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.
October 23rd, 2023 / 12:55 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Jean-François Pagé
What has been proposed is not a subamendment. Rather, it's an amendment that we'll have to deal with later. We must deal with amendment NDP‑1 first.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Yes, absolutely. I apologize. I was too focused on the fact that we were going to completely ignore this inquiry.
Can I still ask the clerk a question before we continue?
Doesn't creating an inquiry with all the expense that entails require a royal recommendation? Couldn't a private member's bill be blocked for this reason at the end of the process, even if we voted in favour of it?
12:55 p.m.
The Clerk
According to our analysis, and after consulting specialists, my answer is that the Inquiries Act already provides for this remuneration. So this is not a new expense.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
That's what I thought. That's why we were talking about this law rather than the argument that we had to do something different. So that becomes an argument for voting for the bill, if you really want an inquiry.
I draw people's attention to the fact that it would be interesting to write this desire into the bill, if we want to have an inquiry. That would give it coherence. After that, I don't know what exactly we're going to discuss.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
So it wasn't a subamendment, but another amendment that will be introduced later.
We are now back to the amendment proposed by Mr. Davies, NDP-1.
I have Mr. Davies and Dr. Ellis on the speakers list.
Mr. Davies, go ahead.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a couple of quick points for two colleagues whom I respect very much and who, I think, served on this committee through the pandemic: Mr. Jeneroux and Dr. Powlowski.
For Mr. Jeneroux, yes, although the amendment doesn't prescribe it, it very well could take the form of a royal recommendation. If you think of where we've had inquiries before, whether it's into wrongful imprisonment or other such things, I think that if there were ever a subject that was perfectly appropriate for a royal inquiry, it would be how, together, we all handled the COVID pandemic. We talked about it being once in a hundred years. If you don't have a public royal inquiry into something like this, it's hard for me to think of when one would. I would say, yes, absolutely, it could be a royal inquiry, a royal commission.
For Dr. Powlowski, I want to make sure that.... I totally respect his position on it. Reasonable people can have reasonable disagreements on these issues. I personally think that, although it may not be perfect, to me the whole purpose of the Inquiries Act is to set a mechanism for when we want to have an objective, arm's-length examination of an issue of national importance. That's what I think this is, and I think it's really critical that we take this out of the partisan field.
A government is going to have a different lens and vision on this than the opposition will. They may join issue and find agreement on some things, but a government will naturally have a desire to defend its actions. I don't think that's a pejorative. It's just what governments do. Opposition may at times have a different version and be critical.
That's why my whole rationale in proposing this amendment is to rise above the partisanship and find a non-partisan mechanism. I think the beauty of having a public inquiry is that these things are done in public. A royal commission can go out into communities across the country. It can televise, it can take submissions from the public and it can examine all of the issues in a very courageous way.
I just want to make sure that.... You know, if people don't think that's the appropriate way to go, I respect that. Reasonable people can have a disagreement on that, but I personally feel that this is very much needed in our country.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Mr. Davies.
Before I go to Dr. Ellis, because he may want to address this in his remarks, if NDP-1 is adopted, CPC-2 and CPC-3 cannot be moved because they seek to amend the same line. There's a line conflict. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 769:
Amendments must be proposed following the order of the text to be amended. Once a line of a clause has been amended by the committee, it cannot be further amended in a subsequent amendment as a given line may be amended only once.
Dr. Ellis is going to speak next, but before we get to a vote, you need to be aware that there is a line conflict. If NDP-1 is adopted, that would prevent us from dealing with CPC-1 and CPC-2.
I have Dr. Ellis.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much, Chair.
The South Riverdale supervised injection site has been operating since 2017. It is located in Leslieville, a neighbourhood in Toronto. The site was in the media this summer when Karolina Huebner-Makurat died after being hit by a stray bullet outside the location.
We have now learned that the Ford government has taken over the Leslieville drug site and that the Ministry of Health has installed a supervisor and begun a comprehensive review of the community health clinic. We also know that this Liberal government, with the support of the NDP, is funding this site.
According to South Riverdale's most recent financial report, the federal government, through Health Canada provided nearly $2 million in federal funding to this location. This must be addressed by this committee urgently. I will table the following motion:
That the committee undertake four meetings on the South Riverdale supervised injection site and safe injection programs and facilities across Canada and review the federal government's involvement in this program and the funding that has been allotted; and that the committee hear from the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, the Minister of Health, Department of Health officials and any other witnesses deemed relevant to the study.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
It isn't relevant to the topic. However, I'd like him to finish his submission because he can move a motion under certain circumstances. Your point with respect to relevance is a valid one.
