We're on 4(4)(b).
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.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
May I ask for a point of clarification?
So 3(1) is clause 1, 3(a) is clause 2, and 3(b) is clause 3.
Am I understanding correctly, or no?
10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
No, we're on clause 4, and that includes subclauses 4(1), 4(2), and 4(3), paragraphs 4(4)(a), (b), (c), and (d), and subclauses 4(5) and 4(6).
10 a.m.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
I propose that clause 4(4)(b) read, “representatives from dementia advocacy groups”.
10 a.m.
Liberal
10 a.m.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
Yes. It would just read “representatives from dementia advocacy groups“.
10 a.m.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
It's because there are so many other forms of dementia, as we heard from the first round of witnesses. There's Huntington's, Parkinson's, vascular dementia, and there's a whole list of other causes of dementia, albeit Alzheimer's is the greatest cause. There are lots of others. I think they would be quite disappointed if they were not represented and didn't have a voice on an advisory board to the minister.
10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Okay.
We're just going to debate this amendment, and then we'll come to you, Ms. Blaney. I think you have an amendment.
You want to speak to this amendment.
10 a.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I appreciate the change. The important thing to remember is that the two witnesses here talked deeply about hoping to see a cure happen. If that day comes, and hopefully it will come soon, it's important to remember that other dementias need to be addressed. If we don't have space in here that refers to all forms of dementia, then happily the day will come when Alzheimer's won't be an issue, and I'm concerned that we will lose those opportunities for those other communities. So, I support that amendment.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I apologize.
Mr. Oliver, I do need you to clarify for me exactly what you're proposing to change here.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Sorry. I just need you to clarify for me exactly the change that you're trying to make.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
It's under 4(4)(b). We're dealing with the creation of an advisory board with no more than 15 members. I'm proposing that the representation on the advisory board be more inclusive than just the Alzheimer Society and Alzheimer advocacy groups.
I also heard from Mr. Oliphant that we shouldn't have in a bill the exact name of the society because names change. I was changing this to “representatives from dementia advocacy groups”, so that Huntington's could be included, Parkinson's could be included, vascular dementia, and all those other forms and causes of dementia would have a say at the table. It wouldn't just be the Alzheimer groups.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Could you clarify for me if there's a specific line that you're looking to change?
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
My problem with that line is not even so much the mention of Alzheimer's itself, but the fact that this may be a template for other bills dealing with specific diseases, and in it a specific organization is being named, which is unprecedented. I would not object to it if it had the word “Alzheimer's” in it to say “representatives from advocacy groups representing Alzheimer's disease and other dementias”. Again, we've talked about the importance of leaving in the word “Alzheimer's”. Having this specific society, this specific group named in the law, as I say, is unprecedented. They could certainly be part of this advisory group, but to have a law that says that this particular organization has to be part of it is the problem I have with it.
I wonder if it would be agreeable to all to say, “representatives from advocacy groups for Alzheimer's and other dementias”. That would keep it consistent with the rest of the bill giving this the thrust on Alzheimer's.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal