Evidence of meeting #134 for Health in the 44th 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
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Chair, I put up my hand to say exactly what my colleague said. The provinces and territories are being consulted right now on many different priorities, and as my colleague has very well stated, some of them have less capacity than others, and the same goes for indigenous organizations. I think the time frame here should accommodate that to make sure that this is done right, all across the country.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Are there any further interventions with respect to amendment G-3?
Mr. Doherty.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, perhaps I misdirected my comments. Perhaps I should be speaking directly to Mr. Thériault.
I would agree that collaboration must take place with all the provinces, but we have seen pieces of legislation where this government has said that it will collaborate, work through and speak to all the stakeholders—provinces and what have you. However, what we have seen over the last nine years is that it has not done that, whether it's 12 months, 18 months or a rushed piece of legislation.
I would ask, implore and see that you are.... Mr. Thériault is essentially the kingmaker here in terms of this piece of legislation. His vote matters with regard to this piece of legislation. It matters all of the time, but it makes a difference whether it is 12 months or 18 months.
I would ask, through you, Mr. Chair, that Mr. Thériault reconsider where his vote is going to land on this. This is an opportunity for us to, once again, send a message to the government that this matters, that it is a priority and that we can get to work doing it right away.
The proponent of the bill, Mr. MacGregor, has stated why it is so important that we get to work on this. It's been a rare chance where opposition comes together in recent months and years to defend a piece of legislation that another opposition party has put forward.
This is an amendment.I get it. I understand. I've had pieces of legislation myself. I've agreed to that time frame. I've argued pieces of legislation where the government has said that it has consulted and has done the work, and we know that it hasn't.
Regardless of whether it's 12 months or 18 months, we know that it's going to miss it. However, we know that if we send a message today to the brain injury group that we have held firm in what the initial drafting of this piece of legislation was and that we are saying let's get to work on this, it sends a message to the government to get its house in order and get going on it. It's true collaboration.
That also can be directed, should it choose to work collaboratively with the proponent of the piece of legislation, which is what we did when we had our national framework on post-traumatic stress disorder. We worked with the government on how our framework was going to roll out. There are opportunities with that.
I would leave it at that, and I would ask that Mr. Thériault perhaps reconsider. It's one last piece of amendment on this piece of the bill, and hopefully we can move forward with it.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, I only have the interests of people with brain injuries in mind.
We can't mislead them either. Even if we set a 12-month deadline today, that wouldn't necessarily guarantee the implementation of a national strategy in 12 months.
I want it to be understood that the real issue is for this bill to receive Royal Assent as soon as possible before an election is called. Right now, the Conservatives are calling for an election every day. If there's another motion of censure and we decide to call an election because the timetable is coming to an end, we'll have to tell these people that there won't be a national strategy after all. That's what it also means. That's the real deadline. It's not just a theoretical deadline.
I have nothing against a theoretical deadline. I can agree to a 12-month deadline. When the time comes, Mr. Ellis may be Minister of Health. Then I can stand up in the House and remind him that the national strategy has not yet been established. But thinking like that doesn't show that you have people's interests at heart. At the Bloc Québécois, we don't play politics that way.
We know very well that co-operation between the federal government and Quebec on health care is problematic on several levels. I don't want to go on too long, but when we toured the province as part of the opioid crisis, we had planned to visit certain facilities. However, the Quebec government, through some deputy minister, decided that we wouldn't be going into such and such a place. You know all about that. That's because the Quebec government didn't want us in its affairs. That's the current state of relations between Quebec and Ottawa, no matter what the Minister of Health says.
The goal here is to have a national strategy in place within 12 months. This implies that we will continue to sit until the end of the current government's mandate. The truth is, if we continue to sit, we could find ourselves in an election overnight. If everyone is in an election, we won't be in the process of ensuring that the strategy is being developed.
Concretely speaking, this is a theoretical discussion we're having here. If it makes people happy, so much the better, but they need to be aware that this is not the real deadline. The real deadline is a possible election call, because if that were the case, the bill would die on the Order Paper. We have to tell people, because a lot of them don't know.
