HANSARD
NOVA SCOTIA HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
STANDING COMMITTEE
ON
HEALTH
Tuesday, June 11, 2024
COMMITTEE ROOM
Agenda-Setting
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
HEALTH COMMITTEE
John A. MacDonald (Chair)
Danielle Barkhouse (Vice Chair)
Chris Palmer
John White
Nolan Young
Hon. Kelly Regan
Rafah DiCostanzo
Gary Burrill
Susan Leblanc
In Attendance:
Judy Kavanagh
Legislative Committee Clerk
Gordon Hebb
Chief Legislative Counsel
HALIFAX, TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2024
STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
1:00 P.M.
CHAIR
John A. MacDonald
VICE CHAIR
Danielle Barkhouse
THE CHAIR: Order. I call this meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on Health. I’m John A. MacDonald, the Chair, and the MLA for Hants East. Today we will have agenda-setting. Just a reminder to please put your phones on silent. I’ll ask the committee members to introduce themselves, just stating their name and their constituency. I will start with MLA Regan.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
THE CHAIR: For the purposes of Hansard, I also recognize the presence of Chief Legislative Counsel Gordon Hebb on my left, and Legislative Committee Clerk Judy Kavanagh on my right.
We’re into agenda-setting. Everybody got the list of their items. I’ll give it to you just as soon as I finish. As soon as we’re finished, we’ll have six topics: three PC, two Liberal, and one NDP.
MLA Burrill.
GARY BURRILL: I would like to move that we amend the proposed witness sheet we have in front of us by, in the final NDP proposal, moving the bottom two proposed witnesses - the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia and the Nova Scotia Regulated Health Professions Network - up to the top Liberal proposal, which is the Protection of Health Data, and then remove from this sheet the NDP proposal Access to and Protection of Personal Health Information.
THE CHAIR: Just to be clear, what you’re asking is that if I pick the witnesses on it, you want to add the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia and the Nova Scotia Regulated Health Professions Network to the Liberal topic, Protection of Health Data.
GARY BURRILL: Yes, and this is with the agreement of the Liberal caucus.
SUSAN LEBLANC: And then to strike.
GARY BURRILL: Then to strike, yes.
THE CHAIR: Yes. MLA DiCostanzo.
RAFAH DICOSTANZO: We’re in total agreement that it’s a similar topic, so we have no problem with that.
THE CHAIR: MLA Palmer.
CHRIS PALMER: The PC caucus is fine with that decision.
THE CHAIR: All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried.
We’ll start back off. We’ll start with the PC caucus. MLA Palmer.
CHRIS PALMER: I move that the first topic for the PC caucus be Promoting Physical Activity. Our suggested witnesses will be representatives from the Healthy Tomorrow Foundation and the Department of Communities, Culture, Tourism and Heritage. Our second topic will be Integrated Youth Services, and our suggested witnesses will be representatives from the IWK Health Centre, Integrated Youth Services New Glasgow, and Integrated Youth Services Halifax YMCA. Our third topic will be Advancing Diabetes Care, and our witnesses will be representatives from the Department of Health and Wellness, the Nova Scotia Health Authority, and the IWK Health Centre.
THE CHAIR: MLA Regan.
HON. KELLY REGAN: I think we normally do one topic at a time in this committee, but I’m not a long-term member of the committee, so I could be wrong on that. The other thing is that we don’t have a problem with the topics, except for the second topic. This program, the locations were announced in April. I don’t think they’re actually up and running yet. It indicated that the sites will be up and running in January, I think, of next year. We might be jumping the gun on this particular topic at this time. It seems to me that that is a worthy topic once we actually have some of the programs actually up and running and we know what they actually do, we know what the numbers are, and that kind of thing. It sounds like a great plan. But it just doesn’t - it seems like we’re jumping the gun, because there is no there there yet. There is an announcement, and nothing more.
THE CHAIR: I just confirmed with Legislative Counsel that there is no set for it. The same thing as if I were to call when MLA Burrill had - so I’m going to say it’s not out of order. It may not be common.
KELLY REGAN: Also, since we appear to be doing this in a conglomerate, I would add - because we don’t have anything in the Valley for that Integrated Youth Services one - and again, I do think we should be voting on these separately. The government is going to use their majority to insist that we take a topic on a topic that is not actually up and running yet. It doesn’t make sense to me.
