Health Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2023

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

—this piece of legislation before this committee as a private member's bill—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Davies, we have a point of personal—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

There's no such thing as a point of personal privilege, Mr. Chair, and it certainly does not take precedence by interrupting a point of order. I have the floor on the point of order.

He has insulted the drafter of this bill, who has every right, as a member of the House of Commons and someone who, by the way, was sent to this chamber by the people of his riding, like we are all were. Dr. Ellis made a passionate invocation of democracy and why we're all here because of people, and he's right about that. Mr. Erskine-Smith has every right to put this bill.... He has already cast aspersions that Mr. Erskine-Smith wasn't actively promoting the bill, which is a slur against Mr. Erskine-Smith. He's not even here to defend himself.

This is outrageous what the Conservatives are doing: gumming up this health committee by preventing it from dealing with the business before us, which is a very important piece of private member's business that Mr. Erskine-Smith has every right to table and to have us consider.

If the Conservatives want to filibuster and prevent this committee from dealing with this legislation, then I guess we can't stop them, but what we can do is make sure they do it within the confines of the rules of this committee and the rules of Parliament, which are to speak with relevance to the matter under consideration. If they were not organized enough to put in amendments that would ground the kind of discussion they want to have, then that's a deficiency on their part. However, it is not permissible in this committee to allow a member to talk about all sorts of irrelevant issues beyond their own amendment.

I would ask that you call Dr. Ellis to order and have him wrap up his comments. Then we can vote on this section and move forward on this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Davies. I've tried.

Next is Mr. Majumdar, please.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

To describe the Conservative effort to place opioids and economic recovery, as Dr. Ellis has been passionately describing, as a filibuster is I think irresponsible, because at the end of the day Mr. Davies is protecting his NDP and Liberal friends in a cover-up, as opposed to actually pursuing a genuine comprehensive review of the pandemic. I'd like to see Mr. Davies retract his comment on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We're back to you, Dr. Ellis.

Please, if you could stay on the topic.... You've made a very compelling presentation as to the reasons to vote in favour of CPC-1. I would ask you to stay on topic, but you do indeed have the floor, sir.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

It's interesting that my colleague from the NDP doesn't like to be called the arbiter, although he continues to raise points of order and to attempt to direct the chair of this committee as to how the business should be conducted.

I would suggest that Canadians would find nothing more important, after living now three and a half years under a pandemic with the significant potential always, when we see members from Health Canada appearing with masks on and sitting six feet apart, and the continued threat to move back into masking mandates and requirements to shut down businesses, to have children schooled remotely.... I would suggest that understanding the exact purpose of this is very important.

My colleague from the NDP, of course, would know very clearly, having a legal background that words do matter, and that the difference between “reducing” and “preventing” could, significantly, mean the loss of billions and perhaps trillions of dollars to the Canadian economy and could influence how we actually conduct business in this country, how children are schooled in this country, how people get to socialize in this country, how health care is delivered in this country and, indeed, within the massive scope of this illegitimate bill how food is grown in this country. This has significant impacts on the agriculture industry, and while they continue to say the wording inside the purpose really doesn't make much difference, I would suggest to the members of this committee that it does.

We do know there were significant concerns brought forward by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Cattle Association, the Canadian Pork Council and others regarding the bill's impact on the Canadian animal agriculture sector with things that come forward further on in this bill.

If we don't get the appropriate wording of the purpose of this bill from the very beginning.... I would suggest to this committee that if we talk about preventing a pandemic versus reducing the likelihood of a pandemic, there could be a significant problem with respect to how many of these measures could potentially be brought forward in an incredibly draconian way, especially when we know that the significant idea that was brought forward by this Liberal government during the heydays—if I can use that word—of the pandemic was realistically related to the need to divide Canadians and to call them names such as misogynistic and racist. When those divisions are sown, I would suggest to you there are significant and considerable hurt feelings that exist among many Canadians in all different parts of this country.

Getting the wording around preventing versus reducing the likelihood of future pandemics on a worldwide basis will be absolutely essential to how we move forward with respect to this bill. When we begin to look at reducing the likelihood, it can't be underscored enough to be very clear about the need to ask people what freedom they have as Canadians and what their personal choice is when they begin to understand that we're talking about preventing a particular illness versus reducing the likelihood thereof.

For instance, if we are going to prevent illnesses, maybe we should just lock everybody up at home, make them stay there and give them significant amounts of government money. Oh—wait a minute—we already tried that, and when we tried that, we know that the money that was printed flooded the economy and caused this significant 40-year inflation high we now have with interest rates set by the Bank of Canada at 5%. We also know that the fallout from that has been absolutely incredibly bone crushing to the finances of everyday Canadians. People come up to me every day and they say to me, “I don't know how, when my mortgage comes up for renewal, I am going to be able to afford the payments on the interest.” It's not just about not reducing the amount of the principle. What we're talking about is really the inability to make even the interest payments. When we begin to hear those things, the suggestion that there is no relevance or that I should keep my comments about preventing or reducing a pandemic short I find an affront.

Again, I will suggest that allowing one member to think they are the arbiter of verbiage in this committee and of time limits in this committee is absolutely something that cannot be tolerated.

When we look at the comment about preventing versus reducing the likelihood, what we know very clearly is that printing money to hand out during the pandemic was a bad idea. There's no other word for it. Let's be honest in committee and not try to use fancy trumped-up language and just understand that it was a bad idea.

There are people out there who would say it's necessary. Maybe if we looked at the concept of reducing the likelihood versus preventing, then other people could be challenged, such as those folks from the major banks of Canada we invited to come here and other economists we invited to come here to have their say with respect to how illegitimate and ridiculous this particular bill is. Then we wouldn't be in this position now three and a half years after that fateful day, March 13, 2020, when the pandemic was deemed to have hit Canadian shores. Now what we know very clearly is related to the fact that the mortgages of Canadians have doubled since that time, and the price of an apartment has doubled in that time.

We know the cost of goods has inflated to the point where Canadians are really wondering.... As winter is coming, we wonder whether Canadians will be able to feed their families, keep a roof over their heads and heat their homes. This is all related to the fact that perhaps the difficulty was simply related to the Canadian Liberal government at that time taking a decision to attempt to “prevent” as opposed to “reduce” the likelihood.

When we begin to look at all of these incredible things that have happened to the lives of Canadians.... Having served the public for a very long part of my life, I'm beginning to understand.... Now people will call our offices, as members of Parliament. I know, across the aisle, folks over there are getting the same phone calls that we are. They have to be getting the same phone calls, unless they've created some sort of wild conspiracy so that only Conservatives are suffering. We know very clearly that every Canadian is suffering with the cost of living crisis that is continuing because of the money-printing actions of this government.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that it certainly may be related to the idea of an attempt to “prevent” as opposed to “reduce” the likelihood of a pandemic.

When we look at these comments to understand whether we believe that speaking out on behalf of all Canadians is germane, useful, should be time-limited or needs to be lectured upon by somebody else in this committee who thinks they have a better idea and wants to get on to amendments they have proposed, when we know very clearly that the NDP-Liberal coalition continues to vote together....

Therefore, we know we need to underline, underscore and underpin the arguments we have, which are related to very specific wording on behalf of Canadians, who are absolutely paramount to the arguments that we put forward. Continuing to suggest that an argument around one particular word is a waste of time or is not a waste of time, realistically, Chair, holds no water for me because I believe words are important.

We already heard some inflammatory words earlier today from another member attending this committee, and we know that words matter. On behalf of the Canadians who elected the 338 of us to be here to simply represent them in the House of Commons, we know that when they reach out to us and tell us they are suffering....

They already know that when they put oil in their fuel barrel this winter, it will cause them significant pain. We know very clearly that, when they spend a thousand dollars putting oil in their fuel tank, which will certainly not last.... It depends on the winter, of course. Oddly enough, we know it's already snowing in Edmonton. I had a message from my brother this morning that there was snow on his deck, and that is a significant problem.

