Evidence of meeting #118 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pharmacare.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
That's not a point of order. That's a point of debate.
Go ahead, Mr. Julian.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
The House of Commons gave us a job to do. Conservatives seem to want to block doing that job. I would ask them, through you, Mr. Chair, that they allow the votes to be held, that they stop blocking this legislation. It's been before the House since February 29.
Conservatives have blocked it at every single step. Three months later, the reason that it has not yet passed through committee is that Conservatives have been blocking it at every single turn. Six million Canadians with diabetes and nine million Canadians who need access to contraception, including basic, fundamental reproductive rights—
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
I have a point of order.
Again, Mr. Chair, we have heard these statistics previously, so this is very repetitive. If you wish to allow that, I have a lot more to say, Mr. Chair. Please be consistent. I implore you.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I think you have a lot more to say, regardless of what my ruling might be.
Mr. Julian, please get to the point, if you would.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
The point is this: I ask my Conservative colleagues to move forward on the bill. Stop blocking the bill.
Thank you.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'll keep this brief. We're not blocking this bill. It's important that Canadians understand what this bill is and what it isn't. This is not a filibuster. How can you filibuster something when it's already under time allocation? It's an impossibility. When we get to 8:30 today, on behalf of Canadians, we will have to vote anyway, even though there's been very little testimony and very little discussion.
This is not a filibuster. This is an educational session with respect to the failures of the NDP-Liberal costly coalition, which we now know is, sadly, irritating Mr. Julian. He wants to get on.
We can't block this bill. If we were blocking this bill, it would still be in the House of Commons.
We also know, because Mr. Naqvi asked me to go home and do bizarre things alone, this is obviously irritating him as well. Perhaps he thinks that being able to say words like those the minister has said in the House of Commons is helpful, and that we can all say “penis” and “vagina” here in committee. It's not bothersome to be able to say that.
However, I don't believe for one second that this is what Canadians are asking us to do here. Canadians are asking me to say what our opposition is to this bill, and I've been very clear in helping Canadians understand what the trouble is with this bill. Certainly, at every chance we get, we are trying to be helpful to make this better.
At that point, Mr. Chair, I'm happy to cede the floor.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
The speakers list is now exhausted. We are therefore ready for the question.
Shall CPC-7 carry? All those in favour, please raise your hand.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Mr. Chair, we request a recorded division, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
That brings us to CPC-8, in the name of Dr. Ellis.
Would you like to move CPC-8, Dr. Ellis?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Certainly our office had a bit of a back-and-forth with the legislative clerks with respect to the exact wording. I think this is important, and if we haven't got it correct, I'm quite happy to hear from my colleagues, and from the legislative clerks as well, to understand exactly what the appropriate wording would be in order to be the most inclusive for aboriginal people in Canada. That was the reasoning behind this wording.
Through you, Mr. Chair, I don't know if the legislative clerks have any more input, but that was simply an attempt to ensure that we are as inclusive as possible.
I'll leave it at that, sir.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Dr. Ellis.
My advice from the clerks at the table is that the wording contained in CPC-8 is wording that was decided upon after consultation with the legislative counsel. They have nothing to add. It looks like the homework has already been done.
Are there any further interventions with respect to CPC-8?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Émilie Thivierge Legislative Clerk
Thank you for the question.
As legislative clerks, we are here to give advice to the committee regarding procedural questions. This is not a question that has anything to do with procedure. It's more of a legal question, so the question may be directed to the officials. We are not legislative counsel, so we cannot comment on the wording.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Thank you.
The question that I have is whether the wording that's being suggested is correct or incorrect.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I don't think there's anyone here who can answer that question. It was my understanding that there were discussions with legislative counsel before this came forward. Whatever advice they gave to the drafter would be between them. I'm not privy to it, nor are the clerks.
I see Mr. Naqvi and Ms. Goodridge, unless you have something else, Mr. Doherty.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
No. I just wanted to see if what was put forth was the correct version or not.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
I think it is an appropriate question. It is my understanding that “indigenous peoples” is the appropriate and most inclusive term, given that it's the term that appears in other pieces of legislation as well. For example, the UNDRIP implementation legislation is very similar in that the legislation speaks to provinces and territories, not provincial and territorial governments.
It's not the place of the legislation to define the kind of governing body per se, but perhaps, Chair, I can ask the officials from Health Canada to advise us if using “indigenous peoples” is the appropriate and inclusive term to use in this particular legislation.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Michelle Boudreau Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Health
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The broader term, “indigenous peoples”, is in fact inclusive. That would be our view.
Of course, in preparing the legislation, we would have done this due diligence as well, so I would agree with the earlier comments.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses.
The rationale behind bringing this forward is that there are indigenous governing bodies as well as “indigenous peoples” more wholly. It is an attempt to recognize that there are organizations that fall within a governing body and indigenous individuals who do not, and we want to try to be as inclusive as possible when it comes to the conversation around this.
It was challenging to truly be able to understand, because we were time-limited in getting the amendments done. My understanding from working with the the law clerks in drafting this amendment is that “indigenous governing bodies” is in fact a legal term. In fact, we have CPC-2, which we will eventually get to, that does give the definition as per the Constitution Act, 1982. It should, in theory, do this, so my question is whether this would be inappropriate.