Health Committee on Feb. 14th, 2022

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay.

Are we good on the screen? Are there any other interventions on the topic?

We have a deadline for witness lists. Okay, good.

Now, at about 3:00 p.m. eastern, you received proposed budgets for the upcoming studies for headsets and shipping. Let me get mine in front of me. It was at 3:03 p.m.

Is there any discussion with respect to the proposed budgets for the health workforce study? We'll take that one first. Can we then adopt, by consensus, the budget as presented?

(Motion agreed to)

We have consensus. Thank you.

For the proposed budget for the emergency situation of the COVID-19 pandemic study, can we adopt that budget as presented? Is that the will of the committee?

(Motion agreed to)

We have consensus. That budget is adopted.

Once we reconvene after the constituency week, is it the will of the committee to have one day allocated to the COVID study and one to the workforce study? Should that be Mondays for COVID and Wednesdays for the workforce study? Unless there are circumstances that require us to deviate from that, we'd take that as the general rule. We'd proceed on a consensus basis to plan that work that way.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We have consensus in the room, as we do on the screen.

The housekeeping is done. The floor is open.

Mr. Lake.

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

I wasn't sure if my colleague Mr. Ellis actually....

Oh, you just proposed disposing of the other ones. Okay.

Going back to the conversation we were having, it's tricky, because we were in camera. I can't refer to what we talked about in camera. I can't say whether I agree or disagree with anybody on what we said previously. Thankfully, we moved to public.

We as a health committee have an opportunity. I agree with Mr. Ellis's suggestion that we start on the Monday when we come back with the Public Health Agency and the Auditor General. Then we're gone for two more weeks before we have a meeting on COVID. We have lots of time to call witnesses. The situation four weeks from now will have evolved. It's been evolving and will have evolved, no doubt. We can all see that there is a very wide range of views right now, in our country, around Canada's COVID approach. As a committee, we're well placed as parliamentarians, representatives of Canadians, to do work that is a little bit different from the work done, for example, when Dr. Tam briefs Canadians and is asked questions by the media, or whatever the case may be. We might ask different questions on behalf of Canadians. That goes for all of the witnesses who would come before this committee. I would suggest that as we think about our work plan, we be nimble, to use a word that's been used, recognizing our unique position as parliamentarians.

I would suggest that we as parliamentarians have an opportunity to represent our constituents, with the witnesses we bring and the spotlight we bring, and to ask the questions that are on the minds of Canadians. The questions might be different depending on where we are in the country and who it is we represent, but if we do the work that I trust the members of this committee, from all parties, want to do and are dedicated to doing, I think we have an opportunity to perhaps bring some clarity at a time when clarity has never been needed more.

We have some people on this committee who have significant expertise in health and significant expertise in lots of other areas as well.

That's my two cents' worth as we consider the avenues moving forward after the first meeting—that we leave ourselves some room to be flexible, since the second meeting is still four weeks away, and we have no idea what the circumstances will be at that point in time.

I've found that in the last couple of weeks members of this committee have had some really good conversations—personal, individual conversations behind the scenes to try to find ways to work together. I've really appreciated that. Hopefully we can come together in that spirit, not only next week as we have that meeting and the other meetings we'll have next week, but also as we move towards coming back after the two-week break period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Mr. Davies, go ahead, please.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have just a brief point to make. It would probably be helpful, when we're bringing our witnesses, to rank them, or at least put them in the order that we'd prefer them to be called, to give the clerk some helpful guidelines as to which ones.... Sometimes they're not available, so you just go to the next one. It's generally understood, but I thought I'd mention that.

The other thing is that I'm trying to get my head around the schedule. Mike talked about four weeks from now. Of course we have a break week next week, and we come back the week after that. Mr. Chair, can you clarify what is going to happen in that week?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I'm going to give you my best guess, Mr. Davies, and then I'll ask the clerk to correct me.

This coming Wednesday, we will kick off our workforce study, for which the notice of meeting has just been published with our witnesses' names.

The week back, if Monday is COVID day, the suggestion that appears to be gaining support is that we have a briefing from PHAC and, of course, the Auditor General. At this stage, we don't have a plan for March 2, except that it will be the workforce study, and witnesses from the list that will be submitted by this Thursday will be invited.

I believe that's the plan, thus the comment that it will be four weeks before we get back to the COVID study, because the only meeting we'll be spending on the COVID study, if the current sentiment of the committee holds up, will be a briefing.

Am I close to being on track, Mr. Clerk?

[The Clerk]

Yes, that's right, Mr. Chair. After the anticipated meeting with PHAC and the AG on the COVID study on February 28, the next opportunity for a meeting on that study would be March 21.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Lake?

