THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 6, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4:01 p.m. [ET], in camera, to consider a draft agenda (future business); and Bill S-203, An Act respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. I am Ratna Omidvar, senator from Ontario and chair of this committee.
Before we get into our work for today, let me quickly note senators in the room. They are Senator Patterson from Nunavut; Senator Kutcher from Nova Scotia; Senator Petitclerc from Quebec and Senator McPhedran from Manitoba. On screen, we have with us Senator Moodie from Ontario; of course, Senator Bovey from Manitoba, who is the deputy chair; Senator Verner from Quebec; Senator Dasko from Ontario; Senator Poirier from New Brunswick; Senator Lankin from Ontario; Senator Bernard from Nova Scotia; the sponsor of the bill, Senator Housakos, from Quebec and Senator Loffreda, who is the critic of the bill, from Quebec as well.
Today is our third and final meeting on Bill S-203. Are there any objections that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-203, An Act respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Are there any objections that the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Are there any objections that the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed. Are there any objections that clause 1, which contains the short title, stand proposed?
Are there any objections that clause 2 carry?
Senator Moodie, I believe we have an amendment from you. Would you kindly read your amendment into the record?
Senator Moodie: I move the following amendment:
That Bill S-203 be amended in clause 2, on page 2, by adding the following after line 3:
“(0.a) timely and equitable access to screening and diagnosis for autism spectrum disorder;”.
The Chair: This amendment is in all the senators’ package. Are there any objections that the motion in amendment be adopted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. The motion is adopted.
Moving on, still on clause 2, there is an amendment from Senator Bernard. Senator Bernard, would you kindly read your amendment into the record?
Senator Bernard: My apologies, chair. Would it be possible to have the clerk read that into the record for me?
The Chair: Certainly.
Dan Charbonneau, Clerk of the Committee: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Bernard:
That Bill S-203 be amended in clause 2, on page 2, by replacing line 8 with the following:
“(c) a national network to promote research”.
The Chair: Are there any questions or debate on this amendment?
Senator Lankin, did you raise your hand? You did? Please.
Senator Lankin: The effect of this amendment, Senator Bernard, would, if I’m correct, delete the words, “and improve data collection on autism spectrum disorder.” I am wondering why you want to delete those words. One of the large issues that we know exists is a need for better data collection. Is there a reason for that?
Senator Bernard: To be honest, that was a slight oversight on our part in our rush to get these amendments completed within a short time frame. I absolutely agree that data collection is important.
Senator Lankin: Do you withdraw that then?
The Chair: Leave would be required, I understand, to withdraw the amendment.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is leave given? Agreed.
Senator Bernard, would you agree to withdraw the amendment?
Senator Bernard: Yes, I will withdraw that amendment.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Bernard.
We will postpone discussions on amendments by Senator Bernard and Senator Dasko on clause 2 until we get the correct wording from the clerk. As soon as that is available, it will be sent to you and we can revert to that clause.
In the meantime, we will progress to an amendment by Senator Kutcher also on clause 2.
Senator Kutcher, would you kindly read your amendment into the record?
Senator Kutcher: I move the following:
That Bill S-203 be amended in clause 2, on page 2, by replacing lines 14 to 16 with the following:
“(e) sustained, accessible and culturally relevant resources, available online and elsewhere, on best available evidence-based information to support autistic persons, their families and caregivers, including information on effective treatments and ineffective or harmful treatments;”.
Could I note that that was an agreed upon amendment by Senator Bernard and myself?
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Kutcher.
An amendment must be moved by one senator. I appreciate the sentiment. It is moved by Senator Kutcher that Bill S-203 be amended in clause 2, on page 2 — shall I dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: Thank you.
Is there further debate on that?
Senator Housakos: I just have a question for Senator Kutcher. Can he expand on what exactly he means by “culturally relevant resources” and when he says “evidence-based,” on whose basis is it determined what’s relevant for that site? I’m just trying to understand specifically where he wants to go with these two elements.
Senator Kutcher: I think “culturally relevant” is very clear, Senator Housakos. That the different cultural groups, including Indigenous groups, need information provided to them in a way that makes sense to them and that they can understand. That’s what it means.
Second, have you had an opportunity to read some of the witness reports on effective treatments and harmful treatments that are masquerading as effective treatments and pseudo-scientific treatments that are sold to people? They include chelation therapy; hyperbaric oxygen therapy; antifungal agents, Miracle Mineral Solution, which is bleach to drink — yes, that’s what it is — different antibiotics; various homeotherapeutic remedies; Lupron, which is testosterone; Secretin injections, which is a pancreatic hormone; stem cell therapies, et cetera, very harmful, not evidence-based but often provided to people with autism. That’s what I mean, Senator Housakos.
Senator Housakos: Thank you, Senator Kutcher, but again wouldn’t you find that this discussion, which is a very relevant discussion, is going to involve some of the issues that would be debated at the framework building stage process?
Senator Kutcher: Absolutely, senator — sorry. Please finish.
Senator Housakos: No, go ahead.
Senator Kutcher: Absolutely. That’s why it’s there to make sure that they are debated.
The Chair: Colleagues, are there any objections? Hearing no more debate on this matter, are there any objections that the motion in amendment be adopted?
If none, the motion is adopted.
We will move on to an amendment by Senator Patterson.
Senator Patterson, would you kindly read your amendment into the record?
Senator Patterson: I move:
That Bill S-203 be amended in clause 2, on page 2, by replacing line 18 with the following:
“federal funds for autistic persons and their families; and
(g) anything else that the Minister considers appropriate in relation to autism spectrum disorder.”.
Senator McPhedran: I wonder, since we’re now in public after extensive discussion in private, whether it might be helpful to explain the comprehensive amendment addressing the terminology, “spectrum disorder.” Because the amendment as is before us still has the full term.
The Chair: I understand, Senator McPhedran, right now we are using the term “spectrum disorder.” It is up to a senator to make an amendment to remove the words completely throughout the bill. That will take care of that.
Are you moving a subamendment to Senator Patterson’s amendment to remove the words “spectrum disorder” at this point?
Senator McPhedran: I think if we’re not prepared to go to the comprehensive amendments, so that then we’re reading more accurately as we approach each individual amendment, if that’s the only option available to me, I’m just wondering why we couldn’t go to the comprehensive amendment so that each individual amendment that has those words, we would know that that had been corrected or had been changed.
The Chair: I understand completely. That seems to me to be perfectly logical. I have a problem, though, with the language that has to now be resorted.
Thank you, Senator McPhedran, for that very logical proposal. It would make sense to me, but I have it from our clerk that the law clerk has recommended that we do this overarching amendment at the end of our deliberations so that everything can be reordered based on that final amendment and the language changed at that point.
I’m not the law clerk, but we consult with our law clerks and that is his opinion.
Senator McPhedran: Interesting.
To my point of view, there is nothing that determines in advance, until we actually make the decision, that that comprehensive amendment is in fact going to be made.
If the only option when I’m facing a proposed amendment that still has the words “spectrum disorder” in it is for me to move a very specific amendment because in effect all we have is the possibility of making this change.
If that’s the only option that our law clerk thinks is open, then yes, I would suggest that each time this comes up we should remove the words.
The Chair: Okay. Are you moving a subamendment to Senator Patterson’s amendment which is under discussion at this point?
Senator McPhedran: Yes. I don’t think the law clerk has left me with any other option, logically.
I’m moving that the words “spectrum disorder” be removed from this proposed amendment by Senator Patterson.
The Chair: We have a subamendment from Senator McPhedran to remove the words “spectrum disorder” from this amendment.
It’s just removing the two words, autism disorder and leaving autism. Is that right, Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: The last words would be “in relation to autism.”
The Chair: Okay. Is there discussion on this?
Senator Patterson: I’m not trying to make this difficult, Madam Chair. I know there are some persons in the autistic community who do find the term “disorder” to be unacceptable or pejorative.
But I have to point out that we’ve just approved an amendment from Senator Moodie using the term “autism spectrum disorder.” So if it were amended here, it would be inconsistent with the earlier amendment.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Patterson. We were hoping to deal with that at the end. But since Senator McPhedran has made her subamendment, let’s just vote on the subamendment and try and proceed as we can.
Is there further debate on this subamendment?
Senator Dasko: I would just like to hear the sponsor’s point of view on this with respect to the post-changes.
The Chair: Senator Housakos, you are still there, I see.
Senator Housakos: I am.
Colleagues, again, this is another example of us participating in trying to fix things that I don’t believe is our right to do so.
The term “spectrum disorder” is a clinical term that has been used now for a long time. It has been a cause for debate in the community. There are high-functioning members of the community on the spectrum that find the term pejorative and don’t like it. It has been a controversial debate among the stakeholders in the autism community.
