Health Committee on March 21st, 2017

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

I was going to say much the same.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Webber.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

I just seek further clarification on what Mr. Davies brought up. He raised the question of whether this PBO study would analyze the current situation or impact of diabetes, or whether it would study the situation with an anti-diabetes strategy in place. I read this and it says, “the Parliamentary Budget Officer provide a cost analysis on the current fiscal impact of diabetes”.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Yes.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Okay, that can be done, but then it also mentions, “future projected costs”. Are those the future projected costs with an anti-diabetes strategy in place, or are they the future projected costs if we do nothing now?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

There is some data, as Mr. Oliver said, from the Canadian Diabetes Association, but my understanding was that when we listen to witnesses, maybe some researchers will come to explain things, and then we'll have more to say when we make the report. It's past and future projected data. It's on both.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Past and future.

Do you think we need to add something in here to make that clarification for a parent, or is what's in the motion now sufficient?

I, as well as Mr. Davies, seem to be questioning this. I don't know. Is there more wording that needs to be in here to clarify this?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I think this motion is very clear. It's an anti-diabetes strategy. There are undertakings in other jurisdictions as well, because there is a mounting issue. It is a very important issue.

First of all, it's a very flexible time, and it's an important issue. When we listen to the witnesses, this will be over three meetings. If we can listen to the witnesses and then report back to the House, in the meantime the PBO has a flexible amount of time to make a report. I think it's pretty clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I think everybody here is interested. When we did the pharmaceutical study, the single issue that seemed to come up most was diabetes. It came up all the time from many witnesses. It is obviously a big issue.

I think we all agree, and maybe the words don't cover everything, but if we get into the committee, I think we'll cover everything.

I'm going to move to the motion now.

Mr. Davies, did you want to speak?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I wonder how you would feel about proceeding directly to the study of anti-diabetes strategies on the assumption that we all know that diabetes costs society a lot of money—too much—and that we should be looking for ways to reduce it.

I'm wondering how helpful it will be to us to know that it's x billion dollars as opposed to y billion dollars. I know that with these kinds of things there's also a fair bit of guesstimation. It depends on how wide we go with this. If we count direct costs or indirect costs, it can be very difficult to estimate. I'm wondering if that's information that you really want to have, because it will slow down the study and add work for the PBO.

I also believe that the Canadian Diabetes Association probably has information like that. I'm wondering if you would consider an amendment to delete the reference to the parliamentary budget officer, and just to study anti-diabetes strategies in Canada and other jurisdictions, and report the findings to the House, or if you are very committed to involving the PBO.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

There is very extensive costing data. It's a 2010 study that projects out to 2020 the cost of diabetes. Then, they have their different strategies and costs of implementing the strategies.

I guess the question is what is the benefit of having the PBO add to the Canadian Diabetes Association's study? Does the PBO give additional credibility, additional confidence in those projections? Is that what you're after?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

We can do that. The only reason I am not doing it is that if there's a cost involved in that...and then we can see, and then maybe we can put more pressure on that. That's what I'm thinking, to look at that cost, meaning the the cost to our health care system. That's what it means.

If it's not an anti-diabetes strategy.... It's what everybody is thinking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Again, I would like to reiterate that we'll be supporting what Sonia is bringing forward, for sure. I think it is a good idea.

I wonder what's wrong with asking for the information up front. We're not trying to delay the study in any way whatsoever. It could be a number of months to get this together and, respectfully, if there's a study out there from 2010, that data is already seven years old. In my view, it could be refreshed.

I just don't know what's wrong with asking for the information up front. It could help us frame things as far as our questioning to witnesses, all kinds of things.

Things may have changed. Again, we're not trying to hold it up in any way. We have a great timeline here. If we are involving the PBO or even the analysts, we can have some information up front. I think it allows us to be more fulsome in our questioning, and to make the study even better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Would you be comfortable with our own analyst doing an in-depth study on this to gather the information that's available now?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

That would be a great start. We might find something we would like the PBO to do further work on, or the analyst might come back and say that the data is out of date. In either case, it would be worthwhile to have the PBO look at it. The more information we have in advance, the better the study is going to be. If we want to start with that, I'm fine with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Very well.

Let's deal with the motion.

Mr. Oliver?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

No, I'm fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Let's deal with the motion in the understanding that the analysts will work—they'll have lots of time—to gather up as much information as can be provided by the members of the committee or by the studies that are available. We'll start the hearings if the committee agrees to it. Then the PBO will be brought into it as we see fit. How's that?

All right.

All in favour of Ms. Sidhu motion to do the diabetes study.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you very much.

Congratulations.

Ms. Harder, you had a note here that you wanted to bring something up. Is that an old note, or a new note?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

That note is not from me. I'm not sure why it's there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay.

I want to go to the schedule now. I think on Thursday we're starting our study on the effects of violence and pornography. Then on April 3 we have another session on the same subject. The minister is coming on April 6. On April 11, we're back on pornography. On April 13, we're proposing to do the clause-by-clause of Bill S-211, on sickle cell recognition day, quickly. On that same day, we can possibly also have a pharmacare update from the PBO.

Does everybody agree with those so far?

I'm proposing that we do clause-by-clause on the sickle cell bill, if that's okay with everybody. It's just to recognize sickle cell day. They're anxious to get it done for this year. So on April 13, we'll do clause-by-clause on Bill S-211.

On May 2, we have a pharmacare meeting and the fourth day of a steering committee, proposed. On the 9th and 11th, we have our thalidomide study. Then on the 16th and 18th we have the anti-microbial resistance issue to consider. I need some direction on where we're going to go with that. I understand there's a lot of concern about the anti-microbial resistance issue. My proposal is that we do that on the 16th, the 18th, the 30th, and on June 1.

Are there any thoughts on that?

Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Do you have an extra copy of that schedule we can take a look at?

I would ask if the clerk would be so kind as to forward that over so we have a copy to discuss.

I wanted to point out that Todd Doherty's bill on post-traumatic stress disorder has been referred to committee. I think we could agree up to about to the 13th, if we want to go with that. After the 13th, we had some questions that maybe we could take off-line.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay.

As to the steering the committee, do we want to decide where we're going as a committee, or do we want the steering committee to do it? We have a steering committee meeting coming up. I just want to make sure we're all going in the same direction.

I think we should decide the topics as a committee of the whole. Then the steering committee could adjust when we hear.

Ms. Harder.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would certainly agree. There are a number of things on here that I'm unaware of. With regard to thalidomide, I didn't realize there were dates set for that. That's new information to me. I've been one of the ones to be moving that.

With regard to the anti-microbial resistance, again, I realize that I am maybe out of the loop, but I didn't realize we were planning to do four sessions on that, either.