Health Committee on May 7th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 34 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, please click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

At the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor audio, English or French.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

On behalf of the committee members, I would love to welcome Kristina Tesser Derksen to the committee, and Aslam Rana as well, and earlier, I forgot Jake, who has joined us.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, September 23, 2025, the committee shall resume its study of Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty. On behalf of the committee members, I would like to welcome our witnesses.

From the Best Medicines Coalition, we have Kim Steele, who has joined us by video conference.

Welcome, Ms. Steele.

From the Canadian Health Food Association, we have the vice-president, government relations and regulatory affairs, Ms. Sonia Parmar.

Ms. Parmar, welcome.

From GPIM, we have the general manager, Stéphane Lévesque.

Mr. Lévesque, welcome to the committee.

Now I'm going to give the floor to the witnesses in the sequence that I introduced them in.

We will give Ms. Steele five minutes, if you're ready, Ms. Steele.

[Kim Steele, Chair, Best Medicines Coalition]

Members of the committee, thank you.

I'm here as chair of the Best Medicines Coalition, a national alliance of over 30 organizations that gives voice to the interests of millions of Canadian patients. I'm also with Cystic Fibrosis Canada, a member of Best Medicines.

When we talk about pharmaceutical sovereignty, we often focus on manufacturing, supply chains, strategic interdependence and tariff exceptions, and those are all important, but sovereignty must also address something much closer to our everyday lives, which is how we get the medicines we need as Canadians to survive and thrive. Every Canadian needs some form of pharmaceutical coverage, but Canada's complex, fragmented mix of public and private drug plans undermines sovereignty. We have 14 sovereign public drug plans and over 100,000 sovereign private drug plans. All operate with different rules, formularies and timelines, making it impossible for Canada to act as a coherent nation. This in turn weakens our ability to ensure predictable access to medicines. If we are to move forward with sovereignty, extending similar drug access rights to our own citizens would be a good start.

Much of the current discussion on pharmaceutical sovereignty has focused on essential medicines and generics. While critically important, this focus is incomplete. Innovative medicines, including biologics, oncology therapies, cell and gene therapies, and drugs for rare diseases are equally essential and must be explicitly included in Canada's sovereignty strategy. Innovative therapies are often the only options for people with rare diseases, as are clinical trials, including rare cancers. Delays at any stage for regulatory review, clinical trial start-up, health technology assessment or reimbursement can mean missed treatment windows, irreversible disease progression and premature death.

Cystic fibrosis provides a stark example. Trikafta is a life-changing therapy that benefits more than 95% of the Canadian cystic fibrosis population. Within two years of access in Canada, days in hospital were reduced by nearly 40%, home IV days using antibiotics were reduced by 60%, and lung transplants were reduced by almost 70%, yet this transformational therapy came to Canada two years after people in other countries got it. Why? It was because prolonged uncertainty around proposed pricing reforms delayed the manufacturer's decision to launch in Canada. While patients elsewhere got better, Canadian patients with cystic fibrosis waited, watched and grew sicker, and we lost some who were waiting for this medicine to come.

These experiences are not unique to cystic fibrosis. When it comes to access to medicines in Canada, uncertainty is everywhere. Pharmaceutical sovereignty is not achieved through good intentions. Countries that take sovereignty seriously rely on clear laws, regulations and incentives to ensure that medicines are developed, launched, studied and supplied in their countries. That predictability enables patient access and signals to innovators that a country and, most importantly, its people are worth investing in.

The U.S. Orphan Drug Act is a powerful example. Implemented in 1983, it established market exclusivity, tax credits, grants, priority review and the elimination of FDA application and user fees for orphan drugs. Another U.S. initiative is the transferable priority review voucher, which accelerates access to future therapies. If used in Canada, these vouchers may have helped close the access gap to Trikafta and many other innovative therapies. These incentives were written into law, and they have transformed rare disease drug development throughout the globe. Ironically, some of the therapies developed under that framework are the same ones that Canadians can't access right now, because we have not implemented similar initiatives.

If Canada wants innovative medicines to be developed, studied and accessed here, we need laws and policies that actively support patient access. At minimum, pharmaceutical sovereignty must deliver four things. One is a reliable and continuous supply of medicines across all therapeutic areas. Two is timely access to innovation, including faster regulatory approval and market access. Three is equitable access across jurisdictions and payer types. Four, we need system resilience so Canada remains an attractive environment for research, clinical trials and life sciences investment. Pharmaceutical sovereignty is not an abstract economic concept; it's about whether Canadians can stay healthy, participate fully in society and trust that the medicines we need will be there when we need them.

On behalf of millions of patients across Canada, thank you. We encourage you to keep patient access, equity and lived experience at the centre of this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Ms. Steele. That's perfect timing.

Now we will go to Ms. Parmar for five minutes.

Please, go ahead.

[Sonia Parmar, Vice President, Government Relations and Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Health Food Association]

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

The Canadian Health Food Association represents over 1,000 companies, including members across the entire natural health product supply chain in Canada.

This study is about pharmaceutical sovereignty. At its core, it's about control over what is produced in Canada, what is regulated in Canada and what products Canadians actually use.

Natural health products are not a niche category. Over 80% of Canadians use them. Vitamins, minerals, probiotics and herbal products are part of how Canadians manage their health every day. They are not only widely used by Canadians but also integrated into the health care system. They're often used in hospitals and long-term care. For example, vitamin D and calcium are used in institutional and high-risk populations to reduce fracture risk, and probiotics are used in some settings to help prevent hospital-acquired infections. Natural health products are tools that are complementary to pharmaceuticals. They play an important role in preventative medicine, improving outcomes and reducing pressure on the health care system.

To illustrate their impact, we commissioned a cost-benefit analysis grounded in established frameworks. Approximately $2.3 billion in avoided costs over 25 years could be saved, rising to $3.9 billion when similar interventions across the health care system are included. These figures, while reflective of standard health economic modelling, are conservative, capturing only select interventions and defined cost components.

From a pharmaceutical sovereignty perspective, this directly affects system resilience and reliance on supply chains. A system that can prevent demand is more sustainable and less dependent on constrained pharmaceutical supply chains. Natural health products also represent a critical component of Canada's domestic manufacturing base. We have an established sector that formulates, manufactures, tests and distributes natural health products domestically. These are Canadian facilities, Canadian jobs and Canadian quality. Sovereignty is not just about access. It's about control over production and standards within our own borders.

Canada has already made a deliberate policy choice in how it regulates this space. For over 20 years, natural health products have been governed under a dedicated regulatory framework that reflects their lower risk and their role in prevention. The current framework was designed to rightsize regulation while maintaining oversight, but there is a growing risk to that system, and it goes directly against sovereignty. Under the Food and Drugs Act, Canadians can import a personal supply of health products, commonly understood as being for up to 90 days. In practice, this is being leveraged at a commercial scale by foreign companies to access the Canadian market without meeting Canadian regulatory requirements.

Let me put this another way. This is not always being used for personal use. This is a direct commercial pathway into Canada that bypasses Canadian regulatory oversight, creating risks for safety, fairness and system control. Our analysis estimates that this represents approximately $450 million per year, a substantial portion of the natural health product market operating outside Canadian regulatory oversight. That's nearly 10% of the Canadian market, which continues to grow. This activity may also be associated with an estimated $51 million in tax revenues lost annually that would otherwise support the Canadian economy and public services.

At home, the rules keep tightening even as red tape reduction is promised, leaving Canadian businesses to compete against a channel that operates outside of our rules. It's like asking one team to play by the rule book while the other team gets to decide its own rules. If requirements continue to tighten without closing that gap, consumption won't go down. It will keep moving outside the Canadian system, leaving Canada with less production, less control and less sovereignty.

The question before this committee is not whether natural health products should be regulated. They already are. The question is whether Canada keeps control of this part of the market or lets it move beyond our oversight. If we lose control of the lowest-risk, most widely used products in our system, we're not strengthening pharmaceutical sovereignty. We are surrendering it.

Thank you.

I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Ms. Parmar. That's well done.

Now we will go to Mr. Lévesque.

Mr. Lévesque, you have five minutes. Please go ahead.

[Stéphane Lévesque, General Manager, Groupement provincial de l'industrie du médicament]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to contribute to this important study on Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty.

My name is Stéphane Lévesque, and I am the general manager of Groupement provincial de l'industrie du médicament, or GPIM, an association that has been active for more than 40 years and represents small and medium-sized businesses and emerging pharmaceutical companies, primarily in the generic drug sector.

At the outset, we must recognize a fundamental reality: Pharmaceutical sovereignty is a complex and difficult objective to achieve. We must be realistic: Canadian pharmaceutical sovereignty will never be absolute. We must also recognize that it depends as much on provincial governments as on the federal government. Better collaboration among all levels of government will be essential if we truly want to make progress.

That said, we can certainly do better.

First, let's talk about Canadian ownership versus simply being established in Canada.

It is essential to distinguish between a pharmaceutical company merely operating in Canada and one that is Canadian-owned. Foreign companies established here play an important role, but Canadian-owned companies should occupy a more strategic place in our pharmaceutical autonomy. The pandemic demonstrated the limits of excessive dependence on foreign interests. Some countries prioritized their own populations by redirecting medicines, vaccines and medical equipment. Canada must therefore implement targeted financial, regulatory and commercial measures to better support Canadian-owned pharmaceutical companies.

Second, let's look at Health Canada delays.

In 2018, the modernization of regulatory fees was intended to improve regulatory performance. Today, however, we are witnessing the opposite. Review timelines for drug submissions continue to grow longer. Delays are now measured in months, sometimes years, even though the established target for a generic drug review is 180 days. Meanwhile, other jurisdictions, particularly the United States, are improving their efficiency. Without regulatory predictability, investments become significantly riskier.

Recently, to improve performance, Health Canada proposed an order allowing reliance on decisions or documents from foreign regulatory authorities for certain drugs. GPIM was the first organization to raise concerns that this measure could produce the opposite effect of what is intended. It could further overwhelm Health Canada's already limited internal resources due to an increasing number of submissions from foreign companies and could even lead to a form of regulatory dumping, to the detriment of Canadian-owned businesses. This is not encouraging for Canadian pharmaceutical sovereignty.

Third, let's consider the lowest-price policy for generic drugs.

Provincial reimbursement policies based almost exclusively on the lowest price represent a major obstacle to pharmaceutical sovereignty. Twenty or thirty years ago, a much larger share of medicines were manufactured in Canada. However, the combination of lowest-price policies and the absence of annual indexation pushes manufacturers toward lower-cost countries such as India and China. Without policy changes, this offshoring trend will continue.

Fourth, let's turn to buying Canadian.

GPIM supports a buy Canadian policy that includes pharmaceuticals. A portion of hospital procurement contracts and strategic stockpiles of essential medicines should be reserved for Canadian-owned companies.

Fifth, let's consider active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, manufacturing.

We can have all the manufacturing capacity in the world in Canada, but without access to active molecules, we are heading in the wrong direction. We must support innovative and less-polluting API manufacturing. At Université de Montréal, Professor André Charette is working on continuous flow manufacturing, with the support of Médicament Québec. The project is an excellent example of this but has been slow to materialize due to insufficient government support.

Sixth, let's look at strategic alliances.

We must develop agreements with reliable and trusted countries in order to share certain production capacities. A chosen and strategic interdependence is preferable to a dependence imposed upon us.

In conclusion, pharmaceutical sovereignty will require consistent political choices, targeted investments and better coordination among governments. Above all, it will require a long-term vision aimed at protecting the health and economic security of Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much. It was perfect timing.

Now we will go to the honourable members. We will start with Madam Konanz for six minutes. Please go ahead.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you, Chair. My questions are for Ms. Parmar. Canada created a distinct regulatory framework for natural health products more than 20 years ago. Why was a separate framework necessary, and does it still serve an important purpose today?

[Sonia Parmar]

It is absolutely necessary for natural health products to be a distinct category. Previously, they were regulated as both foods and drugs, and this was not considered appropriate. This is a world-renowned regulatory framework that was put together, so for many reasons natural health products need to be “right-size, right-fit” regulated.

There are reasons, for example, that they are not patent protected. They are often combined with many ingredients, and they don't act the same way as pharmaceuticals do, or necessarily as foods do. They are closer to foods, so you will see that the whole framework itself needs to be regulated as distinct. We have seen over time that this has been lost more and more with the legislative and regulatory framework proposals that Health Canada has put forward, which is why we have been fighting that natural health products are not drugs and do need to be regulated appropriately according to their risk level.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you for that answer. Are there other countries that we mirror ourselves after or that would be good to follow, which are doing this successfully?

[Sonia Parmar]

Canada has actually been the international standard for about 20 years. It wasn't until the legislative and regulatory proposals were put forward that IADSA—the international dietary supplement association, so the NHP association of associations globally—actually came out and said that all of the regulatory and legislative proposals that have been put forward have weakened our system, such that if we go too far or we regulate something too much, it no longer fits its purpose. Therefore, Canadians can lose access.

Over-regulation is very serious for our industry. It is something that needs to be taken seriously, because, as I mentioned, we are in direct competition with other countries like the States, which have a much easier pathway to market. Canada is the only country that has a rigid premarket approval system, so when we're in direct competition with countries like that, it makes it very difficult for Canadian companies to compete. We would like to remain number one in the world, in which case we really need to make sure that our regulations are fit for purpose.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I believe you referenced, in your opening statement, a growing amount of market activity occurring outside Canadian regulatory oversight. In your view, what needs to happen to close that gap, while ensuring that Canadian businesses can remain competitive?

[Sonia Parmar]

A couple of things need to happen. Health Canada has to help close the gap. In other words, Canada needs to do a better job of making sure that our borders are secure when things are coming in. Canada Border Services Agency, Health Canada and the RCMP are groups that need to work together to ensure that Canadians aren't necessarily exposed to the amount of illegal product or product outside the Canadian regulatory framework.

Health Canada also needs to recognize that these businesses need to be able to compete, and, therefore, the regulatory system itself needs to be an appropriate and right fit for the risk-based profile that these products present.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

There's $450 million in market activity that occurs outside Canadian regulatory oversight. What impact does that have on Canadian manufacturers and retailers and on investment in domestic production?

[Sonia Parmar]

It has a great impact. You'll see that often retailers will tell you experiences of Canadians coming in on their mobile phones with products that they can access quite easily from the States or other countries—namely, the States—that they can't necessarily find in Canada. It greatly diminishes sales at the retail level. It has a much bigger picture and impact when you look at manufacturing. It goes throughout the ecosystem. It greatly diminishes access.

As I said earlier, Canadians aren't necessarily going to stop consuming. They will find other ways and, in many cases, less expensive ways to buy products, so it shuts down from manufacturing all the way through the supply chain and impacts at the retail level. It also has an impact on Canadians when they're potentially reaching out for riskier products or those that are not within the Canadian regulated system.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Is Health Canada aware of the growing amount of market activity occurring outside the Canadian regulatory system, and what is being done about it? We don't have a lot of time, but I imagine that's a loaded question.

[Sonia Parmar]

We've made Health Canada aware. They are working with us to some degree, but more can definitely be done. They have, just this morning, put out a public advisory to notify Canadians of the work that they've done with Operation Pangea, but I would say that, in the past, they've also told us that Canadians need to have access in the ways that they choose, which is why we have said that includes from our domestic Canadian supply chain.

Many unintended consequences can happen when we don't close that gap, and Health Canada is aware. We have made formal complaints about this. We are hoping that they step up to the plate and really close down some of these channels, especially some of the larger players that we have made them aware of.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

We will go to Mr. Rana for six minutes.

Please, go ahead.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for spending your valuable time with us this afternoon.

Ms. Kim Steele, back in March 2026 this committee heard from various experts that Canadian pharmaceutical sovereignty does not mean making everything in Canada. Instead, it implies a precedent-based national strategy that reduces overreliance on global sources.

Could you please tell this committee if there are any over-dependencies on internationally supplied pharmaceuticals in Canada?

[Kim Steele]

I would say that what we see is supply that we need, and we don't often get supply that we do need. I can't say that we're overrepresented, but I can say that there are still people who can't get the medicines they need.

At the end of the day, our role as a country is to ensure that our people can get medicines. If we can't get them into Canada and we can't produce them in Canada, we have to figure out ways to do that.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

How can Canada diversify our pharmaceutical supply chain to avoid over-dependencies and ensure that Canadians get the help they need?

[Kim Steele]

I'm sorry, I didn't hear the lead of your question.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

How can Canada diversify our pharmaceutical supply chain to avoid over-dependencies and ensure that Canadians get the help they need?

[Kim Steele]

Again, our brief is really largely on patient access. I am not a supply chain expert. However, I think we have lots of people who have testified before this committee who have had some very good ideas in that area.

At the end of the day, there are medicines that we can make in Canada, but there may be medicines that we can't. To get a supply chain in order that makes sure that the medicines that come through to Canada are coming through on time, they are not in shortage, there are no delays and that they continue to come to Canada, that companies don't decide to not bring them to Canada.... Those are all significant issues. The supply chain is just one part of that overall access issue.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

This committee has heard that there are issues with monitoring the drugs available in the country at given times. There are also calls for data sharing across the country on medication availability and stockpiles. Should the federal government require faster real-time reporting on inventory levels, shortages and supply chain risks?

[Kim Steele]

Absolutely. At Best Medicines Coalition, we're fortunate to sit on the drug shortages committee that Health Canada has, as well as the multi-sector stakeholder table, and we talk about those things there.

We really need to be able to monitor in real time, especially with some of the challenges we're seeing coming out of U.S. drug policy. I will say this. Of the 17 companies that had signed on to the invitation to bring their supplies to the U.S. and do some manufacturing, some of those—many of them, or all of them—are making medicines that we need here in Canada.

