Evidence of meeting #83 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Jean-François Pagé

11 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 83 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

In accordance with our routine motion, I'm informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting. We have Mr. Davies and Ms. May participating remotely.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 8, 2023, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-293, an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness. Today we are going to begin clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.

As you will have been informed by email, we have resources right up until question period, if needed. We will proceed until there is a motion for adjournment, until we get to the end of the agenda or until 1:50, probably, to allow people to get to question period. We'll see how it goes. I just want you to know that the ability to extend is there for us.

I would like to welcome the officials from the Public Health Agency of Canada who are here to answer any substantive questions you have as we go through the amendments. We have Stephen Bent, vice-president, strategic policy branch; Dr. Donald Sheppard, vice-president, infectious diseases and vaccination programs branch; and David Creasey, director general, strategic policy branch. They are here as a resource to us. We also have some folks from legislative services for any technical, legal or procedural questions with regard to the amendments. We are very well supported. Hopefully, that will contribute to our efficiency today.

I'd like to provide you with some instructions and a few comments on how we're going to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-293.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I'll call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to a debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it but shouldn't feel compelled to launch into a lengthy explanation—because of the sheer volume. The amendment will then be open for debate.

When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package that each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee. The ones that were provided in writing to the clerk of the committee to date are reflected in your package.

We'll go as slowly as we need to in order to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly.

Each amendment has been given a number, in the top right corner, to indicate which party submitted it. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it's been moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must also be submitted in writing. They don't require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be further amended. When a subamendment to an amendment is moved, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it, which is a procedure you are familiar with from the general moving of motions in this committee.

Mr. Doherty.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

This is an important conversation that we're having. We need to get through this study, obviously, but I'd like to resume the debate on my opioids motion from last week. I move that we resume that debate on the opioids motion from last week, Mr. Chair.

Colleagues, there was an article over the weekend that really brings home the problem that I want to—

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

The motion to resume debate is not debatable. Now that you've moved the motion, we must proceed directly to a vote. Then you're free to make further representations. However, once you make a motion to resume debate, we have to proceed directly to a vote.

This is a non-debatable motion. The motion is that debate be resumed on Mr. Doherty's motion, which was adjourned on Wednesday.

Mr. Doherty, I have made my first of probably several mistakes today. A motion cannot be moved on a point of order.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Chair—

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Once we start the meeting and you get the floor without raising a point of order, you're welcome to move your motion again and we'll follow that process.

Now, on your point of order....

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Chair, I went into a lengthy conversation with our team in good faith last week. At that time, I was talking about and sharing my personal story with this committee, but also challenging us as a committee to do.... If people don't believe me, they should believe the 17 leading addictions physicians who wrote this letter.

When I was doing my intervention, I had colleagues who were openly mocking what I was doing.

It's frustrating for me, Mr. Chair. There was an article over the weekend that really brings this home. The so-called safe supply is really anything but—

11:05 a.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

There's a point of order from Mr. Davies.

11:05 a.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Mr. Doherty is not stating a point of order. He's engaging in debate.

By the way, for the record, there was absolutely zero mocking by anybody of—

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

I disagree.

11:05 a.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Please ask him.... He has no point of order. He's simply trying to reopen debate on the motion.

Please ask him to state his point of order so that you can deal with the point of order, and then we can move to the vote.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

I think it's a fair point.

Mr. Doherty, I know you want to resume debate. The right time to do that is not on a point of order. If there is a point of order, please get to it. Based on what I've heard so far, I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Davies that you're utilizing a point of order in order to re-enter debate. If that is, in fact, your intention, please let's terminate it and do it the right way.

If you actually have a point of order, I'm interested to hear it.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

I'll cede the floor.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Dr. Ellis, do you have a point of order?

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

No. I have a motion, though, Mr. Chair.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Can I at least finish my opening statement, and then we will open the floor? That would be an appropriate time for motions and the like.

11:05 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Chair, in your initial discussion of procedure, I had my hand up to add something to that in relation to procedure. I think this is the only moment when it will fit, but I'll wait and give you the chance to have the floor.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Thank you.

All right. We were talking about subamendments.

Once every clause has been voted upon, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

That's it by way of preliminaries. Now, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, and the preamble is postponed.

I see Ms. May, Dr. Ellis and Mr. Doherty.

Ms. May is first, please.

11:10 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My comments are entirely procedural, because as you went through the process that we will be undertaking, I wanted to reacquaint members of the committee with the motion this committee passed under, I will admit, some degree of duress. This process applies only to me and to members of parties that have fewer than 12 MPs in the House.

Every committee has passed an identical motion and has done so every year since, I think, Stephen Harper came up with this in the PMO in 2014. Subsequently, after every election and once every committee dies, when they restart, they pass a motion that subtracts from the rights I would ordinarily have to present amendments on bills at report stage.

I only mention this because, when you say that amendments will come forward after they are moved, I am not, under the terms of your motion, allowed to move my own amendments. My amendments will be deemed moved. I have a right at that moment to speak to them, but not at length.

I find this whole process oppressive and discriminatory, but I follow the rules.

I wanted to make sure that members of the committee wouldn't be surprised when my motions are deemed moved, without my being able to move them, and that we would proceed in every other way—well, not in every other way but in some ways—as if it were a Liberal or a Conservative motion.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I feel strongly about this. This member is saying that the rules set out by the House of Commons are oppressive and discriminatory. I would suggest—

11:10 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

No, the motion passed—

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Excuse me, but I believe I have the floor, Chair.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Go ahead, Dr. Ellis, on your point of order.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

I would suggest to you that the rules and regulations and policies that we follow here in the House of Commons are not oppressive or discriminatory. I would suggest very clearly that they are based on the fact that those who get to sit around this table on a regular basis are folks who, from the voters of Canada, have achieved the greatest results. We are proportionally represented here, so to suggest that the voters of Canada are oppressive and discriminatory is an absolutely ludicrous and untenable position.

I guess to further that position is to say that the member wishes to continue to create a diatribe against Canadians, when here what we're doing is saying—

11:15 a.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh!