Health Committee on Nov. 24th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you.

Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I was just going to point out that it's not like a sword I'm going to die on or anything like that.

Around the table we have 11 members, right? I think we do a pretty good job. I don't want to be exclusive on it, but my understanding is that with some of these boards, if they can have up to 15 members, then I can almost guarantee that they will have 15 members. My idea was just to make it a little easier on them for voting. When we come to contentious issues, we don't always agree with the government, but we do understand there are a number of votes that get things passed so that the work gets done.

That's why I recommended an odd number, and I was hoping it would be accepted as a friendly amendment, because with government, if you allow them 15, they're going to have 15, and if you allow them 25, they will have 25. At the end of the day we do pretty well with 11 around the table, so 19 sounded like a good compromise to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Ms. Blaney.

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

I have to do my job. I just want to point out that we have...20 is more.... I think it's important, because if we look at the provinces and territories, right now with the number that we have, we're giving one per province and territory, and then a couple will have more than one. When I look at the realities of most of our provinces and territories, we usually have a very large urban centre, and then we have a more rural and remote surrounding area. Not having those voices at the table could bring significant challenges. Again, if it's 19 or 20, I think we really need to look at fair representation and make sure those voices are there and that they are heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Kang.

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

Let's not be hung up on 19 or 20. Let's make it 21 and move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We have on the table a subamendment for 19; we have an amendment for 20, and then we have the bill. I want to bring it to a vote.

The subamendment is to change it from 15 to 19?

(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we're going to go to the amendment taking it from 15 members to 20 members.

Yes, Mr. Webber.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Can we have some discussion on that particular amendment, or do we feel we've talked enough about it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Have we done the amendment, or can we still have debate on it?

Okay, you're up.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

I'll just bring back what I brought back earlier in our discussion that the two Robs, the honourable members who put this bill together, chose 15. I'm almost certain they've discussed this and chosen this particular number. I have faith in both of these individuals, and I would not support this change to 20 or whatever the number is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All right. The amendment is to go from 15 members to 20 members.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

You have other amendments, Ms. Blaney.

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

Thank you so much. I want to come back to the “no remuneration”, and I just think that should be removed. It is subclause 4(5). We had a conversation earlier about no remuneration, and I have concerns about that. I had spoken about them already, so I won't repeat them, but I would like to strike that from the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Is there any debate on that proposed amendment?

Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Was your concern about compensating for travel and expenses, or did you want to see remuneration?

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

I want the option for remuneration to be available, if it's to bring in somebody who has multiple challenges or concerns. If you look at the testimony that we had last week, we heard very clearly about the financial hardships that some of our caregivers are experiencing across this country. I think that just blocking that completely could bring some serious concerns to people being able to attend.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Yes. I did hear Mr. Oliphant say he was referencing association members and people who are doing it professionally, but for caregivers I had the same worry and limitations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Ayoub.

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

Yes, I'm good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

With this text?

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

No, I'm good with the microphone.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Oh, you're good. You're too fast.

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

I want to say that, again, the bill has passed like that at first reading, second reading, and third reading. It comes here, and now we are changing quite a lot. That clause is very sensitive, I think. The meaning of that clause, we had a good explanation from Rob, and it should remain as it is right now, from my perspective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

You actually raise a good issue. I am advised that if we move this, it will make a problem for the bill at report stage, because then it involves money, possibly, and it may not go.

Now I'm looking at the clock, and we have seven minutes of regular time. If we go overboard, all this work is for nothing. We should try to finish it up, I think, in the next seven minutes.

I am going to call for a vote on the amendment to remove the “no remuneration” subclause.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Sorry, I have a point of order. You can't call the question until everyone who is on the paper to speak has spoken to the bill.