Health Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2023

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

When Dr. Ellis is repeatedly called to order for speaking about the carbon tax when we're talking about the simple grammatical change of preventing the risk of a pandemic versus reducing the risk of it, and you've repeatedly ruled that it is irrelevant and you're upholding the point of order, but he just ignores it and continues to speak as if the ruling had not been made, I find that to be unacceptable and there must be a consequence to this.

Dr. Ellis is permitted to filibuster, as he clearly wants to do, but he still has to respect the rules of relevancy, and that's a bit harder to do. He's not entitled to talk about any subject under the sun no matter how irrelevant it is to the subject at hand.

I'm just saying that, having ignored your ruling at least five times now, there must be a consequence. I'm calling on you, the next time it happens, to recognize the next speaker if Dr. Ellis refuses to respect your continued rulings on relevancy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

I'm not sure that I have the power to take the floor away from him. I am going to consult on that.

The point you make is valid. There have been repeated valid points of order with respect to relevance that are being ignored. The tools that I have to deal with them—like I said, I'm going to consult—I fear, are limited.

Go ahead, Dr. Ellis.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Again, I would point out that this member continues to direct the chair in the NDP-Liberal coalition style and suggest that the confidence and supply agreement may be in jeopardy. That being said, I certainly believe in the relevance of talking about the carbon tax. Once again, I think I've made it very clear. Obviously, the NDP member is not listening clearly enough. Perhaps he could turn up his headset.

When we're talking about preventing versus reducing the likelihood, the importance that needs to be underscored here.... It's exceedingly relevant, despite his continued attempts at censorship. The exceedingly relevant point really is related to the harm that could potentially be created for Canadians with respect to preventing something, which is exceedingly strong language, rather than reducing the likelihood. Just because the member doesn't like me speaking and wishes to have me censored does not really make any relevant sense in the style of government that we have. No matter how much I don't like things that other people say, it is still their opportunity and their obligation, especially if it's on behalf of their constituents, to have the ability to say it. Therefore, I would suggest that any attempt at censorship, especially under the direction of the NDP member towards the Liberals in their costly coalition, would be a significant attempt to undermine the great democratic traditions that we have.

Therefore, Mr. Chair, I will return to prevention versus reducing the likelihood and the drastic effects that need to be underscored. In a vain and inappropriate attempt to prevent a pandemic, what we have come to now is a society that is in considerable jeopardy with respect to their home finances. Again, that carbon tax, which could be removed, is continuing to punish Canadians significantly. We know very clearly, as mentioned, that out of a thousand dollars put into a barrel of oil this particular winter for Atlantic Canadians, it will cost them an extra almost $250 to simply put that oil in their oil barrel, which is an essential part of living in the majority of Canada throughout the winter.

We also live in single-family dwellings that are often old, which creates significant problems when it relates to heating a home. It's less efficient. I think looking for those particular opportunities related to that would be helpful, but we also live rurally, because that's what we choose. We also know very clearly that to get places, it is essential to drive. When we look at the 16¢ per litre added to the cost of every litre of fuel put in a vehicle, which will purportedly increase to 61¢ if this costly coalition of NDP-Liberal government is not stopped, there will be an utter inability for Canadians to afford their lives. They will essentially be priced out of their lives.

I had the great fortune to be born here in Canada 55 years ago. I spent many of those years in service to the public. Never before have I heard the incredible numbers, the painstaking, heartbreaking stories, that all of us here.... I know that on this side of the House all of my colleagues hear the exact same stories from constituents, who call them on a regular basis: How am I going to afford to feed my family, keep a roof over my head and heat my dwelling in the wintertime? The heating, of course, adds to the already significant and dangerous financial situation that we find ourselves in as Canadians.

When we talk about relevance, that is particularly why it is very relevant, Mr. Chair. When we talk about the financial position that in a vain attempt to divide and distract Canadians.... Canadians ended up with a significant and dire financial position, with 40-year-high inflation and interest rates that, according to the Prime Minister, would never be high. People should live in a fantasyland with fairy dust and unicorns and buy whatever they choose.

We know that this has contributed significantly to the financial position in which Canadians are at the current time. I do believe there is significant relevance related to introducing the carbon tax argument on top of that, because it is a significant part of the negative financial implications of what has happened in Canada at the current time. We know very clearly what we hear from Canadians now. We hear from Canadians that they want no more carbon tax on what they have to purchase.

As we know, when you tax the farmer who grows the food and you tax the trucker who ships the food, then even more cost will be passed on to the consumer who has to buy the food. Otherwise, if they don't buy the food—

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The subject to which Dr. Ellis is speaking is not relevant to the amendment. I would ask that we stick to the text of the amendment and proceed in the interests of the House of Commons, all of the guests who are here and any Canadians who might be left patiently waiting for progress at this committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Dr. Hanley.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states the following on page 1059:

In the event of disorder, the Chair may suspend the meeting until order can be restored or, if the situation is considered to be so serious as to prevent the committee from continuing with its work, the meeting may be adjourned. In addition, the Chair may, at his or her discretion, interrupt a member whose observations and questions are repetitive or are unrelated to the matter before the committee. If the member in question persists in making repetitive or off-topic comments, the Chair can give the floor to another member. If the member refuses to yield the floor and continues talking, the Chair may suspend or adjourn the meeting.

I do have that power as contained in House of Commons Procedure and Practice. I'm not yet ready to invoke it. Although there is disagreement on the committee with respect to the relevance of Dr. Ellis's address, he is talking about the intent of the bill. He is talking about the connection to the pandemic. He is wandering far afield, but I don't find, at least at this stage, that it warrants such rare and arguably high-handed conduct on the part of the chair.

I offer this detail to say that from time to time, Dr. Ellis, you're getting close, and I'm awfully tempted to use that power, but I'm not ready to do it yet. I would ask you once again to confine your remarks to the specific clause under consideration.

Thank you.

Mr. Thériault has a point of order.

You have the floor, Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, in actual fact, Mr. Ellis has been monopolizing speaking time on a first clause for a very long time. I'd like to thank him for all the clarifications he's provided, because we're sure to save a lot of time on the other Conservative Party amendments. Indeed, he has just explained to the committee, at length, the context in which all the Conservative amendments were written.

For my part, however, I have long been prepared to vote in favour of his amendment. I'm sure all my colleagues will be ready to do the same soon.

I remind you that it would be interesting if we could have the floor other than on a point of order. In this case, Mr. Ellis is monopolizing speaking time on his amendment, which isn't necessary since I've been ready to vote for a long time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

You have the floor, Dr. Ellis.

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

I thank my Bloc colleague for understanding the difficulties. The unfortunate part, of course, is that prevention versus reduction in likelihood appears still to be lost on some of my colleagues, especially when they utterly refuse to understand the connection, of course, between prevention and flooding the economy with significant amounts of money. Of course, that has caused 40-year highs in inflation and has caused interest rates to climb precipitously. We're waiting for another interest rate hike, or at least perhaps a stabilization, the very least amount of damage, coming up overnight, I believe, on Wednesday night.

That being said, I think it is important that people begin to understand that their actions have a trickle-down effect. It continues to negatively affect the potential difficulties that Canadians are suffering from. Flooding the economy with money jacks up the inflation rate, which causes Canadians to have less money in their pockets. Then, when you add a punishing and escalating carbon tax on top of that—16¢, and up to 61¢ a litre on gasoline—there is significant relevance there. They need to begin to consider whether they need to continue to vote for carbon tax increases in the future.

We know that the member for Avalon was the only Conservative member who decided to vote against—

[An hon. member]

The only Liberal member....

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

He was the only Liberal member. Of course, every Conservative member voted against the carbon tax during the last opposition-day motion.

We also know very clearly that prevention versus reducing the likelihood can have a significant negative effect on those suffering with addictions. We know that when people are suffering with addictions, especially when times are difficult, the likelihood will increase. We also know that continued mismanagement from this government will suggest that.

Now a provincial government, this article says, “is relieving the board of directors and senior management at the South Riverdale Community Health Centre of their duties following a critical incident review.” We know that, when these things begin to happen, Canadians are suffering greatly with respect to their own personal lives and their finances.

