HESA Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Standing Committee on Health
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, June 17, 2025
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
[Translation]
Honourable members of the committee, I see a quorum.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(3)(a), as the clerk of the committee, I will preside over the election of the chair and the vice-chairs.
[Translation]
I must inform the committee members that the clerk of the committee can only receive motions for the election of the chair. The clerk can't receive other types of motions, can't entertain points of order nor participate in debate.
[English]
We can now proceed to the election of the chair.
[Translation]
Pardon me, Madam Clerk. I want to point out that the issue remains the same. The sound in the room is much too loud and prevents me from hearing the interpreters properly. I don't want to set the volume too high, since this can damage my hearing. If the volume in the room could be turned down a bit, that would be fine.
[English]
Madam Clerk, it should be either that or raise the level in our earpieces. I have to have it at full volume just to hear the voice.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
The interpretation works, Madam Clerk. The issue is that the volume in the room when you speak in English is too high compared to the volume of the interpretation. To hear the interpreters properly, I must turn the volume all the way up. Even then, you drown out the interpreters' voices. I'm simply asking for a much lower volume in the room when you speak in English. I imagine that the same applies to French.
We'll try to address this, Mr. Thériault.
I'll start again.
Honourable members of the committee, I see a quorum.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(3)(a), as the clerk of the committee, I will preside over the election of the chair and the vice-chairs.
[Translation]
I must inform the committee members that the clerk of the committee can only receive motions for the election of the chair. The clerk can't receive other types of motions, can't entertain points of order nor participate in debate.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), we can now proceed to the election of the chair.
Go ahead, Ms. Sidhu.
[Translation]
It has been moved by Ms. Sidhu that Ms. Fry be elected as chair of the committee.
Are there any further motions?
(Motion agreed to)
I declare the motion carried and Ms. Fry duly elected chair of the committee.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Good morning, everyone.
Thank you for this honour.
[English]
I would like to ask the clerk to continue with the election of the vice-chairs.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the first vice‑chair must be a member of the official opposition.
I'm now prepared to receive motions for the first vice‑chair.
[English]
[Translation]
It has been moved by Mr. Strauss that Mr. Mazier be elected as first vice‑chair of the committee.
[English]
Are there any further motions?
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
I declare the motion carried and Mr. Mazier duly elected first vice‑chair of the committee.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
I'm pleased to nominate my friend Luc Thériault for the position of second vice‑chair of the Standing Committee on Health.
It has been moved by Mr. Powlowski that Mr. Thériault be elected as second vice‑chair of the committee.
[English]
Are there any further motions?
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
I declare the motion carried and Mr. Thériault duly elected second vice‑chair of the committee.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
I officially call this meeting to order.
[English]
Welcome to meeting number one of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, but I think we're all here in person. It's taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders.
Before we continue, I would like to ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. You will also notice a QR code on the card in front of you, which links to a short awareness video.
I want to remind participants of the following points.
Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone. Please mute yourself when you aren't speaking.
For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you can select the appropriate channel of floor, English or French for interpretation. For those in the room, you can you use the earpiece and select the desired channel.
I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.
For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function and please turn it off when you have spoken. Otherwise, we will have all kinds of heritage hands up there.
The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding, because if we're looking around the room, whoever catches our eye first is the one whose hand we will see. We're going to try to do this as well as we can.
Now, with the agreement of the committee, we can proceed to the consideration of routine motions. The clerk has circulated a list of draft routine motions that the committee adopted in the last parliamentary session. I think we need to have a committee member move the motion. We can do it one by one to allow debate on each of the motions before we put them to a vote, but again, many of them are just routine motions.
I'm going to open the floor and recognize Ms. Chi, the member who will move the motions.
Do I just read them out one by one? Okay.
On analyst services, the motion reads:
That the committee retain, as needed and at the discretion of the Chair, the services of one or more analysts from the Library of Parliament to assist it in its work.
On the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, the motion is:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be established and be—
I'm sorry. Let's do each each motion separately.
Thank you, Ms. Chi.
We'll go ahead. Is there any debate on this motion? Can I entertain a vote on the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: On the second motion, is there anyone who wants to—
Can the analysts who are in the room please come to your chairs?
Thank you. Maybe you can introduce yourselves.
I'm sorry, Dan.
Chair, once we've done this, is there a reason that we're reading out each individual motion? Maybe we can just adopt them as—
I want to be fair. It's just in case somebody doesn't like it. Even though it's routine, somebody might object this time, so let's just get it done appropriately.
Hello, everyone. My name is Kelly Farrah, and this is my colleague, Tu-Quynh Trinh.
We were also the analysts for HESA in the previous session. We're looking forward to working with you all.
On the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, it reads:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be established and be composed of four members: the Chair and one member from each recognized party, as designated by each party’s whip, and that the subcommittee work in a spirit of collaboration.
Is there any debate on this motion?
Shall I call the question?
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Go ahead again.
Will we let Ms. Chi read them all out?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Go ahead, Ms. Chi.
On meeting without a quorum, the motion reads:
That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence published when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four members are present, including two members of the opposition parties and two members of the government party.
This one is on travel:
That, when travelling outside the Parliamentary Precinct, (a) the meeting begin after 15 minutes, regardless of whether quorum is present, and (b) no substantive motion may be moved during such meetings.
On time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses:
That witnesses be given five (5) minutes for their opening statements; that whenever possible, witnesses provide the committee with their opening statements 72 hours in advance; that, at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated six (6) minutes for the first questioner of each party as follows:
For the first round, Conservative Party, Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois;
For the second and subsequent rounds, the order and time for questioning be as follows: Conservative Party, five (5) minutes; Liberal Party, five (5) minutes; Bloc Québécois, two and a half (2.5) minutes; Conservative Party, five (5) minutes; Liberal Party, five (5) minutes.
I'm not going to propose it for this time around because there hasn't been consultation, but given that we're a health committee, there should be a requirement that any conflict of interest be declared beforehand, which I think has become the standard in medicine.
Again, having not consulted anybody on this, I'm not proposing it, but at some point I think we ought to make that a requirement.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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.
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?
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.
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—
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)
The Chair: This motion carries.
Now, Mr. Powlowski, you brought up a motion with regard to conflict of interest.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Thank you, Chair.
I was wondering whether we could deal with the routine motions first, before delving into the conflict of interest motion that was just proposed on the floor.
It's on the floor already, Ms Chi. I'm sorry. Let's deal with it and get rid of it.
Doug, would you like to speak to it?
Yes. I'm in favour of the concept, but I'm wondering whether we need to draft a motion with more detailed frames of reference so that we can look this over in the meantime, because right now there's no strict definition of what this is, as Mr. Strauss said. What does this entail? Is it financial? Is the conflict of interest due to associations?
There might be a little too much that we would have to define before we move on this, so I would be in favour of delaying this motion until a more detailed motion with more detailed frames of reference could be brought in.
[Translation]
I want to try to clarify certain things, if possible, in response to the questions asked.
Clearly, some groups are invited because they represent a group of companies. This has already happened. I could name a few examples. We're well aware that these witnesses come to us representing their members and their companies, which have an interest in the matter. That's not an issue.
Sometimes, for example, we decide to invite an expert witness in a given field. Unless I'm mistaken, the witnesses invited by the Standing Committee on Health have a strong enough sense of ethics that they would declare any conflict of interest or special interest in the matter up front.
When we invite expert witnesses, such as researchers, we're well aware that the research funding comes from the government. Do they have a conflict of interest if they're complacent about the government party or the government bill? We won't succeed if we try to provide a definition.
We can agree to ask the individuals if we feel the need to do so. For example, if I'm concerned about a conflict of interest, I'll ask the individual involved. At that point, it will be clear. Let's do this rather than start making a definition and trying to determine whether a specific case fits it. After all, our committee isn't the ethics and conflicts of interest committee.
We can come to an agreement on the process. If a committee member has a concern, the member can ask the question at the start. Madam Chair, you could even ask witnesses at the start, before their opening remarks, if they wish to declare a conflict of interest to the committee members. Regardless of whether the answer is yes or no, we'll then move on to the opening remarks.
I think that it should work this way.
[English]
Doug, I don't want us to spend too much time discussing this. We can do this in greater detail at another time.
Marcus brought it forward in the middle of our time. I told him we were discussing only time allocation here and I allowed him to bring this motion forward, but I don't want us to waste too much time. We should get done with the routine motions.
Unless there's any further debate, perhaps, Marcus, you can bring this forward at a particular time.
Go ahead, Dan.
I like Doug's suggestion. Let's table it. Let's get some definitions.
I understand, Marcus; I know that it's well intended and that it's not intended to be a rabbit hole.
Let's get some definitions. If some special stuff has to be considered for a medical community and with the doctors sitting around the table, that's good, but let's table it for today. That's what I'm suggesting.
Then we have a sort of amendment that says we should table this and deal with it later. It's a motion to adjourn debate, really.
All those in favour, please so indicate.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: That motion carries.
We will move now to the continuation of routine motions.
Go ahead, Ms. Chi.
The next motion is on document distribution:
That only the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents to members of the committee, and only when the documents are in both official languages, and that all documents submitted to the committee in both official languages that do not come from a federal department or members’ offices or that have not been translated by the Translation Bureau be sent for linguistic review by the Translation Bureau before being distributed to members, and that the witnesses be advised accordingly.
The next motion is on working meals:
That the clerk of the committee, at the discretion of the Chair, be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide working meals for the committee and its subcommittees.
Is there any discussion on the meals? Does anybody want to do a nutritional rundown on those? No.
All those in favour?
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Go ahead, Ms. Chi.
Next is the motion on travel, accommodation and living expenses of witnesses:
That, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses, not exceeding two representatives per organization; and that in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the Chair.
The next motion is on access to in camera meetings:
That unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff member at in camera meetings and that one additional person from each House officer's office be allowed to be present.
That during in camera meetings, committee members may be informed by the committee Chair of the MPs who have been designated as substitutes for permanent members, in order to know which MPs are authorized to speak and vote during these committee meetings, and that only those who have been recognized and identified as such be authorized to speak, in keeping with the usual agreed rules of order and decorum.
Next is a motion on transcripts of in camera meetings:
That one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be securely retained by the committee clerk for consultation by members of the committee or by their staff, and that the analysts assigned to the committee have access to the in camera transcripts.
The next is on notice of motion:
That a 48-hour notice, interpreted as two nights, be required for any substantive motion to be moved in committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration, provided that:
(a) the notice be filed with the clerk of the committee no later than 4:00 p.m. from Monday to Thursday, and no later than 2:30 p.m. on Friday;
(b) the motion be distributed to members and the offices of the whips of each recognized party in both official languages by the clerk on the same day the said notice was transmitted if it was received no later than the deadline hour;
(c) notices received after the deadline hour or on non-business days be deemed to have been received during the next business day.
The next motion is on orders of reference from the House respecting bills:
That in relation to orders of reference from the House respecting bills,
(a) the clerk of the committee shall, upon the committee receiving such an order of reference, write to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee to invite those members to file with the clerk of the committee, in both official languages, any amendments to the bill that is the subject of the said order that they would suggest that the committee consider;
(b) Suggested amendments filed pursuant to paragraph (a) at least 48 hours prior to the start of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill to which the amendments relate shall be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration, provided that the committee may, by motion, vary this deadline in respect of a given bill; and
(c) During the clause-by-clause consideration of a bill, the Chair shall allow a member who filed suggested amendments pursuant to paragraph (a) an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.
