Health Committee on Oct. 24th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 134 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.

Before we begin, I'd like to ask all in-person participants to read the guidelines on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters, and to help prevent audio and feedback incidents.

In accordance with our routine motion, I'm informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

Pursuant to an order of reference adopted by the House of Commons on Wednesday, June 12, 2024, the committee is commencing its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-277, an act to establish a national strategy on brain injuries.

I'd like to welcome our witness, who is available for any content-related questions on the legislation. We also have a couple of experts to my right from the legislative counsel office, Jean-François Pagé and Alexie Labelle, who are here for any procedural or technical questions in connection with the legislation.

The witness we have with us, whom I'm pleased to welcome, is Michael Collins, vice president of health promotion and chronic disease prevention branch. Thanks for being with us.

I presume you don't have any sort of a statement. You're here for any questions that may arise. Am I correct in that?

[Michael Collins, Vice President, Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada]

You are correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

I'd like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-277.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

The amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill, or in the package each member received from the clerk.

Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

I will go slowly to allow members to follow the proceedings properly. If I break that promise, remind me, and I'll slow down.

Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment.

Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and the subamendment cannot be further amended.

When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, my parliamentary and legislative assistant is still waiting to be admitted to the Zoom application meeting. It would be good if she could attend the meeting now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

All participants received two links, one for the in camera portion and one for the public portion. It's possible that she chose the wrong link.

We're just trying to resolve this technical issue.

Mr. Doherty.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Once we come back, if possible, I'd like you to recognize me for a comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Doherty, we haven't suspended. If you have something to say, go ahead.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chair, it's a rarity that we get a bill or a piece of legislation for which we all can come to an agreement that it will benefit so many Canadians. What we have before us is a bill that deals with those who are head injured and who are struggling. We heard great testimony when Mr. MacGregor and the witness came forward to defend the bill.

I see these amendments and while I appreciate the work that goes into these, it is not my first rodeo. I see these amendments only as a source to water down a piece of legislation that is good. I find that committees always seem to try to perfect legislation and what have you. That attempt for perfection seems to always water down pieces of good legislation. I would love to see us move to adopt this piece of legislation without amendments, but of course, I would defer to Mr. MacGregor.

I can simply go through.... “The strategy may include measures designed to assist in identifying the training, education and guidance”. We look at the words “within 18 months”. They are only watering down this legislation. This legislation is good, and it's a rarity to find us agreeing with our NDP colleagues. I personally would like to thank Mr. MacGregor for the work he did on this.

As I mentioned before, somebody within my family struggled and lived with a head injury for a long time. I think this is something that is needed. I think we should adopt it as is. Really, I don't even think we need to look at these amendments. They only serve to water down this piece of legislation.

Mr. Chair, I don't know whether there is a mechanism to do that. I think I would move to adopt this as it stands right now and go through that.

Mr. Chair, I move to adopt the piece of legislation as is, unamended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I regret to inform you, Mr. Doherty, that your motion is out of order.

Under the Standing Orders, we're obliged to go through the legislation clause by clause. As we go through it clause by clause, if members find your submissions compelling, they can choose not to move the amendments that they have put on notice, or the committee can choose to vote them down. The result would be the same, but under the Standing Orders, we're obliged to do a clause-by-clause examination, so I need to call every individual clause.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chair, I get what you're saying, but is there a mechanism by which a member can call for unanimous consent that all committee members agree to adopt a piece of legislation as is?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

You can do anything by unanimous consent, even though the advice that I've been given is that we have to stick with the Standing Orders.

Do we have unanimous consent to adopt the bill without amendment?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We do not. Okay.

I have now received confirmation that Mr. Thériault's assistant was able to access the meeting.

We will now begin clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed. The chair therefore calls clause 2.

(On clause 2)

There is an amendment standing in the name of Mr. Naqvi.

Mr. Naqvi, do you wish to move and speak to your amendment?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Chair, do you want me to move the amendment first and then speak to it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Sure.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I move that Bill C-277, in clause 2, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 1 with the following:

(2) The strategy may include measures designed to

The amendment is being proposed to provide greater flexibility to determine the content of the strategy, following consultations with provinces, territories, stakeholders and indigenous peoples.