Even if we drew this out and did this and our very last topic, that would be December, and that’s before the first one’s open. It doesn’t make sense to me at all to include that in there, and I suspect that’s why it’s been done this particular way - to have three together, so you get one in that doesn’t - there is no there there yet.
NOLAN YOUNG: February.
KELLY REGAN: We have an announcement and nothing else.
THE CHAIR: MLA Regan, February.
KELLY REGAN: February?
THE CHAIR: February. We have two more meetings. July and August. This is six.
RAFAH DICOSTANZO: They don’t start until January.
THE CHAIR: I’m just letting you know. This would be - if it was at the end, it would be February, not December.
KELLY REGAN: They don’t open until next year. So there’s nothing there to actually do this. It doesn’t make sense. We have six topics here. I guess we have another topic already chosen, do we?
THE CHAIR: No, we have two more topics.
KELLY REGAN: Oh, I see. Okay.
THE CHAIR: When I took over Chair, I wound up trying to get this done earlier so we didn’t have the block. We have two more months. July and August are scheduled, so the next one would be there.
I apologize. That’s why I said - the only thing I corrected was February.
KELLY REGAN: I do think that if we’re going to do this topic - which it appears we are going to, because the government will use their majority to insist that we take a topic that doesn’t exist, for a program that doesn’t actually exist yet - it will be difficult to question them about anything substantive about the program and how it actually works, because we won’t know because it won’t have opened. But there’s nothing there for the Valley, for example. I would suggest that we add to it the Portal Youth Outreach Association for the Valley, just so we have some input from an organization that might, in the future, be able to offer these services, or could speak to what services are needed. We don’t have anything there from the Valley at all.
I do note that there is - there will be locations in Cape Breton, so perhaps we could add those in there too.
The other thing is advancing diabetes care. I think in addition to the Department of Health and Wellness, it would be most appropriate to include the Canadian Diabetes Association so that they can give us their perspective on that, since they are most closely associated with people who are dealing with this particular disease.
THE CHAIR: So, MLA Regan, is that a motion? Or are you asking . . .
KELLY REGAN: Yes.
THE CHAIR: So you’re moving . . .
RAFAH DICOSTANZO: That’s why we need to separate them.
KELLY REGAN: That’s why we need to . . . (interruption)
THE CHAIR: Order.
MLA Regan.
HON. KELLY REGAN: To MLA Barkhouse’s comment that it is a word salad, no, it is not a word salad. A word salad is when you just throw a bunch of buzzwords . . .
THE CHAIR: Order. Through me. Let’s deal with the motion.
MLA Regan.
HON. KELLY REGAN: My motion is that we separate these topics. We have concerns about some of them.
THE CHAIR: So your motion is to separate these into three separate motions.
NOLAN YOUNG: Point of order.
THE CHAIR: MLA Young, your point of order.
NOLAN YOUNG: We already have a motion on the floor for these topics, so we’d be putting a second topic out to break the topics out. We have a motion on the floor.
THE CHAIR: As I thought, the motion to separate them is in order. It’s a votable one and it’s a debatable one. MLA DiCostanzo.
RAFAH DICOSTANZO: Sorry, I’ve been on this for five or six years. We’ve always done them one topic at a time so we can discuss what’s needed. I don’t know why it’s such a big deal. As you see what happened, the confusion is because we’re going from one to the other. We always - they say one, and if you have anything to say. Then when that is finished, then you move to the second topic. I think you’re complicating life for no reason. We can just do it the way it’s always been done.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Palmer.
CHRIS PALMER: Chair, there is precedence for other committees that do the motions like what I did today. I guess in the interest of working with the committee members - just one other point I would like to make is that I thought you ruled that how I said them, the motion was in order originally, right?
THE CHAIR: Just to be clear, MLA Palmer, your motion was in order. The motion to separate them is also in order. It would be similar to a motion to table or whatever, so if the motion passes, it will be separated. If the motion fails, they’ll stay together.
CHRIS PALMER: So, Chair, we’ll go back and do them one at a time to get them finished.
THE CHAIR: That will require unanimous consent to remove it or just vote on it to . . . (interruptions). Okay. We’re going to vote on it versus - okay.
All those in favour of splitting them into three separate motions.
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried.
MLA Regan, I’m going to allow MLA Palmer to restart with the first one, so I’m going to give him the floor. MLA Palmer.