The next motion is on technical tests for witnesses:
That the clerk inform each witness who is to appear before the committee that the House Administration support team must conduct technical tests to check the connectivity and the equipment used to ensure the best possible sound quality, and that the Chair advise the committee, at the start of each meeting, of any witness who did not perform the required technical tests.
This motion is on whips' access to digital binders:
That the clerk of the committee be authorized to grant access to the committee's digital binder to the offices of the whips of each recognized party.
The next motion is on maintenance of order and decorum:
That during meetings, the Chair, if necessary, uses her prerogative to suspend the meeting to maintain the order and decorum necessary to ensure the application of the House of Commons' policies on workplace health and safety.
Is there any discussion?
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: We have finished with the routine motions. We have had an agreement that we will discuss Mr. Powlowski's motion at another meeting where we can discuss basically what the definitions are, because I think that was what was in question here.
Dan, go ahead.
I just want to bring something to the committee's attention.
In the last Parliament, there was a report that didn't make the final stages for the committee to receive an answer back from the government. The report was on achieving better outcomes for breast cancer screening. What I have is a motion, and I'm seeking unanimous consent from the committee to request that the government table the report and then the chair present the report to the House so Canadians can actually hear what the government has to say about this important subject.
I'll read the motion:
That, given that committee members, staff, the clerk, analysts, and witnesses worked hard to produce the report entitled “Saving More Lives: Improving Guidance, Increasing Access and Achieving Better Outcomes in Breast Cancer Screening” during the first session of the 44th Parliament, and given that the government did not table a response because of the prorogation of Parliament, the committee deem that it has undertaken and completed a study on “Saving More Lives: Improving Guidance, Increasing Access and Achieving Better Outcomes in Breast Cancer Screening” pursuant to Standing Order 108, and that it adopt that report as a report from this committee;
That, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request the government to table a comprehensive response to the report, that supplementary or dissenting reports that accompanied the report in the previous session of Parliament be tabled with the main report and that the Chair present the report to the House.
That's the motion. It's basically a follow-up from the last session.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
The motion should be distributed. I know that there's a French version. This would also give the interpreters the chance to read it in French exactly as it's written. We should get into the habit of ensuring that, when a motion is introduced, committee members can have it on paper.
I suggest that the meeting be suspended for five minutes in order to pass around these documents.
[English]
I will suspend while we send the motion forward, because I don't have it. I don't think anybody else seems to.
We are suspended.
This sounds like an important topic. We're just splitting hairs because we have to be in all this really technical language. It had been tabled, so I think the motion is to to retable it. I think that's a really minor amendment, but I agree that this is important, and I would support it.
I'm looking for unanimous consent.
Basically, the committee did do a lot of great work. There's a lot of important information here that Canadians deserve to know, especially those with breast cancer. It is a very important subject, and I think we all have a duty to report back to Canadians on it. The government needs to respond to what this committee found.
Absolutely, yes. As I say, I was just using the language to retable it. Otherwise, if we send it in with that, then someone will say, “Well, it was tabled.” It just prevents confusion down the line.
However, yes, I agree. It should be tabled, and we should bring this forward. I support that.
I think it was tabled in the House on December 14, 2024. I think it would be a good idea to retable it so that we can discuss it again, or do whatever you want to do, but it's already been tabled in the House, so your question is to get a government response. Is that your question?
I think that is fine. I'm getting a sense that there is unanimous consent to that.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: We shall move on.
I think we've done all of the routine motions, and we have entertained this motion from Dan.
I think, unless somebody has a burning desire to bring up something else, I will—
Dan Mazier: Madam Chair—
The Chair: Go ahead, Dan.
I don't know. I'll have to get the clerk to tell us if we have a room and what is going on. Do we have a Thursday meeting?
I can't hear you, Ms. Sidhu. Will you turn on your mic, please?
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer