Health Committee on Nov. 24th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

It doesn't work with the amendment if you say that.

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

Okay, then never mind. I won't gum up the works on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I know we've approved clause 3, but we have the same limitations in the conference structure, where it's really just Alzheimer societies and groups that are invited to the conference, and we're excluding the other forms.

I'm wondering if I could have unanimous consent, for the amendment that was just passed, for that change in wording. Could we have unanimous consent that where it says “the Alzheimer Society of Canada and other Alzheimer advocacy groups”, we have exactly the same wording inserted, that it's the Alzheimer advocacy groups and other dementia advocacy groups—whatever that wording was—just to make sure we're going to open that conference up to include those other causes of dementia?

I'm looking for unanimous consent for just that change, back in clause 3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We haven't passed the subamendment. We have to deal with that and then go to the amendment, and then we can go to your motion.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All in favour of the subamendment?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Could we have the final wording of the subamendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Do you have the final wording?

[Olivier Champagne]

It was “representatives from the Alzheimer Society of Canada and other—

[A voice]

No, no.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

The whole point is to take out “Alzheimer Society”.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

It's important we get that wording if we're going to be consistent.

[Olivier Champagne]

Okay, so it reads, “representatives from Alzheimer advocacy groups and other dementia advocacy groups”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All in favour of the subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to)

Now we're on the amendment by Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Again, to repeat, I'm going backwards. I need unanimous consent to go back to subclause 3(2), titled “Conference”. The very last sentence describes who will be invited to the conference, and it's the same problem. We have the Alzheimer Society of Canada, the title of an agency, in there, and then it's exclusive of others.

The wording that we just passed for paragraph 4(4)(b), could we have unanimous consent to insert that into subclause 3(2)?

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Just for clarification on that, if that's the only change, then I'm okay with it.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

That's the only change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Ms. Harder.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

The only difference I see is that when we go back to clause 3, it says “The Minister must, within 180 days after the day on which this act comes into force, convene a conference”. It's for a one-time conference that we would insist the Alzheimer’s Society of Canada be invited, whereas in clause 4, we're talking about an ongoing committee that could last up to three years.

I see the point in removing it from there because it's an ongoing committee, but in terms of inviting the Alzheimer’s Society of Canada to this one-time conference that has to take place within 180 days, I actually stand behind that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

If there was a conference on Alzheimer’s, I'm quite sure the Alzheimer Society would be the number one invitee. Look, we're working really well. We're making progress. We're making the bill better. We're making it more inclusive. Therefore, I'm going to ask for unanimous consent to change clause 3, just that one, to take the society reference out. Do I have unanimous consent to do that?

Mr. Webber.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Mr. Chair, I think we need more clarification here before we vote on this, and perhaps we could ask the clerk. Is it common to put in societies in bills, specifically targeting specific societies and putting them actually into the bill, or not?

[Olivier Champagne]

You would have to ask a legal drafter. I don't think there's a problem with it. It's probably not very usual, but it's legally speaking.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

This certainly has gone through all the legal route, in being drafted and such.

[Olivier Champagne]

Yes, it's been drafted by some legal drafters.