Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to Ms. Sgro for the bill.
The important part is that, with all of the amendments that all of a sudden have been thrown at it, it is now changed. Where the bill was initially acceptable, we're now debating amendments that have changed what the intent of the bill was, unfortunately.
I understand some of it. Mr. Aboultaif brought up the issue of “including the clinical practice guidelines”. I agree with Ms. Sidhu, and it was a point I was going to bring up. That is an issue that deals with the regulatory bodies making the decision. It shouldn't be bureaucrats making a decision on what the clinical practice guidelines should be. I'm glad to see that part has been taken out.
My question is on the issue of adding “vision rehabilitation”.
I understand that, and I recognize the great value of the CNIB in what they do in providing vision rehabilitation to so many people with vision issues and challenges. Ultimately, my concern is what is being put forward indicates that the government is going to determine which people are going to make the decision, who is trained to make the best choice for that vision rehabilitation, in the sense of whether it is the ophthalmologist or the optometrist. Those are the people who are qualified. It's the professions that determine this. In reality, who is going to make the decision on which vision rehabilitation specialists are going to put that forward and on what skills they have? Ultimately, it should be the profession making that decision, not bureaucrats and government agencies doing that.
It is a concern I have about adding that, too. I'm wondering whether you or someone else could comment or add to that. I would appreciate hearing about that.