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.
Legislative Clerk
In the French version, amendment G-2 now proposes that paragraph 2(2)(j) of the bill read as follows:
élaborer, offrir et maintenir des ressources en ligne servant à diffuser l’actualité des faits, de la recherche et des pratiques exemplaires en matière de lésions cérébrales;
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
All right.
Are there any other interventions with respect to G-2 as amended?
(Amendment as amended agreed to)
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 3)
We have one amendment proposed for clause 3. It's G-3 in the name of Mr. Naqvi.
Mr. Naqvi, do you wish to move and speak to that amendment?
October 24th, 2024 / 4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I move that Bill C-277 in clause 3 be amended by replacing line 1 on page 3 with the following:
“3 (1) Within 18 months after the day on which this Act”
The simple purpose behind this amendment is, again, to create flexibility in time for the appropriate work that needs to happen in order to develop this important framework. It allows for that flexibility of up to 18 months, as opposed to just 12 months, to do the appropriate engagement with provinces, territories, indigenous peoples and other stakeholders. It ensures that the jurisdiction for health care rests with the provinces, that the administration of health care is within provincial and territorial jurisdiction and that the Government of Canada is appropriately engaging with those entities and indigenous communities in developing this national strategy. Therefore, that flexibility in the timeline will be helpful.
Once again, I have discussed this change with Mr. MacGregor and explained to him the reason behind saying “within 18 months” as opposed to just 12 months. It's to create that time flexibility.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Mr. Chair, it's just another example of the Liberals trying to gut this bill and make it harder. I don't understand. Twelve months is a reasonable amount of time, and it forces the government to get to work quickly on this. This is something we've unanimously agreed should go forward. We've unanimously passed this. We do not understand the difference six months would make. I want to see the government not sit on its heels and wait for this, but get to work immediately so that we have this.
Having a 12-month deadline makes it so that they have to act quickly and can't dither, so I will be opposing this.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Naqvi, when you and I had conversations about this, I understood the reasoning you were putting forward, and at that time I gave some signs of being favourable to clause 3, but over the weekend and leading up to today's meeting, I've had some second thoughts about it. I think I've been persuaded by some of the arguments that my Conservative colleagues have put forward.
If I look at the wording of the bill, it reads, “the Minister of Health must prepare a report setting out the strategy and cause the report to be tabled”. I know there's a lot in there, but Health Canada commands a lot of resources. The Public Health Agency of Canada commands a lot of resources.
People living with brain injuries have been waiting quite a long time, so I think I am going to maintain my position that the way the bill is currently written is what I'd like to see.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, again, it's either a priority or it isn't. At the end of the day, it's six months that Mr. Naqvi is talking about. This is either a priority for this government or a priority when we form government in the next election. I would offer that the argument Mr. Naqvi has given about consultation, about making sure they dot their i’s and cross their t’s and get this right, is just an opportunity for them to delay and dither, as my colleague mentioned, and far be it from me to go rouge...I mean, rogue on this.
That's an inside joke for one of our assistants, who said we were going “rouge” and meant “rogue”.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I would offer this. On the hesitation we are having in accepting Mr. Naqvi's changes to this, I would hope that, should this amendment be amended or be rejected, this bill, out of spite, and Mr. Naqvi's anger or frustration that his amendments aren't being passed.... I would hope that this doesn't flavour whether the government supports or doesn't support post committee appearance. Our colleagues have been in support of it. I would hope that the fact that a couple of their amendments did not pass does not flavour their final vote on this bill, because this is a common-sense bill. Whether it's 18 months or a year, let's get this done. Canada does not have a national brain injury strategy.
Mr. Naqvi, you could have the legacy of being the first government to do that or you could have the legacy of dithering and delaying it.
I'll leave that with you, Mr. Chair. I will be voting against this amendment.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Mr. Chair, my first point is that we'll support this bill regardless.
The second point is that this is to properly engage with the patients, with all the stakeholders and with all communities, including indigenous communities. Plus, this is not Health Canada. This is something where we have to talk to provincial partners and territories.
I think what Mr. Naqvi is proposing, 18 months, is a fair amount of time.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
I have more or less the same comments as my colleague Ms. Sidhu. I think we just have to be pragmatic. This is about supporting the implementation of this really important bill. I think if there's a legacy from this committee, it's that we have unanimous support for this bill going forward. It's really just about a practical implementation.
I support the amendment.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Having rejected the amendment that would change “must” to “may”, the government must do all these things. It's a pretty lengthy list, with a lot of consultation—10 provinces, three territories, indigenous groups. I think you guys will all appreciate the fact that organizing meetings, especially in different parts of the country, will take some amount of time. People aren't always available. Times aren't convenient.
