That's my question.
Evidence of meeting #31 for Health in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was disease.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #31 for Health in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was disease.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
That's just drafting. When they go back through and do it all, paragraph (c) will be taken out. It's just a note that's in there, so everybody has that in advance.
Ms. Adams, go ahead.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Eve Adams Conservative Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
Thank you.
In G-1, I move that Bill C-442, in Clause 2, be amended by (a) adding after line 4 on page 3, the following:
"Agency" means the Public Health Agency of Canada
and (b) replacing line 6 on page 3 with the following: "federal framework" means a framework to
And (c):(c) repositioning the definition "federal framework" in alphabetical order.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
I simply want to be clear.
Are we talking about the amendments for the whole G-1? I do notice a difference in French and in English regarding the “federal framework” sentence. It is more explicit in French, so I'm wondering if it was a printing error or if it was intentional. The definition in French of “federal framework” is quite clear, but in English it seems like it's missing a sentence.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
What I'll do is have our legislative clerk give you his explanation. I think it will make perfect sense. Then we can carry forward.
9:55 a.m.
Justin Vaive Procedural Clerk
Sometimes there can be differences between the English text and the French text. As for the way amendments are drafted, they're drafted separately in English to address the English portion of the bill, and then in French to address the French portion of the bill.
And that means that, sometimes, there are slight variations here and there. In this case, the reason was to bring it in line with the French version of the bill.
When you read an amendment, you sometimes notice slight differences between the English and French versions. That's common, but it doesn't change the substance.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Eve Adams Conservative Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
If I might also interject, if you read in context the additional words and apply them back to the actual legislation, it would read the same in English: “federal framework” means a framework to address the challenges of the recognition and timely diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. As I read the French, it's exactly that.
9:55 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
All right. On amendment G-1, there is no further debate.
(Amendment agreed to)
Now we'll have a vote on clause 2 as amended.
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)
Okay. Next up?
(On clause 3—Conference)
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Eve Adams Conservative Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
Would you like to know about amendment G-2, sir?
It is that the bill be amended by replacing the heading before clause 3 on page 3 with the following: “FEDERAL FRAMEWORK ON LYME DISEASE”. This is just the positioning.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
We're talking about G-2.
(Amendment agreed to)
Now we are on to G-3.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Eve Adams Conservative Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
Mr. Chair, we move that Bill C-442 in clause 3 be amended by (a) replacing lines 12 to 14 on page 3 with the following:
3. The Minister must, no later than 12 months after the day on which this Act comes into force, convene a conference or otherwise engage with the provincial and territorial ministers and
And (b) replacing line 18 on page 3 with the following:
federal framework that includes
And (c) replacing line 21 on page 3 with the following:the Agency to
And (d) replacing lines 26 to 29 on page 3 with the following:management of Lyme disease, and the sharing of best practices throughout Canada;
And (e) replacing, in the French version, lines 6 and 7 on page 4 with the following:
nationale et d'en améliorer la prévention, l'identification, le traitement et la gestion.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
There are a number of things here.
The first one, which is lines 12 to 14, is a fairly substantive change, because the original bill speaks about convening a conference, but in this amendment it says “or otherwise engage with the provincial and territorial ministers”. I think the problem here is that it sets up the possibility that there wouldn't be a conference and that there would be individual consultations. I believe that Ms. May has an alternate wording that includes both.
Because the main point here is that we don't want the stakeholders to be left out. If you remember, the witnesses were pretty adamant that whatever happened, they have to be at the table. I think that by having the words “or otherwise engage”, it leaves it such that there could be separate provincial-territorial consultations and there wouldn't necessarily be a conference.
That's one problem. I'm hoping that Ms. May might have some wording that she has worked on to kind of bridge the gap.
The other one that I think is a problem is the last one on G-3, where it says “management of Lyme disease, and the sharing of best practices throughout Canada”.
Now, it's good that the government amendment has taken out the words “current” in regard to “practices”, because, again, the witnesses sure didn't like that. But the government amendment does leave out the words “national standard of care”, and I'd like to move a subamendment that we insert these into the wording, so that it will also include “the management of Lyme disease, and the sharing of best practices throughout Canada, including a recommended national standard of care”. It's basically what it says in the bill before us.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
What we need to do here—and we'll just take our time so we do this right—is that we should probably deal with the first part you commented on, about the conference, and then deal with your second point after we have dealt with your first one.
On that, you're offering that up as a friendly amendment, or a suggestion, or if we can find a difference in the wording as it is amended.
I have Ms. Bennett on the list. Ms. Bennett, your comment is on this first point, the one on the conference. Okay?
10 a.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Yes. I think that “otherwise engage” completely undermines the point of the clause. It means that the minister could call up all the other health ministers with a phone call, individually, and that's not the point.
I think the point is to have a conference because what we're trying to establish is the need for public awareness and public input and to involve the stakeholder groups. A conference helps with that, in terms of media and in this ongoing goal to have all Canadians understand how important this is. That just won't be achieved by the Minister of Health phoning up their counterparts across the country.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
Okay. Very good.
I think our legislative clerk is going to take a quick look. Are there any other comments from this side at this time?
10 a.m.
Conservative
Eve Adams Conservative Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
To address Dr. Bennett's concern, our shared goal here is obviously not only to engage stakeholders but also to provide enough flexibility in this legislation so the minister can convene this.
We've been very clear. We want to engage the provincial and territorial ministers but also all stakeholders. We want to advance the body of knowledge when it comes to this issue, but we're looking to incorporate some flexibility here. That's all. I think we have a shared vision.