Very clearly, we know the carbon taxes added a thousand dollars' worth of oil, which is essential. It is absolutely essential for Atlantic Canadians to have this—

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I'm just confirming that we're still on the CPC-1 amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Yes. The debate is on CPC-1, which is an amendment to clause 2.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

That's just to change a couple of words. Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That's right.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Dr. Ellis, I think the point was made indirectly that you are now well beyond the limits of relevance. I'd ask you to bring it back.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much.

I thank the honourable member across the aisle for again underscoring the fact that clearly, when I mentioned the relevance of preventing versus reducing the likelihood, they were not paying clear enough attention.

Therefore, back to the carbon tax, Mr. Chair, we know that putting a thousand dollars' worth of oil into an oil barrel for an essential service this winter for Atlantic Canadians—

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

On a point of order, although I'm enjoying his filibustering, I'm not sure what relevance the carbon tax has to his suggested amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Yes. I don't think that point is getting through, despite our best efforts.

We have Dr. Ellis, please, on the amendment. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'm very happy that Dr. Powlowski brought forward the relevance of the carbon tax. If I weren't continuously interrupted by points of order—or, as Mr. Davies would have me say, not “interrupted” by them but having them proclaimed—during my speech, it would be very clear that....

I've started three or four times now, but I will say it again. That thousand dollars' worth of home heating fuel, which is essential to the survival of Atlantic Canadians and many other Canadians across this great country, has more than $230—so 23%—of carbon tax attached to it. When we look at what Canadians are now trying to do, they are trying to take their already taxed income and fuel their vehicles. We know in Atlantic Canada the difficulties related to the ability we have when we live very rurally—

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I know you clarified that this was the first amendment, but is this still Bill C-293, an act respecting pandemic prevention?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Yes, indeed it is.

Dr. Ellis, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much.

Again, the point, of course, is related to preventing versus reducing the likelihood of a pandemic.

When we look at the devastating effects this Liberal government's policies during the pandemic—with respect to economics—had and continue to have on this member's riding in Atlantic Canada.... We know very clearly that when his constituents need to do things, there's a much greater likelihood that they are required to drive a car to get there. Again, that punishing carbon tax has added at least 16¢ to a litre of fuel for their vehicle.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. With respect, the content of what Dr. Ellis is describing is irrelevant to the motion on the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I agree with your point of order, and ask Dr. Ellis to limit his comments to those that are relevant to what is before the committee at this time.

Go ahead, Dr. Ellis.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I know the member from the Yukon and the people he serves are also suffering significantly from the punishing carbon tax that he has voted for—I don't know—23 or 24 times.

I think when we continue in the spirit of those things—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, by my count, this is at least the fifth time you have called Dr. Ellis to order and reminded him of the rule of relevancy. He just ignores you. Each and every time you call on him, rule him to be irrelevant and ask him to speak to the issue, he continues to go right back to speaking on the very subject on which he was just ruled irrelevant.

I would ask that if he continues to do it, or does it one more time, he lose his speaking spot and you move to the next speaker. If he refuses to respect the rulings of the chair and insists on speaking on irrelevant subjects after being called to order repeatedly, he is disqualifying himself from speaking on this matter.

We cannot allow Dr. Ellis to continue to filibuster this bill and this committee by speaking about irrelevant subjects. He's permitted to filibuster and speak at length—as torturous as it may be—but he is not entitled to ignore the rule of relevancy. I'm concerned that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Davies, hang on for one second.

I want to deal with this. Mr. Majumdar is again raising what he calls a point of personal privilege. I want to deal with this right now, and then I'm going to come back to you.

I do not, as a committee chair, have the power to rule on points of privilege. If there is a point of privilege raised here, it's something that has to be brought back to the House. I am concerned that a so-called point of personal privilege is being used as an opportunity to interrupt someone who is on a point of order. I just wanted to make that clear.

Mr. Majumdar, if you have a point of order, that indeed takes precedence, but a point of personal privilege is not something that can be dealt with by committee, except to refer it to the House.

It's back to you, Mr. Davies. I'm sorry for the interruption.