I think one of our challenges as a country is ensuring that we're looking at what's coming into Canada but also sharing data on what we have and what we don't have at local pharmacies, communities and hospitals. I know that in the rare disease space, with cystic fibrosis, often our pharmacists are having to mix medicines and compound things because they can't get the medicines they need for their patients.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Who is best suited to take charge of gathering and managing that information?

[Kim Steele]

That's a big question. There are many sources of information.

Canada’s Drug Agency recently did some work on patient registries through the national strategy for drugs for rare diseases. There's a lot of rich registry data that's available on patient outcomes. We can see where drugs have been in shortage and where they might affect patient outcomes in some aspects.

I think it's a collaboration. I think there's a leadership role here for the federal government. Our provinces and territories all have their own systems. Through the health care agreements that we have in place, in terms of some of the bilateral agreements, there's a lot of good stuff going on, but we have to continue to work collaboratively and all shine and do the work we're meant to do.

One of the big challenges that we face is that there's not always great integration between our systems. These registries—some of them, like ours, are 50 years old—are not tapped into. There's a lot of data that we just aren't leveraging in this country.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

In your submission to the committee, you mentioned that the BMC has called for proactive federal monitoring of drug supply risks. What would this look like in practice?

[Kim Steele]

We already do some of that monitoring. What we need to do, again, are these collaborative efforts. Health Canada does a great job of monitoring some of the drugs that are getting caught up at the border, if you will, and are not getting into the country, and it monitors delays. However, we still need to have that domestic capacity to monitor from the inside and be able to report up and report down.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much.

Before I go to the next speaker, I would like to welcome Madam Ginette Lavack to the committee. Unfortunately, I will not be able to give you speaking time. The only way you will be able to vote is if your camera is on and you give a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. That's it. I hope you got what I meant.

Madame Lavack, you have to open your camera to be part of the committee. It's up to the whip's office now to deal with it.

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, please go ahead for six minutes.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to welcome the witnesses who are with us today.

My first question is for Mr. Lévesque.

Are you familiar with the pharmaceutical and life sciences sector task force, the working group the federal government set up in March 2026 to improve Canada's competitiveness and access to innovative drugs?

[Stéphane Lévesque]

Unfortunately, no, I'm not, but I'd love to be on it.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

I'm sure you would, but there's more.

The government posted information about the task force online, on its website, but didn't say who the members were. I, as a parliamentarian, asked the government why it didn't think it relevant to say who the members of the task force were.

I finally got the membership list. On the task force are representatives from Pfizer Canada, AbbVie, Innovative Medicines Canada, Roche Canada, Merck Canada, Novartis, Aramis Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, CSL Seqirus, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Moderna, Gilead, GSK Canada, BioCanRx, Canada's Drug Agency, Aspect Biosystems, Amgen, Takeda and Boehringer Ingelheim.

Most of them are from multinational drug companies.

Do you think Quebec and Canadian drug makers who manufacture here are sufficiently represented on the task force, to achieve what the government is trying to achieve: improve access to medicines, reduce costs, create jobs and boost the economy?

[Stéphane Lévesque]

They are actually very good companies. I'm not here to bash them, but it does raise some questions. Where do the real Canadian-owned pharmaceutical companies fit in? Unfortunately, none of the companies you named is Canadian-owned.

To put things into perspective, I'll tell you a story from the pandemic. You don't know this, but we were two weeks away from running out of rocuronium, an anaesthetic used for surgery. A call went out to the drug makers, but all those big pharmaceutical companies told us their supply was bound for other jurisdictions, not Canada. It's as simple as that.

A Quebec company thought that was crazy and stepped up to find some. It was able to secure an emergency supply from the U.S. Without that Canadian company, we would've been in big trouble.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Lévesque, I commend you for telling us that story. It's important information for the public and the committee members to have. I think we want the same thing: reliable, sustainable access to drugs.

I told you the name of the task force the government set up to identify solutions. Can the group really find solutions when it has too few domestic manufacturers and generic drug makers? In fact, it doesn't have any. I haven't even told you who the patient and physician representatives are. That was just the manufacturers.

What do you think of that?

[Stéphane Lévesque]

The issue isn't that there are too few of us on the task force. It's that we aren't on it at all, plain and simple. That's all I have to say about that.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Do you think there's a risk that a group predominantly made up of big multinationals will prioritize access to innovative drugs over domestic manufacturing capacity?

[Stéphane Lévesque]

I don't see it as a risk. That is in fact their priority, but it won't meet the needs of Canadians come the next pandemic or other such event.

We're here talking about sovereignty. That's part of the big picture. As I said earlier, we need to think about those major innovators, but we also need to think about Canadian-owned manufacturers.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Lévesque, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Putting this into perspective, I want to know whether we can really talk about pharmaceutical sovereignty when we're not inviting domestic manufacturers to the table.

[Stéphane Lévesque]

I think the answer is obvious.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you. If you could confirm that for the record, I think it would be helpful for certain people.

[Stéphane Lévesque]

Yes, I confirm it.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

You also spoke about Health Canada's review and marketing authorization timelines. These timelines are undermining the competitiveness of Canadian manufacturers in relation to American manufacturers.

Can you tell us more about this?

[Stéphane Lévesque]

I've been the general manager for 10 years. Not only has there been no improvement, but things are getting worse each year. The time frame keeps getting longer year after year, despite the implementation of the cost recovery system supposedly put in place to ensure that more people could review the submitted files. Unfortunately, we aren't seeing that effect.

We're now trying to take things a step further by drawing on the recommendations from other countries, or on approvals granted in other countries, to secure pre‑approvals in Canada. The process can move faster when you receive approval in other places than when you're a Canadian company that sells primarily in the Canadian market.

Canadian companies are being penalized at the expense of international companies. We'll see some serious dumping. I'm warning you right now. We've seen this happen with biocides. I also acted as a witness during the discussions on a regulatory framework for biocides. I warned everyone at the time. I said that we needed to be careful. We were handing the keys to the house over to the United States. We accepted one country—in this case the United States—with regard to biocides. Now we're stuck with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll move to the second round. We will start with Mr. Bailey for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses today.

Ms. Parmar, I want to thank you for all the work you've done with the Canadian Health Food Association. Although I wasn't in Parliament as an MP while the campaign to save the supplements was ongoing, I've heard from colleagues, both MPs and staff, that it was one of the largest letter campaigns ever, if not the largest, to protest the draconian Liberal legislation that directly targeted the natural health product industry in this country.

How can the government claim to want to protect Canadian sovereignty, strengthen domestic supply chains and lower our reliance on other markets when an industry like natural health products has been undermined and attacked for so long by this Liberal government?

[Sonia Parmar]

I think that the government put through a lot of regulatory and legislative changes that propose that we look more like drugs.

In your previous question, you asked us about whether that was appropriate and whether we need our own framework. We absolutely do. I would say that the over-regulation that we experienced, to the effect that small and medium-sized businesses would potentially have to pay up to $60,000 for an innovative product, was definitely something that catapulted our campaign. That's not to mention changes with Vanessa's Law, which changed the definition of natural health products overnight to pharmaceutical drugs, on top of very expensive labelling changes.

In the face of, essentially, survival, we definitely had to launch the “Save our Supplements” campaign for that exact reason.

As as I sit here today explaining how important preventative care is and how important natural health products are to that discussion, I will underline that it is very difficult to say that Canada can be sovereign if it isn't taking care of the fundamental, everyday natural health products that Canadians use to maintain their own health.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I'm going to kind of piggyback on a couple of questions that my colleague asked. I'm going to re-ask this: Why has the government left this commercial back door open?

[Sonia Parmar]

I don't know that it's been intentionally left open, per se. It is not just natural health products that are targeted. It's actually broader. It's also medical devices and pharmaceutical products.

Personal importation was originally intended for snowbirds. It's for people travelling, for example, to Florida or other places, who get prescribed something and bring it back. I think that, especially since COVID hit, commercialization of this loophole has been used essentially to commercialize electronic or online sales. This has really catapulted us into a very difficult situation for our sector in particular. Many Canadians pay taxes on these products. They're not cheap. They're looking for cheaper options, so they go online and take potential risks without necessarily even recognizing that a lot of these companies are American and not Canadian. A lot of them have “.ca” websites.

I do think that Health Canada has a big job to do to continue to inform Canadians, to help close that loophole and to make sure that Canadian regulations for natural health product manufacturers are fair in Canada. As I said, we're the only country to actually have a very onerous premarket approval system. It may take three years for our products to get to market, whereas in the States it could take three weeks.

There are a lot of angles to it, but I think a lot of it is unintentional.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

As I have one minute left, I'm going to ask if you would table any documents with the clerk about Health Canada complaints that you indicated in response to that other question. Then we can review them as a committee.

In your testimony, you stated that there were an estimated $2.3 billion in avoided health care costs. What would be some examples of these cost savings? Could the health care cost savings be even larger when considering the wider benefits to the economy, strain on the system and other factors?

Unfortunately, we have about 20 seconds, so it will have to be quick.

[Sonia Parmar]

I'll say it was a complicated study. I will submit that if it's of interest.

It's a lot of event-based costing for avoided events like fractures, complications, infections, hospital care and long-term care. It was a very onerous study that was done by an AI regtech company. We couldn't even hire a big company, because it's such an onerous study.

I'd be very happy to table that as well, so you can see the complexity.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you. That's perfect timing.

We'll go to Mrs. Sidhu for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being with us.

My question is for Ms. Steele from the Best Medicines Coalition.

Ms. Steele, you highlighted the leadership of the provinces and the bilateral agreement, but where is the biggest barrier in Canada's drug review and health technology assessment processes, and what reforms would you recommend to make these processes more timely?

[Kim Steele]

I will be honest. I think there are a lot of great things going on in terms of drug review and reimbursement.

Our greatest challenge is that we are still murky in some areas. I mentioned rare diseases and the drugs for rare diseases. It's partially about how these drugs are assessed and recommended for reimbursement through the health technology assessment, but it's also about having predictability of funding and being able to access those medicines.

One of the biggest challenges we face is that of the recommended price reductions that a body like Canada's Drug Agency might recommend for some of these innovative therapies. Some of these therapies can be assessed, and it's recommended that there be a 90% price reduction. It's very difficult to get innovative therapies through to reimbursement if that is the price recommendation.

If we look at the pCPA, we see that they've done some great initiatives in collaboration with the CDA. We are starting to see things move through the system. I would say that there's a lot of work being done to look at patient engagement at those levels, and we're starting to see some really positive change, to the point that we are writing submissions because there are so many consultations going on. We are able to sit back and look and say, “Wow, some good things are actually happening here in Canada at all levels.”

Our challenges were not cohesive. These are all different parts of a system that isn't necessarily a system. We break down not just at the health technology assessment bodies when it comes to some of these innovative therapies and how they are assessed. We also break down because we have programs in individual jurisdictions that may reassess. Those are non-binding recommendations, so the provinces and territories and the public drug plans in general don't necessarily have to take those recommendations. Sometimes that's a good thing. Sometimes that's a bad thing.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Steele.

Mr. Chair, six months ago, I placed on notice a motion calling for this committee to study the growing role and potential of artificial intelligence in health care. It has since been circulated again through the clerk for members' review. I now move the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), given the growth of artificial intelligence in health care, the Standing Committee on Health undertake a study of no fewer than six meetings on the adoption of artificial intelligence in health care, especially in research and innovation, data collection, health service, and patient-centred care; that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The motion is in order.

How do we want to proceed? Do we want to have debate on this?

I have Madam Jaczek.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Chair, how about unanimous consent for the motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Is there unanimous consent?

I have Mr. Bailey.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I'd like to ask, through the chair, why we are not discussing PrescribeIT, Mr. Green and some of the motions we have. I realize that the Liberals want to talk about the study, but this ongoing debacle with Mr. Green and our asking to have the health minister here has not been addressed. I believe we should go back to that motion and talk about it before we start talking about other studies. Let's clean this up, and then we will work together as a health committee.

I'm quite simply asking that we address what has gone on with Mr. Green and the health minister, so that we get Mr. Green to come back here, because he has not answered questions on this whole debacle with Canada Health Infoway.

I really feel that this is incompetence. It's a failed IT pilot. We have a bill coming from the Senate. I just received something in my mailbox today that I found very alarming. It actually says Canada Health Infoway is going to be part of getting all of this right across Canada with Bill S-5.

If we don't address this IT problem right now, how are we supposed to convey to constituents and the general public and instill some sense of understanding that it's okay that Canada Health Infoway is involved in another big project? We're going to start to connect all the provinces and territories together. I have been speaking with my province about its concerns already, and I believe we need to find out more from Mr. Green before we start talking about anything else.

When you all get to your mailboxes, I invite you to look at this piece of material that we all received today, because, as I said, it's very concerning to me that Canada Health Infoway is involved in that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Bailey, I have given you enough time. If we can come back to the motion, I will entertain that. Otherwise, I will go to Mr. Strauss.

If anyone has anything to say about the motion that's on the floor, that's what I would like you to focus on. I have given you enough time for the preamble, so let's come back to the motion. Otherwise, I'll go to Dr. Strauss.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

This motion that has been distributed to us.... I'd like to know what it is again, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

This motion was distributed before.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

She's distributing it now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

No. This motion was distributed on September 9.

I'll suspend for a few seconds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I call the meeting back to order.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Chair, I have the motion that the honourable member brought, and we have an amendment that we'd like to make to that motion. Would you like me to read it from the start, or should I just indicate where our amendment comes in? It was sent to the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You may proceed in whichever way you feel comfortable.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Has everyone received our amended motion from the clerk?

Basically, it states that this study does not begin until Michael Green, former CEO of Canada Health Infoway, has appeared for two hours on PrescribeIT.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We have the amendment on the floor, and I have speakers on the list. I have Dr. Strauss, Mr. Mazier and Madam Konanz.

Before we go to the members, on behalf of the committee members, I would like to thank the panel members, Ms. Parmar, Mr. Lévesque and Ms. Steele, for coming to this committee.

The witnesses are released.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I have a point of order.

I wonder whether you would just extend to those witnesses the apologies of the committee for the Liberal obstruction of PrescribeIT. It is getting rid of their testimony, which I was very excited to hear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It's okay. I already released them. We don't need to go there. This is not a point of order. Let's focus on—

Just a minute. Is it a point of order?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I believe so. If this motion is passed with these amendments, then they won't need to go home. Why don't we see...? Maybe everyone will agree, and there won't be any more obstruction. Maybe everyone at this table will agree to support this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I talked to the members earlier. It was my understanding that, as long as the one hour was over, I could release the witnesses. I'm not going to make them sit here for hours. There are already four speakers on the list.

Madam Konanz, you are on the list. Dr. Strauss is on the list. Mr. Mazier is on the list, and I'm sure there will be other members. It's my decision. Of course, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas is on the list.

I'm not going to make the honourable witnesses stay here. Witnesses, you are welcome to go. Thank you for your contributions.

Okay, now we'll go—

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify that the second hour panel is still staying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Yes, they are staying right now. It's the first panel only.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Well, we can get UC right now. Are you guys okay with the motion? We'll get unanimous consent, the motion gets passed and away we go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Is there unanimous consent to pass the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Now we will debate the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Parmar, Mr. Lévesque and Ms. Steele.

On the amendment, we have Madam Konanz, Mr. Mazier, Dr. Strauss—you have your hand up too, okay—and Mr. Bailey.

Madam Konanz, please, go ahead.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Well, it's hard to support the original motion to move on to an AI report when we have not finished our investigation into the PrescribeIT scandal. Over $300 million was used on this boondoggle. I think that word has been used, way overused, during the last week, I have to say, but it's the truth. It's hard to figure out another word to use for it.

We had the CEO of the company here, Mr. Green, telling us that he couldn't actually explain anything about it, yet he had been working on this for 10 years. Within a week of our interviewing him here for this study, in which all members around this table were shocked by his answers—if you look back at the tape, you'll see that all members were shocked—and all members wanted him to come back in person, he was fired.

I will say that the Minister of Health has not had.... We've been asking her continually in Parliament, over and over again, if she could answer the question, “What happened?” She can't answer, so we are trying to get her in here too. She actually said, in Parliament, within this last couple of days, that she was willing to come in here, so let's get her in here.

I think the amendment is appropriate, especially when we're looking at AI and especially if we're looking at the situation and making sure we aren't using fax machines anymore. That was the original intent of PrescribeIT. Well, let's go back before we move on to AI. Let's figure out what happened in trying to replace those fax machines. Let's get Mr. Green in here, and let's get the health minister in here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

We will go to Mr. Mazier,

Please go ahead.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I will follow up on my colleagues' comments here.

The motion says “the adoption of artificial intelligence in health care, especially in research and innovation, data collection, health service, and patient-centred care”. If history is any lesson to us all, back in 2016, the Liberals announced a software program that was supposed to modernize how prescriptions are sent in Canada. They promised that PrescribeIT would eliminate fax machines for prescription drugs.

This was back in 2016, the Liberal-made problem. They announced a $40-million budget. Ten years later—this is what this kind of government will do now—the cost of PrescribeIT has exploded to over $300 million. What did Canadians get for that $300 million? Well, that is the $300-million question.

As of today—and this is what this big software program was supposed to replace—doctors are still faxing prescriptions, and less than 5% of those prescriptions are going through the PrescribeIT program. This is the kind of track record the Liberal government has when it comes to developing software. Why on earth...? I definitely agree that we need this AI and we need this study, but we have to learn from our past problems and the past issues that the Liberal government has created. For the life of me, I would think that sitting as an MP, as you go back out into your ridings, I don't know how you look at anyone as you stand on their doorsteps and say, “Hey, $300 million, yes, we blew through it, but we want some more.” I don't know how you guys would stand there and defend that conversation.

That's why I totally support the amendments, and I look forward to getting this cleared up and listening to the next witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

We will go to Dr. Strauss.