But, again, I’ll highlight the largest umbrella group that represents just about every stakeholder in the autism community in Canada, it’s called the Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorder Alliance, or CASDA. I know CASDA representatives came before your committee. They just had their annual two-day conference, which I had the privilege of speaking at, as did Senator Boehm.
I’m not trying to reinvent the wheel. I’m not trying to engage in controversial debates which are consistently taking place in that community, and will continue to and will evolve over the years.
I’m trying to put forward a piece of legislation that will propel the discussion into a framework conference where the government will be forced — because of this legislation — to build that framework, to have these kinds of debates. I just don’t think it is the place or the time by Senate legislators to address that here and now.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Housakos.
Senator McPhedran: I will withdraw my subamendment.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator McPhedran.
Senator McPhedran is withdrawing her amendment.
Leave has to be granted. Is leave granted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: So we can move on. Thank you, all. We can move on now.
We are still on Senator Patterson’s amendment. We have to vote on it. It has been moved by Senator Patterson. Are there any objections that the motion in amendment be adopted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: If none, it is agreed.
We are still on clause 2. We have an amendment from Senator Bernard on clause 2.
Senator Bernard, could you kindly read your amendment into the record?
Senator Bernard: Chair, could I respectfully ask that the clerk read each of the amendments that are coming forward from me, please?
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Bernard.
Mr. Charbonneau: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Bernard:
That Bill S-203 be amended in clause 2, on page 2, by replacing lines 27 to 29 with the following:
“(c) relevant stakeholders, including self-advocates, persons with lived experience — including caregivers and support persons — service providers, and representatives from the medical and research communities and from organizations that focus on autism spectrum disorder in Indigenous communities.”.
The Chair: Thank you, clerk.
Is there any debate on this amendment?
Senator McPhedran: I want to speak in support of this amendment.
It may not be apparent to members of the public who are with us that there are two other amendments; neither of those proposed amendments addresses, as does Senator Bernard’s specifically, Indigenous communities. There is no Indigenous member of this committee.
And I want to commend Senator Bernard for the specificity of her wording and I strongly support this amendment.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator McPhedran.
Senator Lankin: Yes. Thank you very much.
The other amendment that you referred to — one of them is from me — attempts to get at the same issue, but it fails to address Indigenous communities. I think that that’s an important addition.
So I will support Senator Bernard’s motion, which would render my motion for an amendment null and void.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Lankin.
Seeing no other hands raised, colleagues, are there any objections that the motion in amendment be adopted? Agreed. Thank you.
Senator Lankin, I take it that you are not moving your next amendment. Is that correct?
Senator Patterson, you have an amendment on clause 2. Would you kindly read it into the record?
Senator Patterson: I move:
That Bill S-203 be amended in clause 2, on page 2, by adding the following after line 29:
“(d) anyone else that the Minister considers appropriate.”.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I saw that the French version refers to the “Minister of Health” and that the English version does not. This detail will likely be corrected.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Petitclerc, thank you for that. Sadly, I had no translation.
Senator Petitclerc: It was about translation, actually. So there you go. There is just some discrepancy between the French and English version. But I have no doubt that it will be corrected.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Petitclerc. The clerk has indicated that that can be sorted out.
Senator Bovey: Madam Chair, we weren’t able to hear that. I don’t know whether you can hear me.
What Senator Petitclerc was drawing to our attention was that the French document talks about the Minister of Health, the English document just talks about the minister and she was presuming that detail will be corrected.
The Chair: Senator Bovey, can you hear me loud and clear now?
Senator Petitclerc made an observation that the French and English documents don’t sync together. The clerk has assured me that that will be taken care of.
Thank you, Senator Petitclerc, for pointing that out.
Colleagues, we will go back. We are still at clause 2. We have received the new language of an amendment. I am going to ask Senator Dasko to read it into the record.
I apologize. We did not call the question on Senator Patterson’s amendment.
Senator McPhedran: I have a procedural question.
Could we have an explanation, please, of the impact, given the adoption of Senator Bernard’s amendment replacing 27 to 29, what then is the impact of adopting Senator Patterson’s amendment for adding after 29?
The Chair: If I understand correctly — and, again, I’m having problems — you are asking Senator Patterson to explain whether his amendment has any impact on Senator Bernard’s amendment which was just approved. Is that correct?
