Health Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2023

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

Excuse me, Chair, but I find it oppressive and discriminatory that the member wishes to sit there and mock and laugh at what I am attempting to say here. I don't think this is absolutely funny at all.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I don't think it's funny either.

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

To have someone who wishes to interrupt and join our committee continue to attempt to interrupt me, laugh and think that it is all very hilarious that they want to bring a point forward that it is oppressive and discriminatory.... This is really getting to the core of the Westminster style of government. For someone to suggest that to the voters of Canada, who have elected 338 members of Parliament around this country, across this country, up and down this country is, to me, an affront to the entire system we have.

Again, as I said, Mr. Chair, for that individual to take umbrage with that and also to find the hilarity therein is a significant problem for me. To use such language is, to my mind, offensive to me as a person and as a first-time elected member who has been here for merely two years. To have a senior elected member from the opposite side of the country, who perhaps would wish to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Dr. Hanley, on a point of order.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I have a point of order that the substance of this current speech by Mr. Ellis is not a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I'm inclined to agree with you.

Dr. Ellis, can you wrap it up, please?

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

Thank you very much, Chair. I will wrap it up.

There were several comments suggesting that the system of government we have is oppressive and discriminatory. I think it is very clear that this is not the style of government we have. Again, for a senior elected member to suggest that the system is oppressive and discriminatory is an affront to the system we have. I think we should be setting examples for folks such as me who have been here a mere two years, as opposed to laughing and finding jocularity and humour and actually feeling affronted by our system in essence.

I'll leave it there, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay.

I'm going to come back to you, Ms. May, because you had the floor. Please resist the urge to prolong this debate. The procedural points you made were ones of which I was aware. You were right to point them out to the committee to make them aware as well, but again, we'd like to get on with business, and I know you would too.

Go ahead.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I do apologize. I did not know that Dr. Ellis could hear any of my reaction to his speech, because I thought I was back on mute.

I just want to clarify again that my comments about things being oppressive and discriminatory do not relate to the rules of the House of Commons. Under the rules of the House of Commons, under the Standing Orders, I would have the right to present these amendments at report stage in front of the House of Commons as a whole.

It's because of the motion passed by this committee, with wording identical to the one passed by every other committee, that I am presenting amendments to your committee this morning and I am simultaneously also trying to present amendments to Bill C-20 before the security committee. Only a person in my position could possibly be required, under motions passed by committees, to show up in two places at the same time. Even on Zoom it is not possible, so my priority here is for this bill. I may have to exit to try to get into the security committee under Chairman McKinnon to present amendments in clause-by-clause on a different bill.

I do maintain that the motion passed by this committee was passed without a full understanding of the impact it would have on members of Parliament.

I appreciate the deference that I am senior. I do feel more senior some days than others, and I apologize and will end there.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. May.

We have Mr. Doherty.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'll start over. There was an article over the weekend that really brings home the problem I started talking about last week: that so-called safe supply is really anything but.

There seems to be a desire on the other side of the table to avoid talking about this. We've pushed to study the opioids issue for some time. Obviously, I'm new to this committee, or recently back to this committee, but I have been part of a number of debates. I look to the end of the table where our colleague Mr. Davies is normally. I see him online.

We can say a lot of things about the partisan politics in the House of Commons over the eight years since I've been elected, eight years just last Friday, but the one thing that we seem to come together on is mental health and addictions. We always seem to be able to be on the same page for that. We've been pushing the government for eight years to declare the opioid crisis a national health crisis, with the exception of the last 20 months, I would say, where our colleagues from the NDP seem to be siding, when push comes to shove—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point o f order. The current speaker is completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion. We are currently have business before the committee, which is to do a clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-293, an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness. He's speaking about the opioid crisis, erroneous—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Davies.

Apparently, Mr. Majumdar has a point of personal privilege.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

I would like to contend that Mr. Doherty is not irrelevant, which is exactly what the honourable member said. He said that the “speaker is...irrelevant” and I think that was abusive language.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

What I heard him say was that the point raised by him was completely irrelevant, which is a valid point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Anybody listening with a modicum of good faith would understand what I was saying, which was that the speaker...the points that he is making, important as they may be, are irrelevant. One of the rules of speaking is that one's comments must be germane to the matter at hand. We don't have any motions before us. Mr. Doherty hasn't even moved a motion, yet he's speaking to a completely different subject than the one under consideration.

I might add that, as he well knows, this committee has already agreed to study the opioid overdose crisis as early as in December, so why he's raising this now is beyond me. We do have an act, a bill, that we have to get through by Friday or it will be reported back to the House unamended. I would ask you, Mr. Chair, to hold the speaker to the basic requirement of relevancy to the topic at hand.

If Mr. Doherty wants to make a motion to start talking about a completely different subject than we have before us at committee, then he can make that motion and we can vote on it. Mr. Ellis gave a very impassioned and eloquent defence of democracy. The democratic route would be to find out if the majority of committee members here today would rather deal with the bill before us or talk about the overdose crisis, when we intend to begin a study on that very subject in as little as six weeks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay.

Mr. Davies makes a valid point of order with respect to the relevance of Mr. Doherty's presentation to the matter before the committee. What has been called is clause 2. He also makes a valid point that, if Mr. Doherty wishes to present a motion to resume debate, that's in order, but a lengthy discussion on something other than clause 2 isn't.

There is a fair degree of latitude that rests with the chair with respect to relevance and repetition. All I would say to Mr. Doherty is that it is a valid point. If you wish to move a motion to resume debate, that would be in order, but a lengthy discussion of something other than clause 2 isn't.

You have the floor, sir.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the interventions by you and our colleagues.

I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to explain myself. It is relevant to the study at hand today. We've seen throughout the pandemic that the mental health crisis and the addictions crisis have become even more critical, so I would like to move that we resume debate on the opioid motion from last week. To that, again, my motion from last week called for an end to the program funding. I don't believe any of our colleagues around this table....

If I'd been able to continue along the path of where I was going before I was interrupted by Mr. Davies, I was about to say that we've always had a—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I would ask the honourable member to retract his comment. I did not interrupt him. I raised a point of order. I would ask him to retract that statement and apologize.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chair, my intervention was interrupted by a point of order by Mr. Davies.

As I was going down the path of saying, Mr. Chair, that we've always been on the same page with our colleagues from the NDP, up to recently, regarding the opioid issue and pushing for this government to do more. It's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Doherty, I'm sorry to interrupt. You presented a motion that isn't debatable and now you're on debate. If you wish the committee to consider the motion, we need to go directly to a vote.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I think I have an opportunity to explain my motion as to why I think we need to do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

No, actually, you don't. As soon as the motion is moved, it needs to be voted on. Any comments after the motion constitute debate.

We have a motion before the committee to resume debate on the motion.

(Motion negatived)

We are back to clause 2.

I recognize Dr. Ellis.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I would suggest that, owing to the escalating opioid epidemic having had a devastating impact on the health of Canadians, especially during the pandemic, the committee needs to conduct upcoming studies with respect to the opioid epidemic in conjunction with and at the same time as the women's health study.

Mr. Chair, why is this important? It's important because Canadians out there are dying—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we are not in committee business. I'm not sure we've been given 48 hours' notice of this motion. If we have, then I'm mistaken, but I don't believe we have. Therefore, this subject being raised by Dr. Ellis is out of order.