Please go ahead.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm sorry that this is necessary. I usually say that it's a great pleasure to address the committee, especially on a subamendment as important as my colleague Mr. Mazier's. Unfortunately, this shouldn't be necessary.

While I'm speaking, I'll begin by extending my apologies to the witnesses who are waiting to deliver their important testimony. I want to inform those witnesses out of courtesy that this should not be necessary at all. This past summer, this committee—before you joined, Chair—had a meeting of the vice-chairs to decide what would be studied when. I understand that I'm not a vice-chair, but I understand that it was a perfectly collegial group decision that was made to do our study on immigration policy, the Bloc study on antimicrobial resistance and then the present Liberal study on pharmaceutical sovereignty.

We worked really well on behalf of Canadians as a team. One thing that we did not do was spring a debate and a motion on a study that we wanted while there were witnesses waiting to testify. This part is really disappointing. I feel terrible that I'm taking up those witnesses' time, but it's because of this very aggressive manoeuvre that the Liberals are undertaking presently.

That raises the question of why. Why would they do this very aggressive manoeuvre instead of having a vice-chairs' meeting collegially, as they have shown themselves capable of doing in the past? I think it's clear that this is because they do not want to have the meeting that Mr. Mazier has introduced in his subamendment to have the Minister of Health and Mr. Green come to speak to this committee about PrescribeIT. Both testimonies are very important.

I would draw the committee's attention to The Globe and Mail. For the last two weeks, it has run multiple stories, not just on PrescribeIT and the debacle that it is but on this committee's work pertaining to PrescribeIT. The committee has done important work on this boondoggle that, for one thing, has changed the direction of Canada Health Infoway.

I frankly do not believe the board chair's testimony that this committee questioned Mr. Green and he coincidentally happened to be fired a week later. Part of why I don't believe it is that the Minister of Health said in question period today that she found his behaviour totally unacceptable. Obviously, Canadians, journalists and the national paper of record, The Globe and Mail, are interested in hearing testimony from both of these individuals.

Addressing myself through you, Chair, to the witnesses who are waiting, I'm sorry this is what it has come to. The Liberals invited you here to give your testimony on their own study, and now they're obstructing the testimony of their own witnesses on their own study in order to protect the Minister of Health from having to answer further questions about precisely what transpired with respect to Mr. Green and the board of Canada Health Infoway.

In one of those Globe and Mail—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

On a point of order, I was just wondering. This seems to be.... I thought that we'd have a little more agreement around the table with the amendments, but you wanted to get on with the AI study, continue on with your own study. That's what I find more troubling.

I was wondering how many resources we had left for this evening as we get into this. Could you please ask the clerk, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We will do that, but right now, I will give the floor to Dr. Strauss to continue. In the meantime, we'll find that out.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I'll finish my comment.

In one of those Globe and Mail articles, the Minister of Health was quoted as saying that she wants to “move forward” and not talk about the misbehaviour of Canada Health Infoway and its now-dismissed CEO, but while moving forward, she's giving that same organization, which is terribly badly run, terribly poorly governed.... They needed this committee to explain to them that their CEO was badly behaved before they took any action against him. She says she's moving forward, but she's giving that same organization another $50 million, and this is a pressing concern.

As I've explained to this committee, $50 million can buy a lot of health care and do a lot of good in this country, and it shouldn't be going to Canada Health Infoway. We need to stop that urgently, before she disburses it. She needs to come and explain why on earth she would do that. When she comes, I think Canadians should be able to see what occurs.

That's why I'd like to move the following subamendment to Mr. Mazier's amendment.

After “appears for two hours on PrescribeIT” in Mr. Mazier's amendment, I would like to add: “and, given that the parliamentary secretary for health moved a motion on April 28, 2026, to turn off the health committee cameras and hide the PrescribeIT hearings from Canadians with no rationale ever given to the media or the public, that the committee meeting be held in public, with the cameras, to ensure transparency”, and then we'd continue with the amendment from that point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

We are on the subamendment. We have Mr. Bailey, Madam Konanz and Mr. Mazier, in that sequence. We then have Dr. Strauss.

Now we are on the subamendment. I already gave you the speakers list. I'll give the floor to Mr. Bailey.

Please go ahead.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I have to stress again how, in my mail, this unlocking connected care—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Bailey, if you can focus on the subamendment, I would really appreciate it.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Yes, and this pertains to exactly that.

Canada Health Infoway just sent out a booklet on how we're going to be unlocking connected care to all the provinces in Canada. This is an IT program, and I am concerned that we have not even addressed what Canada Health Infoway did in the last scandal. They are going to be involved in this new bill, Bill S-5, from the Senate, which this committee is going to be learning more about.

Again, in your mailbox, you're going to see “unlocking connected care”. It lists the four organizations involved. The last one is Canada Health Infoway. I want to know that these answers.... I think Mr. Green needs to come and answer questions on why PrescribeIT failed, before we move into the next scandal and get provinces involved.

I have mentioned this on numerous occasions in this committee. I don't understand why they're saying “connected care”, because “Connect Care” is a trademarked name for Alberta; it is an American trademark, and already I see that we have Canada Health Infoway involved with this new bill, Bill S-5. I really feel that we need to look at this and finish this study that we've started. We need Mr. Green here to answer questions so that we know we can trust Canada Health Infoway in the future.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

We will go to Madam Konanz for her turn.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I must say that at first I didn't think this subamendment would be necessary after everything that has happened in the last week. I think there are a lot of embarrassed MPs at this table right now who decided last week to force this committee behind closed doors. Now, we have media outlets like The Globe and Mail, the CBC—I could go on and on—that are more worried about how it is possible that MPs around this table could shut out news from Canadians for 30 years. For 30 years, they will not know what happened in those meetings last week.

I thought, why would we need this subamendment? Why would we need it? There's no way that the MPs around this table would want to do that again after the embarrassment. They had to answer to their constituents. It's very difficult, I'm sure. There must have been an incredible number of emails and phone calls to their offices and their personal phones.

I'm sure they wouldn't want to go through that embarrassment again. Canadians want to trust us and want transparency, and all of us around this table know that, but I see now that just in case there is any chance that an MP sitting at this table—a Liberal MP in particular—might want to hide more news for 30 years, this amendment is necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Madam Konanz.

Mr. Mazier, it's your turn. Please go ahead.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will just follow up again on both my colleagues' great remarks, which I thank them very much for, on this subamendment.

I actually have to say that I was probably one of the more shocked people when Ms. Chi moved to shut off the cameras when we had just simply started an idea and thought process, a discussion around getting the Auditor General to analyze where the $300 million went. The part that really bothers me as a member of Parliament representing taxpayers is that, in the meeting before that, this whole committee was very frustrated with those three individuals who came in, especially with Michael Green, the CEO. Even the chair got into it. They would not answer the questions. Mr. Green wouldn't even admit how much his salary was—how much he was getting paid. It turns out that it was $900,000. The CEO of a non-profit organization paid by the Liberal government is being paid $900,000, with a maximum benefit bonus—because he did such a great job, according to why he would get a maximum bonus—of $215,000. Can you imagine that?

We're all sitting around here, and we have to debate whether we're going to talk about this in public. Come on, you guys. This is a pretty easy discussion to have. We can all remove ourselves from the situation. It was bad. Someone got away really rich with a lot of money; $300 million was blown out of here. You guys don't want to talk about it. For some unknown reason, there are a bunch of barriers to that information.

As Ms. Konanz and Mr. Bailey have remarked, people are mad. They're more frustrated with the veil that came down when the cameras got shut off. Also, 30 years.... How is that democracy? Why are Liberal MPs supporting this? Honestly, I don't understand that.

You can kind of comment, read your phones and do whatever you want, but I just don't know why you wouldn't get on with the conversation and let them clear the air. Maybe there's nothing wrong here. However, sure enough, where there's smoke, there's fire. You know how that works.

With that, I thank you, Mr. Chair, for my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much.

Are there any more speakers on the subamendment? If not, I will ask the clerk to take the vote, please, on the subamendment.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We are back to the amendment. I have two speakers on the list, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas and Madam Sidhu.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This committee meeting is unique, but please allow me to share my perspective anyway.

Today, on May 7, 2026, we're carrying out a study on pharmaceutical sovereignty. The government asked for this study. It seemed to be a priority. I even remember the government members telling us that we absolutely had to begin this study.

As we reach the end of this study, what happens? The government members are trying to shift the focus to something else. A motion is being introduced, but not just any motion. The motion dates back to September. If I do some simple math, it seems that the period from September to May is eight months. So the government is telling us that this motion was in a drawer and that it mattered so much that we need to look at it again eight months later. Here we have the Liberal spectacle that the government is treating us to today.

What's the strategy behind all this? I'll explain it to the people tuning in, meaning the honest taxpayers. The government obviously didn't want to continue the study on pharmaceutical sovereignty, even though it considered this matter a priority. It had something to hide. After all, when something matters, you keep at it. You don't just pull a motion out of a drawer—a motion that has been sitting there for eight months—and say that you might want to move it after all.

I wanted to make this clear to the people tuning in. We have a secretive government that governs, shall we say, in a rather unpredictable or even haphazard manner.

The government members introduced this motion on September 19, 2025, but didn't consider it important enough to pass earlier. I would like to point out that eight months have gone by. They're bringing this forward today. I would personally like to understand why. I'll let them speak shortly so that they can explain to us why, today—even as we're working on their own study—they decided to reconsider this motion.

I suspect that they're trying to cover up or hide things to some extent. Obviously, things have been heating up on the government side in recent days, specifically within the health committee. We have the new scandal involving the PrescribeIT program. Whether we like it or not, the program cost us $300 million. We never got our money's worth, and the program is set to end in late May.

I also found something quite bizarre, I must say. I would like to bring it up so that the people paying close attention to us can understand the logical progression of the story. It's May 7. On May 5, during a committee meeting, we asked the Minister of Health to come meet with us to discuss the PrescribeIT fiasco. The government told us that she was too busy and that she couldn't come. Yesterday, on May 6, we asked the minister questions in the House of Commons. She responded that she personally had no problem coming to meet with us in the committee.

There seems to be an inconsistency. The government members said in the committee that the minister can't attend. Yet the next day—not 32 days later—she said the exact opposite of what her team members claimed. Someone, somewhere, is lying. Either they aren't communicating with each other, or they don't understand each other, or they aren't on the same page. It's quite striking to see people say that the minister can't attend, only for her to contradict her colleagues the next day. I feel a bit embarrassed for them. They may need to improve their communication.

If the minister wants to come, she must come. We mustn't stop her. I think that this is important. She told us herself that she had no problem coming. I thought that this was good, actually. The minister said that she had already appeared before the committee five times. This shows that there are issues. Besides, if she has already appeared five times before, she won't have any problem coming a sixth time.

I hope that my colleagues who are committee members or who occasionally fill in for them—since this seems to be happening more and more often, although everyone is welcome in this committee—will ensure that we invite the minister to shed light on the new scandal involving the PrescribeIT program.

I'm really looking forward to hearing my colleagues' explanations regarding my question of the day. Why was this motion introduced? What was the urgency? I can say that the schedule was already quite full for the coming weeks, or even almost until the end of the parliamentary proceedings. Will my colleagues be able to respond and shed some light on this matter? I'm really looking forward to hearing from them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

One thing I want to make clear to the honourable members is that passing this motion does not amend the order of the business we are going in. I want to make sure that that is the understanding.

Now I'm going to the speaking list. Next is Ms. Sidhu, and then we have Dr. Strauss and Madam Konanz.

Ms. Sidhu, please go ahead.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to be clear that I moved this motion in my time, when I was questioning the witnesses.

I put this motion on the table six months ago. I want to remind the opposition members that I talked to Mr. Mazier about my AI motion, but I didn't move it at that time. I moved this motion in my time, and I put it in the queue. I'm not dictating my motion.... It's just for future study.

That is all I want to say.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

Now we will go to Dr. Strauss. Please go ahead.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you.

We are now back to the amendment to the effect that we'll have Michael Green and the health minister come before engaging in this AI study.

I have some things to say about this AI study in general. If we're debating which to do first, it's important to have it on the record that digitization in health care and artificial intelligence in health care are already here and already happening. I'm not aware of any clinician, any software developer or anyone in the AI space who's sitting around hoping that the parliamentary health committee will advise them on how to do that.

I had a visit with my family doctor this past summer. I was very ill. She asked if it was okay if she used an AI scribe or if AI listened in on what we were doing. I said I was very interested to see that. In addition to transcribing, saving that practitioner a whole bunch of time, it also made a treatment recommendation that was very appropriate for the problem I had.

It's already here. It's already happening. I don't think any of the AI company founders—in my personal network there's somebody from the region of Waterloo— are waiting for this committee to advise them on how to do that better, whereas this government, the Liberal government currently proposing to study health care and AI, is the same one that promised to axe the fax in 2017.

Jane Philpott was the minister of health. She promised to axe the fax. She spent $300 million on it. How can a government that failed in its three-word, verb-the-noun slogan to axe the fax, now turn around after $300 million and say, “We're no longer interested in our failed attempt to axe the fax. We want to move on to lecturing family doctors, AI founders and tech entrepreneurs into how to integrate health care and artificial intelligence”?

On its merit, as a health care provider, I can say that I am not interested in doing this study. I am sorry to have to disagree with my colleague, Mr. Mazier, but out of collegiality.... I guess they do have a majority now, which they got by hook or by crook. They have that now. They can ram this study down our throats, which, as a clinician, as somebody who knows a lot of tech entrepreneurs, I do not want, but the very least, can we deal with the fax machine issue first? Before we have godlike superintelligence, can we just deal with what they promised? Can we deal with the $50 million that the health minister is putting into this pivot strategy to give to Canada Health Infoway, perhaps to fund their next CEO's lavish lifestyle? That is my position on that.

The last thing I want to say is that liberalism.... Philosophically, I am a liberal, in the sense of a classical liberal who believes in openness. I guess I'm still shocked that they just voted down the idea of having the committee meeting where we talk to their health minister. They don't want to do this hypothetical meeting that they're not even wanting to allow us to have. They just voted down having that hypothetical meeting out in the open for Canadians to see, and they did that without....

Each of us here spoke in favour of that motion. We all think it's important that this committee be in public, unless we're dealing with a national security matter, which we have done once in the past, and you didn't hear any complaints from us when that, very appropriately, went in camera, but how on earth is the health minister's talking about blowing $300 million a national security concern? Why would they not agree to have a hypothetical meeting out in the open?

We each spoke to why we think it's important for that to be out in the open, but none of them even spoke to that motion, which was extremely disappointing. I'm going to conclude my comments in a second, but if we return to this subject—because I have another motion to move, Chair, that I think will be dilatory—I hope that, even though we've already debated the subamendment, some of them would have the grace and the courage to explain why they voted down having a hypothetical meeting with cameras on for the Canadian public to see. There's a lot of investment that went into the AV equipment in this room so that Canadians could be present and could watch what their Parliament does. To vote down the idea that we turn on the cameras that we all paid to have here was shocking, and I hope they'll speak to it.

Unfortunately, though, they won't be able to speak to it immediately, because I have a dilatory motion, which is that, given that the Liberal witnesses are here to speak on the Liberal study on the all-encompassing and extremely important matter of pharmaceutical sovereignty, we now proceed to hear from the witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Is there unanimous will to proceed to the witnesses?

How about if I suspend for a minute so you can make that decision quickly? You have one minute. That's it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I call the meeting back to order.

I'd like to see if the committee gives its unanimous consent to go back to the business of hearing from the witnesses.

There is not.

Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We are back to the amendment now.

I have Madam Konanz and then Dr. Strauss.

Madam Konanz, please go ahead.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

To go back to the amendment, it's obvious that Michael Green is ground zero. He is ground zero.

Oh, am I allowed to use “ground zero” in a meeting?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, we are ready to vote on the motion on the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

First of all, you have to raise the motion on your turn, not on a point of order. Madam Konanz has the floor.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

After everything that's happened today, it is obvious that Michael Green is ground zero for this scandal of PrescribeIT—

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. It's on the amended motion, just for a point of clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'll clarify for all the members that we are working on the amendment right now.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

On the amended motion, do we need a vote? That's what I wanted to know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

First, if there are members on the list who want to speak to the amendment, I cannot call the vote until a member who has the floor brings the motion to a vote. Right now, your turn is gone. The floor is with Madam Konanz and then Mr. Strauss. If you want to bring that motion, you can put yourself on the speaking list.

Are you on the speaking list or not? No. Okay, thank you.

Madam Konanz has the floor.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

It is obvious, after listening to the members sitting across from us at this table, that Michael Green is ground zero for this scandal.

It is also obvious that he actually might want to come here. He may be asking to come here, in fact, because maybe there are things that he needs to expose. It is obvious that there are people sitting at this table who don't want that exposed. It is their duty to the Canadian people to let Michael Green, former CEO of Canada Health Infoway, come in, speak and tell the truth. Allow him to come in and tell the truth about what happened in this scandal. How did this happen?

I would like to give him the opportunity to have a voice. It is our responsibility to allow Michael Green to come to this committee, use his voice and tell the truth about what he knows about what has happened in the last 10 years with this scandal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay.

Mr. Strauss.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to raise, I think it has to be said again.... I imagine the witnesses are still online.

The witnesses were invited here by the Liberals, who just voted against hearing from the witnesses. I'm cringing. I'm scandalized. It hurt to watch.

I want to extend to each of those witnesses.... You can find my parliamentary email if you google “Matt Strauss MP.” I would like to hear from each of you what you had to say today.

It's as though you've been invited for dinner and then told there's no dinner. That was hard to watch. I'm really sorry that that happened to each of them.

With that, Chair, I'd like to raise a question of privilege on a related matter. Yesterday, during question period, the Minister of Health was asked about the dismissal of Michael Green, the former CEO of Canada Health Infoway. The minister stated, “I spoke to the board of directors, and they took the necessary steps.” The minister told the House of Commons that she personally intervened with Infoway's board and that Mr. Green's firing was the result of that intervention.

