Health Committee on May 11th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay.

I want to hear from Dr. Carrie and then Mr. Webber. Then we'll decide what we're going to do in the way of a motion.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for allowing it to move forward like this.

I would mention to my colleague Mr. Oliver that they're not just tabling the report. They would be doing the final framework. I think all of us have met with the Lyme disease community. What they were really concerned about is that they saw the draft. We know that's not the final, and maybe the final has changed significantly. They were really concerned because a lot of their testimony was not reflected in that draft. My worry is that if the minister does table the final framework, it might be significantly difficult to change it once it's there.

If there were a way that we could, as a committee, get a copy of this maybe in advance or something along those lines so that we can see if that remains the problem, perhaps—and you said quite correctly that the House of Commons voted—there would be goodwill in the House of Commons to unanimously give the minister a little more time before she had to table the final framework.

I know that Ms. May worked extremely hard on this. I spent a lot of time with her initially. Again, the idea was to do something good and to come up with something that is workable for the community. I think we have to keep that in perspective, because this is not just a report. This is a final framework. If we put together and table a final framework, we may not be able to easily change that.

I'll defer to my colleague. I know that he has some comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Go ahead.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

I think you've pretty much said what I was going to say as well. Once this framework is presented, it's pretty much written in stone.

If there were perhaps a tabling in the House of Commons to postpone the release of the framework, perhaps we could have the House of Commons make that decision, then, on delaying the release of the report.

Here in this committee right now, I guess you've ruled out my motion, and Mr. Davies does have a new motion on the floor. I would like to hear the wording on that, but I would like to add “prior to the release of the report” in your motion, Mr. Davies. If you have the wording for that, I would like to make an amendment to your motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

You didn't actually move the motion. You suggested the motion. Then you thought we would talk about it, and I hope we can do that a bit.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I did move it, but—I don't think there's such a thing as standing it down—I'm happy to just have a conversation. I think the point is that we want to get that framework before this committee.

I would say to Mr. Oliver that, to be honest, I think the health department has spoken. They've spoken because they've drafted the framework, and I do think they should be here, absolutely, but I also think it's very important that we have members of the Lyme community here to tell all of us.... Yes, I've spoken with a few of them, but this is a very important issue on which we're all getting a lot of contact. I'm happy with Mr. Webber's suggestion. If we can possibly sneak in a meeting or two before the framework is tabled, that would be fine.

With respect to Colin's suggestion, I don't think that even with unanimous consent we should prevent the tabling, because my recollection is that the bill was passed. I mean, it's the law. There is a provision of a law validly passed that says it has to be tabled. I don't think we can do anything about that. The framework will be tabled in the House.

It would be nice to have a meeting. I'm even wondering if it could be one of those two meetings in June that we have scheduled to start on antimicrobial resistance, because those are not particularly time sensitive, but I think Lyme is, particularly with summer coming up. It would probably gain us a lot of goodwill as a committee to at least have one meeting, or even two, maybe in June, just to hear from the community, to review the framework, to hear from the health department, and to hear from some of the critics.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I'm going to make a proposal that the committee consider asking the minister to come next week, with officials, to outline the process, somewhat along the lines of what Mr. Oliver suggested: the process they used, the information they took, etc. This is prior to the tabling of it. If the entire committee were unanimous in asking her, she might consider coming. Is that a legitimate request?

It's a concern to everybody, I think. The material I got from Elizabeth May is really confusing, and as you know, some people say there is no such thing as chronic Lyme disease, while some people say there is, and these are professionals. Some people say it can be diagnosed, and some people say it can't. Some people say there is no diagnosis for Lyme disease. Some say there is. To me, this is a very confusing issue, but the people who are suffering are really suffering. There's no confusion about that.

Mr. Oliver, would you help us out here?

Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Ayoub, please.

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

I just want to make sure that I understand and that we have the right information.

The drafting of the federal framework on Lyme disease was undertaken a year ago. The final framework is now being prepared. But people are worried about what they saw in the draft report. I can understand that concern, but, at the same time, I feel that people are judging the content of a report that does not reflect the final framework. People are asking that the process be delayed, so that we can get involved in the drafting of the report. Yet who are we to do that? I personally don't feel in the least like an expert on Lyme disease. However, people are already judging that report. I think it is somewhat presumptuous for our committee to want to get involved in the process to influence the content of a report that has not yet even been made public. Never mind the fact that the House of Commons unanimously passed the resolution to develop that federal framework within a set time frame and that, currently, not only are we at the eleventh hour, but we have almost exceeded the time frame.

However, nothing prevents us from carrying out a study on Lyme disease afterwards, in response to the so-called final consultation report, even though I feel that nothing in life is ever final. We are seeing that in the thalidomide case. We want to review the contribution program for thalidomide survivors. The committee will probably make suggestions for changes to be made to the existing criteria. We will see where our discussion will take us. I believe we should do the same with the report on Lyme disease.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thanks.

Building on what Ramez has said, first of all, I think that because this is going to Parliament there is an issue of parliamentary privilege in asking to see things in advance. I think Parliament gets to see it first, so I don't think we can intercept it. I think that's the way I'd put it.

Second, it's a framework. This isn't a binding act. It's a recommended framework that can be.... I read through the draft framework and a lot of it was indicating the need for more research and for additional study. It isn't a binding piece of legislation, if I can put it that way. It's a framework to approach a problem.

I do think there is time for us to consider it after it has been tabled. I think getting on with it indicates an interest in it. I think that would be beneficial, so I support what Mr. Davies said. Maybe we should substitute it for the research on antimicrobial resistance and have a couple of days dedicated to it.

I have a concern about this sense of how the health department has been portrayed, as sort of masking and hiding.... I just don't like that. I think it should be a very open and transparent process in engaging with the people who are suffering from Lyme disease. I think it would be worthwhile to hear from them and also to hear from the community, and I think it would be better to have it after.... The other reason why I think it's better to have the framework tabled is that if the health department has listened and has built in the changes and concerns that were identified, I would sooner have the discussion with the final document than with one based on our knowledge from the framework document.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Are you suggesting Mr. Davies' motion...?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Yes, if his motion is that we dedicate two days to it, that on our schedule we substitute for the antimicrobial resistance a review of the Lyme disease framework after it has been tabled, and that we hear from Health Canada and from the Lyme disease community about the final version, so that we actually know what we're talking about.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Are you moving a motion?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I think it's already there. If that's what's in it, I'm happy with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Is that good?

You're on the list for speaking, Rachael.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I agree with this motion, very much so, and in the interests of time, I think we should vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Is there any more debate?

All in favour of the motion of Mr. Davies, as seconded by Mr. Oliver?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

All right. The motion has carried, so we're going to replace our antimicrobial meetings with meetings on Lyme disease. Now we need a witness list, and we need really good witnesses for this.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

There's just one point I want to bring up. I want to thank Mr. Davies for his motion and for bringing this up and, as well, I thank the committee for allowing this to occur. I think it's very timely.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Well, you stirred it up, so we want to thank you.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Well, right back at you, Mr. Webber. You brought it up, so thank you for that.

I noticed those two meetings in June. I believe there will be two meetings after that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

There are some who hope we don't have two more meetings after that, but if we do, in fairness to the clerk, who is probably in the process of trying to set up witnesses for the antimicrobial resistance meetings, can we not at least pencil in the beginning of the antimicrobial resistance study for those two meetings the following week?

It gives you more time....

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

You're aware that the House could rise, and things are going so fast in the House....

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

What is that week?