Senator McPhedran: I was actually asking the law clerk what the impact is.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Senator McPhedran, thank you for that comment. You are correct in that certain lines will get moved around. There is certain language in English and certain language in French. There is always a motion right at the end of clause by clause that gives the law clerk, in this instance, the capacity to correct issues of lines and other discrepancies that may have arisen.
We are still on Senator Patterson’s amendment. Colleagues, is it your will to approve Senator Patterson’s amendment?
Thank you. We are still on clause 2, and an amendment is being tabled by Senator Dasko.
Senator Dasko, would you kindly read that into the record?
Senator Dasko: Thank you. I move:
That Bill S-203 be amended in clause 2, on page 2, by replacing lines 11 to 13 with the following:
“(d) national campaigns to enhance public knowledge, understanding and acceptance of autism spectrum disorder while accounting for intersectionality, in order to foster inclusivity;”.
The Chair: Is there any debate or discussion on this amendment? Colleagues, is it your will that this amendment be adopted? Agreed. Thank you, colleagues.
Are there any objections that clause 2, as amended, carry?
Are there any objections that clause 3 carry?
Are there any objections that clause 4 carry?
Are there any objections that clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Are there any objections that the preamble carry?
Senator Bernard has an amendment to the preamble. I will ask the clerk to read it into the record.
Mr. Charbonneau: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Bernard:
That Bill S-203 be amended in the preamble, on page 1,
(a) by replacing lines 2 to 4 with the following:
“rodevelopmental disability that impacts language skills, communication skills and social interactions and that features restricted and repetitive be-”;
(b) by replacing lines 19 and 20 with the following:
“cial supports, and the removal of barriers to employment and housing;”.
The Chair: Senator Bernard, would you like to orient senators to your amendment?
Senator Bernard: If anyone has any questions they would like to ask me about the amendment, I think the suggested changes speak for themselves. Clearly, the main message is around language and taking this opportunity to use more affirming language as opposed to deficit-based language.
The Chair: Senator Lankin, do you have a question?
Senator Lankin: I do.
Thank you, Senator Bernard. I realize you may redirect this to the clerk, but I’m having trouble understanding how the paragraph would read once this amendment comes in because it doesn’t seem to flow for me now. If it’s possible to read out what the new wording would be, that would help me in determining my vote.
Senator Bernard: You are correct, Senator Lankin, in that I will refer that to the clerk.
Laura Blackmore, Analyst, Library of Parliament: I can read it. The first paragraph would be:
Whereas autism spectrum disorder is a lifelong neurodevelopmental disability that includes impairment
And then it would continue as it says in the text, so:
in language, communication skills and social interaction — repetitive behaviours, interests of activities
Unless the intention was to eliminate that, I think Senator Bernard could qualify that.
And then it would amend the last paragraph, and I will read as it would be amended:
Whereas autistic Canadians, families and caregivers would benefit from the development and implementation of a federal framework that provides for best practices, research, education, awareness, treatment, equal access to medical and financial supports and the removal of barriers to employment and housing.
The Chair: As I read it, it seems to me that the preamble has been amended with one word. Am I correct? The word “disorder” has been replaced by “disability.” Am I reading that correctly, Senator Bernard?
Senator Bernard: No, sorry. That’s one of the changes.
Senator Lankin: If I may be of assistance, I understand that in the first paragraph, it does replace the word “disorder” with “disabilities,” and in the last paragraph, it replaces “and assistance with employment and housing challenges” with wording that referred to removing barriers for those items.
I don’t have the exact wording in my mind, but those would be the two changed areas.
Senator Bernard: Yes.
The Chair: Is everyone clear? Senator Dasko is shaking her head.
Senator Dasko: This was not clear. Could someone read the revised first paragraph again?
Senator Bernard: Can I clarify through the chair: Is the clerk reading the most recent version of what came this afternoon?
The Chair: We have the most recent wording, but he was reading the legal version of the amendment, which doesn’t quite put the amendment into context, which is what my colleagues are asking for. We are going to ask the law clerk to read out the two paragraphs again that have been proposed be amended by Senator Bernard.
Ms. Blackmore: I will read the first paragraph as it would be amended:
Whereas autism spectrum disorder is a lifelong neurodevelopmental disability that impacts language skills, communication skills and social interactions, and that features restrictive and repetitive behaviours, interests or activities.
Do you want me to read the second amended paragraph or wait there?
The Chair: Let’s wait there. So it is more than just replacing one word.
Senator Bernard: Yes.
The Chair: And that makes it clear.
Senator Bernard: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that, Ms. Blackmore.
