Health Committee on Nov. 27th, 2018

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have a question for the CRA officials.

I understand the explanation, and it makes sense to me. I understand you can disclose to the province if, in their last return of income, they have indicated it. So I don't see the confusion with a person's final return. But I also understand Mr. McKinnon's point about clarifying.

I am concerned and want to ask you about whether this is the standard way this is phrased in the act. If we take out “last”.... For instance, in other similar things in the act, do we make reference to the “last return”? If we don't have this word in, perhaps we run into an interpretive legal issue down the road that there is a difference between these, thereby causing confusion.

[Randy Hewlett]

In the Income Tax Act, there is usually a reference to their return of income for the taxation year. I don't see an issue here, but if you want to be very clear, you could say “their latest return of income”, or something like that, which would make it very clear.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Just to follow up on that, what I'm trying to find out is whether there is any legal significance or meaning to the adjective “last”. Why do we need anything in there at all? I guess it would the substance of Mr. McKinnon's amendment.

It's almost understood: The agency may disclose to the province or territory the information collected in their return of income. Why do we have to qualify it in any way? I'm just trying to find out if there is a term of art or whether it is to be consistent with the Income Tax Act in some way.

If there isn't any reason, then I think it makes more sense to drop the word.

[Randy Hewlett]

In the context of what the plan is to transmit, which is the willingness to receive information, it really doesn't matter whether or not the word is “last”, or if the word is there at all.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. McKinnon, do you still have your motion?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. McKinnon has moved an amendment to remove the word “last” in the English and the word “dernière in the French.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Congratulations. It's changed.

(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)

Shall the title as amended carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Shall the bill as amended carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Immediately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the House at report stage?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I want to thank everybody involved. I certainly want to thank the committee, because we probably broke all the rules today but we got the job done. I believe it will save lives.

In the debate, there were two members of Parliament who stood up—one Conservative, one Liberal—and both said that they have two children who are going to need organ donations. That's right in the House of Commons. Maybe somebody who ticks the box off on the next income tax return will be the person who provides that organ to those members of Parliament.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Mr. Chair, as far as I know, we have two people here who are live donors. They donated organs.

Thank you to both of you for doing that. You're heroes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

This probably is the most important thing that happened in the House of Commons today, for sure.

Thanks very much, everybody.

Mr. Davies, go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I may, I'll move to a different order of business. I served notice last week of the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee invite the Minister of Health to provide a briefing, at the earliest opportunity, on the forced sterilization of Indigenous women in Canada.

I would like to move that motion today and speak to it, if I may, briefly.

I think all members of this committee are well aware of the very disturbing news that women in this country have, as recently as 2017, been compelled to be sterilized or have been sterilized without their consent or knowledge. This has been particularly prevalent among indigenous women. We know that there's not a person in this room or in the House who would not express complete abhorrence of that practice.

I'm informed that, internationally, forced sterilization falls squarely within the definition of torture. This is a very serious issue, and I think that it's also pressing, because it's alarming that it has happened so recently. I know I was very surprised to hear that it was done as recently as 2017.

I do think the Minister of Health should come before this committee and give us a briefing on this. Now, I understand this is an issue that probably crosses over multiple ministries. Obviously, these are medical procedures that are being administered in health facilities, and primarily to indigenous women, which is a core responsibility of the federal government. There's no question that this falls under the jurisdiction of the health committee.

I think that it would also be of interest to the indigenous affairs committee, but of course we have to remember that not all women who have undergone this procedure are indigenous, so this is not only an indigenous women's issue. It is purely a health issue, and also I think it's a women's issue, so probably the committee responsible for the status of women and women's issues would be interested.

My understanding is that in the committee responsible for women's issues and the committee responsible for indigenous health—I think under Minister Philpott—there have been motions that either have been tabled or will be tabled at those committees, but they're not to call the Minister of Health. They are to call the respective ministers responsible to those committees. This is the only motion in Parliament that is before any committee that will ask for the Minister of Health to come and provide a briefing.

I would move that motion today, if I may, and ask for my colleagues' support so that this committee can at least have an opportunity to inquire of the Minister of Health into this very pressing, urgent and important matter.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I move that debate be now adjourned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

That goes directly to a vote.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Could we have a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

The vote is on the motion to adjourn the debate. We'll have a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That's it. The meeting is adjourned.