Health Committee on June 3rd, 2014

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Just in speaking to that, it's unfortunate that clause 6, and now clause 8, are being taken out because, basically, you've got a federal framework but there are no resources or additional funding to carry it out. I would think that regulations are very important. It's a necessary component of carrying something out: to have regulations.

We don't want to end up with a bill that's got a lot of window dressing, and then, when it gets to the guts of it, there's nothing there to actually carry it out.

I think that's what we're seeing from the government, so I certainly would not support taking out clause 8, as we did in clause 6.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Okay.

Ms. Adams.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

If I might just address the reason that we were not able to support clause 6, the Department of Finance required that the clause be deleted, as it appears to refer to the Canada health transfer, which supports the five principles of the Canada Health Act, which does not permit the use of additional criteria, such as a new Lyme disease strategy.

The Canada health transfer was just renewed in 2012 and will next be reviewed in 2024. That's why, unfortunately, we could not support clause 6, and cannot support clause 8.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Okay.

Are there any more discussion on clause 8?

All those in favour—

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I call for a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

We're going to have a recorded vote on clause 8.

(Clause 8 negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

Clause 8 is defeated and will be struck from the bill.

Now if you want to, we're going to go back to the preamble. If you're looking at the bill, it's the second page, where you see the preamble.

Go ahead, Ms. Adams.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

The statement in the preamble for “the establishment of a national standard of care for the treatment of Lyme disease” is problematic from a legal perspective, in that the provinces and territories have exclusive jurisdiction over the provision of health care services, including standards of care for health providers. It's proposed that the text should be amended to remove reference to a national standard of care and to replace it with the establishment of guidelines, an area within federal jurisdiction.

I propose that Bill C-442 in the preamble be amended by replacing lines 28 and 29, on page 1, with the following:

establishment of guidelines regarding the prevention, identification, treatment and management of Lyme disease, a coordinated

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Okay, so does everybody knows where we're at and understands where that amendment is coming from?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Okay.

Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'd move a subamendment, as I did before, to reinsert the words “national standard”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

If I understand Ms. Davies correctly, the subamendment would amend Ms. Adams' amendment as follows:

establishment of guidelines and a national standard of care regarding the prevention, identification, treatment and management of Lyme disease, a coordinated

So it's inserting a few words in there.

Is there any discussion on that subamendment presented by Ms. Davies?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but it's actually contrary in nature to my main motion. That's already what's in there currently. I'm amending it to remove it.

So this would be a amendment to put it back in again?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

It's what we did on the earlier one.

Just to clarify, is the subamendment being ruled out of order?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Ms. Davies, we're working at this at a good pace. We all want to be comfortable with where we're at.

After conferring with the legislative clerk, I think your subamendment, which is trying to insert a key point that was taken out with Ms. Adams' amendment—

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

So it's out of order. You can just say whether or not it's out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

It's more or less out of order, yes.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

“More or less”. Okay.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

To be polite. Okay?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay, I get what you're saying. It's out of order, and we can just vote on the main amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Fair enough, I appreciate that.

So to Ms. Adams' original amendment, which was G-7.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Could we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Certainly, yes.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

Shall the preamble carry as amended?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.