Health Committee on June 15th, 2016

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I don't want to speak for Ms. Harder, but maybe one of the differences with police is trying to get some evidence about how this may impact their charging practices.

We heard a number of different ideas. They can come upon a scene as diverse as a drug trafficker or a crack house or a party. We heard some evidence from some of the witnesses that this may affect how the police will interpret their powers or how it may affect their investigative or other charging techniques. This is a valid area of investigation.

I think there is some cause to look into it, if it was the will of the committee.

I also agree with Mr. Oliver that if we're looking at it from the point of view of the victim, in a way the position of the police almost doesn't matter because we're trying to encourage the people at the scene to phone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I still didn't get an answer. Do I have unanimous consent to carry on?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All right.

It just seems to me, as Mr. Parkinson said, the minute this bill goes into effect, it will save lives; it's not perfect, but it'll save lives. To me that's the thing, and if we make it complicated—right now, there's probably support for this bill in the House. However, if we dabble with it, that may change.

Mr. Kang.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

We're talking about saving lives. That's how we frame the goal. If somebody's going to get charged there will be a police investigation if they have to do anything with the charges later on. However, that will depend on the police investigation.

The bill as is, is okay. We have to start somewhere. If the police investigate, if they want to charge somebody, a trafficker, or some other charges are going to come from that investigation, so be it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Ms. Harder.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I have a couple of things.

Number one, to refer to your comment here, I asked Mr. McKinnon outright whether or not first responders were asked, and he said no. I don't need to consult his website; I heard it from his mouth tonight.

Mr. Kang, your argument is weak, with all due respect, when you say where are we going to stop. You're saying we're going to throw our commitment to evidence-based decisions out the window because it might take too long or because we can't define where to start and stop.

I don't think that's good policy-making. At the end of the day, this committee was put in place to assess, among other things, bills that are put forward that have to do with health. That's part of our responsibility at this committee: to do due process. We need to hear from experts in this field, and in this case part of that would be front-line workers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Ayoub is next.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you for the precision. I was going to go after the remarks of Mr. Davies and your remarks.

What is the definition of front-line worker? If we're going to ask police departments, we need to do that across the country. In the Vancouver Police Department, they are acting on their own. They have their own rules. In the Quebec region, they have maybe some other rules. In Newfoundland.... We can find out and go over it. I don't know. What is a front-line worker?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I'm wondering if we're ready for the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Are we ready for the question? What does that mean? Okay. We're not ready for the question, but you're up.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

What are the time limits we have. I want to make sure that the question is asked before our extension. I think we're running out of time.

I think we have about three minutes left for any discussion before the question, just to be clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We're running out of time for sure.

We'll go to Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I just want to go with what my colleague, Madam Harder, said. I believe that there's support for an initiative in this regard. We heard around the table that this approach could save lives. I was asking very specifically if there was any evidence out there. None of them could say. Dr. Eyolfson said that just because there's no evidence to say that it's not working does that mean that it won't be working.

We're talking about evidence-based decisions, and your government has been very strong on evidence-based decisions. As Madam Harder rightly said, the people on the ground weren't even consulted on this bill. The mover of the bill said, you know, they were looking for something; he wanted to get something put in, and he did. He worked with a couple of stakeholders. The people from Justice said that there were significant issues with the bill. If it were a government bill, they would have drafted it differently.

You guys are in government now. We're in opposition. Our role is to oppose. If we're going to be putting this bill forward, because the House wants something along these lines, because there is a crisis and there's a problem in certain parts of the country, at least let us do our due diligence. There doesn't appear to be evidence, or at least what I would call evidence, in front of this committee that would guide us to say that, yes, this really is a good idea. We're kind of taking a bit of a chance here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I heard an expression today that I never heard before, and I thought it was really good. I would like to repeat it: the enemy of good is perfection.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I'm not looking for perfection.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

No. Everyone said it's not perfect, but I think everyone agrees that as it is, it will save lives.

Who's next? We'll go to Mr. Kang.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

As I said, we have to start somewhere. There are going to be pro and con arguments. We could be sitting here until the cows come home debating this thing. The bottom line is that it's going to save lives.

[A voice]

I think I'm next.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I know, I'm just making sure he gets on the list.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

We heard the evidence that 88% of people will call if there is a law. I think that's good enough.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

There is profound clinical evidence that in the case of an overdose, the faster the 911 call is made, the sooner the response is made, and the sooner corrective medications are administered, the better the recovery, the more brain tissue is saved, and the better the outcome for the person.

There is profound clinical evidence here. There is no shortage of evidence. With a quick call and a response from 911, people recover. With a failure to call, a failure to administer the drug, people lose brain tissue and they die. It's that simple.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Dr. Carrie.