CHRIS PALMER: Chair, I move that the first topic for the PC caucus be Promoting Physical Activity. Our suggested witnesses will be: Representatives from the Healthy Tomorrow Foundation, and the Department of Communities, Culture, Tourism and Heritage.
THE CHAIR: Any discussion on that? MLA Regan.
HON. KELLY REGAN: I’m wondering if we could have someone from an organization that deals with physical disabilities, so we can talk about how that works for a good segment of our population that doesn’t actually have access to or the ability to do a lot of the physical activity that most of us take for granted? It could be Easter Seals Canada, or it could be disabilities Nova Scotia, or a group like that that is dealing with physical disabilities?
THE CHAIR: Is that a motion, MLA Regan, or is it discussion?
KELLY REGAN: I’m just trying to find the right organization. I know I’m not . . . (interruption)
THE CHAIR: MLA Palmer wants to say something, so I’ll let him while you’re searching.
CHRIS PALMER: Chair, this is a targeted topic that we feel we’ve done some research on. We feel that the witnesses that we put forward can definitely speak to this. I don’t think we’ll be adding any more witnesses, so I call the question, please.
KELLY REGAN: Maybe the Disability Rights Coalition of Nova Scotia could speak to what it’s like to try to promote physical activity when you have difficulty moving? I would put their name forward.
THE CHAIR: You would move to add . . .
KELLY REGAN: The Disability Rights Coalition of Nova Scotia.
THE CHAIR: Any discussion?
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is defeated.
All in favour of PC Topic 1?
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried. MLA Palmer.
CHRIS PALMER: I move that the second topic for the PC caucus be Integrated Youth Services. Our suggested witnesses would be representatives from the IWK Health Centre, Integrated Youth Services New Glasgow, Integrated Youth Services Halifax YMCA.
THE CHAIR: MLA Leblanc.
SUSAN LEBLANC: I think this is a great topic, but I just wanted to flag that if it is true that those programs won’t be up and running until January, perhaps we just make a note that we should schedule this one last.
THE CHAIR: The Clerk has made a note. MLA Regan.
[1:15 p.m.]
HON. KELLY REGAN: Just to speak to MLA Leblanc’s point, when this program was announced in April of this year, the release from the government says, “Site selection is currently underway, and the first sites are expected to open in early 2025, with the others opening over the next few years.” It’s not currently up and running. I just want to make sure we’re using our time to the best. This could be something that we could visit further along in our topics.
CHRIS PALMER: We’re very happy with the ability to be able to have representatives from these - the witnesses that we’ll be calling come in and speak to the plans that are ongoing, how it will be rolled out. I think it would be a great opportunity for committee members to ask the witnesses when they come here the process and how things will be going forward with this program. I know that there’s activity in some of the other areas that I’m sure the people who will be here will speak to all that.
There’s no one saying that maybe in the next agenda-setting or down the road, we’ll be able to actually call them for an update on this as well. We think it’s an important topic that needs to be addressed at the time. I would agree with MLA Leblanc’s recommendation.
THE CHAIR: Anything else? MLA DiCostanzo.
RAFAH DICOSTANZO: I’m sorry, but I disagree with my colleague because when they say the first site is expected to open in early 2025, that could be May, it could be this. How can we ask them questions on something they have not achieved? Nobody is enrolled, there are no stats, there are no cases. What are we asking? It’s embarrassing. I’m sorry.
It says, “with the others opening over the next few years.” You need a couple of years for them to have worked, to have done something, so we can ask them questions. It’s premature for them and for us. It just doesn’t make sense to me, unfortunately.
THE CHAIR: I was just going to say, I only need one of you to table it, because I think you both read from the same document.
RAFAH DICOSTANZO: Yes.
THE CHAIR: All ready for the question?
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried. MLA Palmer.
CHRIS PALMER: I move the third topic for the PC caucus be Advancing Diabetes Care, and the witnesses will be representatives from the Department of Health and Wellness, Nova Scotia Health Authority, and the IWK Health Centre.
THE CHAIR: MLA Regan. I saw her first, then I’ve got you, MLA Leblanc. MLA Regan.
HON. KELLY REGAN: I think that’s different from what we had. We just have the Department of Health and Wellness on our sheet, I think. Thank you for adding some other ones to it.
THE CHAIR: Which was it? (Interruption) Sorry, my bad. MLA Palmer. I’ll get to you . . .
CHRIS PALMER: In my previous attempt of my motion, I actually did mention all of the witnesses in there, so I’m not sure - the witnesses are the Department of Health and Wellness, Nova Scotia Health Authority, and IWK Health Centre.
THE CHAIR: What MLA Regan is pointing out is the sheet that we’re looking at only had the Department of Health and Wellness.
CHRIS PALMER: Okay. The clerk might not have had . . .
THE CHAIR: That’s okay. The point is it’s those three. MLA Regan, I’ll give it back to you.
KELLY REGAN: I’d like to make an amendment that in addition to those three witnesses that we add the Canadian Diabetes Association.
THE CHAIR: Any discussion? MLA Leblanc.
SUSAN LEBLANC: That was going to be my suggestion as well, so I just want to say that I support that amendment. I think it is important to hear from the people who are on the ground doing the work in community with folks who live with diabetes.
THE CHAIR: All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
I apologize. I forgot to tell Hansard when the motions were carried. My apologies. That motion was defeated. Now we’re back to the original witnesses.
Any other discussion?
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried. For Hansard, I apologize.
The next topic is - MLA Regan.
KELLY REGAN: I want to make sure that I have this all right. The topic is Protection of Health Data, and it’s been rolled into the one from the NDP, so Access to and Protection of Personal Health Information. The witnesses would be the deputy minister of the Department of Health and Wellness, the CEO of the Nova Scotia Health Authority, the deputy minister of the Department of Cyber Security and Digital Solutions, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia, and the Nova Scotia Regulated Health Professions Network.
THE CHAIR: Any discussion?
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried.
KELLY REGAN: Our second topic would be Reasons for Doctors Exiting the Nova Scotia Health System. The witnesses we request would be the deputy minister of Health and Wellness, the Office of Healthcare Professionals Recruitment, the Nova Scotia Health Authority, and Doctors Nova Scotia.
THE CHAIR: MLA Young.
NOLAN YOUNG: I believe, if I’m not mistaken, we’ve just done this topic in March. I think it was under a different name - perhaps “Impacts on Labour Shortages.” This topic just happened. The witnesses are the same. It’s a couple of months later. I mean, we’ve just done this topic. I won’t be supporting it at this time.
THE CHAIR: I’m just having the clerk double check.
MLA Regan, while the clerk’s checking for me.
KELLY REGAN: What we did have is recently a report come out on the reasons why doctors are leaving the Nova Scotia health system. There were, in fact, exit interviews done with doctors. We now have more information than they would have had in the past about why doctors are leaving here in Nova Scotia - why they are leaving the system, where they are going, et cetera.
I do feel that although the topic - I mean, it’s probably a topic that gets done every year, right? We do have new information, and I think it’s important for the committee to deal with new information when we have new information. If it was just the same old, same old, it would be different, but we do have new information now.
NOLAN YOUNG: Just to MLA Regan’s point, maybe it is a topic that’s revisited every year. I’d be happy to look at it again in the next agenda-setting. But as for now, no. We just did it in March.
THE CHAIR: Ready for the question? MLA DiCostanzo.
RAFAH DICOSTANZO: Did Ms. Kavanagh find it on the list? Exactly the same?
THE CHAIR: The only reason is because MLA Regan was - oh, I had it and handed it back to her. MLA Regan had looked it up. I just didn’t comment.
On March 19, 2024, Impacts of the Labour Shortage on the Health Care System. The witnesses were the Nova Scotia Nurses’ Union president, the Doctors Nova Scotia president, a representative from the Nova Scotia Health Authority, Office of Healthcare Professionals Recruitment, and a representative from the paramedics. That happened on March 19th.
RAFAH DICOSTANZO: This is totally - this is a segment that was not focused on. We’re focusing on a specific thing: the exiting of doctors. That wasn’t the meeting that we had in March - totally not. We have new information. We would like - this is our topic. We know it’s important. We are losing more doctors than ever. There are 125,000 or 130,000 without doctors. We need to know why they’re leaving. That’s very important to us.
I’m sorry. This was not discussed in March.
KELLY REGAN: It was a general topic. It was over a two-hour period. It dealt with all kinds of different health professionals. This particular one is about doctors, and it’s about doctors leaving, not about doctors coming in. It’s about doctors leaving, and it’s directly the result of the report that did come out about why doctors are leaving. It is not about paramedics. It is not about the nurses. It is not about any other allied health professionals - all of whom are important and necessary to our health system. This is about the doctors who are leaving our system.