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

A quick point of clarification. It's actually five weeks. My bad.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Given that, I'm just wondering—taking Mike's point—why we're having to get our witnesses by this Thursday for that study. It would seem to me that we should probably get the deadline for that two weeks hence, so that we're closer to when the witnesses are going to testify, to respond to Mike's very accurate comment that we don't know what the issue is going to be four or five weeks from now. Why be in a hurry to get the witnesses by this Thursday if they may not be responsive to the issues of the moment then?

I know we passed a motion on it, but I would suggest we revisit the deadline for the witnesses on the COVID study and maybe do it two Thursdays from this Thursday. That gives the clerk about three weeks, if the five weeks is correct. It still gives the clerk three weeks to line those witnesses up and begin scheduling them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Davies. It sounds eminently reasonable to me. Can we, by consensus, agree to proceed in that fashion, or do we need to debate that?

Okay. It appears that the committee is completely on board with you, Mr. Davies, so consider the deadline moved back.

Dr. Hanley, please.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I really appreciate all of the wise and sensible comments around the room. There is almost nothing to argue about.

One thing I wanted to throw out there... There certainly are some emerging themes, and I would really encourage that we have witnesses at least roughly aligned to themes rather than call a witness and see what they say. Certainly, having lots of voices as Mr. Davies suggests makes a lot of sense, as long as they're reasonably channelled into some of the themes.

Just to reiterate some of the themes I'm hearing, again, preparedness is one, and if you don't mind,

Mr. Thériault, there's also endemicity.

I think that's a really important theme area that we could address because it really begs the question of not only what it takes to live with endemicity, but what it is. I think we have to move beyond the notion that endemic means mild or that it doesn't really matter very much anymore. I mean, endemic could still mean that it takes a lot of resources to contain almost inevitable surges of activity and new variants, etc., but I do think it's a really interesting theme to explore. I think that's a very wise suggestion from Monsieur Thériault.

I think preparedness, endemicity and that nimbleness are starting to look like a trajectory that we can all agree on, so that we can pivot to whatever comes at us, considering that we're looking months ahead of us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Dr. Hanley.

Dr. Ellis, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

The only concern I have is on the development of these ideas here: What's the usefulness thereof? My concern is that because of the way things have been going in this committee, we certainly cannot consider ourselves nimble or as having the ability to answer questions quickly. That would be my main concern, Mr. Chair, with respect to those things.

I really would like to think that we have the ability to influence policy and, for instance, talk about preparedness and to have Canadians be communicated to on what the plan for the future may look like. My concern is that we spend a lot of time back and forth on the kind of mundane things we're doing here in this committee, and really without much action.

In the spirit of co-operation, if that's really what the will of all of us here is—to be nimble and to be able to create plans for Canadians and have them hear from the best experts—then I think we need to do that. However, the greater concern, of course, is that when you look at our schedule, our first meeting on COVID is going to be five weeks from now. That's not really going to be helpful.

Quite honestly, I think everyone here at this meeting knows that we are in the throes of things that have happened in Canada that have never happened in the recent past, whether that be a pandemic, whether that be mass protestations outside our place of business or whether that be someone deciding to use the Emergencies Act. We're not being able to respond to those things in a nimble fashion, and my concern is that calling ourselves “nimble” is a bit of a misnomer, because certainly we haven't proven to be nimble.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you very much, Dr. Ellis.

There being no one else on the speakers list, if I could, I'll attempt to summarize where we are and see if we need to continue.

I believe what I'm hearing is that two of the themes that will form part of our study on COVID are preparedness and the question of pandemic/endemic, and we have agreed that we won't be hard and fast on themes because this is a fluid and developing situation and we need to be able to adjust the witness panels and the topics we discuss to allow for that fluidity.

I believe that would be a summary of where we are. Other than that, I believe there is consensus that we will have the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Auditor General at our next meeting on the COVID study.

Is that a fair summary of where we are, colleagues?

I see Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I think this has been productive, given our unnimble track record. Hopefully, we can be more nimble in the future and, hopefully, this spirit of collaboration can continue. Remarkably, I think we've finished our agenda for today. I think we have a good plan moving forward, although it's a little bit stop-and-start given the schedule over the next couple of weeks.

I remain available as parliamentary secretary to any member of this committee who would like to discuss anything with officials or the minister off-line in the interim period, because things are rapidly evolving.

On that, it's a little early, but it's getting dark out and I don't know what's going on out there, but if my colleagues would indulge me, I'd move to adjourn this meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That is not debatable. Is it the will of the committee to adjourn?

We have consensus in the room. Do we have consensus on the screen?

Okay. Thank you, everyone. We'll see each other again on Wednesday on the workforce study.

Happy Valentine's Day. We're adjourned.