Any questions, debate or discussion on that?
Senator Kutcher: I’d like to hear from Senator Housakos. I think he gave an eloquent discussion around this topic before, and I would like to hear whether he thinks it changes the intent of the bill.
Senator Housakos: I will acquiesce to the wish of the committee. I am listening attentively and will accept any and all suggestions.
The Chair: All right.
Now, the second paragraph, which Senator Bernard is proposing to amend, would read as follows:
Mr. Charbonneau: It would be:
And whereas autistic Canadians, their families and caregivers would benefit from the development and implementation of a federal framework that provides for best practices, research, education, and awareness, treatment, equal access to medical and financial supports and the removal of barriers to employment and housing.
The Chair: Any debate or discussion on that language?
Let’s vote on Senator Bernard’s amendments before moving on. Is it your will that the preamble be amended as per Senator Bernard’s amendments?
An Hon. Senator: Agreed.
The Chair: We are not done with the preamble yet. We have an amendment from Senator Lankin.
Senator Lankin, could you please read your amendment to the preamble, as you would like to see it?
Senator Lankin: I will read what I have submitted. It may be that the first part of my amendment becomes defective as a result of Senator Bernard’s. I’m not sure yet. I’m still trying to amalgamate the two. The amendment I submitted was:
That Bill S-203 be amended in the preamble, on page 1,
(a) by replacing line 14 with the following:
“Whereas autistic Canadians, their families and”;
(b) by adding the following after line 20:
“And whereas the development of that federal framework would benefit from the involvement of autistic Canadians, their families and their caregivers;”.
If I may, (b) in my suggestion, which follows line 20 — which is the current end to the preamble — is a simple reinforcement of the importance of listening to autistic Canadians, their families and their caregivers. I think it’s helpful. However, I would say we have in other parts of the bill and amendments, I think, captured that. If people want to proceed with this, that’s fine.
To the clerk, I’m having some problem now understanding part (a) of my amendment replacing line 14, which currently reads, “Whereas autistic Canadians, their families and their caregivers would benefit.” This suggests, I don’t understand, “Whereas autistic Canadians, their families and . . .” I don’t see what the difference is.
Maybe somebody can help me with what I’m missing.
The Chair: First, the clerk is going to provide some clarification here.
Mr. Charbonneau: Essentially your part (a) of the amendment removes the word “and,” because you are adding another “whereas” afterwards. So that would be the impact of part (a) is the removal of the “and.”
Senator Lankin: I got that. Thank you very much. So both would be relevant for the committee to determine because if you were going to proceed with part (b), you would have to proceed with part (a) first.
Let me just say that, again, I don’t think this would draw objection from Senator Housakos. I don’t believe this is further prescription. This is like an observation. It is in the preamble. It is to talk about the mutuality of Canadians with autism, their families and their caregivers benefiting from the development of the framework, and saying on the flip side of it, the development of the framework would benefit from the involvement of these people as well.
I will stand by that proposed amendment. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: This is a question to Senator Housakos, prompted by this proposed amendment. In the preamble as it stands, the last paragraph is: “And whereas autistic Canadians, their families and their caregivers.”
Senator Housakos, was consideration given to the de facto exclusion of this wording and whether there was consideration given to what could have been an alternative such as “people in Canada with autism?” “Canadians” has a very specific definition, as you know, in law, and “Canadians” are not permanent residents. “Canadians” are not newcomers without Canadian citizenship.
I was hoping for some understanding on that choice here, which has been replicated in the amendment proposed by Senator Lankin.
Senator Housakos: The objective of the preamble was to try to be all-inclusive as much as possible. Again, I’m flexible to the kind of language we use and the attempt to be as inclusive as possible is something I welcome. I highlight, though, colleagues, it’s the preamble of the bill.
The Chair: You raised an important point. I am moving myself out of the chair and just responding to you.
We are now on Senator Lankin’s amendments to the preamble. Is it your will, colleagues, that the preamble be amended as proposed by Senator Lankin?
Hearing no objections, it is carried.
Colleagues, are there any objections that the preamble as amended carry?
An Hon. Senator: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: The preamble carries.
Before we proceed to adopt the bill, Senator Bernard has a motion for a general change. I will ask the clerk to read the general change into the record.
Mr. Charbonneau: Moved by the Honourable Senator Bernard that Bill S-203 be amended by substituting every reference to “autism spectrum disorder” with a reference to “autism.”
The Chair: Thank you.