If you look at the Nova Scotia Need a Family Practice Registry, when you look at who is on that wait-list, when you ask those people why they are on that wait-list, 55 per cent of the people who are on the wait-list for a doctor are there because their doctor retired, is retiring, or has closed their practice. It is a separate topic. It is a subsection of a topic. It was not dealt with in a full manner the last time that we met back in March on this particular topic.
It is: We have new information, and doctors leaving the system accounts for more than half of the reason why we have 158,000-plus people on the doctor wait-list as of May 1st of this year because we don’t have the numbers. We don’t have the June numbers yet. It is of concern to Nova Scotians - 158,000 of them who do not have primary care.
We should be dealing with this topic. If we don’t, it’s an attempt to sweep this under the rug. We have a report that tells us what is going on right now, and we should be dealing with this in the Health Committee because our primary care physicians and our nurse practitioners, they are the gatekeepers of the health system for most Nova Scotians. That’s how most Nova Scotians get in the door, and we need to hear about this topic.
NOLAN YOUNG: Chair, we’ve got a lot of work. There’s been a lot of work happening around doctor recruitment itself. We’ve just done this topic with the same witnesses in March. We did. We can fundamentally disagree on this, but I think it’s a great topic to come back, as MLA Regan suggested, in the next agenda-setting. I’ll call the question, if I can, Chair.
THE CHAIR: Any other discussion? All those in favour of the motion? (Interruption) There’s only one motion, which is yours, which is for The Status of Surgeries in Nova Scotia - there’s been - otherwise I would have said the amendment. On your motion.
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is defeated. (Interruptions)
AN HON. MEMBER: That was the name of it? (Interruptions)
THE CHAIR: Yes, you were correct.
AN HON. MEMBER: That was the main motion, yes. (Interruptions)
KELLY REGAN: The Status of Surgeries in Nova Scotia, and as witnesses, we would call: the deputy minister of the Department of Health and Wellness; the CEO of the Nova Scotia Health Authority; Doctors Nova Scotia; the Nova Scotia Nurses’ Union; and the president of the NSGEU.
THE CHAIR: MLA Palmer.
CHRIS PALMER: I think this is a very important topic, and to my colleague’s point about priorities and what’s important to our constituents, I’m sure we all hear from constituents around their surgery times and different things. I think this is going to be a great topic for us to bring forward. We’re willing to support this topic.
THE CHAIR: Any other discussion?
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried.
MLA Leblanc.
SUSAN LEBLANC: I would like to propose the following topic to add to the agenda: Barrier-Free Access to Contraception for Nova Scotians. The witnesses would include Access Now Nova Scotia, the North End Community Health Centre, a representative from Wellness Within, the clinical director from the ROSE Clinic, and the deputy minister of the Department of Health and Wellness.
THE CHAIR: MLA Regan.
HON. KELLY REGAN: I would like to make a friendly amendment to the list of witnesses: That we include someone from the Halifax Sexual Health Centre.
THE CHAIR: MLA Regan, I just wanted to get confirmation. It’s an amendment, so you’re amending it, so it requires a vote. A friendly amendment, in my previous world, you didn’t need to vote. You’re moving to add them? Okay.
Any discussions on the amendment? Okay.
AN HON. MEMBER: No, it’s okay.
THE CHAIR: That’s why I just paused, just to make sure.
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The amendment is carried.
Now, the amended motion. Any discussion?
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried. (Interruptions)
THE CHAIR: MLA Palmer.
[1:30 p.m.]
CHRIS PALMER: I’d like to call a recess, if I could, for two minutes. Or we’ll wait until the correspondence.
THE CHAIR: The only thing left is correspondence. MLA Palmer.
CHRIS PALMER: If I could take the two-minute recess, Chair, or we can do it after.
THE CHAIR: I’ll give you a two-minute recess, so we’ll be in recess until 1:33 p.m., so I just gave you two and a half. We’re in recess until 1:33 p.m.
[1:30 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[1:33 p.m. The committee reconvened.]
THE CHAIR: Order. We’re going to deal with correspondence. May 29, 2024, we received an email from Theresa Cunningham, Strongest Families Institute, re “Nova Scotia Standing Committee - Health - Witness Opportunity” request. Is there any discussion on this? MLA Burrill.
