Evidence of meeting #23 for Health in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that comment.
Not being a member of the committee, I'm not familiar with the work plan for the next month or month and a half, but it seems to me—and this is a question for you, Chair—that even if this motion is passed today, you probably wouldn't be able to begin your study until March. Is that correct?
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
We have a full February, and the first part of March is filled, but there are other options. We can always go into subcommittees, or whatever we want to do.
What we're trying to decide today is whether it is the will of the committee to study this matter. We've had extensive dialogue about what the important topics are. The committee as a whole, prior to this surprise meeting today, made plans to study some very important things, especially in relation to the aging demographic in our country.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
This is the way it is in all committees.
You are saying there was nothing keeping your committee from studying this motion on its first day back next week. Even though there is other committee business, it could have been discussed for 20 or 30 minutes.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Absolutely, and there would be nothing precluding someone from making a motion at any meeting, at any time, to make us aware that this was a top priority. As in any committee, if you walk in and find something very important during committee time, you can raise your hand and bring that issue forward. At that time the committee will take a moment or two to find out whether it should study the issue or do it after its agenda is completed. There is no reason we couldn't have done that during regular committee time.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Then I'd have to agree with the members opposite. I don't like to impugn the motives of my colleagues, for whom I have a lot of respect, but I do think this was done to fill up time on a slow media day; I'm not sure.
I'd like to address Mr. Williamson's point and Mr. Adler's point that somehow this topic does not belong in this committee. In fact, Madam Chair, you yourself just mentioned a moment ago that you'll be discussing demographic issues, which of course fundamentally impact on public finances, so one could argue that issues of demographics that impact on health care, according to the logic of the members opposite, should perhaps be discussed at the finance committee as well. However, I don't agree that this is exclusively within the purview of the finance committee. It's a very important topic, and I think it is something the health committee should look at. It's not just about financing and whether the federal government is financing 20% or 40% of provincial health care budgets in this country; it's more a question of accountability and what kind of leadership we expect from the federal government on health care.
We don't operate in an American-style political system in which there are checks and balances among the three branches of government. Many of our checks and balances are between the provinces and the federal government, and it's very important, in the view of the Liberal Party, for the federal government, as a funder of health care, to have something to say about health care in this country.
I noticed that during the holidays the Prime Minister said he really doesn't know how to fix health care. The subtext was that it's not his problem, but the problem of the provinces. The further subtext is that if we just keep transferring tax points, we'll get this thing off our plate here in the House of Commons in Ottawa and we won't have to take criticism for the failures of the health care system.
We don't agree with that point of view. We think there should be a debate about accountability, about the federal role in health care, about setting benchmarks, about working with the provinces, and so on. Those are the kinds of issues that would be dealt with in a study like this. We believe it should be studied by the health committee, but we didn't need to bring everyone in today to get the ball rolling on this issue.
2:25 p.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Chairperson.
I want to respond to a few of the points that have been made, the first one being whether or not it's legitimate for this committee to even be dealing with this issue. I'm sure we all know that we do deal with health care estimates, so we do deal with financial matters. I would think the federal government's funding arrangement for health care and how it impacts the system would be of enormous interest and importance to this committee.
The idea that it doesn't belong here I find quite incredible. To me, it is at the core of what we have to deal with in the future of medicare. That's the federal role. How do we uphold the Canada Health Act? How are we making sure that privatization doesn't occur? How do we keep the commitments that were made in 2004? Why hasn't there been progress on them? These are all related questions that we should be dealing with.
I certainly respect that my colleague may dispute the numbers we're using. It seems to me that's all the more reason we should actually study this issue. Let's call forward witnesses. Believe me, there are people related to the health care field who want to be heard on this issue. Whether it's the Canadian Medical Association or the Canadian Health Coalition or the nurses' union or association, there are organizations that definitely want to be heard and that will offer a historical perspective on the facts around funding arrangements.
Sure, you can disagree, but then let's do the study, and we can get into it. We'll make some sense of—
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
We need to have new things brought up instead of the same old things in making your points. We could be here until eight o'clock tonight saying the same stuff.
The purpose of today's meeting from this motion is to decide whether or not we're going to study this topic. With that, if we could go on with the other—
2:25 p.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
I would like to make one additional point and bring us back to the actual substance of the motion. There is a question before all of us as members, and that is whether we agree that this issue should be dealt with, through a study, as soon as possible. We know our agenda has been set, so this does imply, Madam Chair—and this is a new point—that if this motion is approved, we would need to discuss what we might be able to move around.
We're studying various diseases. There are some issues we could delay in order to bring this issue forward more quickly. I would like the members to focus on the substance of this motion, to be accountable to Canadians as federal representatives for federal health dollars, and to make a determination that we should undertake this study so we can get some of these answers--
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
No, you have said that several times. To make it clear again, we're going to see, with this motion, if we will undertake this study.
Dr. Carrie is next on the list.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I think everybody who's paying attention really does understand the intent of this meeting. I want to thank my Liberal colleague for pointing out that if anybody in this committee wants to discuss things further, there are mechanisms, and that we are masters of our own agenda in the committee.
The point is that we were all brought back here today. If it was so important to the four members of the NDP on the committee, why did only two of them show up? Two of the four didn't even bother to show up for this meeting, which was supposedly so urgent. Excuse me if I sound a little curt, but I think we should just call the question. They've had their 15 minutes, and I think we need to get on with the important business of the committee. I'm looking forward to working with everybody next week.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I would like to call the question, if we could do that. Are you in agreement, then?
Both Ms. Davies and Dr. Carrie have said we need to get down to whether or not we're going to do this study. With the committee's agreement, I would like to call the motion for a vote.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
2:30 p.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
The motion reads as follows:
That the Committee undertake a study, as soon as possible, to review recent health care funding outlined by the federal government and the response of the Premiers; that it hold at least two (2) meetings on this study to hear from witnesses; and that it report its findings to the House of Commons.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
All in agreement, please raise your hands--oh, I'm sorry; is it a recorded vote?
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
