Health Committee on Nov. 24th, 2016

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

I'm sorry for interrupting.

One more thing is to include subclause 3(1), rather than just subsection (1) at the end that Mr. Carrie had pointed out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All right, just change clause 3, but put the 3 there to clarify.

I'm advised that we don't need to.

Do we have unanimous consent to change the...?

Let's have a show of hands, please.

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

[Inaudible—Editor] because you have been going back and forth too many times before we pass this. We want to have the same thing inserted in there.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

I don't know what line it starts on—15, 16, 17, 18—

the Alzheimer Society of Canada, other Alzheimer advocacy groups, and other dementia advocacy groups, for the purpose of developing the national strategy referred to in subsection (1).

Again, I question why it's not 3(1), but if that's the case, then fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Representing the Alzheimer Society of Canada, other Alzheimer advocacy groups, and other dementia advocacy groups.

All in favour of that amendment. We need a show of hands as it needs to be unanimous consent.

(Amendment agreed to)

Look at that. We have made the bill better. Congratulations.

Thank you for that, everybody. We have improved clause 3 and now we still have not passed clause 4.

Are there any more amendments to clause 4?

Ms. Blaney, yes.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I am proposing an amendment to subclause 4(1), on line 23. The change would be to appoint “no more than 20”, rather than 15, “members to hold office during” and continuing on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

On line 23.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I want to change the number from 15 to 20.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Do you have a reason?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

The reason is we want to make sure there is enough space for diverse groups to come and participate. Narrowing it down to 15, when you look at the size of our country.... I think it's important that we make sure there's flexibility for the minister to invite people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Debate on the proposed amendment.

Ms. Harder.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I have one concern, and I do see your point in trying to get as many people to the table as possible, but the problem with that is that sometimes we get so many people to the table the voices get lost. I don't know that expanding that group serves us well in the long run.

That would be my concern there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Are there any other comments?

Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

We do have advisory groups, and I don't know how things have been set up in the last little bit, but are there any advisory groups that have more than 15 people? Would you guys know?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I think this is the first advisory group on this concept to be proposed.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I think in the past there was a history of advisory groups, and I'm just curious, because as Rachael said, 15 is quite a lot of people as it is. I don't know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I would think it would add costs to bring them in.

Ms. Harder.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I wouldn't be able to comment with any sort of expertise in terms of what advisory groups have looked like in the past. I know the Prime Minister has an advisory group with youth right now. He chose 15 people, and I don't know if there's a science behind that. My background in sociology would actually tell me the max is eight in order to hear voices, but....

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All right.

Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

My understanding with some of these advisory boards, too, is that there are sometimes votes, so an odd number would be better. What if we said 19? That's so we could break a vote. We don't want them to be stuck in a tie.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Are you moving a subamendment?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I would say that's a friendly subamendment, if my colleague was there.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I just want to point out, though, that it's “up to”, so we would hope it was an odd number if there was a vote. But this won't assure in any way that this will be an odd or even number.

I think the important part here is looking at the depth and breadth of the issue, what's going to happen in different parts of Canada, what's happening on different levels of dementia. It's going to have a big impact, so it's to make sure there's a big enough table to ensure that those voices are heard. I think 20 is more representative, so I'll continue to encourage us to explore having 20 at the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Is there more debate?

Mr. Ayoub.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I will be speaking in French.

You can put on your earphones

maybe for the first time, I don't know.

We are in the process of improving a bill. I really want us to hear from experts. However, I am not too sure if we have to agree with the one with specific expertise in leading an advisory board and who tells us that such a board should have 19 or 20 members, or with the people who have been working on this bill for months.

Just now, we were at each other's throats, so to speak. We discussed odd phrases here and there and now we are discussing how many members the advisory board has. You can see how many we are; imagine what would happen with more than 15 people around a table. Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with Ms. Harder. Things can get complicated with more than eight people.

The bill mentions 15 people. Canada is very big, but I find that is plenty enough to allow for some efficiency. We have to respect the thoughts of those who have worked on this bill for weeks and months. They certainly considered the number of members. I don't think that there is any scientific data to tell us a board should have 15 members, or 20.

I understand the intention here, and I commend it. I don't want anyone to be excluded but I do want it to work efficiently, that's all.

Thank you.