Mr. Davies.
Evidence of meeting #4 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #4 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
To speak to the last point to reassure my colleague, this is exactly the way the motion was written to start the pharmacare study. You want to write the subject of study broadly enough so that the committee can study the subject without undue limitations. I think it's fairly clear. It says the committee should “undertake a study on the development of a national dental care program as an insured service for Canadians“.
With great respect, there's nothing in there that suggests that it would take 10 years to look at this. It's a fairly targeted subject. We know what we're talking about: how we deliver universal dental care to Canadians, recognizing there are a variety of possibilities. Maybe it's a private-public patchwork. Maybe it's augmented employer coverage. Maybe it's through the Canada Health Act. That's why I took the words from the Canada Health Act. It is prescriptive and that's my preference, but it may not be the committee's preference.
It's been my experience over the last 12 years that when we write proposals for studies, we keep them broad enough so that we can go where we need to go, but centred enough that we know what we're studying. I think it's quite clear from this what we're studying.
I want to emphasize this point. The way we view this process is that we should kick four, five, six, seven issues onto the field here, past five, six, seven possible different subjects. We then refer those to the subcommittee for it to meet to determine in what order it wants to go, then come back and recommend that.
I like what the chair said about the work plan. We all know the reality is that we're not undertaking a study on Monday. I like what Mr. Fisher said about leaving today with the idea of having one study that we're going to start with. I suggest it be on dental care, but it doesn't have to be. Whatever study we choose to get started with today, the other issues we agree to look at should go to the subcommittee for it to talk about what order these might come in.
My final point is that when we bite into a study, we should keep it going because it's nice to concentrate on it, but that if something does come up that's more of an emergency, we can always stand down that study and delve into something else. I've been on committee where we've had two things going. Ms. Sidhu would remember that too. We didn't do the pharmacare study at every meeting for over two years; we stood it down and studied other things and took a break from it.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I just have a few final comments. I will just say that as a mother of five kids, I know that dental care was about braces, caps, implants, and cleaning. It's an endless subject. Again, I'm just concerned about the length that this could go on for.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any other discussion on the motion?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I thought to myself, “What are we going to do with all of our time today?” I thought it was going to be a really short meeting.
Ms. Jansen.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Okay. My motion is, with regard to palliative care—and I think Mr. Davies has put it very nicely here, “That...the Committee undertake a study on palliative care”—but it should be limited to, possibly, two meetings.
Again, as I saw on the website, when the survey was done Ms. Hajdu was talking about the incredible crisis we're facing with access to palliative care. People are suffering—those were her words. As you can see from the report by the parliamentary library, it hasn't actually been looked at, so I'm just really concerned that we will ensure that we look at that.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
You're making a motion. I don't think we have copies of this motion. We'd need unanimous consent to—
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
She's just reading from Mr. Davies' motion. He hasn't moved it, but—
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
It's Mr. Davies' motion, as amended by Mrs. Jansen. It would read, “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee allocate no more than two meetings to undertake a study on palliative care in Canada; that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee request that the Government table a comprehensive response to the report.”
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Where is this? I'm not sure. Do we have a copy of this?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
You would have received from Mr. Davies motions for study. It would be number six under his, but with changes to allocate no more than two meetings to it.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Well, because it has to be done, and he hasn't presented it yet, we're presenting it as that motion, with that amendment included.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
“Mr. Powlowski” is fine with me.
If I could speak to the motion, I would say I don't think we could do it in two sessions. This is a big subject. If we're going to take it on, I think we have to do justice to this topic, which would require a lot more than two sessions. That would be my big comment.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I couldn't agree more with Dr. Powlowski. He's absolutely right.
Studies generally begin with a briefing by the minister. That's the first meeting. You haven't even heard from any witnesses before that happens. You get that briefing, and then that leaves a second meeting at which you have two witnesses in the first hour and two in the second. Is that seriously what the Conservatives are suggesting should be allocated for witness meetings on a topic as important as palliative care?
Nobody in this room is talking about wanting to take inordinate amounts of time, wasting our time with witnesses or on hearing repetitive or redundant evidence. Nobody wants that. What we want is, as was said, to do justice to the issue.
I'm trying to think. I'm not sure I remember this correctly, but out of maybe 50 studies I've been involved in, I don't recall a limit ever being put on the meetings for the study itself. There might have been a couple where there was something discrete. I think we should decide what we want to study. I think everybody is interested in studying palliative care: my friend from the Bloc has a motion on it, and the Conservatives have moved my motion. I think it's really important, because of the physician-assisted dying issue that's going to be coming before us, that all of us agree that we want to improve palliative care, but we'll want to hear from patients. We'll want to hear from palliative care providers. We'll want to hear from the public. I can see this easily taking four to six meetings with witnesses.
Again, I want to reassure everybody that if it gets to the point where we're hearing repetitive testimony or it's redundant or we feel we have a good handle on it, we're open at any time to say, “We've had the evidence we need. Let's proceed to write the report.”
I think that's the spirit in which we should be approaching this.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal