Health Committee on Feb. 9th, 2022

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

We could vote on the amendment, but I'd like to get more clarification. I wonder if I can get it right now to speed up the process.

When we agreed to consider all the testimony gathered in the course of the studies conducted during the previous parliament, that was so we could continue discussing pandemic follow‑up. Even though we didn't expressly address that aspect during the committee's last two meetings, we had a kind of tacit agreement that, out of a total 28 meetings until June, 14 would focus on pandemic follow‑up, pursuant to the motion that we adopted to consider previous testimony, and the other 14 would be used to conduct other studies.

However, two of those 28 meetings have already gone by. I see we're now going to adopt a first motion proposing a study that will take up 8 meetings, in addition to an upcoming study that will take up 6. From what I understand, 14 meetings will be reserved for those 2 studies, which means that, if we continue at this pace, there'll be no room to conduct other studies suggested by other parties.

Consequently, I am announcing that I'll be introducing amendments to change the number of meetings that has been proposed for those studies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Does anyone wish to respond?

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

I have a solution.

I have a proposal for Mr. Thériault to resolve the human resources issue.

At least two meetings for the study on children will concern COVID‑19. They could therefore be grouped with meetings on the COVID‑19 study. That way, we could use those meetings to start examining all aspects of the study on children that are relative to COVID‑19. Then the following four meetings for the study on children would concern children in general.

That would mean only 10 meetings devoted to studies. So there would be room left for other studies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

Are there any further interventions in respect of the amendment of Mr. Lake?

Go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

It is just that I appreciate my colleague's concern, but I think in some ways we're a bit hostage to fortune, the agenda and things we can't foresee, for instance, legislation coming before this committee.

I think getting one or two studies done before June is good. Of course, we're going to be coming back. I don't think anybody foresees any election in the summer, so we're going to be coming back in the fall, and there will be time to pick up other studies, including some of the excellent suggestions that Mr. Thériault has made.

For my part, I'm not bothered if we don't get four studies done by June. I think we'll be doing well if we can get two studies and reports done by then.

I don't view the COVID portion of this as being unimportant. I still think it is a very important role of this committee to keep, as I call it, a watch and brief on COVID every week as we call witnesses and stay up to speed on the new developments. As we chip away at the studies, I'm comfortable with having one or two studies done by June, and I know we'll get to Mr. Thériault's issues in due course, as I hope we'll get to at least one of mine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Seeing no one else on the speakers list, I believe we are now ready for the question.

The vote is on the amendment proposed by Mr. Lake.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The debate now is on the motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you, colleagues. The floor is open.

Go ahead, Mr. Lake.

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

We have some momentum.

I'm going to start discussing Mr. Berthold's motion on child health. In the spirit of what Mr. Davies said, I will go back to the original motion.

Just to remind everybody, a change has been made to Luc's original motion to make sure we have addressing children's nutritional needs in it, so it's already in the motion and we don't need to make that amendment, just in case it comes up. It had already been changed in your original motion, I think.

There are six meetings, and we're good with that.

We said that we would try this formula out in two studies, so we're going to add the exact same wording into this motion after point number three, “the study consist of a minimum of 6 witness meetings”. We would add the same language, which is “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.

I'll move that amendment, and then I think there was an amendment that the Bloc wanted to move last time. I think we had agreed to it, but it didn't ever get officially wired in, so that is just a reminder to Mr. Thériault that he may want to do that afterwards.

I'll just leave my amendment as it is right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

I'm going to go back to the excellent advice that Mr. Berthold gave us as we launched into the debate on the last motion.

Mr. Berthold, would you please formally move your motion? We will then actually have a motion on the table and have the specific wording around the debate, for clarity.

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

I move it, Mr. Chair.

That way we can discuss it, since it's a very important topic.

I'll stop there, Mr. Chair, and let my colleague present an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

All right.

So that everyone is clear on where we are, Mr. Clerk, would you be able to read the motion that was presented by Monsieur Berthold at the last meeting, I believe, or the one before that? That's the motion we're on, I presume.

[The Clerk]

Yes. There's agreement from the committee to resume debate on the following motion that was moved by Monsieur Berthold. This is the amended version, as it was amended by Ms. Vignola two meetings ago. It reads:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on children’s health and the recent impact the pandemic has had on children and that:

1. the study include, but not be limited to: addressing health care service backlogs affecting children, addressing interprovincial barriers for research, data collection and sharing on children’s health, addressing children’s nutritional needs and addressing shortages of qualified health care workers capable of dealing with children’s health issues in order to find potential solutions;

2. the study include a focus on disparities in access to services for rural, indigenous, racialized and lower-income communities;

3. the study consist of a minimum of six witness meetings;

4. the Minister of Health be invited to appear for one of these meetings; and

5. the committee present its findings and recommendation to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

That is the motion that is currently under consideration by the committee.

