Health Committee on Oct. 24th, 2024

[Michael Collins]

Thank you.

Let me be very clear. I am not a legislative drafter in this particular context in which I'm here. I'm coming from the Public Health Agency of Canada and administering a series of programs that we have actively in this space, which this bill builds on.

I would want to refrain from wading in on the “will” versus “must” versus what have you in this context. At the end of the day, as a public servant, I will abide by the will of the committee and Parliament in terms of whatever way this goes.

My final point would be that, yes, there's a recognition that there is some complexity in terms of jurisdictional issues in provinces and territories and the need for indigenous engagement, which previous witnesses have testified to. There is some sense that, underneath this and the very good will here, there is some complexity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, sir.

The folks from the legislative counsel office have advised me that they're here on matters of procedure and are not comfortable answering this question, unless Mr. Pagé has had a change of heart.

No, he still feels the same way.

Dr. Powlowski wants in on this, but he has a couple of his colleagues ahead of him on the speaking order.

[An hon. member]

He's a lawyer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Yes, I know that.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

As someone who, in a former life, actually wrote legislation for the World Health Organization, I want to say that the change is exceedingly significant, and “may” is very different from what “shall” means. Legislative writers, when they're writing, certainly pay attention to the difference between “may” and “shall”. It's a pivotal change.

For that reason, I will vote against it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Naqvi, go ahead, please.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I want to make a couple of points.

First of all, I'll start with a very fundamental point that the government supports this legislation. We are very much in favour of this legislation. We'll be voting in support of this legislation.

Second, I want to congratulate Mr. MacGregor for the work that he has done in bringing forward this legislation. I also want to thank him for his collaboration, as I've had several opportunities to meet with him and to work with him, and for his thoughtfulness in making sure that he's bringing forward a piece of legislation that actually improves the lives of many Canadians.

We collaborated to the point of discussing these amendments ahead of time with Mr. MacGregor, so there are no surprises. It's only fair to have differences of opinions. This is the setting we operate in.

The last point I will make, Chair, is that the purpose of committees, especially for clause-by-clause study, is to go through every clause to look at possible ways of improving the legislation. We may have a difference of opinion on whether that improves a piece of legislation or not. The fact that this process is happening does not in any way deviate from the support for the legislation or from the outcomes it is going to achieve. It actually helps to improve this legislation, and of course, democratically, we'll decide that.

This is the very last point. I'm also a lawyer, and I also have helped draft legislation. I served in a role as the attorney general of the province, where I reviewed a lot of draft legislation.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Please do drink some water.

“May” and “shall” or “must” do have differences. The term “may” opens the opportunity to take in far more factors than are enumerated in legislation. You can ask any legislative drafter, and they will tell you that terms like “shall” and “must” constrain you and restrict you to factors that are enumerated. The use of “may”, especially in this context, when you are outlining several factors, as consultations are taking place with provinces, territories and indigenous peoples, would allow for other factors that they may outline which are not enumerated to also be added.

It's in that spirit that I'm suggesting the amendment of “may”. It's not to water it down, but to ensure there is an opportunity by the mechanism of consultation to not miss any of the factors that may not currently be enumerated in this clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Naqvi.

Ms. Sidhu, go ahead, please.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think I was on the speaking list before. Mr. Naqvi made the point that we are absolutely in favour of this bill. I just want to put that on the record.

The second thing is that I think it's the committee's job to look into the amendments and to bring forward the amendments. That is our job, and that is what we are doing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Doherty, go ahead, please.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

First off, Mr. Naqvi, nobody believes you.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

[Inaudible—Editor]

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

I'm just stating the obvious. You waxed on for—

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

[Inaudible—Editor]

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

Well, there you go. At least you have that going for you.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm very proud of that.

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

You should be.

This is a piece of legislation that you are attempting to water down. It is very clear. I may have a drink of water, or I must have a drink of water. If my doctor said, “You may have a drink of water,” or “You must have a drink of water,” I shall have a drink of water, or I must have a drink of water. You are definitely trying to water this down. There are no two ways about it.

I would ask, Mr. Chair, through you, that we call the vote.

I don't know if there are more people on the speakers list. I am not trying to filibuster this. It may seem like it. I'm only trying to fight for it, actually. I think it's a common-sense piece of legislation.

I just think that, again, they're wordsmithing. They're trying to play...not “they”. I won't lump everybody into that, but Mr. Naqvi is trying to skirt or at least is trying to provide the Liberal government with a grey area where it may or may not follow through with its responsibility.

Mr. Chair, I would ask that you call the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I will call the vote as soon as the speaking list is exhausted.

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the French version of the bill, it is written that the strategy “prévoit des mesures”, whereas, in the English version, it says that the strategy must include measures. Perhaps the French version denotes a more neutral or unifying intention. In any case, when we read that the strategy “prévoit des mesures”, we don't have to wonder whether it must or whether it can; it simply does provide for measures.

I just wanted to point out that the differences between English and French sometimes get us into debates. I don't doubt the government's intention. That said, my vote is somewhat conditional on the adoption of my amendment, obviously. That's why I've expressed a certain reservation. We have four clauses to discuss today. It's not a lot, so we can deal with them quickly. The amendment I tabled is important to respect the spirit of shared jurisdiction and co-operation between the provinces and the federal government. That's why I think we need to deal with all four clauses of the bill.

Now, I'll probably vote the same way as Mr. MacGregor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Dr. Powlowski.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I'm not changing my vote.

I very much understand and think the difference between “must” and “may” is highly significant. However, in defence of Mr. Naqvi, I think all these measures listed would certainly be part of a brain injury strategy. I don't think that the government or Mr. Naqvi, in using the word “may”, put it in there to try to give the government flexibility to take some of these things out, because without these things, it would basically be a pretty hollow bill.

I do not think that's at all the intent of Mr. Naqvi's recommendations, but I do appreciate the difference. I think the importance of using.... I'm kind of surprised that it's not “shall”, but “must” is okay with me, and I would prefer to leave that in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Seeing no further interventions, I'll now proceed to the question.

Is it the will of the committee to proceed by a show of hands, or do we require a standing vote?

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Let's do a recorded division.