Mr. Chair, I do really wish to thank you for the latitude that you've given me. I would like to say that I hope this continued need to underscore the fact that words matter will not be necessary in the future, in spite of the fact that I know that it's probably lost on the Liberal-NDP coalition. They will, sadly, vote against this particular amendment, and we will continue to have to go back to such things in the future.

Therefore, thank you for your indulgence, Chair, in my underscoring what words are important, such as “prevent” versus “reduce the likelihood”.

I now would suggest to my colleagues that I would be happy to cede the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Dr. Ellis.

We will go to Dr. Powlowski, please.

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

It certainly came with a lot of unnecessary window dressing, but let me confine my remarks to the amendment itself.

In the spirit of collegiality and brevity that has thus far marked the proceedings, I would actually say that I agree with Dr. Ellis. I would like to, however, add a little something.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

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

It'll be pretty short, because it may be the only time—no, it's not the carbon tax—I get the floor.

I have to say, because we all know what's going on here, that when this bill first came forward, I too had real reservations about it. A lot of us were part of the COVID committee that sat through COVID. There were a lot of discussions. A lot of things were relevant. To address this in a PMB seemed a bit much—no, not a bit much; a lot much.

However, I've come to change my mind about it. What this bill does is that it fundamentally requires the government to come up with a pandemic preparedness plan and to make that public. Yes, as a PMB it kind of circumvents the normal process, but it's going to get out there. We're going to know what plan exists. You in the opposition will have a chance to reply to that plan. I don't see a quicker way of getting that plan out. The Conservative response to this is basically suggesting, to me, that they don't want us to have a public pandemic preparedness plan that I think is in our interest and the Conservatives' interest and in all our best interests.

I just wanted to get that out before I ceded the floor.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Jeneroux, go ahead, please.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Not to belabour the point, and I appreciate what Mr. Powlowski brought up, but I do want to say that this in the context of understanding amendment NDP-1 in looking at the inquiry. Being as this is the first clause of the beginning of the bill that we're looking at, addressing just that fact, I haven't been convinced, as Mr. Powlowski has been, in terms of what we went through during the pandemic. Many people around the table—Ms. Sidhu, Mr. Powlowski, Mr. Thériault, Mr. Davies, me—were told consistently, over and over again, “This is what we're doing now, but don't worry. There will be a plan. There will be an inquiry.”

Again, knowing that we're going to move on to Don's amendment soon and vote on it, I want to raise now, before we get too far into the bill, at the purpose level, that having a private member's bill address it, I don't think, was the intent of the people around the table.

I forgot about Mr. Fisher. I'm sorry. He was there too, of course.

It wasn't the intent that we heard, particularly in opposition, that this was how things were going to be addressed. I think there was a lot of good faith at the time that there was going to be something more substantial. What I really worry about is that the government won't bring something forward knowing that they now have this to point to. We already saw that with the previous minister pointing to this during some of his testimony and saying that there's no need to talk about the pandemic because this is coming forward.

Again, I won't belabour the point. I just wanted to state at the outset that this alone, a private member's bill, is.... I know that Nate is probably listening in on the webcast. He's a good friend. This isn't personal. Ultimately, at the end of the day, this isn't what I think we, not only as the opposition but also the general public, were sold in good faith.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

On the narrow issue of the amendment, I support it. Frankly, all that needed to be said was the explanation of why it's better wording to describe the purpose. My narrow point will be that—

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

I think the chair has been very clear that we wish members to be brief. Having heard my own self talk for a very long time, I would suggest....

Is this member really going to add something? If he's going to vote for the motion anyway, maybe he could just not say anything. That would be nice and brief.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That's not a point of order and not helpful.

Mr. Davies, go ahead, please.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

The irony of a speaker who just took the better part of an hour speaking interrupting someone after 30 seconds is breathtaking.

The reason I support the amendment is that the current language on the purpose of the act is that it's to “prevent the risk” of a future pandemic. I don't actually think you can prevent the risk. I think the language that has been proposed is good, because it says the purpose is to “reduce as much as possible the risk”. I think that's actually aligned with reality. I don't think you can ever prevent a risk, but you can reduce it.

