Health Committee on Sept. 27th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We need to do a little committee business.

The first thing on the agenda is that we need to approve a budget for our hearings on the good Samaritan bill. We had six people who came and claimed expenses. We had two video conferences. The total tab was $8,400.

Does the committee agree to pay this bill?

(Motion agreed to)

That's done. Thank you very much for that.

Next, we have a motion by Mr. Kang to engage the Parliamentary Budget Officer to study the cost and fiscal impacts of implementing a national pharmacare program.

Mr. Kang, could you present your motion?

[Darshan Singh Kang, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Chair, I move that the committee request the Parliamentary Budget Officer to provide it with an analysis of the following items before the end of the committee's study on pharmacare.

There's a whole list of things here. I think the members have a copy of the motion. If you want me to read all through this, I can. The last paragraph states:

In carrying out this analysis, the PBO will work with Canadian Institutes for Health Information, Statistics Canada, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health, IMS Brogan and other sources to obtain appropriate data and will not rely on analyses prepared by or for a third party. The PBO's report will disclose in detail the sources of data, the quality of the data and the methods of analysis used.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Do you have a time frame?

[Darshan Singh Kang, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

It's to be before the end of our committee's study on pharmacare.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

At the beginning it says, “The committee request the Parliamentary Budget Officer to provide it with an analysis of the following items before the end of our committee's study on pharmacare.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

The motion says “by September 9, 2016”.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

The motion was amended, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

So now it just says before the end of our study. My copy says “the following items by September 9, 2016”.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

The motion is amended, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

To say “by the end of...”?

[Darshan Singh Kang, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

It says, “by the end of our committee's study on pharmacare”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I wonder if it would be better to give the PBO a date rather than that.

Is there debate?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I like the idea of getting more information.

One of the lines of questioning that I've been using over and over is on whether we can get some updated data to help define exactly what the problem is that we have in front of us and the best way of resolving it. We had some really good information today.

Does this mean that we want to suspend our study right now? We're seeing a whole bunch of witnesses and maybe we should wait, get the Parliamentary Budget Officer to give us some information, and go on to some of the other studies we've identified as priorities. We could suspend this study until we get the information from the Parliamentary Budget Officer so that we can perhaps fine-tune the exact witnesses we need.

I think he could give us some good information. I haven't read through this entire motion; we may even want to expand a little more on the information that he could give us.

I certainly like the idea of where you're going on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Are there any other comments?

Go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I want to thank Mr. Kang for this work. I think it's a really good start. Like Dr. Carrie, I'm just reading through it now.

I agree with you, Mr. Chair, that we should have a date. If we say “by the time the study is concluded”, nobody knows when that will be. We should have a date.

I'm already starting to sort of do some editing of this. I think it's very helpful to the PBO and I think it would be very helpful to add some very crisp questions to the PBO and have that information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

They'll be here at the next meeting.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I know.

For instance, paragraph a. says “The percentage of Canadians”, and you don't break this down. Just to give you an idea of how I'm editing here, I would like the percentage of Canadians who do not have any access to prescription drug coverage and the percentage of Canadians who have intermittent access to prescription drug coverage. I don't think that comes out clearly at a.i. and a.ii., although I think that might be where they're going.

My concern is whether we will have time to put those kinds of questions, the kinds of questions that the committee needs and wants, to the PBO on Thursday. I think this is a really good start, but I think it needs a bit of work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I think we need some meat on the bone, so to speak. We've had all kinds of estimates about the impact and about how much this is going to cost. I think we need this.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Well, I just may--

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

How are we going to do this? Will we pass this now or will we wait until we hear from the PBO?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I will illustrate. Paragraph a. says “The percentage of Canadians...who are ineligible for public prescription pharmaceutical coverage”. That question is different from finding out who doesn't have access, in a way.

All I'm saying is that I think this motion is probably about 80% there. I think we need some time to massage the questions so that we can give the PBO good questions. I don't know if we can do that by Thursday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. Kang.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

We may fine-tune this a bit, but I think this is a starting point. We have lots of data so far from all the stakeholders who appeared before us. It doesn't look as though we will be getting any more data. I think we are just repeating all the data. Every time we get a new witness, they come back with the same data we had before. We can certainly put a time limit to this after the PBO appears. This is giving some direction to the PBO to come back with all the information we need from him.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I heard Mr. Davies' remark about the first part, “who are ineligible for public prescription pharmaceutical coverage”. However, it says at the end of paragraph i., “and who do not have private or employer sponsored coverage”. I think that statement on it does expand and, unless I'm mistaken, helps with that greyer definition of who is in need. I find that having those two statements together—the first one and then “and who do not have private or employer sponsored coverage”—adequately answers the question.

I just wanted to put that out there.