Health Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2017

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I'm not privy to the data that required the lifetime ban. I think it was that any perceived risks to the blood system were excluded. My sense, Dr. Eyolfson, is that at that time any perceived threat to the blood supply was not something that Canadians would tolerate, so CBS and Héma-Québec excluded an entire group based on the data of the day. Thankfully, we have more research to support where we are now.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Okay. Thank you.

In regard to the CBS, they have their scientists, their data collectors, and the people who interpret the data that they have, and there's been the suggestion that the health minister might have the legal power to simply direct CBS and Héma-Québec by saying, “You shall do this.”

If you had the experts of any arm's-length organization—and I should preface this by saying I haven't looked at their data in detail at this point—saying that at this time they believe this is the best available science and the best available evidence, would it be appropriate or acceptable for a minister to just come in and override that and say, “We don't care what you believe to be the best available science. We made an election promise, so don't do this”?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I think the question is a good question. The system that we have set up is that the blood regulator regulates the blood system and the blood supply to make sure we have the safest blood supply possible.

What this conference was intended to do was to start the conversation around how we make that blood supply more inclusive. How do we get data in the men who have sex with men category, to show that the risk is low to non-existent? I think the answer to your question is that the system we have now is one in which the regulators petition and inform the Department of Health of their science and advocate for a deferral period or not, and then the minister approves it. To do otherwise would be political.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

All right, thank you. I have no more questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you very much.

That concludes our session on this subject. I want to thank Mr. Boissonnault for coming on short notice. We had actually invited the parliamentary secretary. He was not available to come, but I think you brought a new dimension to the subject and brought some good information to us. I want to thank you.

This was Mr. Webber's original motion, moved, I think, in September or October, quite a long time ago, so thanks very much for your information and your addition.

We'll just suspend for a couple of minutes, and then we have some committee business to do on this and other things.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Just a correction, it was Mr. Davies' motion that was passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Oh, it was Mr. Davies' motion? Sorry. I'd better be careful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We'll reconvene.

Just a few quick things we want to do on committee business. Last night we passed C-37, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Although we had talked about it, we hadn't decided how to handle it. Does anybody have any suggestions on how to handle it?

Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I think everyone at committee is in agreement that we are in a national public health crisis with the introduction of fentanyl and the opioid crisis. The government has already taken action.

There is a five-point action plan to address opioid misuse and to deal with prescribing practises. Naloxone was introduced, which is a very powerful antidote. It is generally available to communities. The minister co-hosted a conference and a summit on opioids that resulted in 42 organizations making very concrete commitments to address the crisis. Then we had Bill C-37 introduced to the House.

Bill C-37 proposes to ease the burden on communities that wish to open supervised consumption sites, while putting stronger measures in place to stop the flow of illicit drugs and strengthening the systems in place for licensed controlled substance facilities. I think we were all delighted when the NDP joined with the government side yesterday to send this to our standing committee for line-by-line review.

I think we would all agree that we are ideally situated to deal with this review. We have heard from witnesses. We have already done our work on the opioid crisis. We did our report. We made our recommendations. We heard from the witnesses how critical it is that we move quickly and forthrightly to get these recommendations in place to ease what is happening at the community level.

Bill C-37 is highly consistent with our recommendations, dealing with both harm reduction and law enforcement in border security. I actually mentioned in the House that the bill is quite well aligned with us.

Given that we are ideally situated to move forward with this, and given the urgency of dealing with this in our communities and putting a stop to this crisis, I would like to bring forward this motion. I move:

That, with respect to Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related amendments to other Acts: a. the Clerk of the Committee write immediately to each Member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the Committee and any independent Members to inform them that the Committee will begin the study of the Bill and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments, which they would suggest that the Committee consider during the clause-by-clause study of the Bill; b. members of the Committee as well as Members who are not a member of a caucus represented on the Committee and independent Members should submit their proposed amendments to the Clerk of the Committee no later than Tuesday, February 7, 2017, at 4:00 p.m.; c. the Committee proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of C-37 no later than Thursday, February 9, 2017; d. the Chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party, per clause; and e. if the Committee has not completed clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-37 by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 9, 2017, all remaining amendments submitted to the Committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put every question, forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the Committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, as well as all questions necessary to report the Bill to the House and to order the Chair to report the Bill to the House no later than Monday, February 13, 2017.

We need to get this done. We need to get this back to the House so we can make a difference in this crisis across Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We have a motion.

Mr. Webber.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Mr. Chair, this motion is a lot to take in. I am just reading it for the first time. I believe we have to have unanimous consent around the room as to whether or not Mr. Oliver can table this. Otherwise, he would have to table it and give us the 24-hour notice, from what I understand. Maybe you could clarify.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

This is committee business and it is legitimate.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We had originally said that we were going to debate this next Thursday in any case. It nails it down a little more elaborately, but it's about the same thing we agreed on last week.

Ms. Harder.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I need a clarification from Mr. Oliver.

Are you suggesting that our committee be extended beyond the normal two hours? You say that it has to be completed by 5 p.m. I am just looking for some clarification in terms of how you're suggesting we move through this quickly.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Yes, our committee would continue to work until 5 p.m., at which point the chair would move through the remaining business and the line-by-line review.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies, go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I speak in great support for this. Twenty months ago, I was in the House when Bill C-2 was introduced, and although perhaps we have different views around the table on that bill, the bill came before the committee. There were five meetings and 20 witnesses, who all discussed and debated all of the issues around supervised consumption sites. There was significant testimony on the issue of what criteria ought to be considered in determining an exemption. It was well-canvassed, under 24 months ago. Four months ago, we had the opioid overdose crisis study. We, in this room, heard evidence from a number of witnesses on a wide range of issues concerning the opioid crisis, including the need for supervised consumption sites and their impact.

We know that 40 to 50 Canadians are dying every week from overdoses in this country. I pointed out before that when SARS hit this country, the total number of deaths across the whole country was 40. We are losing that many people every week. We all now agree that this is a national public health emergency. All parties are using that term now, if not the declaration. Bill C-37 provides essential measures to address the crisis—not only supervised consumption sites, but necessary legislation regarding interdiction for CBSA and limits on the production of illicit opioids with respect to pill presses.

I am fully in support of expediting this bill. I don't think this committee can move fast enough.

I just want to end by saying that yesterday someone sent me an article about the situation in Estonia, which suffered from a very similar outbreak over the years. They had a fentanyl overdose crisis in that country. What it says here is that they were asked about the advice they would give Canada and what they said was, “The most important thing is you don't waste time. If you really want to learn from us, that's the mistake we made.... Don't look for some new solutions, because you have them.”

I know there are a lot of issues to debate, but it's not the time to debate and waste time when Canadians are dying and we know that we can take measures that will save lives. I'm asking all my colleagues to support this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All right. We have the motion on the floor, and no more speakers.

(Motion agreed to)

Now, we wanted to deal with, Mr. Davies, your motion on the blood donation—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm sorry. I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

It is 1 o'clock, and this committee is supposed to be wrapped up at this time. Perhaps we could do committee business at the end of our next meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I don't think there's any rush. That's fine.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

A point of clarification on this.... I believe the committees continue to meet unless there is assumed consensus to adjourn or a motion to adjourn. Otherwise, we can continue to do our business for as long as we wish to do our business.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

As long as you take a vote from the committee....

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I understand—