On Tuesday, May 5, 2026, this committee heard directly from Dr. Peter Vaughan, the chair of Canada Health Infoway's board of directors. Dr. Vaughan was asked whether the current federal health minister had ever personally raised concerns with him or the board about the $300 million spent on PrescribeIT. Dr. Vaughan's answer was clear. He said no. In fact, he stated, “The answer is no.”

These statements cannot both be true. Either the Minister of Health told the House of Commons yesterday that she had spoken to the board when she had not, or the chair of Canada Health Infoway told this committee on Tuesday that the minister had never raised concerns when she had.

The House of Commons and its committees depend entirely on receiving truthful information from ministers and witnesses. When contradictory statements are made to the House and to a committee within days of each other, members of Parliament cannot do their job, and Canadians cannot get the truth.

I will draw the committee's attention to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, chapter 3, which confirms that the “provision of deliberately misleading information to the House” by a minister has frequently been raised as a matter of privilege. It also sets out a three-part test. The statement must have been misleading, the person must have known it was incorrect, and they must have intended to mislead.

These two statements—the minister's claim that she had spoken to the board and the chair's testimony that she had not—cannot both be true. At least one of them was knowingly false. I therefore move that this committee report to the House that the testimony of Dr. Peter Vaughan before the Standing Committee on Health on Tuesday and the statements of the Minister of Health in the House of Commons yesterday are directly contradictory, that Parliament has been misled, and that this matter constitutes a breach of privilege.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to section 20.113 of Procedure and Practice. It reads:

The Chair of a committee does not have the power to rule on questions of privilege; only the Speaker has that power. If a member wishes to raise a question of privilege in connection with the committee's proceedings that may constitute a breach of privilege or contempt, the Chair allows the member to explain the situation. As the Chair has no authority to rule that a breach of privilege or contempt has occurred, their role in such instances is to determine whether the matter raised does in fact touch on privilege and is not a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate.

I'm going to just take a minute here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

If you want me to read the whole section, I can. It reads:

If the Chair is of the opinion that the member’s intervention is not related to privilege, the Chair will rule accordingly, giving reasons. The committee cannot then consider the matter further as a question of privilege. Should a member disagree with the Chair’s decision, the member can appeal the decision. The committee may sustain or overturn the Chair’s decision.

Before I take a decision, I need to have it in writing, so that I can analyze it and then make a decision.

Dr. Strauss, I will give you the opportunity to give it to me in writing, so that I can see it and analyze it.

In the meantime, I'm going to suspend the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We're back.

Thank you very much, honourable members.

I have a question of privilege on the floor right now. I am not able to make a decision on this immediately. I need a bit more time. I don't want this to die either. To do that, I have to suspend the meeting. We will come back to this.

[A voice]

Call them from the fourth floor. Bring the whip's office down here and talk to them. We already have a ruling from them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It's already been two hours. I'm going to suspend the meeting and come back to this next time.

[The meeting was suspended at 5:39 p.m., Thursday, May 7]

[The meeting resumed at 3:43 p.m., Tuesday, May 26]

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to part two of meeting number 34 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, even though we are all here in person today.

I would like to remind participants of the following points. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best as we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard. Only one person at a time should speak, to make sure that the health and well-being of the interpreters and others are considered.

Chris Bittle, I'm happy to welcome you. You are becoming a regular contributor to this committee. You're welcome.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I hope that isn't formal. This is a part-time gig.

I appreciate everyone for being here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, September 23, 2025, the committee shall resume its study of Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty.

The committee suspended its meeting on Thursday, May 7, 2026, after a question of privilege was raised by Dr. Strauss. Therefore, we are resuming this meeting, and I will render my decision.

Madam Sidhu, do you want to say something before I give my—

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Yes, but just finish, Mr. Chair. I will speak after that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

I'm going to relay my decision now. As chair of this committee, I have considered the motion, moved by Dr. Strauss, concerning an alleged breach of privilege arising from testimony provided before this committee and the statements subsequently made in the House of Commons. As—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Chair, on a point of order, can you read that actual question of privilege? Are you going to read the whole—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Do you want me to?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Yes, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay. Here we go.

Thank you, Mr. Mazier.

Honourable members, I will read the question of privilege regarding the minister's involvement with Infoway. This is from Dr. Strauss, not from me:

Mr. Chair, I'd like to raise a question of privilege on a related matter. Yesterday, during question period, the Minister of Health was asked about the dismissal of Michael Green, the former CEO of Canada Health Infoway. The minister stated, “I spoke to the board of directors, and they took the necessary steps.” The minister told the House of Commons that she personally intervened with Infoway's board and that Mr. Green's firing was the result of that intervention.

On Tuesday, May 5, 2026, this committee heard directly from Dr. Peter Vaughan, the chair of Canada Health Infoway's board of directors. Dr. Vaughan was asked whether the current federal health minister had ever personally raised concerns with him or the board about the $300 million spent on PrescribeIT. Dr. Vaughan's answer was clear. He said no. In fact, he stated, “The answer is no.”

These statements cannot both be true. Either the Minister of Health told the House of Commons yesterday that she spoke to the board when she had not, or the chair of Canada Health Infoway told this committee on Tuesday that the minister had never raised concerns when she had.

The House of Commons and its committees depend entirely on receiving truthful information from ministers and witnesses. When contradictory statements are made to the House and to a committee within days of each other, members of Parliament cannot do their job, and Canadians cannot get the truth.

I will draw the committee's attention to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, chapter 3, which confirms that the “provision of deliberately misleading information to the House” by a minister has frequently been raised as a matter of privilege. It also sets out a three-part test. The statement must have been misleading, the person must have known it was incorrect, and they must have intended to mislead.

These two statements—the minister's claim that she had spoken to the board and the chair's testimony that she had not—cannot both be true. At least one of them was knowingly false. I therefore move that this committee report to the House that the testimony of Dr. Peter Vaughan before the Standing Committee on Health on Tuesday and the statements of the Minister of Health in the House of Commons yesterday are directly contradictory, that Parliament has been misled, and that this matter constitutes a breach of privilege.

Thank you, Chair.

Do you want me to start from the beginning now?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay. Now for my decision.

As chair of the committee, I have considered the motion, moved by Dr. Strauss, concerning an alleged breach of privilege arising from testimony provided before this committee and statements subsequently made in the House of Commons.

As members know, matters relating to privilege and contempt are serious. Deliberately misleading the House or one of its committees may constitute contempt; however, in order to reach such a conclusion, there must be clear evidence that misleading information was provided intentionally. In this case, I'm not in a position to determine that any member or witness deliberately misled the committee or the House.

There appear to be different accounts or interpretations of the facts, but the threshold for finding a prima facie question of privilege or contempt is a high one. In addition, the alleged contradiction, which involves statements made in the House of Commons, falls within the jurisdiction of the House itself and, ultimately, of the Speaker rather than the committee.

Accordingly, I find that the motion, as prescribed, does not constitute a matter of privilege arising from the proceedings of this committee; therefore, the motion is inadmissible.

Mr. Mazier and Dr. Strauss, if you want to challenge, you are welcome to challenge.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Sure. Can I state my case for why I want to challenge you?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

No.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I just challenge the chair? There's just a vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You only have either to challenge the chair.... And if you challenge the chair, there's no debate, and I would have to go directly to the vote.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Are you challenging the chair?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I am challenging the chair, obviously. Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The chair is challenged. It is a non-debatable motion, so I will ask the clerk to take the vote on whether the ruling of the chair should be sustained.

The vote is for the chair to be sustained, to remain in his position.

There's one thing I want to be clear. If the members want the chair to be sustained, they should say yes. If they do not want the chair to be sustained, then the vote should be no.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

The chair is sustained.

We have Sonia and then Mr. Mazier.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

On a point of order, when the meeting was suspended, I had just moved my privilege motion. I had the floor at that point, and I believe I would retain the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There was no one on the speaking list. Your privilege motion was brought forward, and there was no one on this list. Now the list is called, and we have Ms. Sidhu and then Mr. Mazier.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

On a point of order, he wasn't done speaking, so he still had the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

He had the floor, but he brought the motion of privilege, so then he lost that spot. The privilege motion is.... I said I did not entertain that.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I have a point of order. They can challenge the chair or they don't challenge the chair. You've made a ruling with respect to Dr. Strauss's motion. You've made a ruling with respect to who's on the list. They can put up their hands all they want. It's not a point of order, what they're doing.

It's time to move on with the debate, and Ms. Sidhu has the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Bailey, go ahead.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me. I am following your rule about putting my hand up, unlike colleagues.

I would suggest to you that when we came into this meeting, Ms. Sidhu did not have her hand up.

I was sitting here watching everyone. You asked her if she wanted her hand up, and she indicated she didn't. Then we put our hands up. I don't know how she can be first up, when we had our hands up.

Thank you for hearing me, Chair.

[An hon. member]

You clearly don't know the rules. I am not the chair, but the point of order is to clarify the rules. You clearly don't know what a point of order is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Please. There will be no more discussion. I, as chair, have a speaking list. I have Ms. Sidhu and then Mr. Mazier.

Ms. Sidhu, you have the floor.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to give some clarification. I raised my hand three times. Maybe Mr. Bailey didn't see that. I was raising my hand.

I just want to say that—

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to raise a question of privilege.

On April 21, this committee heard testimony from Michael Green, the then CEO of Canada Health Infoway. During his testimony, Mr. Green was asked directly by a member of this committee about his compensation, given reports that the Liberal government had paid Canada Health Infoway $300 million for its failed PrescribeIT. He refused to answer. Instead—

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I have a point of order.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Bailey, hold on.

Just a minute. Hold on. There are too many things going on. Just one person may speak at a time.

We have the speaking order. We have Ms. Sidhu, and then we have Mr. Mazier, and then we have Mr. Bailey. I will follow that order.

If Mr. Bailey wants to bring in a—

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

It's a question of privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

—a question of privilege, he can raise the question of privilege when his turn comes.

Ms. Sidhu, you have the floor.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, because we are debating my motion—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I have a point of order.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There is a point of order again.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Can you please check with the clerk? When a person raises a question of privilege, they have the floor, once they're recognized. Could you just check on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I am going to suspend the meeting here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We are back in.

Honourable members, right now Ms. Sidhu has the floor, and we are discussing the motion brought forward by her, and the amendment. If the privilege motion is related to that particular motion and that particular topic, only then will I be able to entertain it. Otherwise, no.

I would ask Mr. Bailey, is the privilege motion you are bringing in directly related to the motion brought forward?

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Yes, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay, you can go ahead, and then I'll figure it out.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Give me a copy as well, if you have one.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I don't.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay, so then I have to....

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

You can take notes.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to raise this question of privilege again—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Hold on for just a minute. If you can give us a copy, we can make a copy here.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I can't give you a copy.

I can give you a copy after I'm done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay, I'll give the floor back to Mr. Bailey.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to raise a question of privilege.

On April 21, 2026, this committee heard testimony from Michael Green, the then CEO of Canada Health Infoway. During his testimony, Mr. Green was asked directly by a member of this committee about his compensation, given reports that the Liberal government paid Canada Health Infoway $300 million for their failed PrescribeIT program. He refused to answer. Instead, he stated that “it is publicly disclosed.”

He repeated this claim moments later, telling the committee that his compensation “is publicly quoted.” Mr. Green made this statement before a parliamentary committee. It was not true.

On Tuesday, May 5, Dr. Peter Vaughan, the chair of Canada Health Infoway's board of directors, confirmed to the committee that Mr. Green's compensation was not publicly available at the time of his April 21 appearance. An archived version of Infoway's website from March 11, 2026, confirms there was no compensation disclosure posted.

Furthermore, the metadata of the earliest version of the disclosure document reviewed by this committee indicates that it was created on April 24, three days after Mr. Green testified.

Mr. Chair, let me be clear on what happened. A witness appeared before this committee. He was asked a direct question about his salary. Given that it's funded by Canadian taxpayers—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We have a point of order from Ms. Sidhu.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

We are on the motion about an AI study, Mr. Chair. I just want to say that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Bailey, as I said earlier, because the motion—

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I'm getting to that part.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It's better that you wrap up with the preamble, if you need to, and just come back to the motion that we are on, please.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, when I had the floor, I didn't finish my sentence, and then he—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It's okay. If he brings in the matter of privilege and it is directly related to your motion, then I will entertain it. Right now, I'm not entertaining it, because the preamble he has put together is not acceptable. If he does not directly get to the motion right now, then I'm going to call this out of order and I'm going back to Ms. Sidhu.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

We're clear, Chair, that I am speaking to my amendment to her motion. We're clear about that, so I'm going to continue.

A witness appeared before this committee. He was asked a direct question about his salary, given that it's funded by Canadian taxpayers, and, rather than answer the question, he told the members of Parliament that the information was already public. It was not. This document did not exist until after his testimony.

This is not a matter of interpretation. It is clear that a witness told this committee a falsehood in order to avoid disclosing how much taxpayer money he was paid to oversee a $300-million program that failed. Only later was it reported that his salary was nearly $900,000 that year, which includes a maximum performance award of over $215,000.

I would also draw the committee's attention to what happened after Michael Green refused to disclose his compensation. On April 21, this committee adopted a unanimous consent motion summonsing Mr. Green to reappear for two hours. Eight days later, on April 29, the board of Canada Health Infoway suddenly dismissed Mr. Green, effective immediately. This committee was denied the opportunity to question him further on his misleading testimony and on the $300 million in taxpayer funds he oversaw. The timing of his dismissal raises serious questions about whether this committee's ability to recall and examine a key witness was deliberately obstructed.

I will draw the committee's attention to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition. Paragraph 3.98 states that committees have reported to the House on “cases of witnesses lying to a committee”. Chapter 3 further states, “If a committee determines that a witness has given untruthful testimony, it may report the matter to the House.” The House alone decides whether contempt has occurred. The House has acted on this authority before, finding George Radwanski in 2003 and RCMP deputy commissioner Barbara George in 2008 in contempt for providing misleading testimony to committee.

Witnesses who appear before this committee are obligated to answer questions truthfully and completely. Mr. Green did neither. Parliament's ability to hold the government to account depends on witnesses telling the truth. If witnesses can appear before this committee, make false claims to avoid scrutiny and face no consequences, then Parliamentary accountability means nothing. I therefore move that this committee report to the House that Michael Green's testimony on April 21, 2026, regarding the public availability of his compensation constituted misleading the Standing Committee on Health and is a breach of privilege.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I listened to the question of privilege brought forward. My decision is that it is not in order, so I'm going to go back to Ms. Sidhu.

If you want to challenge the chair, then challenge the chair. I just don't want everybody to grab the mic and start speaking, only one person.

Raise your hand, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, if you want to speak. You can challenge the Chair.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Chair, at the last meeting, you were unable to make an immediate ruling regarding the admissibility of the question of privilege. Today, you're saying that you can—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, I asked you a question. Do you want to challenge the chair or entertain the decision?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I find it odd that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Point of order....

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Chair, I don't understand why you're cutting me off me when I speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm not cutting you off; I'm just asking if you are challenging the chair.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

You just did it twice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I asked the question. Are you challenging my ruling?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

I asked you a question about the admissibility of the question of privilege. I want you to explain why you can make a ruling on the spot today, when you couldn't do so at the last committee meeting. That's my question for you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

That is at my discretion. I as chair can do that, and I have done that.

Now, I'm going to move on to Mr. Mazier.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I think you need to explain to the committee why this is not in order. It is in order. You referred it to the clerk. He was allowed to speak. Now you can do what you want, but you've heard the speech from Mr. Bailey, so it is in order. I guess I argue that.

What you do with the decision is your choice, Chair. It's not so much that it is not in order, but you've heard the the claim, so now what are you going to do with that? It is definitely in order. It's in order, because it was related to the amendment that was on the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Mazier, time and time again, I'm telling you, if I have enough evidence of what we are saying—whether we are misleading or whether someone is falsely making statements here—then one of the members can take this to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the Speaker can do that.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

What you're saying, then, is that you don't find it a matter of privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

That's right.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Why?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Because we don't have enough evidence of what he's saying is there. That's what my belief is. If you feel that it's there, certainly a member can raise it. If a member has the vote in the committee, then they can take it to the House of Commons and raise it there.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

If you're ruling that it is not a matter of privilege, I will challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The chair is challenged. The vote is on whether to sustain the ruling of the chair.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Chair, before you start, did you want a copy of this? You haven't even reviewed my copy. I thought you wanted a copy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The clerk is taking the vote right now. You can give me the copy, but the vote has been called. I would appreciate a copy.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Okay. I was just asking if you wanted to review the copy before you called the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I have called the vote now. I'm not going to go back.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

Ms. Sidhu.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I move to adjourn debate on my AI motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The motion to adjourn debate is non-debatable.

Clerk, take the vote, please.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Can you read that motion, please? Actually, it was on the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

When we adjourn the debate we adjourn everything.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Okay. Never mind.

Chair, I'd like to speak after this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The vote is on. I'm not going to entertain anybody.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

The debate is adjourned.

I have Mr. Eyolfson on the list.

Please go ahead.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I didn't think you were going to interrupt anything. Where did he put his hand up? When did that all happen?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It was right after the vote.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Wow.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Eyolfson, you have the floor. Please go ahead.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I have a point of order, Chair.

What was the result of the vote, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The debate was adjourned.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

What was the result?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Everything is a clean sweep. Whoever we had there is gone. The new order starts.

Dr. Eyolfson, you have the floor.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

What was the count?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I'd like to speak to Mr. Eyolfson's....

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Does anybody have a point of order that's not related to the same subject?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

This is not a point of order. I just want to get on the speakers list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Go ahead, Mr. Eyolfson, and then it's Mr. Strauss.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Do you have a point of order now on a different matter?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I was going to speak first. The clerk saw my name. I was after him.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

No.

