at a later date.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I think we need to come to an understanding on what exactly we're deciding if we vote in favour of this motion. We need to clarify if it's just to say, yes, we agree to study it at some point, but it's not necessarily the next study after we conclude the study on child health. I'm like Mr. van Koeverden. I'm not saying this isn't something that I would want to study at some point, but I'm not sure it would be something that should be studied third, given the priorities that we have.

I also think it's important to be very clear-headed on the number of meetings we have. When we say six meetings and six meetings, we're talking about six meetings of witnesses, if I'm not mistaken. I wanted to clarify that. It's always hard when I don't have the actual text in front of me, but I think we agreed—maybe I could have a nod, Mr. Chair, from you or from the clerk—that it's six meetings of witnesses for each of the two studies we just passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Yes, that would certainly be my interpretation, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

In practice, then, it really means we're talking about eight, nine or 10 meetings for that study, because after you hear the witnesses, there is usually a meeting to discuss instructions to the analysts for the report. Then there is usually at least one meeting—in my experience, it's usually two and sometimes three—to finalize the report.

Really, you're looking at somewhere between seven and 10 meetings for each of those studies. Add the fact that we already know a bill has been introduced in the House by the Minister of Health on the rapid tests. That's coming to this committee as well. We will not get to any other study besides the two we've talked about. In fact, we may not finish the children's health study by June, but hopefully we will.

The other thing is this. I don't know, but speaking for myself, the discussion we had, when we were blue-skying committee business, about having a series of short studies or longer ones.... That was never voted on or decided. It was a good idea, perhaps, but I don't think we ever came to a firm conclusion on that. That was an idea that was suggested by Mr. Berthold and then by Mr. Thériault.

In fairness, I don't think we came to a conclusion that this committee was going to have a series of short studies. The question really becomes, then, of all of the notices of motion, of all the potential studies that are on here, is this particular study of such pressing nature and of such widespread interest that it would warrant this committee's time?

I must say that I find it very granular. I've had the opportunity to have one discussion with Mr. Thériault about this, and similarly.... Our minds are in the generally same area, because I have a motion on breast health generally. That includes breast screening guidelines, wait times for diagnostic services, access to treatment, and options to improve health outcomes.

I think that could be broadened, like Mr. van Koeverden said, to include the very important issue of breast implant registry. However, with a breast implant registry itself, it would be very appropriate if we had decided to have targeted short studies. If we're not doing that, then it's very, very granular. In my opinion, it affects profoundly but a very small number of Canadians, whereas something like breast health generally affects, I'm going to say, 51% of the population. In fact, someone pointed out to me that breast health can affect men as well, but primarily it's women. We're talking about millions and millions of women who have an interest in access to timely breast screening and services and breast health.

Those are my general thoughts on this. We also have motions that have been moved on oral health, which I have moved, and substance use and addiction. In my respectful view, with great respect to the importance of this issue that Mr. Thériault was championing, I think they affect far more people and are of more urgency in terms of the impacts they have on a broad number of people. That's not to take away, of course, the significance of this issue to those who are interested in it.

I've been an MP for 14 years, and I don't think I've ever been contacted by anybody who has an issue over a registry of breast implants, but I have many, many people contacting me about a lack of access to dental care, or the opioid crisis, or breast health generally.

I'm happy to support this motion on the understanding that this vote not specify that we will be studying this issue as our third study. If that's okay with Mr. Thériault, then I'm happy to support it. I'd like him to clarify whether it's his intention, by passing this motion, for it to be the third study. If that were the case, I would move an amendment to broaden it to include breast health generally so that it includes not only the issues he wants to look at, which are important, but also the broader issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

I am advised that there is a technical problem in the room with respect to an inability to turn MPs' microphones off. It doesn't affect those who are here through Zoom, but I will suspend the meeting for five to 10 minutes.

I would encourage you to talk among yourselves to see if we can get through this during the suspension.

The meeting is now suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call the meeting back to order. I'm pleased to advise that it appears the technical issues are resolved and we can now continue.

Next on the speakers list is Dr. Powlowski.

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

I wonder if Luc could clarify. A number of people have questioned whether his motion is to have this proceed as the third set of meetings or if it's just a motion that at some point we will do the study that he wants.