GARY BURRILL: All these three letters, in little different forms, are requests to appear before the committee. They all seem to be based on the misunderstanding that access to the agenda of the Health Committee comes through a general appeal to the Health Committee. I wonder if it wouldn’t be helpful to ask the clerk to respond to these letters and explain how the agenda is established, that it is made on the recommendation of caucuses, so they would know about that in future.
THE CHAIR: MLA DiCostanzo.
RAFAH DICOSTANZO: We agree with our colleague, but we also feel that if we can tell them that they can appear at caucus meetings first, they can request to go into the PCs. We have caucus meetings where we have presenters. That’s the first appearance. If we feel that this is a topic that we need to bring to committee, then we will, but they have the opportunity to present to the PCs, to us, at caucus meetings.
THE CHAIR: And the NDP. I don’t forget you.
RAFAH DICOSTANZO: Sorry, I apologize. (Interruption) I meant it for all three caucuses, of course.
THE CHAIR: Okay. MLA Regan.
HON. KELLY REGAN: They may well be valuable witnesses in future topics - I went through and looked at them; they all have something to say. But I agree with my colleague that if they make presentations to the various caucuses, they’ll be top of mind when we’re choosing our topic list. Then they can be added as witnesses when we have topics. I think they’re just sort of thinking maybe more about the federal system and how they may deal with topics or something.
THE CHAIR: What Legislative Counsel has informed me is we could let them know they have the opportunity to request it. We would not - obviously - as a committee say: You’re going to meet with them. I just want to go back to MLA Burrill because it’s his motion. Are you okay, MLA Burrill, on how it’s worded with that, and then the point that they’re able to reach out to all three caucuses if they wanted to?
GARY BURRILL: Sure.
THE CHAIR: Okay. I just wanted to make sure of that since it was your motion and if that works with your intent. I don’t need an amendment on it if that kind of fits your intent. We’re calling that a motion. (Interruption)
THE CHAIR: The clerk, please.
JUDY KAVANAGH: I’m not sure what practice you want me to change. When people approach me about sending a suggestion to the committee, I always encourage members of the public to send any correspondence they want to the committee. I also suggest that they might reach out to their local MLA or to any of the three caucuses. I do make that clear when they ask me.
THE CHAIR: From the sound of it, Ms. Kavanagh, that’s already in place today, where you’re telling them that process?
JUDY KAVANAGH: Yes.
THE CHAIR: Is MLA Burrill’s intent already being done today?
JUDY KAVANAGH: I think so. I mean, if they simply send a letter with no questions, then I say, “Thank you for your correspondence. I’ll pass it on to the committee for their discussion.” Frequently, though, they call me beforehand and say, “What’s the procedure here?” I give them their options.
THE CHAIR: Considering that that’s the current process, MLA Burrill, do you want to remove your motion with unanimous consent? I’m just asking.
GARY BURRILL: Yes, that makes sense. I was only concerned that each of the three letters asks for a specific thing which is not the current practice. I think it’s important that the response should clarify that for people who correspond. That’s all.
THE CHAIR: Perfect. MLA Leblanc.
SUSAN LEBLANC: I was just going to say that I think the one thing that was not described in the clerk’s explanation is a very clear explanation of how topics are selected at this committee, which is that caucuses put forward topics that are then debated. Therefore, if an organization wants to be considered, then they need to go through the caucuses.
THE CHAIR: Okay, I’m going to allow the clerk to discuss it, and then we’ll vote on this.
JUDY KAVANAGH: In the past, committees have scheduled meetings based on suggestions from members of the public. On the Legislature’s website, there is a page describing for members of the public how to request a meeting. If you want to appear before the Standing Committee on Health, here’s what you do. If you don’t want to receive unsolicited letters like that anymore, should we remove that from our website?
THE CHAIR: First, I think we should deal with - do we have unanimous consent to remove MLA Burrill’s motion?
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried.
That way, there’s no motion sitting on the table that I have to remember. MLA Burrill, are we good with how the clerk is doing it now? We’re probably still going to get some letters, but she’ll keep reminding them that the process is to go through the caucuses.
MLA Burrill.
GARY BURRILL: The clerk has pointed out a larger problem. It’s a bigger administrative problem of a discontinuity between what the website says and what, in fact, happens. I’m not meaning to address that big problem; I’m meaning simply to address the little problem . . .