Mr. Mazier is after Dr. Strauss.

Mr. Eyolfson, you have the floor.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Right now, Manitoba is facing—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There is another point of order from Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Would it be possible to pay closer attention when people call for a point of order? I understand that it isn't easy, since there's a lot going on.

I would simply like to ask the chair to urge the committee members to avoid speaking at the same time. This makes the interpreters' job quite difficult. They're trying to provide the interpretation. However, they're saying that they can't do so when multiple people speak at once.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas. It's a point well taken. That's what I have said time and time again. Some of the members are not respecting what I am saying. I want every member to be respectful to the interpreters and to honourable members. One person at a time should be speaking.

I have the speaking list right now. We have Dr. Eyolfson, Dr. Strauss and then Mr. Mazier.

Mr. Eyolfson, you can go ahead, please.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I have—

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Chair, I have a question of privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

If this is the intention of this procedure, I'm commenting right now. You can raise as many points of order, and you can raise as many questions of privilege.... I will—

Just a minute, Mr. Mazier. I'm speaking. You have to respect the chair.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Sure.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I can take a point of order.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

If I do have a matter of privilege, am I not allowed to speak?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Right now, there is nothing on the subject. The question of privilege can be on the subject matter. Let the subject matter come in, and then I will give you the floor.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay.

Right now, let me entertain Mr. Eyolfson.

Please go ahead, Doctor.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

All right. Thank you, Chair.

I would like to present—

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I have to take the point of order.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Chair, could you please talk to the clerk about whether a question of privilege needs to be....

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I have a point of order.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Why can't I speak about anything—

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I have a point of order.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

—when I raise a matter of privilege? It's a priority.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I have a point of order.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

It's a priority. If you could ask the clerk....

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There's another point of order.

Ms. Chi, you have another point of order.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Does Ms. Chi agree?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Chair, what just happened in this meeting was just really atrocious, the disrespect directed towards the chair, and the disrespect that's directed towards our members here. Ms. Sidhu and Dr. Eyolfson couldn't even get a word in before someone called a point of privilege or a point of order. I find it extremely disrespectful.

If we want to run a functional committee, I ask people to allow members around the table to speak before you call anything. Can we please let that happen?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

Mr. Eyolfson, please go ahead.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Thank you.

I would like to move that, pursuant to Standing Order—

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Excuse me, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There is another point of order now.

I tell you right now, I have chaired committees in the past. I have worked very well with both sides. I'm very fair. I tell you right now, the way I see it right now is that if we can work together in a very transparent and fair manner, we will be able to achieve things, because health is one of the most important topics and issues to Canadians' lives. If we, as members, do not take this seriously.... I know Canadians are watching right now.

You can raise as many points of order as you want. You can raise as many questions of privilege as you want. I will make sure that I entertain you. At the same time, I would like to see some work done here in this committee as well.

Ms. Konanz, you have a point of order.

Please go ahead.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Yes.

My original question was about whether matters of privilege need to be related to the matter at hand. Can you please confirm that?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

That's not a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Yes, I have a question of privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I am going to suspend the meeting right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I call this meeting back to order.

Madam Konanz, you have the floor.

One thing I want to tell the members is that the chair of the committee does not have the power to rule on questions of privilege. Only the Speaker has that power. The question of privilege that you want to bring forward has to be recent, not from four or five weeks before. If it has to do with what we are doing today, I would entertain that.

Madam Konanz.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Chair, I'd like to raise a question of privilege. On April 21, 2026, this committee heard—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Madam Konanz, I said April 21, and today is May. For weeks, you had the opportunity to raise this question of privilege. You did not raise that, so I'm not going to entertain it. If you want to challenge the chair, do challenge. If not, then Dr. Eyolfson has the floor.

Please go ahead.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Thank you, Chair, I would like to present the following motion.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

On a point of order, I just wanted to refer to section 3.86 in chapter 3 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, on privileges and immunities: “A question of privilege arising out of the proceedings during the course of a sitting may be raised immediately without notice.” We can raise it at any time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

That's my decision. I have to make that decision.

Mr. Eyolfson, go ahead.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to move the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Health undertake an urgent study on the rising rates of HIV infections in Canada, with particular attention to the recent declaration of a public health emergency by the Province of Manitoba related to the spread of HIV, including the disproportionate impacts on Indigenous peoples, women, rural and northern communities, and individuals experiencing homelessness, mental health challenges and substance use disorders;

That the study examine federal programs, funding, prevention strategies, access to testing and treatment, harm reduction initiatives, public awareness efforts, and intergovernmental coordination related to HIV prevention, care and support services;

That the Committee hold no fewer than two meetings on this subject;

That witnesses include officials from the Public Health Agency of Canada, representatives from Manitoba Health, Indigenous health organizations, frontline community organizations, medical and public health experts, and individuals with lived experience;

And that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

Ms. Sidhu, you have the floor.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair. I thought I was on the speaking list after.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Are you going to speak to that motion?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Absolutely, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Then go ahead.

We will have Mr. Strauss, Mr. Mazier and then Ms. Sidhu.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair. When Mr. Eyolfson started reading the motion, I raised my hand three times.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I agree. Ms. Sidhu, if they are going to speak to this motion, because their hand was up as well, I have to give them the floor, and then I will come back to you. If it's not related to this, then I can only override and then come back to you.

We have the speaking list right now. I just want to make sure that everybody knows who is speaking when. We have Dr. Strauss, Mr. Mazier, Ms. Sidhu and Ms. Konanz.

Dr. Strauss, please go ahead.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

If I may, I'll begin by congratulating Dr. Eyolfson for a really important study proposal that I would be pleased to support in due time. I think it's much better than the previous study proposal. There actually is expertise on this topic at this table, which was not the case for the AI study that was proposed. I am pleased that the AI study was withdrawn. I also commend the member opposite for keeping it to two meetings. We can get a lot done in two meetings. That's all really important.

We have to put everything on the correct timeline. We have done three studies. We have not prepared any reports. The House is rising in four weeks. When we get back, I'm not going to remember all of the testimony that we heard. If we want to prepare the best reports possible, then we should prepare the reports for the studies that we've already done before entertaining new studies. That's basic; let's get our homework done. This is an extremely important topic that Dr. Eyolfson has proposed, but so were the last three.

I have this issue of getting the proper work done at the proper time. I also have the issue of basic fairness. When this committee was first composed, the vice-chairs met, and a member from each party agreed that there would be a Conservative study, a Bloc study and then a Liberal study. We had a majority—the Bloc members and ourselves—at that time. Out of collegiality, we agreed to let the Liberals have a study, and I'm surprised that degree of collegiality is not being extended to us now that they have a majority. We did not insist; we didn't pass any motions to do our study before they had determined which study they wanted to do. We agreed all at once, all together, to do those three studies. I think that's the sort of collaboration and basic respect that Canadians expect to see from all members of this House and all members of this committee.

Although it's a really important study that he has proposed, it just has to be said that it was done without discussion. I don't know if the vice-chairs were convened. I don't know if they asked us what study we would like to do. It feels a lot like butting in line.

There still remain these questions about the testimony that this committee has already heard being false. It's a really important study that he wants to do. I want to make sure we have procedures in place and the expectation in place that when witnesses come to testify to his study on HIV, those witnesses give true information.

Just a few weeks ago, a CEO of a non-profit came and gave false information, and there have been no repercussions for that. In fact, our attempts to raise this as a matter of privilege in this committee were rebuffed. I don't think we have, as a committee, the integrity to deal with a topic as serious as the one Dr. Eyolfson has proposed.

Bearing those three things in mind—getting the work done in terms of our homework for the studies we've already completed, the basic fairness issue of doing their study but also doing ours, and this issue of whether the committee is hearing true or false testimony and, if it's false, what we are going to do about that—I would like to propose the following amendment to Dr. Eyolfson's motion.

That the motion be amended by adding, after the words “That the committee hold no fewer than two meetings on this subject”, the following:

“That the committee not commence this study until the Minister of Health has appeared before the committee for no less than two hours to testify on the Liberal government’s failed PrescribeIT program, including the program’s costs, governance, termination, adoption failures and intellectual property arrangements, and the minister’s oversight of Canada Health Infoway.”

That ends the text of the amendment.

I want to say that this amendment is a quick—I hope no one will say slapdash—way to at least get at the issue of the vice-chairs not having convened.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

First of all, the amendment you are proposing is not related to that motion, so I call the amendment out of order.

I'm going to move on to Mr. Mazier to speak to Dr. Eyolfson's motion.

Please go ahead.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

It's very much related. I don't understand what you're even saying. How is it not related, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

He's talking about AI right now. The motion is on the—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Strauss, could you please reread that amendment to the motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Can you send a copy of the motion right now, so we can read it?

In the meantime, I'm going to suspend for two minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I call the meeting back to order. The honourable members got the copy of the amendment. Mr. Eyolfson brought a motion forward:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Health undertake an urgent study on the rising rates of HIV infections in Canada, with particular attention to the recent declaration of a public health emergency by the Province of Manitoba related to the spread of HIV, including the disproportionate impacts on Indigenous peoples, women, rural and northern communities, and individuals experiencing homelessness, mental health challenges and substance use disorders;

That the study examine federal programs, funding, prevention strategies, access to testing and treatment, harm reduction initiatives, public awareness efforts, and intergovernmental coordination related to HIV prevention, care and support services;

That the committee hold no fewer than two meetings on this subject;

That witnesses include officials from the Public Health Agency of Canada, representatives from Manitoba Health, Indigenous health organizations, frontline community organizations, medical and public health experts, and individuals with lived experience;

And that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

There is an amendment brought by Dr. Strauss:

That the motion be amended by adding, after the words “That the committee hold no fewer than two meetings on this subject”, the following:

“That the Committee not commence this study until the Minister of Health has appeared before the committee for no less than two hours to testify on the Liberal government’s failed PrescribeIT program, including the program’s costs, governance, termination, adoption failures and intellectual property arrangements, and the minister’s oversight of Canada Health Infoway.”

When I look at the motion brought forward by Doug Eyolfson and the amendment brought by Dr. Strauss, I see that the amendment brought by Dr. Strauss is not related to the subject of HIV. In fact, it is talking about PrescribeIT, which we are not studying now.

I will call this amendment out of order, so we are back to—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I have a point of order.

You sound impressed. This is directly....

We're talking about the study not commencing until we get the PrescribeIT settlement done, so it's directly related to the subject at hand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

That is your understanding, Mr. Mazier.

This amendment is not in relation to the subject of HIV, so I called the amendment to the motion out of order.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I'll challenge the chair on that one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The chair is challenged, and we'll take the vote.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

We are back to the motion brought forward by Mr. Eyolfson.

Madam Sidhu, please.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

It was Dan next.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

If you want to speak, it's only on this motion.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

The list is there. Look right there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Those were on the amendment.

The amendment is out of order, so now we have Mr. Mazier and Ms. Sidhu.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Then we'll have Madam Konanz.

Mr. Eyolfson, do you want to be on the list, too? You raised your hand. I just want to make sure.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Yes.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

No, that was on the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

That's gone.

Do you want to speak, Mr. Bailey?

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I should be on the list from before.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Yes, Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Mazier, go ahead, please.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Did you want to be on the list, too?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We'll put you on.

This is a good subject to study. There's a crisis in Manitoba. Mr. Mazier and Dr. Eyolfson are from Manitoba. Let me listen to them first and give them the opportunity. I will give Mr. Mazier the opportunity.

It's your home province.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Thank you, Chair. I really do appreciate your offering me the floor so I can actually speak on this. As you say, it is in our home province.

HIV is a very important subject to study. In Swan River itself.... The problem in Manitoba is that what we're doing is not working. That's the bigger problem. It's just unimaginable how many needles are actually being distributed through Manitoba. We'll get to that, hopefully, in the study.

However, to follow up on Mr. Eyolfson's comment about being truly transparent and having the cameras on, I will move the following amendment to the motion.

It's that the motion be amended by adding, after the words “That the committee hold no fewer than two meetings on this subject”, the following:

That all meetings held as part of this study at which witnesses appear be held in public and televised, with the committee cameras turned on, in the interest of transparency and accountability to Canadians, including Canadians who were betrayed when Liberal members voted to move the committee in camera during the emergency meeting on PrescribeIT earlier this year;

I move that amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We're going to take a few seconds here while the clerk distributes the amendment. We're suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I call the meeting back to order.

Honourable members, you have received the amendment brought forward by Mr. Mazier. Does everyone have a copy? Okay. Then I don't need to read it.

I will read to you from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, 2025, section 20.93:

On occasion, a committee may decide to hold an in camera meeting. A committee can hold such meetings for various reasons, for example to deal with administrative matters or future business of the committee, to consider a draft report or to receive a briefing. Committees also meet in camera to deal with documents or matters requiring confidentiality, such as national security, or to hear sensitive testimony from witnesses requiring confidentiality or anonymity. Depending on their needs, a committee may conduct one part of a meeting in public and the other part in camera. Subcommittees on agenda and procedure usually meet in camera.

Any member may move a motion to go from sitting in public to sitting in camera (and vice versa) at any time. The motion is decided immediately without debate or amendment. In practice, committees often change from one to the other at the suggestion of the Chair, with the implied consent of the members.

Most committees regularly adopt a motion to keep transcripts of in camera meetings in the committee clerk’s office for consultation by committee staff, members or members’ staff. Minutes of in camera meetings are publicly available, but certain information usually found in the minutes of public committee meetings is not included. For instance, only the final text of motions adopted by a committee during in camera meetings appear in the committee’s Minutes of Proceedings; neither the names nor the number of members who voted for or against a motion is published. On occasion, committees decide to make in camera proceedings public and vice versa.

Neither the public nor the media is permitted at in camera meetings, and there is no broadcasting of the proceedings. Usually, only the committee members, the committee staff and invited witnesses, if any, attend in camera meetings. Members of the House who are not members of the committee normally withdraw when the committee is meeting in camera. However, the committee may allow them to remain in the meeting room, just as it may allow any other individual to remain. While people may participate remotely during in camera meetings, they are expected to maintain the confidentiality [of] the proceedings. Divulging any part of the proceedings of an in camera committee meeting has been ruled by the Speaker to constitute a prima facie matter of privilege. However, if a committee does not report a divulgation of in camera proceedings, a Speaker has ruled that there are no procedural grounds on which to intervene.

Honourable members, I'm sure that section 20.93 is very clear that committee members, with a majority, can decide at any time—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

[Inaudible—Editor]

I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was just thinking out loud.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The committee can decide at any time to go in camera or in public. The amendment brought by Mr. Mazier overrides House of Commons Procedure and Practice, and it is not the precedent set by any of the committees, so I call this amendment to the motion out of order.

The floor is yours, Ms. Sidhu.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I still had the floor, Chair.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I have a point of order.

I had not finished my motion. I can talk. I had moved my motion, after which I have the chance to speak to it. I gave you the grace—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Listen to me. You brought an amendment to the motion, and the amendment is out of order. I'm going back to the motion itself now. If you want to be on the list, you can raise your hand, and I will put you back on the speaking list.

Ms. Sidhu.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my honourable colleague for bringing forward this important motion on such an urgent issue. HIV/AIDS continues to impact communities across Canada.

This is being felt deeply in Manitoba. Recently Manitoba declared a public health emergency as HIV rates rose in 2025. There were 328 new cases, more than double the cases in 2021, and over three times the cases from 2019. These numbers are especially concerning, because HIV often affects those who are most vulnerable, including 2SLGBTQI+ communities.

Therefore, Mr. Chair, I move that the motion be amended by inserting “in specific regions and populations, including 2SLGBTQI+ communities” after the words “disproportionate impacts”.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There is an amendment. Is everyone in agreement with the amendment? Is everyone good?

Do you need a copy?

I'll suspend for a few minutes.

Please send a copy to the members.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

It's circulating.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay, the clerk just received it. She will circulate it.

I'm going to suspend the meeting for a few minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I call the meeting back to order.

Honourable members, I hope everyone received the copy of the amendment brought forward by Ms. Sidhu.

Is everybody in agreement with that?

Dr. Strauss, you are speaking to the amendment brought by Ms. Sidhu.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It was lovely to have the opportunity to review the amendment in writing. I don't have it before me at this moment. However, generally when I see that acronym used in government documents, there are two Qs and an A, but the second Q and the A are missing. I wonder if the member proposing the subamendment could just explain why she made that style choice on this occasion, before we vote for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I will give the floor to Ms. Sidhu.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

It is there: two Qs. We will send it again. Just give it a second.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Dr. Strauss, did you get it?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Chair, I see only one Q. There's a 2, but usually it's QQ, two Qs. There's also no A. I just wonder if something's changed.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, if Dr. Strauss wants to make a friendly amendment, that's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay.

Dr. Strauss, go ahead.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

No, I don't need an.... I have no particular amendment to make. It's her motion, so if she made that style choice, I was just curious as to why.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Does any other member want to amend this with a friendly amendment? Otherwise, we'll go with the wording as it is.

Dr. Strauss has the floor.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

If we leave it as just one Q, then I'm not sure which Q that Q stands for, so—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

This is why—

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I wonder if we should avoid acronyms in these motions in general and spell them out. Could the member maybe spell it out, just so we're clear which communities are being specially consulted?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Dr. Strauss.

I will give the floor to Madam Sidhu.

Madam Sidhu, do you want to spell it?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Do you want me to suspend for a few seconds, or do you have the wording?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Does Dr. Strauss want to make a friendly amendment? Otherwise, we will send it again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Yes, you will have to resend that, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Honourable members, the amendment is with you, and the amendment is as brought forward by Ms. Sidhu. If there is no other member about to bring a subamendment to it, or a friendly amendment, then I am going to see if everyone is in favour of the amendment, and then we will vote on that.

