Evidence of meeting #49 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was firefighters.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
I'm sorry for trying to have fun on a Tuesday. I also withdraw the amendment. We can go to BQ-3 instead.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Okay. There's no unanimous consent required to withdraw snarky comments but there is to withdraw amendments.
12:45 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Does Mr. van Koeverden have the unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw G-7?
12:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
(Amendment withdrawn)
We'll go, therefore, to Monsieur Garon to introduce BQ-3.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I think we've already considered the issue from all angles, Mr. Chair. We've given it a lot of thought. I believe, as does the government, that the current wording of the provision allows for intrusions into provincial jurisdictions.
Nevertheless, we are very sympathetic to the cause of firefighters and the particular situations they face. In this context, we consider that some of the content may fall under public health, and therefore under federal jurisdiction.
This is obviously a compromise that aims to ensure that recommendations are made regarding screening. In any case, the federal government is not entitled to carry out screening.
Since Mr. van Koeverden is impatient, I suggest that we move on.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Is there any further discussion with respect to BQ-3?
Seeing none, shall BQ-3 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us to amendment G-8.
Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for your clarification, Mr. Garon.
This is the last government amendment on our list. We have only 11 minutes left, and we all want a chance to high-five or hug Sherry at the end of this, so hopefully we can get through it.
This is on paragraph 3(3)(f). I move that Bill C-224, in clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 3 with the following:
(f) prepare a summary of existing standards that recognize cancers linked to firefighting as occupational diseases.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I'll give a heads-up to the committee that we are in the exact situation with respect to G-8 as we were with G-7. There is a line conflict with BQ-4. If you vote in favour of G-8, then BQ-4 will be ruled out of order.
We have Mr. Davies and then Dr. Ellis.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
It's like Groundhog Day. I'm going to say the same thing I just said. The current framework as it's written, which I like, would “establish national standards to recognize cancers linked to firefighting as occupational diseases”. I personally have no problem with that. I think it's good. I think there should be national standards to recognize cancers linked to firefighting as occupational diseases. To me that doesn't require any province to necessarily adopt them, but they would establish an important national benchmark.
Having said that, the Liberal amendment waters that down by saying the framework would “prepare a summary of existing standards that recognize cancers linked to firefighting as occupational diseases”. All that would mean, really, is taking all the existing standards across the country and preparing a summary. I think the Bloc's amendment is better. It says that the framework should “make recommendations for establishing a list of cancers linked to firefighting that should be recognized as occupational diseases.” I like that better because, as opposed to just doing a very neutral gathering of the patchwork of standards, it would go further and would establish a list of the cancers that should be recognized.
I think that's a better amendment and one that would be more helpful for our firefighters. It would mean more progress in the direction we need to go.
I'm going to say no to the Liberals' G-8 and yes to BQ-4.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you, Chair.
If we could move quickly to do what we did last time, I'll agree with Mr. Davies. If Mr. van Koeverden could do that, then things would be great.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
It's the same advice, Mr. van Koeverden. There are three options. We can vote in favour of G-8 and therefore not consider BQ-4. We can defeat G-8 and therefore consider BQ-4. You can also seek unanimous consent to withdraw G-8, and then we'll go right to BQ-4.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Is there any further discussion with respect to G-8?
Shall G-8 carry? A recorded vote has been requested.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
With respect to BQ-4, as House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 769, “Once a line of a clause has been amended by the committee, it cannot be further amended by a subsequent amendment as a given line may be amended only once.” Therefore, BQ-4 is out of order.
That brings us to BQ-5
Go ahead, Monsieur Garon.
December 13th, 2022 / 12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We would like to add the following paragraph 3(3)(g) after line 10 of the English version:(g) review the eligibility criteria of the Memorial Grant Program for First Responders to make applicants eligible for it even if the disease that caused the death is not recognized as an occupational disease following established provincial practices.
The bill seems to want some standardization in the way firefighters are treated across the country. However, some of its provisions encroach on provincial and Quebec jurisdictions, which is a problem for us.
There is already a federal program, the Memorial Grant Program for First Responders. When a firefighter or first responder dies, this program provides up to $300,000 to the family and survivors. However, a number of families are unable to take advantage of this program in its current form. In addition, the program requires that the firefighter's or first responder's provincial authority formally recognize as an occupational disease the illness from which he or she died. Given the significant disparities between some provinces, the family of a firefighter in Quebec could receive this federal grant, but not the family of a firefighter in Ontario, for instance.
This is an encroachment by the federal government on provincial jurisdictions. This puts undue pressure on the various provinces, but they hold their ground. For example, some processes are acceptable in Quebec. Also, the formal recognition of certain diseases by the provinces can have significant legal consequences for them.
We want the federal government to be able to pay families if it wishes. We want the federal government to establish its own list of recognized diseases and cancers rather than wait for a province to recognize or not recognize a particular occupational disease. This way of doing things does not require a royal recommendation. We are asking the government to review its eligibility criteria in order to eventually make these changes, which will require new money. The amendment suggests that the government review these rules.
I think that is what firefighters are asking for. Moreover, there is already a program. I struggle to see how we can deprive these families of benefits in one province and not in another. The current situation is hard to justify.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Just so there's no doubt, this amendment is in order. The debate is on the amendment.
Mr. Davies, you have the floor.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
There are a few things.
It's passingly ironic that this is a Bloc amendment. We just got rid of national standards to recognize cancers linked to firefighting. He just withdrew his own amendment for establishing a list of cancers linked to firefighting that should be recognized as occupational diseases so we have a national thing.
Now we're dealing with a proposed amendment that would force the federal government to recognize occupational diseases even in provinces where it's not done. I can't understand what the logic is of these amendments.
I'll be voting against this, and my main problem is twofold. One is that it is unintelligible, at least in English. It says:
(g) review the eligibility criteria of the Memorial Grant Program for First Responders to make applicants eligible for it even if the disease that caused the death is not recognized as an occupational disease following established provincial practices.
With respect, I don't even know what that means. More importantly, nothing prevents the federal government, under the memorial grant program for first responders, from establishing the broadest list possible, which I would hope they do. They should take up the best and most science-based list in the country, and every firefighter and their family should qualify for a memorial grant based on the widest list of cancers recognized in the country as occupational diseases.
I think it's not necessary, but I support the sentiment of my colleague, which is to make sure that firefighters and their families get a memorial grant program with the widest possible criteria.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
The idea is that the federal government should have the right to provide benefits to individuals based on a number of criteria.
We are told that national standards are only recommendations until measures are put in place that involve spending and conditions.
We want to eliminate the federal government's encroachment on provincial jurisdictions while leaving the federal government free to pay a certain number of benefits to individuals based on its own list of diseases, without this being binding on the authorities responsible for recognizing occupational diseases in each province.
That is our logic and it seems to me to be quite coherent.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
In reviewing it, I think Don is correct. The English is wrong. I can see where the translation fell apart.
In the third line, at “applicants eligible”, if we remove “for it” and put a comma after “eligible”, it would be an intelligent sentence, or a complete sentence.
Perhaps that's a subamendment.