The supply management bill is important to me, personally. The Conservatives have the opportunity to ask 125 questions a week during oral question period in the House. Yet I've never heard them ask a single question in order to pressure the Liberals to speed up the process in the Senate, whereas they did so in the case of Bill C‑234. Will the supply management bill finally make it out of the Senate? I don't know, but it may not before an election is called. If it does, we'll be sacrificing supply management and a lot of farmers who currently need people to back them up and help them psychologically.
That said, I want people to understand very clearly that we're working in their interests. Setting a deadline of 18 months is not a delaying tactic. It's because it would be difficult to get there any faster, in my opinion.
If I were a bit opportunistic and playing petty politics, I'd position myself in favour of a 12-month deadline, then stand up in the House and tell the Conservatives they haven't kept their word. I'd pull out the minutes of our deliberations and ask our Conservative colleagues what they're waiting for to implement the strategy.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Are there any further interventions with respect to amendment G-3?
Dr. Ellis.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We have an opportunity right now to respect provincial jurisdiction. I've already spoken with Mr. Dubé, Quebec's Minister of Health, and respecting Quebec's jurisdiction was the first topic of our conversation. The same goes for the other provinces. I think this is really important. It illustrates the importance the Conservatives want to place on respecting provincial jurisdictions.
Moreover, I think it's fair to say that this bill will be a priority for the Conservatives, if they win the next election, but it's also possible that it won't.
October 24th, 2024 / 5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
What the senators are struggling with right now is the question of privilege before the House. As you know, Mr. Thériault, the reason for this question of privilege is that our Liberal partners don't want to provide the House with all the information. That's what I think the problem is right now. It's acceptable for the information provided to be partially redacted, but it's necessary to have all the documents requested in order to make a decision.
In the case of Bill C‑277, if the process can conceivably be completed in 12 months, I feel that that is what we must aim for. Considering all the Canadians who are watching the committee's work right now, I don't think it's appropriate to say it will take 18 months. What Canadians want to hear is that it will only take 12 months to put the brain injury strategy in place.
That's what I think the problem is. That's why we need to pass the bill as Mr. MacGregor has written. Indeed, in the context of this bill, a 12-month deadline is sufficient.
Liberal
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
We don't want to mislead the people who are waiting for this national strategy and who are right to want it as soon as possible. I repeat, however, that the main issue is to ensure that the Senate doesn't drag its feet when it comes to examining this bill. We don't seem to have any control over the Senate. The Senate doesn't give priority to bills originating from MPs.
In addition, there is another problem. As Mr. Ellis pointed out, the House is not considering any bills at the moment. How long will this last?
Fortunately, if prorogation occurs, the bill won't necessarily die on the Order Paper. However, if an election is called, Bill C‑277 will no longer exist. People need to know that. That's the real deadline, in my opinion. We need to tell people so they don't get the wrong idea.
Right now my Conservative friends are telling my Liberal friends that the reason the government is proposing this amendment is because they don't want to move forward in 12 months. That has nothing to do with it. The real deadline is a possible election call. If we have an election and there's a change of government, it will be some time before the machinery starts up again, work resumes in the House and such a bill is reintroduced. That's what will happen, unless the Senate fast-tracks the bill. However, that would surprise me enormously.
In fact, is there anyone who can tell us if the Senate is waiting for the bill and is willing to fast-track it before we call an election? If so, I'll join my colleagues. In fact, I'm almost tempted to join them just to show that it won't happen. However, I don't want to mislead the public or the people who are waiting for this strategy.
That's my point. I think it's fair to say so. I, too, am in contact with the Quebec government.
Right now, the possibility of an election changes things completely. By the way, I'd like to remind my Liberal friends that October 29 is Tuesday.
That's what I have to say to you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Are there any further interventions?
Seeing none, shall G-3 carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 4 agreed to)
Shall the short title carry?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, colleagues.
Thank you, Mr. Collins.
Mr. MacGregor has something to say.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Very briefly, I really want to thank all members of this committee. Truly, the brain injury community is watching, and this is a really big day for them. I'll leave it at that.
Thank you very much for all of your work on this bill.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Mr. MacGregor. Congratulations.
That concludes the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-277.
Mr. Collins, you are free to spend the rest of your day doing something equally interesting if you so desire. Thanks for being with us.
Our agenda calls for us to move in camera to consider the draft report, so I'm inclined to suspend the meeting, unless somebody has something to say before I do.
Mr. Doherty.