Evidence of meeting #2 for Health in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB
I have a point of information.
I just want to make it clear that these are not my motions. The only motion I'm putting forward is the C. difficile or the superbug stuff. Other members are bringing forward the other motions.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
The fact remains they are motions. We have to call things by their name: they are motions. Whether it comes from Mr. Fletcher, from the chair or from another committee member, that is not the normal way we work.
This morning, I could have made some motions. I was not aware of it because that is not the usual way of proceeding in committee. We go around the table to discuss the various issues that interest us. We make a list and we determine the priorities afterwards.
That does not mean that anyone is against doing a study on natural health products. I think we could agree on that. However, I'm somewhat uncomfortable if it is done through a motion. It is as though the person who tabled the motion is the one who thought of it in the first place. I think we have always been very collegial as far as priorities are concerned. We always voted in favour of the interest of the great majority supporting one priority or another, as a result of the number of people who wanted to work on one issue rather than another.
In my opinion, if we begin like this, we're turning things upside down and it might more difficult to arrive at a consensus.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Basically, Madame, what I'm hearing you say is that this morning, motions were put on the table. Mr. Fletcher pointed out his one motion on superbugs that he has put forward. But normally, you're saying, usually a list is submitted to the clerk and we would prioritize.
Is that not correct, Madame? That's what you're saying?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Yes, Madam Chair, and I'm not sure that this is in order.
Actually, the one circulated piece of whatever we want to call it that was going to be a possible motion was with regard to the mandatory adverse event reporting. That is an issue that I wanted to bring forward. That was the one we talked about.
If it's any help, I would be glad to bring that forward as a topic of discussion, not as a motion, to be added to the list of other items that other members have for discussion. During our CDR study that was one thing that came up several times. We looked into prescription drugs and we looked into the regulatory review processes. Certainly, the adverse event reporting was something that we heard there were problems with. I wanted to put it forward as one item that would be there for consideration by this committee to study.
I would do that not in motion form but in terms of beginning the start of a list, if it's appropriate at this time.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I think we have looked at the two things that are under discussion here. Basically, I think it was all good intention of different members just to have a piece of paper in front of you. No motion was actually formally presented. It was given in that form.
There has been an objection, saying that usually a list was compiled, submitted to the clerk, and you'd get back with that list by a certain deadline.
That's what I'd like to leave the topic on right now, so that we can discuss how we want to do this future business. We'll take a couple more minutes to do that.
Mr. Thibault.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
I think if you've reached a consensus that we're going to work together on the list.... I thought you were starting that process, and I wanted to give my list of topics for consideration.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
I think the reason this requires a more consensus-based approach and priority-setting, as opposed to a yes-or-no linear approach by motions, is that things such as mandatory event-reporting are really part of post-market surveillance, isn't that right? In a comprehensive study on post-market surveillance, which I think we believe could be Canada's gift to the world, the real discussion around mandatory adverse events is part and parcel of the study.
It's a matter of clustering and clumping things, in a way. I think that on C. difficile and some of the other issues, sometimes we can be much more creative, whether it's through a full-day conference on nosocomial infections or on patient safety, or bringing in a patient safety guy. There are a couple of other ways we can go about this in a more creative way than just saying yes or no on motions.
I would like to say that the culture of this committee has not been to develop work plans by motion, and I hope we will agree that from now on we will not see any motions that have to do with future work of this committee, and will have a conversation among the critics to figure out, with the help of the Library of Parliament, how you could get as many members' interests covered off as possible, rather than just saying yes or no.
November 20th, 2007 / 9:30 a.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It sounds as though there is agreement that we use this time to present our different ideas for future business, and I'm ready to get on with that process. I think the question, once we've all presented our different ideas, is how we then determine the priorities from that list. Maybe it's something referred to the steering committee, or maybe it's something we hash out right here, but I have a very small suggestion, which I've asked Chuck to photocopy for the benefit of the committee. Perhaps if we go around, we can accumulate all those suggestions.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
What I would suggest—we've done it at a number of committees I've participated in, and I think we even did it at the health committee when Steven and I were both on it a few years ago—is that we go around the table asking members to give three or four areas of study that they think should be done, without long argument on it, but just the topic, and that the clerk keep a list. Then we will see if there's a lot of commonality, and it gives the steering committee a place to start from. It's relatively simple.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I think that's very reasonable, and I have to say that in addition to that, what we could do is go around the committee and each give three things, just as Mr. Thibault suggested—I think it's an extremely good suggestion—and then perhaps give the rest of the committee members until next Tuesday, which is November 27, to submit anything else they might want to the clerk as well. Then, I think, we've covered everything.
Is that agreed? Could I have agreement with the committee to proceed in this manner?
All we all agreed?
Thank you.
Who would like to begin?
Monsieur Thibault.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
I'm going to start with one that's off the list, and the reason I'm doing it—I'm not necessarily asking that it be put on the list—is that it's something I'm sure all of you have been contacted about. I don't know that the health committee is the best way to do it, but it's the proliferation of illegal cigarettes in the market and the effect this has. I'd ask the chair to perhaps discuss it with the other chairs of the committees to see whether anybody else is getting involved in it in one of the other committees—justice, or one of the others.
The three areas I would look at would be a national infectious disease strategy; modernization of the food regulatory process, which could be a one-session thing; and silicone implants in the jaw, which would again be a one-meeting study. I won't make the argument on it now, in the interest of time, but if you're interested in it, I'd be pleased to do it.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you very much, Mr. Thibault.
Is there anybody else?
Ms. Davidson.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like the mandatory adverse event reporting to be placed on the list as well.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB
I suppose since the suggestions or informal motions are being brought forward, I would suggest that those ones be put on the list too. I'm particularly interested in the superbugs and the natural health products. I'd like to add that onto the list.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Susan Kadis Liberal Thornhill, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just to go back to some other suggestions here and to comments by my colleague Ms. Bennett, we did initially talk about several of these in the last session. I know that not everyone is aware of it, but in the overarching prescription drug strategy and study, there is the mandatory adverse reporting in that reporting, and post-market surveillance. I think we should be continuing on with that, again, in a comprehensive way, not in a piecemeal way, but in the way that was intended so that at the end of the day, hopefully, if we have enough time together with the CDR, we do have a comprehensive approach to this whole area and can really provide good ideas, suggestions, and recommendations for Canadians through Parliament. I think those do need to be coupled together. Otherwise I don't think it's going to be as effective as it could be.
I have a couple of ideas. One is the mental health strategy, or whatever it's termed now. Again, there could be one session bringing forward those who are working actively on this in the area of Alzheimer's, but not limited to that. So the mental health strategy--again, I might be using the wrong term--I know is a fairly new initiative. That's one that I would like to see us have at least one session on.
Also, the issue of health services for the armed forces, I think, is important. I'm not sure if that's now under defence and health. It might be. I think that warrants some attention by the committee, where we feel it's appropriate given our timeline.
There also is very much on the changing demographic in terms of the aging population, which everyone is discussing now--rightly so--and everything that entails. On the issue of home care in particular and the needs that are very clear before us, I believe it would be incumbent upon this committee--again, incorporating it into the list of our work for the next little while--that home care would be something very significant and beneficial for us to spend some time on. Obviously, that's something that would probably not be one session, but it would not necessarily be a long process either.
Those are the ones I'm thinking of now, but I may think of others as well.