Does anyone want to speak to it?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Did we add a Q, or...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We can't, unless someone else brings it.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

No one from your team wants to amend it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Do you want to?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

No.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I thought that [Inaudible—Editor].

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Okay. If you're good with it, we're good with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, go ahead.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Could you call for the vote, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The vote is called. I will ask the clerk to please take the vote—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

—on the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

—on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are back to the motion, as amended.

I am going to the speaking list. We have Ms. Sidhu, Madam Konanz, Mr. Bailey and Ms. Chi—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

And then me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

—and then you.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I'm next.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay. You're done, Ms. Sidhu?

Now we will go to Madam Konanz.

Please, go ahead.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Now I am speaking to the main motion. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

That is the main motion, as amended.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

It is the main motion as amended. Thank you.

Thank you so much for bringing this forward. I think this is an urgent study that we need, and we need to study Canadians across the entire country, not just Manitoba, but obviously Manitoba seems to be.... There was a recent declaration of a public health emergency, so it is vital that we do this study.

I want to say that it's very important that we do it across communities, across Canada. In the city I live in, Penticton, the overdose rate in the first quarter rose by 500% from the quarter before. The reason this is important is that we're looking at people with substance disorders in this, to study the HIV rates across Canada. As you can see, this is very important in the city of Penticton and also across Canada.

I would like to make a motion to amend this. Again, this is extremely important. We need to continue with this study.

I'd like to move that, after the words “that the committee hold no fewer than two meetings on this subject”, we add the following: “that the committee not commence its study until Michael Green, the former president and chief executive officer of Canada Health Infoway, has appeared before the committee for no less than two hours to testify on his role in the implementation and oversight of the Liberal government's failed $300-million PrescribeIT program, including his inability to answer basic questions during his previous appearance before the Standing Committee on Health and his sudden dismissal by Canada Health Infoway following the collapse of this program”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

As previously, I made my recommendations and decision, and this is not related to the HIV subject that we are dealing with, so this is out of order.

We are going to the—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Hang on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

—next speaker, Mr. Bailey. Please go ahead.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Go ahead on a point of order, Mr. Mazier.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

A member has brought forward a motion that at least should be distributed so that the committee can look at it, and then we can vote on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I called it out of order. I listened to it and I grasped it—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

What did you pick up from it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm not going to explain. I told you that if you want to keep on interrupting time and time again—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I'm not interrupting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

—we are doing an important study on HIV, and your province is the one that's most affected—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

All I'm asking for is a vote; it's a democracy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

—and you are the one.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

All we're asking is to make sure that Michael Green is coming back. PrescribeIT is a failure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

If you're not going to respect my decision—

Please shut the mic off for Mr. Mazier.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Oh, you'll shut me off. Why don't you just shut the cameras off too? What about a question of privilege?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

On a question of privilege, shutting off a mic from an MP—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Battiste, I see you have a point of order.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

Yes, I have a point of order. It's on repetition, because this has been ruled on before. It seems like the—

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

No, it's completely different.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

—Liberal Party, the government, is trying to put put together a study that's of real importance to indigenous people all across Canada, and especially in Manitoba, after their premier has said there's a crisis.

We're trying to get to that study and that crisis, and a number of times now, the Conservatives have put their hands up. You've ruled twice now on this, and the repetition—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

On a point of order—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There's already a point of order on this.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

—I'm explaining the repetition here, because we've seen—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Battiste has the floor.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

On his reference to our blocking this motion, we are not.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

It's absolutely disgusting—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Listen to me. Just a minute—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

We are not blocking this. You had a chance to fix this motion, and you didn't.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Battiste, you have the floor. Please go ahead.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's really important that we get to this study. It's really important to first nations communities. It's really important to Manitoba.

Now, I'm here as a guest, but I'm seeing something here that is a really important matter to be studied. Twice now, the chair has ruled that the interruptions coming from the Conservatives on things that are not related to this study so they can get to their study are taking us away from getting to a very important point, and I want it to be on camera. I want the indigenous people across Canada and all people in Manitoba to see and hear what's going on right now with this important issue that needs to be addressed and needs to be spoken to and voted on. I want them to know that the Conservatives won't allow it to happen.

I would think that they should—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

On a point of order—

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

—really look within themselves and really understand what they're doing to first nations people and what they're—

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

On a point of order, I made it very—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

—this is slanderous.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Listen to me. I'm the chair. I will dictate. I have made my call. Listen to me now.

Members, I have the floor. Let me talk first. Then you can raise a point of order if you need to, but I have to acknowledge the next member on the list when I stop speaking.

I have ruled that this amendment is out of order. The floor is with Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Bailey, go ahead, please.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Dr. Eyolfson, for this important study.

I really agree with you. I spent over a decade in Winnipeg, not only involved in hospital, but running the funeral home, and one of the things that I would like you to consider in your study is that we look also at provinces other than Manitoba, and that we look at syphilis.

Syphilis has become just as major as HIV in Alberta. I'm wondering if you would possibly consider expanding your study to take in syphilis as well as HIV, because it is in the same community that we're discussing that these outbreaks are occurring, and it has become very problematic in Alberta. If you'd like me to move a motion for that, I certainly would.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Eyolfson, do you agree to the friendly amendment?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

That would actually be acceptable, yes. I would accept that as a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

With that, are you done, Mr. Bailey?

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Yes, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

We'll go to the speaking list. Next is Ms. Chi, and then we have Mr. Mazier, Dr. Eyolfson and Dr. Strauss.

Ms. Chi, please go ahead.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I wanted to get on the speaking list to commend my colleague Dr. Eyolfson for this fantastic motion. There is a public health crisis that's declared, and I think it's really incumbent upon us to do the study and figure out a way to help the folks in Manitoba. I want to put on the record my thanks to Doug for his excellent work on this. I'm looking forward to studying this subject.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

We have Mr. Mazier. Please go ahead.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, I agree, Dr. Eyolfson. This is a very important study.

I was wondering about a few different things to make it a more holistic study. You did mention opioids and substance use disorders, and I was wondering about encompassing the opioid study from the last Parliament that has not been completed yet.

When we first sat down here in the last round of the last Parliament, the health committee was just wrapping that up, or I think they had four more meetings. Then, when we first sat down here in the new Parliament this fall, it was a Liberal promise that once we were done with the Liberal study, we were going to wrap up the opioid study, which we've never gotten to.

In the essence of getting things cleaned up and making sure that we are very focused on this particular subject, I'm wondering if you would entertain an amendment to have two meetings on wrapping up the opioid study as well. That would actually clean it up, and then we could look at whole systems. That is in good faith, just so we can all focus on that particular subject matter. That's one thing. That's one motion.

Then of course we'd want to add the Minister of Health to these meetings as well and make sure she gets invited, because a lot of these subjects do lie in the minister's purview or control. They include the exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that allows consumption sites to exist in Canada and allows the provinces to create their own drug sites as well.

I know there's lots to unpack there, but I think adding the opioid study into this, adding a couple more meetings and inviting the minister would make it a really good, robust study for us to sink our teeth into.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Before I go to you, Dr. Eyolfson, just to clarify, it is my understanding that on September 23, 2025, there was a motion in place to have two meetings on opioids, which we haven't studied before, so I'll—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Just for clarity, we did study them, and the two meetings referred to were just to wrap up. This was started in the last Parliament. That's why it's two meetings only.

That big assumption—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay.

Dr. Eyolfson, please go ahead.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Thank you.

I appreciate the spirit of that. The problem is that the spread of HIV, syphilis and diseases like these is very multifactorial. With the study as it is, we're already going to be putting a lot into these two meetings. I'm afraid that if we add more and more to it, it might tend to dilute what we're talking about.

The motion does say, “people with substance abuse disorders”. Those issues can be discussed within that and are covered by the motion. I believe the issues you want to talk about here are already referred to in that.

On the opioid study itself, substance use disorder, including opioids, is an extremely complicated issue. Trying to put some of that into yet another study will dilute the subject matter too much. It's best if we leave that study as is and do what we need to with that study. If there needs to be more on that study, we can do that, but I don't think adding more subject matter to this study would be in the best interest of getting all the questions answered that we want to.

I thank the honourable member for this suggestion. I don't think it is workable, given that we want to do this in two meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Dr. Eyolfson.

I'll go to Mr. Mazier.

Mr. Mazier, the floor with you.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I can't believe that.

You say that there's too much to study, so we have to narrow it down to two because there's too much material, yet we can't spend time on the study because there's so much to study. It's one or the other. We all admit that there's a lot to study, and there are lots of issues out there, especially when it comes to opioids.

I might remind the member that you're the one who wrote the study. If you didn't want to include opioids in the study, you shouldn't have put it in there, but you did put it in there, so then all of a sudden the door is open. What I'm asking of you is to spend two more meetings and get the opioid issue out in the committee.

We have to really consider a lot of different things. As a committee, we have a new chief medical examiner. We just ran across her the other day, and I'm sure she has a lot more to explain on this subject. We have the health minister, who has to come back and explain why she thinks fentanyl is safe to use next to children. There are lots of different things we can talk about; never mind what we are doing in Canada for opioid addictions, how consumption sites are not working, and where the Liberal government is going on this in the future.

What are we doing for treatment? What are we doing for recovery? How did we get here with HIV? Obviously, what we're doing is not working. To not acknowledge that in the study and to say, “only two days”.... There are lots of things the provinces want to say in this study, and I would welcome them at the table as well when we start talking about this.

I would ask you again to please consider. Let's wrap this opioid study in and include this for two more meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much, Mr. Mazier.

As I said earlier, it was agreed on September 23 that the committee consider all testimony and evidence received by the committee during the study on the opioid epidemic and toxic drug crisis in Canada to have been received and adopted, that an interim report be produced and tabled before the committee before the inquiry continues, and that the committee hold two more meetings to hear testimony from witnesses so that it can make recommendations and table its findings to the House of Commons.

This is already in place. It's just a matter of doing the committee business when we want to do it. That part is already there.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

That is what I'm asking: if we could just wrap that into this study. Two more meetings with that, and then the study is done. We have HIV, we have opioids and it's done. We can actually start moving forward on it. That is my amendment, and that's what I'm asking for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There is an amendment right now.

Because I have to entertain the amendment, does anyone want to speak on the amendment brought forward by Mr. Mazier?

I have Mr. Rana and then Dr. Strauss.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In itself, the opioid study is a comprehensive study, which has already been done, and now, again, if we bring that one while—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It's not done.... It's on the schedule.

[A voice]

It's a [Inaudible—Editor].

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, the schedule, but HIV is itself a big disease that needs comprehensive attention, with our resources and our witnesses. It's better that we should just concentrate only on HIV, which is already an emergency in all of the provinces.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

Dr. Strauss.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Mazier, for bringing this really important amendment to the floor.

I just want to stress that this is about collegiality and collaboration. At the beginning of this committee and at the beginning of this Parliament, a decision was made to review the women's health study from the last Parliament and the opioid study from the last Parliament, because the Conservatives and some of the Liberal members wanted to review the opioid study, and the Liberals wanted to review the women's health study.

An agreement was arrived at that we would do both. As you've delineated for us, Mr. Chair, we already have this opioid study that the committee agreed to on the docket, and now we've spent two meetings with the Liberals trying to unilaterally add new things to the docket. The way this is going—with the cameras getting turned off and, I would say, their abusing of their very thin majority—I don't have faith that we're actually going to get to do the opioid study that they agreed to do after very responsible negotiations. They agreed to it.

I don't have faith that they're not going to put this important—and I agree that it's important—HIV study ahead of the one they've already agreed to, and they're also at risk of putting it ahead of all three studies that we've done but haven't completed reports on. It's just.... I don't know, but I think Canadians would be embarrassed to see the committee rushing from study to study and not doing a report. We did the immigration policy and health study. It will be almost a year from when we started it if we even start the report, if we move on to this HIV study. This is not a way to run things. I feel like the rug has been pulled out from under us.

Again, I will reiterate that the Conservatives and the Bloc had a majority. We made all these concessions in the spirit of being collaborative and building Canada strong, etc. For them, just weeks after getting a floor crosser, to try to totally overturn all of what was done in good faith breaks faith with us. It is in bad faith. I think that's really important.

I look forward to voting for Mr. Mazier's amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you. Is there anyone else? Is there any more debate?

All those in favour of the amendment brought forward by Mr. Mazier?

We'll have to call the vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Now I will go to the speaking list on the motion as amended.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I will go to Dr. Eyolfson and then Dr. Strauss.

Dr. Eyolfson, you have the floor. Then I'll go to Dr. Strauss. Then I have Mr. Blanchette-Joncas and then you.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

I will cede my time, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

We will go to Dr. Strauss now, please.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I'm really sorry. This—

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Do you have a point of order?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Can you explain why, this time, you agreed to the introduction of an amendment even though we didn't receive the translation? We've been carrying out this type of work for over an hour and a half. This is the first time that you agreed to let us proceed to a vote. You didn't want me to speak before the vote. Yet that's exactly what I was asking for. It seems that it would be smart and consistent to do the same thing that you were asking for earlier.

You just made a fairly significant concession. You agreed to put an amendment to a vote even though we hadn't officially received it in both official languages. In my opinion, this is quite serious.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, I take this very seriously. I respect both of the official languages. If you would have brought that forward, I would have suspended the meeting and would have done what you wanted. I'm sorry that you did not raise your hand before the vote.

Once the vote was called.... You understand.... If you wanted a copy of this motion, I wish you would have spoken at that time, as you have done now. I asked the people, again, if there was more debate on this. There was no debate, and you did not say anything, so that's the reason I called the vote.

I'm sorry. The next time, I'll make sure I come back to you.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

You're telling me that I didn't raise my hand before the vote, and that's why you couldn't ask for the amendment in both official languages. That's called shirking responsibility, Mr. Chair. If you want me to keep an eye on you while you do your job, I'll do it.

However, as chair, your role and responsibility is to ensure that the committee follows the procedures and rules. First you say that we must do something, but then you say that it's no longer necessary.

You just told me that it was because I didn't raise my hand before the vote. That's no excuse, Mr. Chair. I can confirm that I did raise my hand before the vote, but you told me not to speak before the vote. That's what I did.

I accept your apology. However, you just confirmed that I need to keep a close eye on you to make sure that you're doing your job. That's what you just told me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

I have done this. I know I do this job very diligently and with fairness, making sure that both official languages are respected. I have worked with the Bloc members previously. If you talk to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, he will tell you that I have always been very respectful to the francophonie and the Bloc Québécois.

I will make sure that next time I do pay attention, and you will not be let down.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Yes.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Was that a question of privilege that you brought up, Max?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Yes.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

You need to rule on that, then. It wasn't a point of....

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

He said that he's accepted my apology, and he has moved on.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Oh....

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You didn't listen, then.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Oh, I didn't listen. I just heard a question of privilege, and I didn't hear a ruling. That's all that went on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Mazier, this is where you are trying to interrupt. The honourable member has already said that he has accepted my apology, and he has moved on. You should have listened.

I know it's becoming a habit on your side to intervene time and time again. Please pay attention.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I'm just making sure he has a voice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We're going to take the vote now.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

What are we voting on? We have a list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We are going to the speaking list.

Mr. Mazier, if you can stay quiet and raise your hand if you want to speak, I will give you the hand.... Your turn will come. I'm going to say the speaking list now. If you respect the speaking list, the meeting will go very well. You are the only one who has tried to interrupt time and time again.

Mr. Eyolfson took his name off the list. We will now go to Mr. Strauss, and then Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, if he wants to speak, and then Mr. Mazier.

Dr. Strauss, you have the floor.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you.

I'm reiterating that I look forward to doing the study Dr. Eyolfson has proposed. I think we should follow the work order that we already have before us, so I don't see why this motion has to be undertaken today, but as it has been undertaken, I think it's important that we consider....

Unfortunately, Mr. Mazier's amendment to consider the effects of opioid use was rebuffed, but I think we also need to consider the effects of prescription medications. The HIV crisis in Manitoba right now is different from 30 years ago, when there were not such effective prescription medications for HIV. I think if these rates are doubling or quadrupling, as they have, that almost by definition means that individuals are not getting proper prescription medical care in terms of PrEP and PEP.

I also want to draw the committee's attention to some remarks that the Honourable Jane Philpott, then minister of health, made to the Economic Club of Canada in 2017 regarding her plans to bring forward PrescribeIT and on the practices of better prescribing and reduced overuse of drugs, including opioids, that this program held. She said the following:

Finally, a note on the importance of data.

Data are the foundation of evidence-based policy and program decisions. Without data, we risk not being able to effectively identify inappropriate prescription practices, analyze the use of drugs, or offer support through monitoring after drugs enter the market.

We will be asking the Canadian Institute for Health Information to strengthen the database by collecting data regarding public and private [drugs].

[Canada Health] Infoway’s e-prescribing system that I mentioned earlier will also play a critical role in expanding the data available.

Once complete, the drug information system will be a comprehensive system—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We have a point of order now.

Ms. Chi.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

It's on relevance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'll give you a few more minutes, Dr. Strauss, to—

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I think I explained how this is directly relevant.

Once complete, the drug information system will be a comprehensive system, helping to improve the safe use of prescription drugs for Canadians.

I'd like to move the following motion with the Honourable Jane Philpott's words in mind. I'm sorry; I'd like to move to amend Dr. Eyolfson's motion at the end. This is just coming to me through the debate that's been ongoing, so I don't have it in writing: “Whereas e-prescription services held the promise of improving prescribing practices as pertains to HIV medicines, that Michael Green, the former president and chief executive officer of Canada Health Infoway, appear before the committee during the study for no less than two hours to testify on his role in the implementation and oversight of the Liberal government's failed $300-million PrescribeIT program.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Right now, what I'm going to do is this. It's already close to six o'clock, and I don't see that there will be consent to pass this motion—you can send that in both official languages—so I will suspend the meeting.