That's why I think it's a good amendment. I plan on supporting it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

The speakers list, like your chair, is exhausted.

Shall CPC-1 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I see unanimity around the table.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, I was just getting in line to speak on the next clause, because it's my motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Before we get to your motion, the only amendment proposed for clause 2 was CPC-1.

We are now ready to consider clause 2 as amended.

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 3)

The first amendment to clause 3 is NDP-1.

Go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This clause has been a subject of discussion at the committee for a long time. We've all come to a broad consensus I think on all sides—Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc and NDP—that the current clause is not acceptable. In short, it purports to provide the Minister of Health with the ability to establish an advisory committee to review the response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. For a variety of reasons, that is not acceptable, nor I think advisable.

For one, the Minister of Health is the minister in charge of the Public Health Agency of Canada. That's the lead agency, which is designed for the express purpose of and charged with the responsibility of preparing for pandemics and large-scale public health issues and dealing with them. The prospect of having the Minister of Health, who is ultimately responsible for that preparedness, choose the people who would review his very conduct is a direct conflict of interest and is unacceptable on that ground alone.

The other thing that I think is fair to remind all committee members of is that I undertook to work with parliamentary counsel to determine whether or not we could remove this clause and replace it with a better kind of COVID inquiry. We went back and forth on it. My last report to committee was that it was difficult to do. The legislative counsel was concerned about whether such an amendment would be outside the scope of the bill, or conversely whether or not it would require a royal recommendation.

I was just advised last week, on Thursday, by legislative counsel that an amendment could be made to do that. I've decided to table that before the committee.

I think we might all remember that there was a broad consensus to remove clause 3 completely from the bill in the event that we couldn't fix it. That's the alternate position. Because the proposal to have the COVID inquiry is within the scope of the bill, I thought I would move it anyway, so that my colleagues could have a chance to consider that and vote on it. If it doesn't pass, then I will, of course, be moving an amendment—or I will vote against the clause—to remove it from the bill completely.

Briefly, I want to speak to what the amendment does. I think all of my colleagues have it.

Essentially, it removes the advisory committee appointed by the Minister of Health and changes it to this:

3(1) Within 90 days after the day on which this Act comes into force, an inquiry under Part I of the Inquiries Act must be undertaken into the response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Canada.

(2) In conducting the inquiry, the commissioners are,

They are charged with the very same scope or review that is currently in the bill, which I am going to go over because I think it's important for us to understand. It says that those commissioners will “among other things”, and it's important to note that it's inclusive, not restrictive to the following. Therefore, the commissioners can go anywhere else they want. However, specifically they're directed to do the following:

(a) assess the capability of the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Department of Health to respond to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic before and during the pandemic;

(b) in collaboration with provincial and municipal governments, assess the public health and pandemic response capabilities of those governments;

(c) assess the effectiveness of the exercise of powers under any applicable federal laws before, during and after the pandemic and of the coordination of measures taken under those laws; and

(d) analyse the health, economic and social factors relevant to the impact of the pandemic in Canada.

To read those underscores how profoundly important and broad the inquiry could be. It will look at everything about the COVID-19 pandemic and the way that the federal government, and the other governments it worked in coordination with, handled it.

I think this is important, because an inquiry under the Inquiries Act satisfies what the NDP has been calling for from the beginning, and I think other parties have as well—namely, that any inquiry into the COVID-19 pandemic is essential. We need to have an impartial, independent, public and properly resourced inquiry to undertake this work. There are several reasons for this.

One reason is that, if we don't take the time to learn the lessons of the last pandemic, we will not be as prepared for the next one. It was said many times in the pandemic that we shouldn't waste a crisis. Well, we had one of the most profoundly disrupting crises of the century. I think we need to understand the lessons of that.

Number two is accountability. That's not the same as blame. We're not looking to blame anybody. An inquiry does not find blame. An inquiry has no powers to find blame. What it does do, though, is hold the parties and organizations that are responsible for protecting the public accountable for that. If we don't have an inquiry, then we don't have that accountability.

I would point out that an inquiry under the Inquiries Act has powers that I think are essential. It has the power to subpoena documents. It has the power to compel the attendance of witnesses. It also is resourced and assisted by counsel. All of those things are critical for the one overarching goal that I think we must all keep in mind as parliamentarians, which is the confidence of the public. This inquiry should not be a partisan exercise. It should be one that looks at a whole-of-government response and determines what was done, what was done well and what was not done well. Where were the acts of commission and the acts of omission? Ultimately, it's to come up with a series of recommendations so that we can fix this problem and.... “Fix” is too strong a word. It's so that we can be better prepared for the next pandemic, which experts routinely tell us is not a matter of if but when.

I have a couple of final observations. During the pandemic, I worked closely with my colleagues, some of whom are on this committee, and with former colleagues like Michelle Rempel Garner, who was the health critic at that time. We all saw major errors made in the way we prepared for the pandemic and in the way we didn't prepare for it. We had a shortage of PPE. We had no real inventory system for personal protective equipment and the other important resources that we would need in the case of a pandemic. For some reason, we suspended the very excellent early warning system in public health that had been in place to give Canadians early warnings of pandemics. We had early issues on whether or not masking was appropriate. We don't produce vaccines. A number of issues needed to be looked at. We also did a number of things well. It's important to point that out as well.

At the time, every time one of the opposition parties raised this issue of trying to find out what was going on, to hold people accountable and to find out how we could do better, we were told by various members of the Liberal government, including Minister Hajdu, who was the then health minister, followed by Minister Duclos, who was her successor, and including Prime Minister Trudeau, that there would be a time and place for that kind of assessment, and it was not then. We accepted that.

I remember that, among my Conservatives colleagues, my Bloc colleagues and my NDP colleagues, we accepted that, when we were in the middle of a global pandemic and an emergency, the first most important thing to do was to deal with that emergency. There would be a time and a place later, when the emergency was under control, for us to undertake that work.

Colleagues, that time is now. The WHO has lifted the designation of the global pandemic. We are clearly past that time of emergency. I know that COVID is still with us, and we have residual impacts, some of which are serious, but we are no longer in that emergency time.

I note that the U.K. is undertaking a public inquiry, and I note that the British Medical Journal, which has done a very deep dive into the way Canada handled our emergency, also suggests that Canada undertake a public inquiry. The real question, then, is what kind of inquiry we should have. Should it be one appointed by the sitting government with people who are hand-picked by that government, hand-picked by the very person whose responsibilities may be in question?

That clearly is not acceptable. It shouldn't be acceptable no matter what the hue of government is. It's just not structurally sound.

I think—and where I'll conclude is this—the most important people in this entire discussion are the Canadian public. Their confidence has been tested and it has been shaken. The only way to restore confidence in the public is to have the courage to have a full, broad, root-to-branch, transparent and searching public inquiry into how the COVID-19 pandemic was handled.

Again, we do not want this to be a partisan circus. What we want this to be is a properly run inquiry. The way we do that in Canada is with an inquiry under the Inquiries Act. Obviously, it would be a judge who would be appointed, who would be properly resourced and who would have the parameters of the Inquiries Act legislation and the guidance of previous inquiries. By the way, I want to remind everybody that there were inquiries done after SARS. One was done in Ontario. It wasn't an inquiry under the Inquiries Act federally, but there was a similar type of approach.

I think that only by having that independent, public, searching inquiry can we actually make sure that the public can have confidence, that the recommendations that come out of that inquiry are sound and that they weren't tainted by political considerations by anybody of any hue, and that we can keep in mind the one overarching goal that all Canadians want and we, as a health committee, I think, share, which is that we want to be better prepared for next time.

I'm going to ask my colleagues to support the NDP motion to replace this clause with the advisory committee appointed by the Minister of Health with a truly independent, public and transparent inquiry. Failing that, as I've said, I would rather that this clause be removed entirely if we don't actually make sure that we have the type of inquiry that I think we all know deep down is what is truly required in the circumstances.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.