Please go ahead, Dr. Ellis.
You were in the middle of reading either a motion or a notice of motion. Please continue. If we need to deal with relevance, we can, but we want to hear you out first.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much, Chair.
I will start back a bit, just to give some context again.
According to the South Riverdale's most recent financial report, the federal government, through Health Canada, provided nearly $2 million in federal funding to this location. This must be addressed urgently by this committee.
Therefore, I table the following motion:
That the committee undertake four meetings on the South Riverdale supervised injection site and safe injection programs and facilities across Canada and review the federal government's involvement in this program and the funding that has been allotted; and that the committee hear from the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, the Minister of Health, Department of Health officials and any other witnesses deemed relevant to the study.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Dr. Ellis.
When you say you're tabling the motion, I take that to mean you are providing notice of motion. If that's the case, that's fine and we can move on. If what you meant to say was that you're moving the motion, then we have a problem because there's no notice.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much, Chair.
Certainly I think it has become very clear that this committee at the current time does not want to talk about opioids, even though they are germane to the pandemic. That being said, of course, in hearing the rulings that you have provided previously, I think it would be foolish to continue to flog that horse. Therefore, this would be a motion that is tabled, a notice of motion.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you very much, Dr. Ellis.
Is there any further debate or discussion with respect to NDP-1?
Seeing none, are we ready for the question?
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
A recorded vote has been requested on NDP-1.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The next amendment is CPC-2.
Is there someone who wishes to move CPC-2?
Dr. Ellis.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much, Chair.
I really hope this will ring true with our Bloc colleague and hopefully with everyone else. We know very clearly there is a significant intersection between federal and provincial jurisdiction, and we heard from experts during the limited amount of testimony that was given on this incredibly far-reaching bill. I would suggest having more witnesses here to understand exactly the considerable reach of the pandemic with respect to things like federal and provincial jurisdiction.
Having been a physician running a regional in-patient COVID unit at that time, I would suggest there were often significant differences of opinion and perhaps, at the very least, mildly contradictory views between what was being recommended by the federal government and what was being recommended by their provincial colleagues. Beginning to understand that jurisdictional issues continue to pop their heads up during this debate is, I think, exceedingly important so that Canadians can be assured that the advice and direction they are being given is consistent across the country. I would suggest that is something we actually suffer from across the country: differences in jurisdictional ideas. Indeed, from a medical care perspective, a significant patchwork of medical care exists across the country at the current time.
For instance, on pharmacare, the great province of Nova Scotia has a pharmacare bill that is accessible to any member of the public. We know, according to media reports, that the NDP-Liberal coalition, including members of this committee, are working very closely together to come up with a national single-payer pharmacare system. That would significantly disadvantage those of us who live in Nova Scotia who already have a pharmacare program that is accessible to all, and it would mean that the limited number of federal government dollars would be transferred to other provinces and jurisdictions that have not yet, for whatever reason, been able to or seen fit to undertake a scoped program such as exists in Nova Scotia.
We know very clearly that this also ties in closely to the federal dental care bill, which would again disadvantage Nova Scotians, who already have a program funded by the provincial government for children ages 14 and under. The $650 per child that flows to other jurisdictions in this country does not end up flowing to Nova Scotians, which again means federal dollars are going to other jurisdictions as opposed to provinces like Nova Scotia that have already created a program.
Therefore, I would suggest that jurisdictional issues are incredibly important. We begin to understand the necessity to be very clear when talking about a program of this incredible magnitude. Liberal colleagues have voted against their NDP coalition. Not having a federal commission to address the pandemic response is going to be very important if the scope and the actual jurisdictional ramifications of any such inquiry are to become clear to Canadians. I would suggest that for the examples I've given—meaning dental care and the proposed pharmacare bill we believe will come forward from this government supposedly before the end of this year, with the guillotine that is hanging over the head of the Liberals with the supply-and-confidence agreement with the NDP—we need to be very clear on exactly what jurisdiction—federal or provincial—is going to be responsible for which parts of the inquiry.
