We don't? Well then, that's withdrawn.
Evidence of meeting #32 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #32 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
We don't? Well then, that's withdrawn.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
It's been the practice of the committee to stay in public as much as we can, and I think we'll continue that. I'm glad to have our parliamentary secretary here.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
I'm going to call each clause, starting with clause 2. If there are amendments to be made, I'll recognize the member proposing them. If there's discussion, we'll have our debate. If there's a clause that you don't agree with and you want it deleted, you vote against it. It doesn't require a motion to delete it; you just vote against the clause.
We are going to move to clause 2.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
We'll leave the preamble and the name of the bill until the end.
We're going to start with clause 2.
Shall clause 2 carry?
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but really quickly, we're voting on a bill, so if I may, can I insist that hands are showing or not showing based on the vote, rather than it just being assumed?
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
It makes my life easier, so yes, we'll ask people to vote. A show of hands, please.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
(On clause 3)
Mr. Oliver.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
The only change I would like to make is to paragraph 3(1)(a), as follows:
developing specific national objectives in order to improve the situations of persons suffering from dementia and decrease the burden of these diseases on Canadian society;
That's the one area where I was going to remove the Alzheimer's disease reference.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
It's clause 3, paragraph 3(1)(a):
developing specific national objectives in order to improve the situations of persons suffering from dementia and decrease the burden of these diseases on Canadian society;
The rest—(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g)—are references to Alzheimer's. I was happy with those. It's just for that broad statement about decreasing the impact of dementia.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I think we should just leave it the way it is, because it says “Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia”. Our colleagues just finished testifying that this was designed to be a national strategy on Alzheimer's disease, so to take out Alzheimer's disease defeats the purpose. In having that word “and”, I think it is very clear that there are other forms of dementia.
As it reads right now, it states:
developing specific national objectives in order to improve the situation of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia and decrease the burden of those diseases on Canadian society;
I think it reads the way the authors intended it to, plus the way that we gave unanimous consent to. I don't see any reason for taking that out.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I would just ask Mr. Oliver to clarify why we would leave it in subclause 3(1), but in paragraph 3(1)(a) we would change it. I would like to understand the reason for that.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
For me, paragraph 3(1)(a) was focused on dementia and living with dementia. I'm coming back to where I thought we should put the emphasis on dementia, which is what I believe the Senate report tried to do as well, to focus on dementia. The others, in terms of research related to Alzheimer's disease, are very different. That's why I was content with the rest of them. I just want to make sure that we are very clear that we are focusing on the consequences of dementia and how people live with them.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Len Webber Conservative Calgary Confederation, AB
Chair, I just want to clarify the vote we had with regard to the clause of the bill. I posed it publicly, but I assumed that we were voting on the amendments, so I retract my vote as a “no” on the clause in the bill. I support the clause in the bill, but now we're working on the amendments and I don't support this amendment or any of the amendments.
We just had testimony here from our witnesses from both parties. They referred to themselves as the “Rob show”. They worked together on this bill for quite some time. They've had help from the industry, from the Alzheimer associations throughout the country, and now we're here in committee with all these amendments from the honourable member across.
I question where these amendments are coming from. Obviously, they're coming from the bureaucrats, through you to here, and I do—
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
There's one amendment on the floor. It's the only amendment changing—
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Len Webber Conservative Calgary Confederation, AB
I'm speaking to that one amendment, and then I won't have to reiterate for the next 25 amendments—or how many did we count here, 17 amendments that we have. To me, the work has been done. We're here now making amendments through bureaucrats; that's what my assumption is.
I think the groundwork has been done. To continue on with these 18 amendments is just ridiculous when the work has already been done and has been worked on by both the Liberals and the Conservatives here.
I just want to publicly state that I will not support this amendment or any other one.
Thank you.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Oliver, as just a point of clarification, this statement is with regard to national objectives. In your estimation, you were saying when it comes to setting our objectives, it shouldn't just be focused on Alzheimer's primarily but on all forms of dementia. Am I understanding that correctly?
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
It was based on the first round of witnesses. They said they wanted a national dementia strategy. I asked specific questions about the balance between Alzheimer's and dementia, and in this case, I heard the first round of witnesses say very clearly that they were looking for a national dementia strategy, which I think that paragraph states.