[The meeting was suspended at 5:58 p.m., Tuesday, May 26]

[The meeting resumed at 3:34 p.m., Thursday, May 28]

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I will call this meeting to order.

Welcome. We are resuming meeting number 34 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

I would like to remind participants of the following points.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, please click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. At the bottom of the screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Before we begin, I would like to quote section 20.110 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states:

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 their 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 would like to thank the clerk, the analysts and the interpreters for being of assistance in difficult circumstances at this committee.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, September 23, 2025, the committee shall resume its study of Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty.

The committee suspended its meeting on Tuesday, May 26, during the debate. Therefore, we are resuming this meeting and debate on the motion by Dr. Eyolfson, with the amendment moved by Dr. Strauss, which is as follows: “That the motion be amended by adding the following: Whereas e-prescription services held the promise of improving prescribed practices as pertains to HIV medicines, that Michael Green, the former chief executive officer of Canada Health Infoway, appear before the committee during the study for no less than two hours to testify on his role in the implementation and oversight of the Liberal government's failed $300-million PrescribeIT program.”

Did all honourable members get the motion circulated in both official languages? If not, please raise your hand now.

I see that everyone got it.

I have reviewed the text of this amendment, and I have deemed it to be out of scope. Therefore, I rule this amendment to be inadmissible.

We will now go back to the motion.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Next on the speaking list, we have MP Blanchette-Joncas, followed by MP Mazier.

Please go ahead, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

Is there a point of order?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Yes, Chair.

Are you going to give your reasons for finding it out of scope?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Yes.

According to section 12.11, “An amendment must be relevant to the motion it seeks to amend.”

If we look at this motion, not just the preamble but the main text of the motion, the intent of the motion is not related to the topic. That is why I call this motion inadmissible.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

I'd like to challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The ruling of the chair has been challenged.

We will have a vote on whether to sustain the ruling of the chair. Members who want to sustain the ruling will be voting yes. Members who do not want to sustain the ruling will vote no.

Clerk, please take the vote.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

We will now move back to the main motion.

Next on the speaking list is MP Blanchette-Joncas, followed by MP Mazier.

Please, go ahead, MP Blanchette-Joncas.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Everything is fine, Mr. Chair. It's no longer relevant.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

We will go to MP Mazier, and then we will go to Dr. Strauss.

Mr. Mazier, please go ahead.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the clarification of those rules. It's great to get everything clarified when we start a meeting.

I would like to move the following amendment. I move, “That the motion be amended by adding, after the words "Public Health Agency of Canada', the following: 'the Minister of Health'."

I think that's pretty straightforward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Wait a minute, please. Can you tell me...?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

There are four words, “the Minister of Health”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Whereabouts is that?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

It's after the words “Public Health Agency of Canada”. In other words, it asks the Minister of Health to attend the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We have the amendment.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I would like to speak some more on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay. We will give Mr. Mazier the floor.

Mr. Strauss, you are next on the speaking list.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Can I go ahead?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Yes, please.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

This all comes down to needing the Minister of Health to come and explain what is going on.

I really appreciate this motion. I think it's very important that any time we have a health crisis in any province in Canada, the federal health minister has an opinion on that and weighs in on what she's seeing. A lot of times, they don't really get a chance to explain themselves. Federal ministers have a tendency.... They get accused of being removed from it and being out of touch. I think this is a really easy way for the minister to build some good faith and trust in our government and our health care system. I don't think anybody could deny that. This is really just a chance for her to set this table straight.

I would encourage the members to vote in favour of this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Good. Everybody seems to be in favour.

Dr. Strauss, you have the floor.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I thank Mr. Mazier for this important amendment. I'm not sure I support it yet, so I don't think we can move immediately to adopting it by unanimous consent.

We have to think about all the other times we've invited the minister here. In fact, we spent a whole meeting debating whether the minister would come on PrescribeIT, and our motion was not allowed to go on unanimous consent at that time.

The Liberals said they wanted to remove the two-week timeline to have her appear, but they adjourned the meeting without even taking yes for an answer and waiting for our agreement on that point. When the Conservative House leader alerted the Canadian public that this had happened, that the Liberals had abruptly adjourned the meeting to protect their health minister from having to come to testify at this committee, a member of this committee took to Twitter to call it misinformation and said we had agreed to summon Minister Michel, but she's never come.

I'll ask the clerk to correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no motion on file to have the minister come.

I would put that to Dr. Eyolfson. Is it indeed, in his view, misinformation that they summoned the minister? I don't recall seeing the minister all this time. That, of course, was regarding PrescribeIT.

If they're now planning on having the minister come to talk about HIV but not PrescribeIT, Dr. Eyolfson said they agreed to have her come on PrescribeIT, so when is she coming to talk about PrescribeIT? I think that's an important thing to flesh out, and I invite Dr. Eyolfson to address it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Dr. Strauss, it's up to Dr. Eyolfson whether he wants to respond or not.

Can I move on to Mr. Ruff?

Mr. Ruff, you're next in line, and then we'll go back to Dr. Strauss.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I respect my colleague MP Strauss's commentary.

There are some new members here who may not understand my background. I know you do, Chair, being from the military. I come from a background that believes in leadership and accountability. I personally support this amendment to have the minister come here, because it's been my frustration and observation since I was elected to this esteemed place six and a half years ago that our system is failing Canadians when we're not holding ministers accountable and responsible for their departments and anything that's ongoing.

To be fair, there's a former minister in this room, whom I actually have a lot of time for. She did a lot of good things and was very respectful of the role of the official opposition and keeping all members of Parliament informed.

There's ample opportunity and I, personally, will support Mr. Mazier's amendment that the minister should appear as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much, MP Ruff. Welcome to the committee, even though it's for a short while.

We'll go to Dr. Strauss and then Mr. Bailey afterwards.

Dr. Strauss, please go ahead.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Chair, I know many of my colleagues at this table, particularly on the Liberal side, are physicians. I know they work, as I do, in critical environments. They understand that open lines of communication are really important, and that transparency and accountability are really important.

If Dr. Eyolfson thinks we already agreed to bring the minister, and that Andrew Scheer was promulgating misinformation, I don't know why he wouldn't hesitate to say that now. I don't see how the business of the committee can go forward if we can't even agree on what has happened so far regarding summoning the minister.

Maybe the clerk wants to speak to it.

Dr. Eyolfson is very talkative on Twitter. He said they agreed to bring the minister. Later, he said they agreed to investigate PrescribeIT, but we saw what happened with my subamendment just now. I actually agree with the last part of his post. Facts matter.

Is the minister coming? Will there be an investigation on PrescribeIT? Will the minister be speaking to PrescribeIT if she comes as part of this amendment?

We need to know what—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Strauss, to be very respectful to you, I would like you to stay on the topic, which is HIV. PrescribeIT is not the subject and it's not under consideration at this point in time. I would really appreciate that.

The floor is yours.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you.

I thought we were talking about the subamendment, which pertains to the minister coming.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It pertains to the minister coming on the HIV study.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

We just had all of these statements from Dr. Eyolfson on Twitter about the minister already coming. I'm trying to understand this. Maybe he can explain it to me. Is the minister already coming? If she's already coming and they've already agreed to it, and they're already on Twitter saying there's going to be an investigation....

Two weeks ago on Twitter, Tristan Bock—I don't know who that is—asked, “Are you allowing the investigation—yes or no?” Dr. Eyolfson said, “Yes”, but they just voted against the investigation.

I'm terribly confused. Is the minister coming as part of this motion? When she comes, will it be—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We have not had that vote yet. After this, we'll have a vote. Only then will you know whether we have the support of the—

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I need to understand what she's coming about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You know that the majority rules. If we have the majority supporting that, we will.... We cannot, hypothetically, say yes or no at this point in time.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Can the clerk confirm, as Dr. Eyolfson said on Twitter, that they've agreed to summon Minister Michel? Is Minister Michel coming?

I don't know how to vote on this if the minister's already coming.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Yes, that's true.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Is the minister already coming, like Dr. Eyolfson said? If she's coming, is it on PrescribeIT?

I'd love to have that sorted out before we vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Before I go to Mr. Bailey, if you'll permit me, may I go to Mr. Eyolfson, please?

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Yes, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

Dr. Eyolfson, please go ahead.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

We're talking about this amendment and only this amendment. I am in support of Mr. Mazier's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay. I thought he was answering.

Mr. Bailey, you have the floor.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

You're going to have to excuse me, Chair. I'm a newly elected MP, and I'm a little confused. Maybe the clerk can set me straight.

Was it agreed that the health minister was going to come back in May?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I wasn't here in May. I can suspend—

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

That's why I'm asking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I can suspend for a minute. Do you want me to suspend?

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

No. You don't have to suspend. I thought I would ask the clerk in a very polite way. I'm not trying to be combative in any manner.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Can we deal with this? My colleague, Mr. Eyolfson—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Wait a minute.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Bailey, to answer your question, a study on immigration was done and concluded in May, which you mentioned. Certainly, after the report is put together and distributed, the Minister of Immigration, the Minister of Health and the PBO are supposed to come.

That was it.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Strauss, you are next on the list.

I have Mr. Bailey right now.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Chair, for the clarification.

I ask, through you to the clerk, how I can understand this better. Can I ask the clerk in the form of an email or directly about the dates that we agreed to these?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You can write to me, as the chair.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

It's through the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I will make sure that you get the exact information you are looking for. I will provide it to you.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Dr. Strauss, please, if Mr. Bailey is done.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

That's interesting to me. We've already finished the study and we've already agreed to have the Minister of Health come.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

That's on the immigration study.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Yes. Shouldn't we do that first?

It seems like we're putting the cart before the horse, inviting the minister to come on a study we haven't even done, when we've already invited her to come on a study we have done but haven't finished. Perhaps this bears more on the motion rather than the amendment.

Why are we spending a second meeting on a new study proposal when we haven't even finished these three? We have this outstanding invitation to the minister and now we're sending another invitation to the minister. This is....

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I could ask Mr. Mazier. Do you want to respond to that? This is an amendment to your motion. You wanted the minister to come.

Can you respond to Mr. Strauss? You don't need to.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I think, for clarification, Mr. Strauss still has some questions around it. I guess all he's looking for is an answer.

It's all circling around Mr. Eyolfson's comments on Twitter. He's saying it's misinformation, yet the minister is....

We didn't know the minister was coming. That's why I put forward the amendment. Now we find out that, all of a sudden, the minister's coming. What is it? Is it clear? Is she coming to committee soon? What's the date? What is it about?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Eyolfson, please go ahead.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Again, we're talking about the motion and amendment at hand. I think it is off topic to be talking about anything regarding other studies in this.

This is a motion by Mr. Mazier, which my members and I have already indicated we are planning to support.

I respectfully ask members to please stop this delay of a very important study in the midst of a public health emergency. People in Manitoba and many other parts of Canada are dying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Honourable members, I want you to focus strictly on the amendment to the motion and not on all these Twitter and Facebook posts, because those mean nothing, right? Let's focus on this right now. If there are no further speakers, I will take the vote.

Dr. Strauss.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I guess it's really important when we have proceedings of this committee.... You know, I say things here at this committee. I only say things that I believe are true.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

I have a point of order.

The chair called the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

No, I haven't. I asked if there was a list.

I'm sorry, Dr. Eyolfson.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Did you not? Okay, that's my mistake.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Dr. Strauss.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

This seems like misinformation. I understand that you don't want to talk about social media. I wish we didn't have to talk about social media. However, when a member of the committee is going on social media and saying that another member of the committee is engaging in “blatant misinformation”.... Mr. Eyolfson posted, “The post from CPC MP Dan Mazier is blatant misinformation.”

When I say what I think happened with this motion at hand and I let the public know about that on social media, is he going to call that “blatant misinformation” again? I mean, it's not collegial. It's unprofessional. I think he said “gaslighting”. He called it “gaslighting”.

Just to catch everyone up, I'll let them know that Mr. Mazier said that Mr. Eyolfson “shut down the health committee's investigation into PrescribeIT”, which, in effect, he did by adjourning the meeting.

Now we've tried to bring that study, that investigation, which Mr. Eyolfson assured Tristan Bock would be occurring.... We've tried to include that collaboratively in the study that he wants to do. We're trying to put two things together. He's already agreed to it on Twitter, but he just voted it down here.

I guess I'm having a really hard time knowing how to vote on this amendment and whether I'm going to be called a gaslighter or a misinformer. His comments seem to suggest that the minister is coming to speak about PrescribeIT, and I really want that to happen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, and then we'll have Parliamentary Secretary Chi after that.

Please go ahead.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I, too, am seeing a lot of confusion from the government today. I think that what my colleagues are saying is rather important.

Beyond what is said in committee, when parliamentarians go on social media to say something different from what they're saying in committee, that shows some inconsistency, and it also creates mistrust on the part of the public.

I would like to quote something that was said at a committee meeting. It's public.

At our May 5 meeting, we asked the minister to come talk to us about the infamous prescription scandal, among other things. My colleague Doug Eyolfson told us the following: “We have no idea what the current schedule is of the health minister. The minister may have other commitments that are unbreakable. We do not want to put her in a position such that she would be unable to attend in any timeline. We agree that the health minister should come, but a timeline at this point would be unworkable”.

He was saying that there was no problem with the minister coming, but that we didn't know when she could come. However, when we want to invite her, he ultimately says the opposite. He doesn't want the minister to come. I think that shows some inconsistency on my colleague's part. I would like him to explain to us today why he says one thing only to turn around and say the opposite.

The other thing that's important to mention is that the minister herself contradicted her colleagues in the House of Commons. When asked if she would appear before the committee, she said she had no problem with that.

However, in committee, her colleagues are telling us that they don't want to impose a schedule on her and that they don't want her to appear in committee because they don't know her schedule. When the minister is saying that she's going to come and that there's no problem, her colleagues aren't saying the same thing.

Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if they're on the same team. What is going on in that party, in that government? Certain members tell us that we shouldn't force the minister to appear. We're then told that the minister is coming. Finally, my colleague votes against an amendment to have her appear.

We just want to know what's going on. People have a right to know the truth. Someone has that truth, and that someone is the minister. She's the one who makes decisions on public health policy in the federal government.

I think it's necessary to set the record straight. I find it unfortunate that my colleagues can't agree to have the minister appear.

You know, on May 5—almost a month ago—we invited the minister, and my colleagues refused. We even—

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. This is completely off topic from the amendment we're speaking about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, I gave you enough time. I didn't want to interrupt you. If we could stick to the topic, that would be nice. We can filibuster the meeting as long as we want, but if we could stay on topic, that would be great.

Please stay on topic.

The floor is yours.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have even more tangible proof: My colleague is uncomfortable with what we're talking about and is trying to silence us. He is trying to prevent us from speaking and telling the truth to the people who are listening to us, to the taxpayers. We now have a concrete example of that. I understand why he's uncomfortable, because I'm embarrassed for him. I'm especially embarrassed because he is saying things that are not true.

First, he says he agrees that the minister should come, and he ends up voting against that proposal. That's a first mistake.

Second, he claims on social media that it's the opposition parties that are creating the problem. That's false.

Third, his minister has said herself that she is willing to appear. He can go check that; it's public; it's in the House of Commons evidence.

Let us get back to priorities, though, Mr. Chair. The priorities—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, please stick to the topic. We are talking about the amendment only, please. We are not talking about the House. We are not talking about Twitter. We are not talking about Facebook. I have said it time and time again.

Respectfully, I will still give you the floor, but if you keep on doing this, then I will have to move to the next speaker.

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, the floor is yours.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Okay, Mr. Chair. I understand that you too are uncomfortable with the charade the government is putting on for us, but I will come back to the motion.

I think the motion is important. There is currently an HIV crisis, and the Liberal Party—

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Go ahead.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas mentioned that the chair is feeling “uncomfortable”. I want to caution members here. Our chair has been very fair and neutral. Please refrain from phrases like that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, on my style of chairmanship, I've been in this place for a long, long time. My role here is to be fair to every member, to make sure I keep decorum and to keep members on topic. That's all. I don't feel uncomfortable. I've been in this place for so long that I totally understand.

I would respectfully ask you to stay on topic.

The floor is yours.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let us get back to the subject you just addressed. I understand that you need a colleague to defend you, but I'm going to give you a concrete example of something that happened recently in committee.

I'm obviously going to speak to the motion we're debating. A question of privilege was raised at the May 7 meeting, just before the proceedings were interrupted. At that moment, you couldn't deal with it right away. You asked for time, and we respected that decision.

At the last meeting, which took place this week, on Tuesday, May 26, the same thing happened, and you were able to deal with—

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, we already addressed this. This is up to me. As chair, I made the decision how I wanted to. If I can think on the spot, if I can see and totally understand what the motion is all about, and I make that decision, it's totally appropriate.

You have the right to challenge me. You cannot dictate to me whether I should take the decision right away or wait for a week. If I'm not sure about a motion, then I want to make sure I go through it and the subject line by line. That's why I did it. In fact, previously I gave the opposition members a chance to amend it when they were not on topic. According to the standard, that was not allowed, but still, because I wanted the members to work cordially, I gave the members a chance to amend the motion.

I'm telling you this right now: I try to be as fair as possible. In fact, I give opposition members the time they need, and the space, and the voice they want to raise. I will continue to do that. But it's my prerogative when to make a decision on what. If I need some time, I will take time. If I don't need time, I will make that decision right on the spot. I addressed that in the last meeting.

Madam Chi, the floor is yours.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Go ahead with your point of order.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

I'll continue with my remarks, Mr. Chair. You opened up another debate, and I simply responded to it, but I'm ready to speak to the motion. No problem.

When it comes to HIV, it's indeed very important.

Are my colleagues moving this motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I will put you on the speaking list. We have Ms. Chi, Mr. Bailey and Mr. Mazier.