It is sad that, once again, legislation in the House is being ramrodded through Parliament by our Liberal colleagues without sufficient time to have numerous stakeholders and experts called before this committee to help us understand the jurisdictional implications. We had an absolutely excellent witness who we were not able to hear from during the last meeting.
As I said previously, we also know that there are significant stakeholders from the agricultural community who will have significant ongoing issues with things talking about alternate proteins and how farmers do their business.
You know, it always fascinates me that many groups want to take umbrage with the actions of farmers. Farmers rely on the earth to provide their livelihoods, to feed the rest of us, to provide employment. When you look at the difficulties associated with that, you will see that people's suggesting that farmers are not good stewards of the land is an utter insult. I would suggest that farmers, by nature of their work, needing the good fertile soil in order to grow crops in an efficient manner, would be the best stewards of the agricultural system. That would have their best interests at heart—being able to grow food quickly, efficiently and with tremendous density. Not only do they benefit financially from that, but they also benefit from feeding the world and from the satisfaction that comes from understanding that—wow—we are actually able, here in Canada, to provide food for many of those who are hungry.
The carbon tax continues to punish farmers by making it more expensive to grow food and to transport food, and again, the cost gets sent over to consumers, who, by nature of being human beings, have to buy the food.
Again, when we look at the examples that we see here, Mr. Chair, we understand that even though most of this bill, in my mind, continues to be nonsensical, wide-reaching, unbelievably costly, etc., it is important to understand which parts of this are provincial jurisdiction and which are federal jurisdiction. In order for those of us who live in agricultural-based communities.... There is significant agriculture in the great riding of Cumberland—Colchester, which I represent, and many of my colleagues—certainly those from western Canada—have significant amounts of agricultural land in their ridings and have farmers whose livelihoods need to be protected from the damaging intent, perhaps, of some of this bill as we go forward in looking at it.
We previously talked about this during a speech I gave earlier today, which was actually very effective in creating understanding. We had unanimous consent after my intervention, such that people really understood the need to have very important words. When we talk specifically about this amendment, we need to protect provincial jurisdiction and limit the scope of this bill to areas of federal responsibility.
I'll leave it there. Thank you.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Dr. Ellis.
Are there any further interventions with respect to amendment CPC-2?
Seeing none, are we ready for the question?
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
We'll have a recorded vote on CPC-2.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us to CPC-3.
Mr. Majumdar is going to move that.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
The motion to adjourn is not debatable.
All those in favour of adjourning the meeting at this time, please raise your hand.
(Motion negatived)
We are at CPC-3.
Is there someone who wishes to move CPC-3?
Dr. Ellis.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much, Chair.
I think what we need here is really related to advice and knowledge of experts. The comments of the Prime Minister, for instance, calling those who didn't get immunized racist and misogynist were very divisive. We need to get this country back on track with respect to science. When we realize that this entire country—the world, in fact—has had the opportunity to move significantly forward, related really to advancements in science, part of the difficulty is in using semi-scientific words and political motivation in the place of science. This has hurt society significantly.
We must continue to add science advice and the knowledge of experts, many around the world who were Canadian and had the ability to look at the science of what was happening with the pandemic and give some reasonable advice. I would suggest that's important.
I would also suggest, though, that we be incredibly careful in determining who these scientific experts are, in the sense that, during the pandemic, there were many social media stars who came forward to attempt to explain the pandemic to Canadians and indeed to all citizens of the world. I wasn't entirely convinced that all of them were truly experts. We would often hear that someone was—I'll just make this up—a cardiologist, who would then go on to talk about epidemiology. I think that's an important thing. That doesn't mean that cardiologists are not important or they're not intelligent, but it means, quite simply, that they're not epidemiologists.
A person may have an ability to explain things, but if they don't have a significant expertise, then they should not be viewed as experts in the subject matter at hand. Therefore, I think that continuing on with rebuilding the faith in science in this country is going to be very important. I would suggest that continuing to divide Canadians and calling them racists and misogynists doesn't add any ability to advance an argument. It's simply akin to shaming and blaming, and that doesn't make any sense at all when we're trying to advance a significant scientific argument.
I would suggest to my colleagues that, even though when I made a shorter intervention, they clearly voted against that short intervention, and when I made a long intervention, they voted for it, it might be necessary, even though they didn't like it, to explain and re-explain the nature thereof, and that perhaps the length of the explanation is also important.
That being said, Chair, suffice it to say that having scientific experts who are not simply social media stars would be essential in any inquiry that is coming up.
