Evidence of meeting #56 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
I'm now calling for a vote on the Liberal-1 amendment, as amended.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we go to NDP-1, and that is ruled out of order because the first amendment passed.
Does clause 3 carry, as amended?
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to)
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
No, I had my hand up to speak.
I want to move an amendment to the short title. Actually, I'll withdraw that, and I'll move my amendment at the preamble.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Now we have the preamble. We have two amendments to the preamble. I'm afraid that they are both inadmissible because they expand the preamble without a corresponding amendment to the body of the bill.
Mr. Davies.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Chair, my first amendment would change the words of the second paragraph to say:
Whereas there is a clear need for all Canadians suffering from PTSD to receive direct and timely access to evidence-based
That's with regard to evidence-based care.
If I understood you correctly, my amendment to limit this to the workplace was ruled outside the scope of the bill because your ruling is that it applies comprehensively to everybody, and I moved that amendment in the body of the bill at clause 2.
I now move to amend the preamble to say, “there is a clear need for all Canadians suffering from PTSD to receive direct and timely access”.
If I understand you correctly, your ruling is that that's somehow improper. I can't tell if this bill is for all Canadians or only for certain groups of Canadians. It appears that the rulings are that it's neither. But surely an amendment that says in the preamble to a bill, which the clerk has just told us is not limited to workplace but is intended to be comprehensive for all Canadians, that the words, “Whereas there is a clear need for all Canadians suffering from PTSD to receive direct and timely access to evidence-based care” are outside the scope of a federal framework on PTSD.... I'm sorry, I find that preposterous.
Mr. Chair, I will point out something as well.
I will refer you to the last paragraph, which by the way I don't move to change. My amendment would still leave the fourth paragraph saying, “And whereas many Canadians, in particular persons who have served as first responders”, etc. So they're congruent.
The purpose of amending the second clause is to recognize that there is a clear need for everybody. In the explanation for why the addition of the word “workplace” was ruled out of order, I believe that the clerk specifically said that the second paragraph was not meant to be exclusive, that it's just pointing out some information. So all my amendment is doing is pointing to some information to the effect, “Whereas there's a clear need for all Canadians suffering from PTSD to receive direct and timely access to evidence-based care”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
I'm ruling it out of order for a different reason. I'm ruling it out of order because of the last part of it, “to receive direct and timely access to evidence-based”, which is provincial jurisdiction. We can't expand into provincial jurisdiction for the delivery of health care services.
NDP
Liberal
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
That's true as well. It already says “to receive direct and timely access to PTSD support”. Firefighters are not under federal jurisdiction either, nor are first responders. It's preposterous. I mean it's in order. You can vote it down, but it's certainly within the scope of the bill.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
I ruled it out of order. I have to deal with that. I've ruled it out of order.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
That was my point of order. You ruled it out of order and respectfully we can't debate something that's—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
I ruled it out of order. If you dispute that order, we'll bring it to the committee and vote on it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
I'm ruling it as inadmissible because it expands the preamble without a corresponding amendment to the provisions. It goes into provincial jurisdiction by saying, “Canadians suffering from PTSD to receive direct and timely access”. We can't do that. That's not part of the bill. It's not in front of the body of the bill, and it's not our jurisdiction.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
I wonder if you could break your ruling into two parts. The first part is different from the second part. What was the first part of your ruling again?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
I don't know. It's inadmissible because we cannot expand the preamble. Is that what it was?
Liberal
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
Can we vote on that decision first, as to whether or not we support the position?