Government Operations Committee on May 8th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It's not as easy as it sounds, unfortunately. We're going through this with ArriveCAN documents in the public accounts committee, back and forth.

As Ms. Khalid would know, it's not as simple as it sounds or as it should be, unfortunately.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Fair enough. Maybe we can consider that separately as an amendment, then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I think we're all in agreement with “safer”. I'm sure that if this goes through, it will be communicated to the government that it's not identical wording. If they use “safe” or “safest”—

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, may I still have the floor?

When the documents come back, I don't believe that the concerns certain members have with these programs are with the contracts. It's with the actual health approach that the programs take. Therefore, it's going to be better considered by HESA, and we're going to end up back where some of my colleagues proposed we go at the beginning, which is that HESA should take it up.

What I don't want to see is a study at OGGO about the merits of safer supply as a health approach. I think that belongs at the health committee. If there's some sort of impropriety involving federal contracts, absolutely, let's take it up, but I haven't seen any evidence of that thus far. The products for these programs are being purchased from companies that produce the products.

To the earlier comments about profiting, it's a commercial transaction, just like the purchase of any other pharmaceutical from companies that produce pharmaceuticals. Some of these companies are pretty objectionable—fair enough—but we haven't seen any evidence of impropriety along the lines that have been alluded to.

I'll leave it at that, and I look forward to the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Perfect.

Mr. Kusmierczyk, is this on Mr. Bachrach's amendment?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Yes. I have just a quick point of order, actually.

I just want to remind my colleague across the table that when we're speaking into the microphone, just to protect the translators, not to pound the table, and also to maintain a distance from the microphone. In the last intervention, I would say that he did both of those things.

Again, just to respect the health and safety of our wonderful translators, I just want to remind him to please be more respectful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm not sure if we're allowed to pound the tables. I think with the closeness to the microphone, it's just watching the loudness of your voice and consistent distance, but your point is taken.

Colleagues, I will get back to you on that issue.

Gentlemen and ladies, are we comfortable with Mr. Bachrach's amendment? We all agreed that it will be the word “safer”.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we are back to the amended motion.

Ms. Goodridge and Mr. Genuis are next.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to make a few amendments.

Amendment number one is to add “(b), share the documents referred in (a) with HESA in the event that HESA finds these documents useful”, if that is possible.

If not, one other amendment I would like to have is where we've amended it to say “safer supply”. My recommendation would be to have “safe supply, safer supply, prescribed alternatives,” because those are the three terms that are used, depending on the province, to refer to these programs. It's “safe supply, safer supply, prescribed alternatives programs”.

It's just more encompassing, and it's just to really clarify it. For instance, in London, Ontario, the London InterCommunity Health Centre, which has Canada's first safe supply program, calls it “safe supply”. I know that in British Columbia, many of them call it “safer supply”, due to moves made by the British Columbia NDP government to change it and not adopt effectively a marketing term that makes children think that they are safe.

I do think that's a piece and I do know that some of the newest conversation is that some governments are calling it “prescribed alternatives”, so that is my rationale in that amendment.

Mr. Chair, I hope that adding (b) to allow us to share the contracts with HESA is in order. I appreciate that you might have to discuss this with the clerk. Perhaps we could suspend for a couple minutes so you could figure out if that is, in fact, in order or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Let me just address that.

There are two issues that you've brought forward, and one is the “safe, safer,” which I think is pretty agreeable.

On the issue of pre-agreeing to share, if something comes to us that is considered confidential or something like that, then we run into a problem of our sharing it. We ran into that with our ArriveCAN stuff, as Ms. Khalid knows.

I understand what you're getting at, and some colleagues have commented on it. I think it would be cleaner if we left that part out, but I will leave that up to the will of the committee. Once the documents arrive, we can certainly consider passing them over, but that might be putting the cart ahead of the horse.

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach, on the amendment proposed.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I support the spirit of the amendment. Adding those other terms is in line and consistent with the rationale I made for changing it to “safer”. However, sharing the documents with HESA feels a bit problematic. If I recall that wording of the amendment, it indicates that we would only share them in the event that HESA found them interesting or useful.

I would propose that we drop that part and simply share them with HESA. Otherwise, we're asking HESA if something is useful before they've seen it. That's just to simplify it.

Otherwise, I support the spirit o9f the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's a valid point.

I have Mrs. Vignola on the amendment.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I'm always in favour of sharing. I find that work is done in a silo, that the number of conditions is sometimes absurd and that we need to take several detours to manage to talk to each other and establish agreements among parliamentary committees and among departments.

I don't know whether anyone can answer my question. Why didn't the Standing Committee on Health ask for the contracts? It can also ask for contracts. I'll get back to the amendment. In a way, aren't we imposing one of our decisions on the Standing Committee on Health? I'm all for sharing, but not imposing.

I don't have an answer to my own question, of course. I'll leave you to ponder that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I have Mr. Genuis, and then Ms. Khalid and Mr. Sousa.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I think Mr. Bachrach's suggestion is a fair one, but we're speaking as if we're speaking about an amendment, not a subamendment. I don't know if he formally moved that as a subamendment. If not, I—

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

He won't let us have subamendments.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

You can move subamendments.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

He's mean that way.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

You can't have subamendments that are unrelated attached to a different section, but you can subamend the section that's proposed to be amended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We have Bachrach's amendment. That's what we're working on.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

No. We're on Ms. Goodridge's amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It's Ms. Goodridge's amendment.

If you're referring to your previous one or the other previous one, it was not in order.

What is your question, exactly?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

You can't subamend a subamendment. You can't amend your own motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm not asking you to tell me the green book. What are you asking for, Mr. Genuis? What do you want?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Bachrach proposed taking off the rationale part at the end of new paragraph (b). Now it would simply read that “the documents be shared with HESA.” That is a subamendment that I—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sure we can all come to an understanding that what's proposed is the new wording—safe, safer and that—and that we share them with HESA.