Is there any debate or discussion on this amendment?
Senator Moodie: I raise a concern about this general change. The amendment to clause 2 that I put forward speaks specifically to a diagnostic term within the medical sphere that is recommended for the framework, because it speaks very specifically to timely access to screening and diagnosis. It is the nature of the particular need for it to resonate with the medical terminology that it needs to align with.
I’m hoping that’s clear. I think in other aspects throughout the bill and the changes, it may be appropriate to change it. In this case, when directing the government to look at this, we need to align with the phraseology in order to align with medical terminology.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Moodie.
Senator Bernard: I put forward this recommendation because the historical approach has been to view, assess, diagnose, treat and intervene from a deficit perspective. As you may have noticed, a lot of the amendments that I put forward had to do with language and choice of language. The recommendation to move to simply stating “autism” and removing “spectrum disorder” is to focus on moving away from a deficit model into a more strengths-based perspective, notwithstanding the need for assessment and interventions, and especially early interventions.
As leaders, we can certainly set the tone with regard to language. As Senator Housakos said earlier this evening, our language certainly evolves, and has evolved. Even CASDA is recognizing that and supports the move to changing the name to “autism” instead of “autism spectrum disorder.”
Senator McPhedran: I guess it’s an overall question for consideration. We have not reached them yet, but we have two excellent observations already in the binder. I’m wondering if we want to try to address this point through an observation.
I’m very mindful of what Senator Housakos said — it’s why I withdrew my subamendment — but I’m also very respectful of the points that Senator Bernard is making and I’m wondering if it would lend itself to an observation from this committee. I’m also wondering if the point I was trying to make about excluding “non-Canadians” would also possibly be an observation from this committee.
The Chair: Senator McPhedran, you are able to make any observations that you choose to make, so let us deal with that when we get to observations.
Senator Kutcher: I think Senator Moodie made a very important point here in terms of keeping it as it is in the bill. I respect Senator Bernard’s comments, and I certainly understand where she’s coming from and where the field is evolving. I think Senator Housakos did an excellent job of describing those issues to us at the beginning, and I will certainly support Senator Housakos’s perspective on this. I would vote against the motion.
Senator Patterson: Hearkening back to what Senator Housakos said at the beginning, we’re not developing the framework here today. We’re laying the legislative base for the development of a framework, which could well change the terminology relating to autism. It could well change that. Right now, the medical term is clear, especially talking about screening and diagnosis, which medical professionals, like Senator Moodie, will understand well if it refers to the medical term “autism spectrum disorder.”
I think we have to be cautious about making that kind of change, even though it’s progressive and it’s affirmative. Let’s leave that for the development of the framework. I’m not in favour of Senator Bernard’s amendment for those reasons.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Patterson. I hear objections, and since we’ve all heard them, shall the decision be that the motion is adopted on division, or do we require a roll call vote?
An Hon. Senator: A vote.
Senator Poirier: I think we need to be careful of what we’re doing here and listen to some of the comments that have been made by Senator Housakos, who is the sponsor of the bill, on some of the comments we have made. We need to leave it to the experts and autistic people to determine what the appropriate term is that they want to use. I do not feel that should be part of the bill, so therefore I don’t support this amendment either that we remove all that at this point. I would prefer a vote than a division.
Senator Bovey: If its defeated, I would very much like it to be in our observations because I think it is forward-looking and I agree with Senator Bernard that we are leaders and we can make our point in various ways. So if it’s voted down, I would support it being in the observations.
The Chair: Honourable senators, there has been a request for a recorded vote. The clerk will now call members names, beginning with the chair and followed by the remaining members’ names in alphabetical order. Members should verbally indicate how they wish to vote by saying “yea,” “nay,” or “abstain.” The clerk will then announce the results of the vote and the chair will then declare whether the motion is carried or defeated.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: Abstain.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Bernard?
Senator Bernard: Yea.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Bovey?
Senator Bovey: Abstain.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Nay.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Kutcher?
Senator Kutcher: Nay.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Lankin?
Senator Lankin: Nay.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: Abstain.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Moodie?
Senator Moodie: Nay.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Nay.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: No.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: No.
Mr. Charbonneau: Yes, 1; no, 7; abstentions, 3.
The Chair: Accordingly, the motion is defeated.
Are there any objections that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make technical, numerical and typographical changes and adjustments to the amendments adopted by the committee? Senators, we have a request for observations. Are there any objections to proceeding in camera? If none, it is agreed.
We will go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)