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.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with Mr. Davies. I won't repeat his arguments. However, I would like to propose a subamendment. Our subamendment proposes that amendment NDP‑1 be amended as follows: it should read “response [...] of the federal government” rather than “response [...] in Canada.” I have sent the text of the amendment in French, but it will have to be translated, because the English and French versions are not consistent.
On the other hand, Mr. Chair, I draw your attention and that of the legislative clerk to the fact that on line 15 of page 6, if this passes, we're going to have to make a concordance amendment to the bill, since it will no longer be an advisory committee, but a commission inquiry report.
With respect to the arguments regarding the subamendment, I draw your attention to the wording of the Inquiries Act: “The Governor in Council may, whenever the Governor in Council deems it expedient, cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof.”
We're really talking, here, about the management of the Government of Canada, hence the importance, in my opinion, of wording it this way.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
The subamendment is in order. We will therefore proceed to debate the subamendment.
I hope everyone who doesn't speak both official languages heard the interpretation.
Dr. Ellis, go ahead, please.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much, Chair.
Having sat there for a couple of meetings, I know this question is going to be a real pain in the neck, but can you read the subamendment, please?
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Yes, I have it here. I'll read it:
The subamendment proposes that NDP‑1 be amended first as follows:
“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.”
This is the important part, Dr. Ellis. The first is really the preamble.
The subamendment also proposes to remove the words “in Canada” and replace them with “response [...] of the federal government.”
Is this correct, Mr. Thériault?
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
So, we propose replacing “in Canada” with “response [...] of the federal government.”
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much, Chair, for redoing that. I know how difficult it is sitting there to do that.
There are a couple of things that are part of the difficulty with the creation of the Inquiries Act. Number one is that it entirely changes the meaning of this private member's bill, which, again, will realistically make trying to go through the rest of part I rather ridiculous. I think my colleague from the NDP has made clear the importance of private members' bills since they often do not get to the floor of the House of Commons. Indeed, there have been people who have sat in the House of Commons for many years and not had a private member's bill. Certainly, during my incredibly eloquent speech, I think he made it very clear several times how important private members' bills were. This, in effect, would realistically negate the entire opportunity for this member to have a private member's bill.
If we really believed there's absolutely no benefit to this, why would we proceed?
Perhaps I will have this wrong, but I would like to propose a subamendment to delete all words after the title of this bill.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Dr. Ellis.
The subamendment is not in order at this time. We have to deal with one subamendment at a time. Once this one is dealt with, it would be appropriate to raise it then, I believe, subject to any further advice. In terms of timing, it's out of order. I'm not going to rule on the substance of this subamendment until it's properly placed.
We're back to the subamendment proposed by Monsieur Thériault.
Mr. Jeneroux is next on the list.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I intervened at the beginning on the purpose of this, and those comments still stand, for sure. Mr. Davies' amendment, in my opinion, is getting better. We were initially looking at an advisory committee, and now, under Mr. Davies' amendment, it is in fact an inquiry. As I mentioned earlier in today's meeting, that's certainly what we were told. However, I'm under the impression that, under the Inquiries Act, there are a variety of different inquiries, and that can take on a meaning by itself.
The thing that stands out to me—going back to Mr. Davies' comments, I'd be curious to know whether he looked into this at all when he was drafting this amendment—is the ability of a royal commission inquiry to be called on this. I know that those have existed in the past. They haven't for a while.
I'll just quickly read the definition of a royal commission: “Royal commissions tend to be thought of as broader in scope than other public inquiries, often holding nationwide public hearings and publishing associated research reports, as well as their formal findings and recommendations.” These have looked at everything in scope, from the liquor traffic in Canada to the lobster industry to the tobacco trade. I certainly would think that something like the pandemic and its impact on Canadian citizens would be worthy of a royal commission.
I'll leave the royal commission piece there, but there's another thing I want to raise as well. If this doesn't happen, if this inquiry is simply made as an advisory committee, then I'll bet you that for sure you'll start to see a whole bunch of other provinces do their own inquiries. There's a case to be made for a national inquiry on something of this magnitude. To think that suddenly we're going to have a bunch of hearings across each province, which will probably generate some good information but ultimately use a plethora of resources that could be used elsewhere, I just think is....
Again, the risk of where this bill could take us in the scope of its work would be something that, again, I would just caution the committee on as we're about to consider voting on this.
I'll leave my comments there, Mr. Chair.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Out of respect for Don, for whom I have great respect, the reason I'm not in favour of having an inquiry through the Inquiries Act is that this was such a huge, immense event that affected us all in so many ways, including the economy but also people's lives in so many different ways, that I would prefer to have an inquiry that wasn't limited. I think the Inquiries Act would be limited. I think we need a much broader analysis involving all levels of society as to what happened and what we can do better. I think we can do better than the Inquiries Act.
I did want to respond to Don. As I said, I have a lot of respect for him.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I see no further speakers.
Are we ready for the question on the subamendment?
For clarity, the subamendment is to amend the proposed subclause 3(1) to delete the words “in Canada” and replace them with the words “measures taken by the federal government”.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Chair, I'd like to request a recorded vote, please.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
A recorded vote has been requested.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 4; yeas 2)
We are now on the unamended amendment by Mr. Davies, NDP-1.
Are there any further submissions with respect to NDP-1?
Go ahead, Monsieur Thériault.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
I have another subamendment.
I move that clause 3 of the bill, on line 25 of page 2, be amended by deleting the words “public health”.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Mr. Thériault. Could you submit the subamendment in writing?
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
You may continue, Mr. Thériault. I think I'll ask the legislative clerk to comment.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
In fact, Mr. Chair, it's simply a matter of respecting jurisdictions. We're asking for the collaboration of provincial governments, but I think that assessing their public health capacity... Quebec has its public health policies, and so does Montreal. They are capable of evaluating their respective policies. On the other hand, collaborating and evaluating one's pandemic performance is appropriate.
The subamendment therefore aims to remove “public health” to leave only “pandemic.”
Incidentally, I would point out to you, Mr. Chair, that Montreal public health has been much more effective than federal public health at the Montreal-Trudeau International Airport.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Mr. Thériault.
We've received a written draft. I will now invite the clerk to tell everyone what he just told me.