Mr. Lake, you had some specific wording for an amendment. Could you please now formally propose the amendment, and then we'll have the debate—

[The Clerk]

I have another item, if I may.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Excuse me, Mr. Lake.

Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

[The Clerk]

I apologize, but I must flag that there is a similar issue with this motion in that there is a pending amendment by Mr. Davies that was never disposed of. That meeting adjourned before a decision was made.

That amendment is similar to the one we dealt with at this meeting about an equal number of witnesses. It would also need to be withdrawn or voted on before a new amendment could be considered.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Clerk, but I think we agreed, because it wasn't dealt with and it hasn't been reintroduced, that what is properly before the committee is the motion and the motion only. We're going to proceed on that basis.

Mr. Lake, please proceed with your amendment.

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

My amendment would come after point 3, “the study consist of a minimum of six witness meetings”. At that point, we would insert “and 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 Québecois member of the committee, and one-sixth for the New Democratic member of the committee.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

The amendment is in order. The debate is on the amendment.

Do you want to speak, Mr. Berthold?

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

I…

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Pardon me; I made a mistake: it was Mr. Thériault who raised his hand.

Go ahead, Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In fact, I wanted to ensure that Ms. Vignola's amendment had been added to the wording. Now that the clerk has read the text of the amendment, I see it's no longer a problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Are there any further interventions on the amendment of Mr. Lake?

Seeing none, is it the will of the committee to adopt the amendment as proposed by Mr. Lake?

(Amendment agreed to)

The debate is on the motion as amended. There is no one on the speakers list.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I'd like to discuss a proposal with you:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108 (2), the Committee undertake a study to follow up on the improvements that have been put in place to tighten Health Canada's rules and improve oversight of medical devices (breast implants) in 2018 and assess the feasibility of establishing a central breast implant traceability registry that would make it mandatory for practitioners who implant, remove, or replace breast implants to enter certain data into the registry and that:

a) the Committee hold a minimum of two (2) meetings with witnesses;

b) the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House;

c) pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee request the government to submit a detailed response to the report.

I drafted this motion based on the discussions we had, during which we planned to conduct a number of short studies before June. However, I think this topic merits further attention. The motion for which I gave notice proposed that two meetings be held, but I'd like to increase that number to four.

We've been discussing this topic in this Parliament for many years. Many members, particularly former NDP members, have tabled legislation in an attempt to establish a breast implant registry. Now in 2022, that still hasn't been done despite all those attempts.

As the motion states, the rules have been tightened. In 2006, certain types of silicone breast implants had been approved, and that caused some problems. That explains why the rules were subsequently tightened. It's important that we be able to conduct follow‑up to determine where we stand in 2022. Is what was put in place back in 2018 actually working? We need to hear from witnesses who can discuss their experience with us.

This is crazy. The trouble we've had in this file stems from the fact that the problems, in many instances, emerge 10, 15 or 20 years later. The practitioners in question are often retired or no longer in the picture. Since there's no registry, the women who are dealing with the problems or who are unaware of any potential problems can't verify what was implanted in them. When you know that most problematic implants were introduced during reconstructions, in women who have had cancer, for example, it's important that we be able to resolve this issue once and for all.

We can't presume to know the conclusions and recommendations that will emerge, but we want this study to remain very specific. Otherwise, when studies are too broad, you rarely manage to determine the main recommendation and ensure that it results in a bill or action. Consequently, in this instance, we need to move as quickly and precisely as possible to come finally to the recognition that everything done over the years should have culminated long ago in a single measure, the creation of a registry.

That's more or less what I had to say. I have a 26‑page file that I won't read to you today, but I can answer any questions you have on the relevance of this motion and debate it with all my colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

I'd like to raise a technical matter.

You have introduced a motion that is absolutely admissible. However, my impression is that you then moved an amendment to your motion. Your motion is in order, and we will debate it. However, a problem arises when an amendment is moved by the member who introduced the motion. You have to obtain unanimous consent to move an amendment to your motion.

Do we have unanimous consent for Mr. Thériault to move an amendment to his motion to increase the number of meetings devoted to this study to four?

Go ahead, Mr. Berthold.