Public Safety Committee on June 14th, 2018

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I'm going to move another amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

All right. I'm going to call the question on Mr. Picard's amendment.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Chair, I would move an amendment to the amended paragraph b) that would read in English, “That the Minister of Public Safety work with his provincial and territorial counterparts to determine how medical professionals could advise provincial authorities” and then we'll accept the rest of the paragraph as amended.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

I just ask that you go over that one more time, please.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

It reads, “That the Minister of Public Safety work with his provincial and territorial counterparts to determine how medical professionals could advise provincial authorities” and then with the remainder of the already-altered paragraph.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

It's “could advise”, and what's after “advise”?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Then comes “provincial authorities”.

Basically, I would like to strike “implement 'duty to warn', which would require” and replace it with “determine how” and replace the word “to” with the word “could”.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Do you want to debate this amendment?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I would like a comment from Pam, since she is sponsoring it.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Has he removed “duty to warn” from it?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Yes, that's what I'm proposing, Pam.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

No, I'd like to leave that in.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Just so colleagues are clear—Mr. Calkins, feel free to jump in and correct me if I'm not reading this correctly—if the amendment was to be adopted, b) would now read, “That the Minister of Public Safety work with his provincial and territorial counterparts to determine how medical professionals could advise provincial authorities about persons who have diagnosed conditions that are likely to put their own life and/or the lives of other people in danger.”

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

That's correct.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I know we're trying to get to the same place on this. I'm thinking we probably should have health care professionals instead of just medical professionals, so it would be “to determine how health care providers”.

What if it was “to determine how to implement duty to warn”? Then it would go on. The next part is describing what duty to warn is, right?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

My language is presuming that we're instructing the minister to determine how. I'm not suggesting in any way, shape, or form to diminish the fact that this committee is instructing the minister to do this. I want the minister to determine how that would be possible, whether that's through a duty to warn or some other type of mechanism that may be beyond the purview of the wisdom of this committee. That's why I changed the language that way. That way, if there are options available outside the ethical and legal requirements provincially, those would be available to the minister.

I would assume the minister would follow the intent of the instructions more than the instructions anyway. I'm not trying to undermine the positive effects this might have. I think this might be a good idea, and I think it might improve public safety.

I'm trying to come up with wording that would provide the minister with the tools he or she would need to get the job done.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Before giving the floor to Ms. Damoff, I am going to let Mr. Spengemann speak.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

In her response to my earlier question to Ms. Damoff, it was quite clear to me that she's concerned about the enforcement of an existing body of ethics and law, the duty to warn, so we shouldn't drop that. I want to get at whether she would want to broaden the analysis beyond the duty to warn, to see if there are additional steps that are not a legal duty but that are helpful.

At a minimum, I think we should keep the phrase “including the duty to warn” in any amendment being put forward. Otherwise, we will potentially water it down beyond already existing legal parameters at the provincial level.

Duty to warn should stay in it. We could put it within commas, saying “including the duty to warn”. That gives us the ability to potentially broaden it and look at new avenues that haven't been identified yet, such as voluntary engagement or community engagement.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

This is consistent with the hub model of policing, and so on, where various organizations get together to pre-empt stuff as well. Those are good, proven models, right?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

If there's agreement to add that wording....

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

My only concern is that if we put duty to warn—

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

It's already there. It already exists.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

It does, and it would be one of the options they would look at.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Would we be looking at, “That the Minister of Public Safety work with his provincial and territorial counterparts to determine how health care providers could advise provincial authorities, including the duty to warn, about persons”, then on to the end of it as amended?

Would you be agreeable to that, Mr. Calkins?