THE CHAIR: Perfect.
GARY BURRILL: People have had a misunderstanding in these three letters that in response we could correct.
THE CHAIR: I’m going to just point out the other two letters for the record, so at least they’re on the record. We also received - sorry. Ms. Kavanagh.
JUDY KAVANAGH: When I do receive letters like this intended for the committee, I always pass on every bit of correspondence we get. Would you rather have me run interference? Do you want me to get in touch with the person who sent the letter and say, Listen, I suggest you approach the caucuses instead, or shall I simply pass it on to the committee and let them decide how to deal with it?
THE CHAIR: MLA DiCostanzo.
RAFAH DICOSTANZO: I think you can suggest to them to go through the caucuses, because it’s more likely for their topic to be picked if they have explained the situation to all three caucuses. One of the caucuses will pick it up.
THE CHAIR: MLA Regan.
HON. KELLY REGAN: With that in mind, though, I think it is important for all of us to see what comes in here. I think it’s good information that comes to us. Our caucus may deal with something, and we may be away that day or something, so it’s good to have it here. I like seeing those come through, and the committee appreciates them reaching out to us: This is how it’s done, but we’re really pleased that you sent us this, et cetera.
THE CHAIR: It’s the status quo. Thank you. The second letter we received - the May 31, 2024 letter from Colton Profitt, Mental Health Commission of Canada, re MHCC - NS Health Standing Committee presentation request. Is there any discussion? Seeing none.
The third letter, June 5, 2024 email from Marie Kavanaugh re “AI Empowers Early Diagnoses: How Artificial Intelligence is helping physicians diagnose skin cancer,” and accompanying June 6th email from Aimee Levy, “Melanoma early detection funding.” Any discussion on that either?
MLA DiCostanzo.
RAFAH DICOSTANZO: I’m very interested in this, and I will be happy if the Liberal caucus would be the first one that they present to. You can let them know.
THE CHAIR: Is there any additional business? MLA Palmer.
THE CHAIR: What you want to do is undo a motion that already happened. That would require unanimous consent for us to actually deal with that. Do we have unanimous consent to have the Canadian Diabetes Association - that’s who it is? That motion to deal with it?
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried.
You can move your motion. MLA Palmer.
CHRIS PALMER: I move that the third topic for the PC caucus be Advancing Diabetes Care. Our suggested witnesses would be representatives from the Department of Health and Wellness, the Nova Scotia Health Authority, the IWK Health Centre, and the Canadian Diabetes Association.
THE CHAIR: Any discussion on this?
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried.
I don’t know if that’s an amendment. I’m saying it’s a motion. Any other additional business?
MLA Burrill.
GARY BURRILL: I’d like to make a point on the order of the committee.
THE CHAIR: Yes, sir.
GARY BURRILL: It seems to me that the system we have of the government caucus bringing forward three topics, the Official Opposition two, and our party bringing forward one, this seems to me to be a very good system. The system is not that the Official Opposition brings forward two and the NDP brings forward one topic if we should have the permission of the governing side.
We are not bringing forward topics asking: May this topic be - would you please allow us to consider this topic? and if you have some concern about the topic or you don’t like about it, that it would be disallowed. We are presenting the topic as the topic that we, as of right, as a party with standing, wish to put before the committee.
[1:45 p.m.]
I think that core understanding of the committee’s operation is not always in practice, and it would be important for us to remember that.
THE CHAIR: MLA Young.
NOLAN YOUNG: I was just going to add, even today, there were combined topics and stuff like that. There were things that seemed to function today. It’s not about asking for permission.
THE CHAIR: MLA Regan.
HON. KELLY REGAN: With respect, if that were the case, we would be hearing about doctors leaving the province. That would have been chosen. That was our second topic that we put forward. That’s not how it happened, and that’s not how it’s supposed to happen, is my understanding. You get three, we get two, and they get one. There happened to be another one on the sheet.
I guess what I would say to my colleagues is that in the future, what we won’t do is put forward three. We’ll just put forward two, and those will be the topics, and that’ll be it. That’s the way it’s supposed to work.
THE CHAIR: MLA White.
JOHN WHITE: I would ask, did it work that way when you were in government? Probably not.
THE CHAIR: Order. MLA White, through me, regarding the discussion.
