Health Committee on May 18th, 2017

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

The point is that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

No, you've had the floor, Mr. Davies.

You made your point, and we understand your point.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

No, the point that I'm about to make is that Mr. Doherty himself said—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I'm going to go on. No.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

—that he means his bill to be a comprehensive framework for veterans, first responders, and military. He has told the clerk, he's told you, that his bill is for workplace. How can the ruling be that it's outside the scope of the bill to put in the word “workplace” when the proponent of the bill has actually said that?

My second point in speaking to this is that in order to determine the scope of the bill, you must read the bill in its entirety. If—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I made my ruling.

You can contest it and ask for a vote on my ruling, but your amendment contradicts the body of the bill.

Anyway, that's my ruling.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

No, it does not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

It does. That's my ruling.

Call for a vote.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I call for a vote to challenge your ruling that to add the word “workplace” is outside the scope of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All right, the motion is shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair sustained)

I appreciate what you're saying. We all do. We all appreciate where this is going, but we have to carry on. We have a bill. We have to deal with this bill. We don't have something else.

Now, shall clause 2 carry unamended?

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(On clause 3)

We have some amendments to clause 3.

I'm going to go in the order they came in: Liberal-1, from Mr. Oliver. I should say that if Liberal-1 is adopted, NDP-1 cannot be adopted because they address the same line, the same clause.

Shall the amendment Liberal-1—

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a modification to paragraph (b) of my motion, where I call for lines 21 to 24 on page 2 being replaced with the following. It would read as it currently does—“[compre]hensive federal framework”—but with the words “that may include” struck and replaced with the words “in relation to” instead. The bill would then read, “for the purpose of developing a comprehensive federal framework in relation to”, and then paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) as follows.

That, I believe, was discussed with Mr. Doherty and is acceptable to him

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Strike the words “that may include” and substitute “in relation to” in their place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All right.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I would ask Mr. Oliver to clarify that. My understanding of that amendment is that the current words “may include” mean that the conference that is convened can look at these factors, but may look at things beyond what's listed. That's what “include” means. By changing it to “in relation to”, it would suggest to me that the conference would be restricted to what follows.

I'd like to know if that's the intent of his amendment. I just want to make sure that I understand its meaning. Perhaps after Mr. Oliver answers, the clerk could help us with that.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I think my words are very clear on this one. It's “in relation to”.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Then I would ask the clerk to advise the committee what the difference is between “may include” and “in relation to” the following paragraphs. Specifically, am I correct that the legislative meaning of the change would mean that the conference would be restricted to the criteria that follow, as opposed to their just being inclusive?

[The Clerk]

That would be a legal question. That would be up to the committee to decide. I can only speak on procedure; in terms of what Mr. Oliver is proposing, it is fine. It doesn't go against the scope or the principle of the bill. It just changes the wording, but in terms of the legal meaning, I wouldn't pronounce on that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Do you have a comment or explanation that would help?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I think we're stuck on the intent of the bill, and I think we need to continue with the clause-by-clause. The motion is quite clear. I think Mr. Doherty has been quite clear in what he was hoping to accomplish with his bill, and I don't think I need to defend my amendment. I'd just like to have it voted on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay.

Mr. Davies?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have great respect for Mr. Oliver, but his reluctance to explain what his own amendment is intended to mean is somewhat surprising to me. They're his words.

Apparently, we don't have anybody here who can advise the committee on what the difference means, but we know that in legislation words matter. Courts could be called upon to interpret this legislation, and every word has a meaning. Before we vote on this, we need to know what the change means. I will make the argument to my colleagues that the words carry a plain meaning.

By the way, this has nothing to do with the intent of Mr. Doherty's bill. This has nothing to do with the issue we just discussed.

The amendment that Mr. Oliver proposes purports to restrict the issues that would be part of the conference convened by the Minister of Health and limit them to the items that are mentioned after the words “in relation to”—the items in paragraphs 3(a), 3(b), and 3(c).

That may be what's intended, but when you change the word.... As it is presently worded—they'll talk about issues “including” the following—it means they could talk about other things. If you change the word “includes” and say “for the purpose of developing a comprehensive federal framework in relation to” the following, then they are directed only to what follows.

I'm not quite sure why Mr. Oliver doesn't want to acknowledge that, because it's his amendment. The committee has to decide whether we are okay with that. My own view would be that what follows is pretty broad, in terms of directing the conference in what they will be talking about.

Right now, I can't think of anything particularly substantive beyond what's mentioned, but I don't want to restrict them either. When they have this conference, with people who, I presume, are much smarter than I, and who have much more experience with PTSD—presumably that's the purpose of convening a conference with “stakeholders”, “representatives responsible for health”, and “representatives of the medical community”—I wouldn't purport to limit them right now to what follows. I would direct them to discuss “the following” inclusively, but if something else comes up that they think is relevant, I don't think it's wise policy for the health committee to predetermine and limit that conference in advance, and restrict their framework to what follows, when I'm not sure that it's comprehensive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you.

Mr. Oliver, go ahead.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I think that the original wording I had—“that may include”—softened it too much. It would have perhaps allowed some things not to occur—it would have entitled the minister and the department not to do some of the things that Mr. Doherty's bill had intended to be done, so I think that it was too soft.

“In relation to” is about an existing connection. It's about a significant association between or among things, but it's not as limiting as Mr. Davies would portray it to be. I think “in relation to” would be “this and other things related to these activities that are intended in the bill”. I don't view it as narrowing or limiting. I think it ensures that, at a minimum, what Mr. Doherty would have wanted would be accomplished, and then things that are related to those activities could also be built in and added to it.

I don't see it as limiting. I think it's actually creating a stiffer requirement of the minister, but then it allows some flexibility to broaden that out. To me, that's what “in relation to” means. I don't know why it's so difficult.

(Clause 2 agreed to)