Health Committee on June 17th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Luc.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I know that these speaking times have been discussed. However, I would like to point out to the committee that, in the last Parliament, the NDP was a recognized party and it had the same speaking time as the Bloc Québécois does now. I would have expected at least more speaking time for the Bloc Québécois, given that the second and third opposition parties shared 12 minutes, followed by two‑and‑a‑half‑minute rounds. I now have the same speaking time as in the last Parliament, without the NDP even taking the floor.

I just want to tell my colleagues that I would like some flexibility in this area. After the first six‑minute turn, a two‑and‑a‑half‑minute turn isn't much.

I would also like to point out that the NDP had only about 20 members in the last Parliament. I had the same speaking time as the committee member representing this party, even though my party had 32 members.

I just wanted to raise this issue. I don't necessarily want to turn it into a debate. However, I'm calling for the committee members to show flexibility so that we can come to an arrangement on this matter.

Remember that, when we launched our study on breast implants as high‑risk medical devices, there was so much flexibility that the Conservative Party gave me all the speaking time at its disposal, both in the first and subsequent rounds. This just goes to show all the co‑operation involved.

I wanted to start by making it clear to the committee members that I expect flexibility so that we can make the most of our speaking time when we hear from witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Luc.

I think I'm going to like this committee, since you're all so flexible and work with each other so nicely. It's going to be great.

Go ahead, Dan.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

On that, we did the same thing when I was on the environment committee. When we set the rules for the study, we looked at the allocation of the time slots. That's the way we did it on the other committee. It could even be witness by witness; if someone had a special witness, we always swapped the time back and forth. That's the way I'd deal with it.

Mr. Powlowski, as far as your conflict of interest comment is concerned, I guess that's up to you guys. We all have standards from the Ethics Commissioner and we state those conflicts, but is there something special about being a medical professional? Is it case by case? How does it work?

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

Usually—and I think Matt will agree with this—when studies are published, for example, or when people are speaking, they declare any conflicts of interest, especially with big pharma. When somebody is giving a presentation or advocating for a certain drug and it turns out that they have actually been paid or have received benefits from that company, it creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. Usually that has to be declared, because it has the potential to influence the conclusions they're coming to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Right now, we're dealing with a motion about time. Can we entertain Marcus's concern after we've voted on this? Do you want to suggest...? If everyone is in agreement that the Bloc should have some more time, how would you like—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

No. That's not true.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You don't agree with it.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

It would be on a case-by-case basis. That is what Luc and I discussed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Okay. That's what you're suggesting.

We may have to call the question on the time with regard to the Bloc. I'm going to entertain anybody wanting to speak to Luc's suggestion, other than Dan.

Everyone is silent.

Clerk, would you like to call the question on this motion? All those in favour of the current times as expressed in the motion read by Ms. Chi, please let me know.

(Motion agreed to)

This motion carries.

Now, Mr. Powlowski, you brought up a motion with regard to conflict of interest.

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

If the Conservatives are in agreement that we should have it, then yes, let's put it in, but if they're not, let's just move on.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Have what?

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

It would be a declaration from any witness if they have a conflict of interest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Mr. Strauss, on this question.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Chair, thank you.

There are two things I'm not understanding. One, is this a conflict of interest concern for witnesses or for committee members?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Powlowski moved it, so I'll give him an opportunity to explain exactly what he means.

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

It's for witnesses.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Chair, that proposal makes a great deal of sense to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right. You're in favour of it.

Go ahead, Mr. Eyolfson.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Thank you. I agree as well.

In my previous experience in HESA, we had witnesses who came with one perspective without declaring that in fact they had a significant funding base that could potentially influence their statements. There would have been a very different context had those conflicts been declared, so I'm in favour of this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to it?

No. Then could I....?

Yes, Matt, go ahead.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Chair, is the motion on the floor right now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It is, yes. Mr. Powlowski moved it.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Okay. Then I would just like some more detail about defining “conflict”.

If I work for an advocacy group, presumably my salary is paid by that advocacy group. Is that presumed, or would they have to explain all of their employment? Is it only financial conflicts of interest, or are we talking about spousal and beyond? Is it all going to be on the honour system as well?

Maybe we need some more detail about that before it comes to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thanks, Matt.

I'm going to entertain the other questions before Marcus answers. He can answer them all in one fell swoop.

I have Ms. Chi and then Mr. Eyolfson. It's Maggie first, and then Doug.

Go ahead.