Since we must do this, if we're going to do a good job, I think adding another six months is not that onerous and would perhaps make for a better strategy.
I support the proposed amendment.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If we follow Mr. Doherty's logic, there could be an election this spring. If I were in the Conservatives' shoes, I'd want time to implement this national strategy. If we get stuck in this logic and the seats in the House change sides, updating this strategy will be delayed, while the transfer of power takes place, for example. He's been talking about it for some time now.
When legislating, we shouldn't take partisan circumstances into account, but we can take current events and political circumstances into account.
Normally, when you have the will to establish a national strategy, you have to get each of the provinces to accept the idea. As things stand, I can tell you that the federal government is not welcome in Quebec. It took a year to sign the health transfer agreements. That means things are not going well. Things might get better if there were a change of government, but I haven't heard the Conservatives commit to increasing health transfers either.
Quebec, on the other hand, is in the midst of a health care reform, and it's got its hands full. I have the impression that it will take a lot of tact to present a national strategy to the Quebec Ministry of Health. If we hurry, we may fail.
We'd be heedless legislators if we didn't take political reality into account. We do politics in real time.
In this sense, what's important is that this bill be passed as quickly as possible, in both the House and the Senate. As we know, the Senate sometimes deals with private members' bills as it sees fit, depending on its priorities. Still, we hope that the bill will be sent to the Senate as quickly as possible, and that the Senate will be able to process it as quickly as possible before an election is called. We've already had this done to us once, in the case of supply management. We could have it done to us a second time.
Many steps along the way, from drafting this strategy to implementing it, require collaboration. That's what the bill provides for. It's not just a desire; it's a necessity. In my opinion, we need time. Whether it's 12 months or 18 months, it makes no difference to me. The Bloc Québécois acts in the interest of the people. It's not obsessed with power, because it won't take it. What matters to us in the Bloc Québécois is the interests of patients and people. We must also try to be realistic. I don't think a 12-month deadline is realistic.
That's my point of view.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you.
Mr. MacGregor, do you have an intervention? You have the floor.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Yes, it's very quick.
I understand the rationale. It's just that my change in heart comes from the fact that the brain injury community has been waiting for so long. The process with this bill is not closed. This meeting right now is happening in public. This bill has been on the public record. I guess that's all to say that if we're having such unanimous support for this bill, then the government right now is aware of what is coming its way, so the government doesn't actually have to wait to start getting prepared. If it can read the tea leaves and if it understands that this bill stands a very good chance of passing, then maybe some of that preparation work can happen.
I do understand the government's position on wanting more time. I'm just trying to hold firm for the brain injury community who have been waiting for so long. That's why I've had my change of heart, Mr. Chair. I'll leave it at that.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, I appreciate Mr. MacGregor's comments, and that is the sole reason I'm imploring this committee and our colleagues across the way to consider it, and why I said earlier that either it's a priority or it isn't.
As I said earlier and as Mr. Hanley mentioned, as a committee, our legacy could be that we adopted a piece of legislation, that we got it back to the House and that we passed it unanimously. For the very first time, Canada could have a piece of legislation that calls on the government to develop a national brain injury strategy, which I think is so important. It has never happened before. Through successive governments, it has been asked for. It's not the first time it's been asked for, but it is the first time it's gotten to this point, where we have a piece of legislation that, by all appearances, has unanimous support.
I would implore our colleagues across the way, in the spirit of collaboration—and perhaps Mr. Naqvi will see his way to withdrawing his amendment—to keep it at a year because, if it is a priority, the government.... I'll say it again. Whether it's this government or the next government or whoever, if it's a priority now, when we're all saying that it is, let's get to work and get it done.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Chair, I agree with Mr. MacGregor's point that the brain injury community has been wanting to have a framework in place for some time, and rightly so. They've been doing some really important work, but what I've also heard from them is that they want a good strategy, a thoughtful strategy, a strategy that actually is going to work, and we cannot let them down or disappoint them by rushing into a strategy.
This is not about resources at Health Canada. Of course, Health Canada will do the work, as required, if this legislation is passed into law. It would also make sure that consultations that are asked for in this legislation, with provinces and territories, with community organizations and with indigenous communities, would be done properly. We cannot expect that they will have all the same resources.
I often hear from my colleagues, especially from the Conservatives, about doing appropriate consultations and making sure that we are talking to the provinces and territories. That work is really important, and for this strategy to work appropriately, we need to make sure that work is done thoroughly. Not all provinces or territories are the same size or have the same capacity. In indigenous communities, there are many other files that they've been consulted on.
Keeping all that in mind, I agree with Mr. Thériault on this point. This is not about lack of priority or resources. This is about making sure that we get this done right and that we have a timeline in place that is practical, which will result in a strategy that is going to help Canadians, loved ones, people suffering from brain injury.