JOHN WHITE: Thank you, Chair. Perhaps you can answer that question. This committee, when the topics are voted on and approved, they become the topics of the committee, of all members. When bringing witnesses in here, we speak to them as a committee. I think we’re supposed to have a say in what topics go forward, as you do with ours. It’s the same thing. You get to make motions on ours, and we approve them or we deny them. Just because we have a majority - it’s a reflection of the House of Assembly as well. It’s the same thing.
I just don’t understand why this is a concern now, when it hasn’t been before. The topics go forward as a committee. We are members of the Health Committee. That’s who we are, and that’s what we speak on these motions. I think we need to have a say in them.
THE CHAIR: MLA DiCostanzo.
RAFAH DICOSTANZO: I’m sorry. We just witnessed where we presented to you the topic you brought forward that hasn’t even started - the program has not started and won’t start until - and we pointed out something that’s so clear, but you insisted to keep it, because you have a majority. But something that for us, there was a topic that is happening - the report, the change - and you cancelled.
I’m sorry. You’re contradicting yourself by what you just said. I’m sorry.
THE CHAIR: MLA Barkhouse.
DANIELLE BARKHOUSE: I’ll be honest. You can’t push and pull. Saying you want to change ours is okay, but us not wanting to have any kind of conversation about yours, or any kind of change of yours, is not okay? I don’t understand that.
You’ve seen at this table, at this meeting here now, that there have been suggestions of adding and taking away witnesses and putting topics together. We actually thought MLA Regan’s idea over our one topic was a great idea for adding witnesses.
I’m just saying. You can’t have both. You can’t say it’s all right to change ours but it’s not all right to change yours. This is what this committee is about: picking topics together.
THE CHAIR: MLA Palmer.
CHRIS PALMER: The only comment - I’m not even sure what my colleague MLA Burrill is suggesting, but to MLA Barkhouse’s point, when the topics are put forward, there is a discussion. There is a debate. There is a discussion around, like my colleague said, adding witnesses and taking witnesses away. To my colleague MLA White’s point, just because we have a majority reflective of the House, it doesn’t take away the principle that we’re trying to get across here. Anyway.
JOHN WHITE: I just can’t sit here and allow it to be said. We voted down a topic that was discussed three months ago - three months ago. I think that’s pretty fair.
RAFAH DICOSTANZO: Unfortunately, we disagree. We have new information, a new report. I don’t remember asking one question about that in March. I have questions I wanted to ask with the new information.
We disagree there, so please let that one go. I don’t remember, and I’ve sat on Health Committee for - on many committees - that a topic, as my colleague from the NDP mentioned, we choose the two out of the three as they choose the one out of the three, and you tell us which ones we’re allowed, and which one is not. That’s what happened today. I don’t remember it ever happening, but I could be wrong.
THE CHAIR: MLA Burrill, as the Chair, I will have a conversation with Mr. Hastings because I believe he’s the one who deals with the committees - have a talk to him about that just to see if I’m misunderstanding it. The only reason I’m looking at MLA Burrill is because MLA Burrill brought it up. If so, I’ll report it at the next one, if that’s agreeable to you.
KELLY REGAN: I see all points here. I will say there is a difference between voting down an entire topic and adding a witness. We did see some collaboration here on adding witnesses, which I do appreciate, but I will say that an important topic was voted down by the government and it was our second topic. That is the issue. It isn’t that we add witnesses, because I think that’s an established norm, but putting forward a topic of great importance to Nova Scotians.
THE CHAIR: MLA Burrill, just to be clear, you understood that’s the topic I was going to talk to Mr. Hastings about, right? The point that it was voted down, correct? I just want to make sure that you - when I said, I’ll do that, I meant ask the question on that.
GARY BURRILL: Yes, Chair. I have not made a motion about this. I simply wanted to . . . (interruption)
THE CHAIR: No, but you brought it up, so I will - as Chair, I will ask the question.
GARY BURRILL: Yes. I just wanted to register a comment on the proceeding of the committee, that’s all.
THE CHAIR: I’ll ask because I’ve only been sitting in this chair for - and I’ll talk to Mr. Hastings.
Seeing no other discussion, the next meeting is Tuesday, July 9, 2024 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. It’ll be Cancer Screening Programs. Witnesses: the Nova Scotia Health Authority Cancer Care Program; Nova Scotia Breast Screening Program; and the IWK Health Centre.
This meeting is adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 1:52 p.m.]