By having the word “shall”, it's restricting the consultation process to just the factors that are enumerated in that particular clause. By having the word “may”, it broadens it up. It is more inclusive, and it allows for a broader consultation process with the eye of developing the framework.

Thus, engagement should be meaningful and allow for the inclusion of their priorities, while keeping it in federal jurisdiction as we do the consultations and as we develop the framework being required by this legislation, if approved.

That's the reason behind the amendment to replace “shall” with “may”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Naqvi.

I have a speakers list now for this amendment, and it is Ms. Goodridge, followed Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Doherty.

Ms. Goodridge, you have the floor.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We heard it right there. We asked for unanimous consent to try to move forward this very common-sense bill on brain injuries, and the Liberals said no to that. We tried to do this. Their position has become very clear in their very first amendment, which is completely watering down the bill and changing a “must” to a “may”, which means they could decide to not promote the implementation of preventive measures to reduce the risk of brain injuries because they're not required to do so, and that means every single one of the strategy listings, which are quite extensive and quite reasonable.

We heard from many stakeholders that they wanted to see this bill passed unamended. We've heard it from Canadians. I've had countless emails from Canadians asking me to pass this bill unamended, yet here we have the Liberal government trying to water down this bill, allowing them to cherry-pick which items they will and won't adhere to in this bill. I think it is absolutely shameful.

I would urge all of my colleagues to vote against this amendment. This is going to make this bill less effective for Canadians. This is going to make this bill less useful for people who are survivors of brain injuries. It is going to make it less useful in reducing the risks of brain injuries in general.

I will leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Goodridge.

Next is Mr. MacGregor, please.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I'll keep it brief.

I also cannot support this amendment. I believe changing the word “must” is a mistake. I had my staff go through it, and 13 of the briefs specifically asked for the bill to be passed without amendment. The remaining 21 urged swift passage. They had no amendments to offer, only suggestions for the implementation stage. In regular correspondence from people with lived experience, none of them expressed a desire to change the bill. They only expressed support.

I do believe that if you look at the content of the strategy, there's still a lot of flexibility on how the government implements those points. We've asked legislative drafters to look at other private members' bills. The use of the word “must” is a very common phrase. I did take a week to consider this amendment. I just wanted the Liberals to know that, but I'm not prepared to support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

Mr. Doherty, go ahead, please.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm going to try to be as brief as I can with respect to Mr. Naqvi's amendment. I'm going to substitute the word “may” for what the bill has. Instead of saying, “The strategy must include measures designed to”, it will say, “The strategy may include measures designed to”:

(a) promote the implementation of preventive measures to reduce the risk of brain injuries;

It's that it “may”. It's not yes or no but “may”. It “may”:

(b) identify the training, education and guidance needs of health care and other professionals related to brain injury prevention

It “may”:

(c) promote research and improve data collection

It “may”:

(d) promote information and knowledge sharing

It “may”:

(e) create national guidelines on the prevention

It “may”:

(f) promote awareness and education

It “may”:

(g) foster collaboration with and provide financial support to national, provincial and local brain injury associations

It “may”:

(h) encourage consultation

Mr. Naqvi's comments and arguments were that the word “must” will limit consultation. The Liberals are simply trying to get out of the responsibilities of what this bill is designed to do and what the original intent is.

I'll go down further. It says that it “may”:

(i) identify challenges resulting from brain injury

and “may”:

(j) maintain, in collaboration with Brain Injury Canada

It “may”:

(k) establish a task force to include policy makers [and] stakeholders

This is a common-sense bill. The strategy must include these areas and these suggestions here. It's not a “may” or “maybe”. It's a “must”. That is the reason we do not have a national strategy on brain injuries. If we are not going to take a stand now, why are we doing this?

I encourage our Liberal colleagues across the way to vote this amendment down. There are no grey areas. Either it “must” or it won't. “May” gives the government the ability to skirt its responsibility.

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I'll be voting no on this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Doherty.

We'll go to Dr. Hanley, please.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

First of all, I want to express my support for the intent of this bill. I think there is some question over what the right legislative language is.

I wonder if the legislative clerks might be able to assist with the word “must” and the interpretation of “must” versus “may” versus “can” versus “will”. I wonder if there's anything that might be useful to hear from the legislative clerks on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Collins, would you like to take that?