Health Committee on Dec. 13th, 2022

[Tim Singer, Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health]

Yes, certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The impact of the amendment, as Mr. van Koeverden indicated, would be to make the clause permissive and not imperative. It would allow the measures under the national framework to include those indicated in the subclause, but they may also include other elements that are not indicated in the subclause in order to allow additional flexibilities.

That would be the impact of the amendment as it's proposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Davies, please go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm sorry, but I find that explanation completely unpersuasive. There's nothing restrictive right now. When the subclause says, “The national framework must include measures to”, there's nothing that would exclude it from having other measures.

What changing the word “must” to “may” does is open the possibility that the measures listed will not be included, so I find that entirely unpersuasive.

We know what the national framework must include. When I look at the things that follow, I see they must include measures to “explain the link between firefighting and certain types of cancer”. There's nothing provincial there.

They must “identify the training, education and guidance needs of health care and other professionals related to the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting, including clinical practice guidelines”. This is about identifying them, and nothing would stop the federal government from doing that.

The one that I think may be engaged is the next one, which is to “provide for firefighters across Canada to be regularly screened for cancers linked to firefighting”. I think that gets into provincial jurisdiction, but I understand we have other amendments coming on that.

They must “promote research and improve data collection on the prevention and treatment of cancers”. The federal government can do that. No provincial interests are engaged there.

They must “promote information and knowledge sharing in relation to the prevention and treatment of cancers”. Again, that is totally within the federal jurisdiction.

They must “establish national standards to recognize cancers linked to firefighting as occupational diseases”. That is totally federal.

I also don't find the argument that this impinges on provincial jurisdiction persuasive, other than the one element, which I think we can correct.

I'm going to be opposing this. If we put in that the national framework “may” include these measures, that means that they may not, and that's not acceptable to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Is there any further discussion with respect to G-4?

A recorded vote has been requested, so I would ask the clerk to carry that out, please.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

We're now on G-5.

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Moving on to paragraph 3(3)(a), we move that Bill C-244, in clause 3, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 2 with the following:

(a) explain and support research on the link between firefighting and certain

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Is there any discussion on that?

Seeing none, all those in favour of amendment G-5?

(Amendment agreed to)

Mr. Garon, you have the floor on amendment BQ‑2.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment BQ‑2 relates to paragraph 3(3)(b) and simply suggests deleting the words “training, education and” in order to recognize that workforce training and on‑the‑job training are exclusively provincial responsibilities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Is there any discussion with respect to BQ-2?

Go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I don't see any problem with the federal government putting forth a framework that identifies “the training, education and guidance needs of health care and other professionals related to the prevention and treatment of cancers”. In fact, I think that's exactly the kind of national leadership we need. Nothing is being imposed on the provinces or territories to get them to adopt that training or education. It's simply about identifying it.

I think if we've heard one thing, we've heard that carcinogens know no borders; the science is the same. We have vast differences between provinces and territories, so to me, having the federal government be a centralized body that can identify the training and education that might be needed is a very helpful measure that will pay dividends across the country. Again, if I thought this was imposing anything on the provinces or territories, it would be different, but it's not; it's just for identifying things.

I'm going to oppose this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Go ahead, Mrs. Goodridge.

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

I think there's possibly a problem in the drafting of the bill. Removing the words “training, education”, really highlights the fact that guidance... That's not a full sentence in English. The French version makes sense, but the English version does not, and with the amendment, it makes less sense.

We see a problem and we cannot vote for this amendment, even if it is good, because it makes for a bad bill in English. I also think it highlights the fact that we probably need to amend the English regardless, because it also doesn't make sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Garon, you're next on my list. However, I think the legislative clerk may want to make some comments on the point that was raised by Ms. Goodridge.

You have the floor, Mr. Garon, but it's important to mention that we're going to hear from the clerk before we vote.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Obviously, the wording in English needs to be adjusted. Often, it is the French version that needs to be improved. I salute the excellent work of the translators, because their work is not easy.

It is a very minor amendment. For example, the paragraph speaks of targeting needs, but it continues to refer to health professionals. In addition, it recognizes the federal government's role in public health, particularly with regard to clinical guidelines. So this is not a partisan amendment to take everything out or to say that everything is under provincial jurisdiction. What we're saying is that once the broad outlines and principles have been laid out by the federal government and the research has been done, workplace training is a provincial responsibility.

I would like to see the bill passed unanimously. The changes proposed are minimal and ensure that we are not forcing the provinces. The issue of labour market training is particularly sensitive in Quebec because the province has special agreements with the federal government. This is the only thing we have taken out. The proposed changes are minimal and respect provincial jurisdictions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I saw Mr. Davies and Dr. Ellis.

Mr. Davies, you're up.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have a couple of short snappers.

To Mrs. Goodridge's point, it makes sense to me. It says:

(3) The national framework must include measures to

(b) identify the training, education and guidance needs of health care and other professionals

If you break it down, it's about the training needs of health care professionals, the education needs of health care professionals and the guidance needs of health care professionals. I would be fine with removing the word “guidance” so that it's about the training and education. To Mr. Garon's point, it doesn't say the national framework must include measures to impose the training, education and guidance needs of health care and other professionals. It says it must include measures to “identify” that.

The thing we've heard here is that there's a curious intersection of national, federal and provincial issues engaged in this. The federal government has a national building code. The federal government regulates toxic chemicals. The federal government also has jurisdiction over the importation of chemicals. We may find out through the National Research Council that the combustion of certain chemicals that we import creates carcinogens. How do we translate that information in a meaningful way across the country to health care and other professionals so that it's related to the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting if we don't identify them?

Again, I'm fine with the wording as it is. I think it makes sense and I think it's important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Go ahead, Dr. Ellis.

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

Thank you.

I appreciate that, and I certainly don't know what the guidance needs are. I know what training and education are, but I think “guidance needs” is perhaps some legalese—no offence, Chair. That's not meant to be pointed at you, but as someone who certainly could be tasked with the implementation thereof...talking about guidance needs doesn't make any sense at all. I think it's quite redundant. I think having “identify the training and education needs of health care and other professionals” makes perfect sense to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I don't terribly disagree that it's a somewhat clumsy sentence. I think it's trying to be as inclusive as possible. I think if we said “identify the needs for further training, education and guidance”, it would probably make more sense, but I don't think it needs to be amended as such in order to encapsulate the same intention.

I'm comfortable with it this way. We're fine to support the amendment as proposed, unless there's something else we can do.

Don, you had your hand up. I don't want to take up too much time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I was going to move a subamendment because I think Dr. Ellis's point is good.

I would move a subamendment to change it to “identify the training and education needs of health care and other professionals”.

I'm hearing some of the talk back and forth, and to Monsieur Garon's point, if we're identifying the guidance needs of health care workers, how is that really any different? You're going to guide health care workers or you're going to identify their training or education needs. It all comes down to the same thing.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think I'm getting to the point where I need the French version.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Colleagues, I just sought advice from the legislative counsel on this. The advice I was given is that the subamendment effectively wipes out the amendment. As a result, I'm ruling the subamendment out of order. You can get to the same place simply by voting against the amendment. Then the committee can entertain a further amendment if it doesn't like this one.

The subamendment is out of order, so we're still on amendment BQ-2.

Is there any further discussion on BQ-2?

Shall BQ-2 carry?

(Amendment negatived)

That brings us to G-6.

Mr. Davies, do you want to propose a replacement for BQ-2 before we go to G-6?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

No. I'm okay with the way the clause is read.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We're on G-6.

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.