Ms. Chi—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I have a point of order.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Chair, I understand that you are uncomfortable. The truth hurts. I understand very well. You want to silence me right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There is a point of order right now.

Let's have one person at a time, please. I don't like to hear two people speaking because it's very hard on the interpreters. It's very hard on the analysts to keep track, and it's very hard on other members.

Please, I cleared that at the beginning, today—only one person at a time. I will make sure and the clerk will make sure that we maintain the schedule for speaking.

We have a point of order by Mr. Mazier.

You have the floor.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I think Mr. Blanchette-Joncas was pushing the limits, as you so recognized, but he still had the floor, Chair. With all due respect for process, he now starts.... You offered him wisdom and guidance on that, so now he wants to talk about the motion, and that's what he said. I don't think it's fair to cut him off.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Mazier.

As I said at the beginning, I tried to bring him back to the topic time and time again, and I felt that he wasn't doing that. If he's going to speak to the topic, I'll give the floor to Mr. Blanchette-Joncas one more time before I go to Madam Chi.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will wrap up my remarks. We have touched on a subject that I think is very relevant.

I want to say to my colleagues that the subject they're raising is very important. That said, I would also like us to be able to be vigilant together and address the issue of health care transfers. That is indeed something that will have impacts on health services and social services, both in Quebec and in the various provinces of Canada.

I would like to propose to my colleagues that we look at the issue from that angle. Recent years have seen a reduction in health transfers. Unfortunately, I think this has had impacts that have made it harder for health care workers to deal with various crises, including the HIV crisis, which is currently present in a number of provinces. That's what I want to mention.

I'd like to know whether my colleagues think it's relevant that we're seeing a decline in funding for health care. That's what I had to say on my end.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas. You haven't brought in a motion, so I will move on to Ms. Chi.

Ms. Chi, the floor is yours.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm just recognizing what's been happening today. We've seen a lot of delays. We've heard members—and Chair, you pointed it out—filibustering. As Manitoba has declared a public health emergency—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Ms. Chi, there's a point of order by Mr. Mazier. He has the floor.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I think you were trying to get Mr. Blanchette-Joncas on subject. That has nothing to do with the debate, so....

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I will come to that.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Well, we have to hold each other to account.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

She just spoke one word, and if she stays on that, then I will cut her off.

Madam Chi, stay on the topic, please.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I think that just demonstrated to Canadians that our members couldn't even get a word in. We get cut off by points of order and points of privilege. The member opposite has presented an amendment, which members on our side agree with, yet we see disagreement from them. I would recommend that they shore up their own support first within their own party.

They claim they're worried and concerned about this topic. They claim they're worried and concerned about the topic raised by Dr. Eyolfson.

Manitoba has declared a public health emergency because HIV cases are rising at an alarming rate. New cases have increased from 90 in 2019 to 328 in 2025. On top of that, Manitoba's HIV rate is now more than three and a half times the national average. That's why the province declared a state of emergency on this public health crisis.

We're talking about a serious and growing crisis impacting real people—families and communities. Simply, it's unacceptable that the opposition members are blocking discussions on this motion and blocking debates on this motion—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Madam Chi, they are not blocking. In fact, they are speaking, and they have every right to speak. Please keep to the topic. Thank you.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I just want to say that this crisis impacts particularly indigenous communities and vulnerable populations. As you know, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas mentioned the public health workers. They are at the forefront of fighting this crisis, and they're all calling for urgent action. Canadians are calling for urgent action from this committee.

I implore opposition members to pass this motion at once so that we can speak to Canadians with confidence and say that we are taking this seriously. We support members in the province of Manitoba. We can support members like Dr. Eyolfson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Madam Chi.

I'm going to give the whole speaking list. We have Mr. Bailey, Mr. Mazier, Dr. Eyolfson, Madam Sidhu and then Mr. Strauss.

We will go to Mr. Bailey.

Please go ahead. The floor is yours.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

As I said, I'm new to committee work, but we certainly weren't filibustering. If we were filibustering, Mr. Bittle would be here and Mr. Genuis would be coming through the door. I take offence that anybody is accusing us of that.

I asked some very serious questions of you. You weren't part of this committee back when we were talking about it. What I was asking you was very honest, because I don't know how to get questions answered through the clerk.

I will be sending you an email so that we can truly understand what was said prior. I'm not going to bring in Dr. Eyolfson's Twitter or anything like that, but Mr. Blanchette-Joncas just reminded me of what was said in the House today. It really resonates with me, because even the health minister committed today that she wants to come.

On this motion, I hope the cameras stay on, and I hope this committee can vote on it today and that we work together, because I agree with Maggie and I agree with Doug. I agree with everyone. This is a very important study. That's why I brought up syphilis—because I think it is important. I really appreciate everyone agreeing with it.

Chair, I will send you that email as soon as the committee is done so we can familiarize ourselves with what happened back on May 5 with the minister and can make sure that when we start this study, the cameras stay on, and that when she appears, we get a proper opportunity to ask questions on how we can get the provinces aligned with what our study unveils.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

I can call the vote only when the list is exhausted. I have four more speakers.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Yes, no worries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I have Mr. Mazier next.

Please go ahead.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I really thank Ms. Chi for her intervention and reminding us of how we got here. To call us out like we're filibustering.... I used a whole bunch of words there that show that we're really trying to get to the bottom of what the contradiction of opinion is. We've simply asked for the minister to come on a program that has failed and after $300 million has gone out the door.

By your referring to what Mr. Eyolfson said in an earlier meeting that's part of this meeting—this is just a continuation of the meeting we've had for two weeks now—I really wonder when Mr. Eyolfson was actually....

You've commented, Chair, that you don't want us to refer to X and what someone has posted, but I think it really speaks to the crux of the whole problem with misinformation when it comes to the House of Commons—

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Oh my gosh.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, this is also for clarification. You read everything—the rules—when we started the meeting. What's the point of reading the rules if our members opposite are not following them—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Madam Sidhu, for bringing that forward. I will make that decision when I need to.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

With that, I think—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Right now, the floor is with Mr. Mazier.

Mr. Mazier, please go ahead.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Well, that's a fair point. Here we are, and I simply brought up what we believe about what is misinformation. I understand that we can have a difference of opinion, but Mr. Eyolfson made some very serious allegations against me on X. To say that I was gaslighting is trying to influence people so they think they're wrong. It's psychological warfare. I was not doing that. I was simply debating at the health committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Again, Mr. Mazier, please stick to the topic at hand.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

If I can't speak now in the House of Commons for myself, there's something wrong, Chair, but you're the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Mazier, my role is at the committee only. What happens in the House...unless it is directly related to the topic we are studying. We are studying the topic of HIV, an issue Manitoba is facing right now. You belong to that province.

I can only call the vote on the amendment you brought forward once the speaking list is exhausted. As soon as members are done speaking, I can call the vote and then you fellows can decide.

My role is just to administer, making sure that every member who has a hand up is given their time. I'm not going to call out one person or the other. I'm not attacking this side or the other. I'm telling this to both sides; I'm not talking to one side.

Mr. Mazier, are you done?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Thank you for that, Chair.

I guess that goes back to my point on what we say here. If a member decides that we're gaslighting and doesn't believe what Dan Mazier says, that's.... If we can have the discussions here at the table, I think that's a lot better.

I want to go back to the motion and HIV in general. If you think it's bad and we're blocking all this, this is a very personal matter to me in my riding. The town of Swan River is probably the epicentre. Everybody talks about Winnipeg. Doug, do you think you have problems? It has the highest per capita rate in the entire province, and it's been like that for years.

I commented a bit on this last meeting. Obviously, what we're doing is not working. There were over 500,000 needles distributed among a community of 4,000 in Swan River. Can you imagine that? The people who were distributing them were asking for sharps containers so people could put the needles in there after they used them.

Look at the crime severity index for Swan River two years ago. In 2019, it was one of the 10 best places to retire in Canada. It has now moved to having the highest crime severity index rating in all of Canada—a community of 4,000.

In your motion, you referred to “public awareness efforts, and intergovernmental coordination related to HIV prevention, care, and support services”. There were medical and public health individuals with lived experiences. Those people have gone through hell. That's why I wanted to talk about the opioid epidemic that's happening. It's happening in Manitoba.

I also want to talk about how we can move forward. Why were 500,000 needles distributed in a community of 4,000? Who is doing that? Who is okaying that?

Then we get to Winnipeg. The Liberal government, in 2017, maybe even in 2021, made a loophole in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. You talked about consumption sites and treatments. In section 56.1, there are exemptions, and then there's a class exemption for the provinces to develop their own treatment facilities. There are two federally approved sanctions in legislation that the health committee needs to look at if we want to address the opioid epidemic and consumption sites in this study.

That's why I asked the other day to include the opioid study. At least let's start having a conversation around treatment. I was asking for that and you shut that down. You absolutely said no to that, and I noticed the other day that you were saying, “Well, that's not right. Maggie actually commented last night on the late show that, no, that wasn't right.” Who is gaslighting here?

That's what happened here folks. We were trying to talk about this. This is very reasonable stuff.

With that, I will end.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Mazier.

We will now go to Dr. Eyolfson.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Time is of the essence on this. People are dying, including in Mr. Mazier's riding. I agree that it's a hot spot. This is one of the reasons I thought this was so important to bring up at this time. I'd like to see it move forward.

I am in complete agreement with Mr. Mazier's amendment, which is what we are talking about here today. I implore all members to pass Mr. Mazier's amendment so that we can get going on this study. I don't want to see people dying while we are waiting to take action.

Please, let us all take action for vulnerable people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Eyolfson.

Madam Sidhu, please go ahead. The floor is yours.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to urge the members opposite, as the vice-chair's hometown is also Manitoba and as there is a medical emergency there, to please go forward with this. Then we can study this topic.

We agree with them when they wanted flexibility. Then they said to bring the health minister in on this because we want to study this. I'll say thank you to Dr. Eyolfson for bringing up this topic. It's important.

Let's do this study. I urge opposition members to let this pass.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Madam Sidhu.

I will repeat that until the speaking list is exhausted, I cannot call the vote.

We have Dr. Strauss on the list.

Please go ahead.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I found Ms. Chi's comments very interesting. Specifically, she said that Canadians are looking for this committee to take action. I found that surprising because the Minister of Health is the person who is able to take action on this crisis. This committee doesn't really take action. This committee procures documents. This committee discusses and debates. This committee prepares reports.

If we do this study, the only action that I foresee—unless somebody else on the governing bench would like to correct me—is that a report will be forthcoming. A report is not really action, but as far as the reports go, we already have three other reports in the pipeline that haven't been produced yet. What is the urgency to discussing this study in order to produce a report when we haven't produced reports on the last three studies?

She is the parliamentary secretary, so she's close to the Minister of Health. She's close to the person who could take action. I just want to understand this. One, what action is she expecting this committee to take? Two, why doesn't the health minister just take that action presently? Three, which Canadians specifically have been asking for the health committee to do this? I haven't seen that in the media. I haven't seen that on social media. Nobody has contacted my office demanding that the health committee take action on this. If they did, I would have to educate them about what limited actions the health committee could take.

What I do see, conversely, by way of a counter-example, is a lot of interest in the $300 million that went missing with PrescribeIT. Canadians are demanding an investigation on that. There have been umpteen stories about that in the Global and Mail alone.

I'll leave that with her. She can explain to me which Canadians are demanding that this committee take action.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Dr. Strauss.

We will go to MP Blanchette-Joncas.

Please go ahead.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to talk about the important issue before us today.

I would still like to explain to my colleagues that this is an emergency situation, but we also know how urgent it is to properly fund health care systems. The federal government has a role to play in this regard. The initial agreement, which dates back to the 1960s and 1970s, provided that the federal government would cover 50% of the costs of the health care systems of the provinces and Quebec. Currently, that contribution is about 22% to 24%. As we see, there is an imbalance.

I checked, and I remind my colleagues that the Government of Manitoba, which is currently in the midst of a crisis, says that the federal government pays about 20% of the costs of its health care system. Including indirect transfers for certain programs, I round that up to 22%.

The real problem is that, for years, the federal government has claimed to be a great defender of the health care system, while Quebec and the provinces are speaking out about a fundamental problem: Ottawa's funding no longer meets the system's real needs.

I would like to explain to my colleagues and the people listening to us that there was a major turning point under the Harper government in 2011. It decided to reduce health care transfers, particularly those made through the Canada health transfer, which used to automatically increase by 6% per year.

In 2011, the Conservative government decided that, starting in 2017, this formula would be replaced by an increase related to average growth in nominal gross domestic product over three years, with a guaranteed floor of 3%. In other words, the government was funding a fixed, predictable growth of 6%, but it has moved to a slower growth tied to the economy.

You understand that this is one of the things that has an impact on health care systems and makes it harder for Manitoba, the other Canadian provinces and Quebec, in particular, to deal with the various crises.

When Justin Trudeau's government came to power in 2015, it had a chance to go back to the old formula, but it chose to maintain the one that the Conservative government had put in place. We now see that the Conservatives and the Liberals have done the same thing when it comes to funding health transfers.

We have continued to speak out on this issue. The provinces told us that a direct cut was visible and concerned a single budget line. You don't have to be a public finance expert to understand that. The problem, yes, is the current crisis. However, we also have to be able to deal with it. The federal government has a role to play, but we are up against its inaction, or even its gradual and structural underfunding.

I stand in solidarity with all health care workers and those affected by the crisis. Transfers have been going down in recent years, but the real costs of the health care system are skyrocketing. There is the aging population, inflation, staff shortages, increasing wages, rising drug and medical technology prices, mental health issues, addictions, home care, overflowing emergency rooms and public health crises, including HIV.

The numbers speak for themselves. Health care spending in Canada was nearly $400 billion in 2025. That's a lot of money. Expenditure growth was about 6% in 2023, 6.1% in 2024 and 4.2% in 2025. All of this shows that the current federal formula limits the growth of health transfers to much lower levels, since it is linked to nominal gross domestic product.

That is why Quebec and all the provinces asked the Trudeau government, as part of a united front at the Council of the Federation, to permanently increase the federal contribution to 35% of health care system costs. Unfortunately, that request was denied. It represented an additional $28 billion per year, approximately, with no federal strings attached.

The deal that was proposed by the Liberal government at the time was more like $200 billion over 10 years. However, it did not reach the necessary percentage. The transfers represented about 20% to 22% of health care costs and were increased to 24% of health care costs, which is a far cry from the 35% Quebec and all the provinces are calling for. In other words, Ottawa has not fixed the problem. There is a fundamental imbalance, which has been criticized for years by Quebec and all the provinces, with real-life consequences across the country.

Let me explain this clearly to people, because I am convinced that Manitoba and other provinces would be in a better position to deal with the various crises, but these provinces are unfortunately underfunded relative to their important responsibility to provide health services.

I've talked to a lot of health care people and meet with them regularly. Hospitals are under pressure. There are waiting lists, there is a staff shortage and access to doctors is difficult. We're seeing more and more mental health problems, and it's even very hard to get an appointment with a psychologist. There are also addiction issues.

Community organizations are on the front lines, and they are doing an incredible job. I commend them and thank them from the bottom of my heart. However, these organizations are vulnerable. There are health crises, such as the one we recently experienced, and the situation gets harder and harder to manage.

What I want to mention to my colleagues is that, in provinces like Manitoba, the HIV crisis is an example of the impact of a constantly stressed network. The problem is not a lack of will, but a lack of capacity. Until the provinces receive a share of funding from the federal government that actually keeps pace with the growing needs, it will be harder and harder for them to deal with these crises.

The crux of the issue is quite simple. We know the situation. The federal government announces billions of dollars, keeps holding press conferences and strategizing, but still refuses to take on its share of the funding. This is not a luxury. It's about taking care of people, saving lives and making sure people are healthy.

If there is one priority, I think it is that. I see taking care of people as a responsibility. According to my political beliefs, we have to take care of vulnerable people and those experiencing health problems, whether temporary or permanent. I think a sustainable health care system requires better funding.

Again, this is not a dramatic cut that the government made overnight. It's been a gradual withdrawal, with the real-life result that health care systems across the country are increasingly fragile.

In conclusion, I understand that difficult choices have to be made and that resources are not unlimited. However, the federal budget contains the largest deficit in Canadian history. We're talking about $78 billion here. I can appreciate that it ended up being reduced to about $66 billion and change. However, there is no increase in health transfers. There is no extra help for workers in the sector to improve their working conditions and enable them to deal with crises like HIV.

I'll draw a parallel. I think a lot of people will understand this very well. The government found $82 billion over five years for national defence spending. They were able to find that money, but not the money to improve health care systems, to take care of people and to save lives. I thought it was important to point that out.

I find that the government is currently completely out of touch with the needs of the people. Health care is a priority, and I don't think we're on the right track to strengthen health care systems and take care of people.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

We have two people on the list. They are Dr. Strauss and Mr. Mazier.

Dr. Strauss, please go ahead.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I'm sorry. I thought I asked some pretty specific questions of Ms. Chi about her comments, which I thought were really interesting, and I wanted to hear more about them. I guess she's not interested in explaining what she said.

On the broader motion at hand, I'm still totally confused about what the scheduling is going to be like. I'm not sure if this question is best put to the clerk or to Mr. Eyolfson. Is it her intention or is it his intention? Which is the intention that matters as to when this HIV study will begin?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

May I answer that?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Yes, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We have until 5:30 today. If we conclude this topic by 5:30, if this is passed, the next meeting I will put together will be for committee business. We will then be able to decide in committee business what we have to study.

It's now up to the members. If by 5:30 we do not conclude this, then the meeting is suspended until the next meeting. The business meeting will come only after we conclude this one. The next meeting that the clerk and I will be planning will be for setting the business agenda that we can achieve in the next three or four weeks.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

That's very important information, Mr. Chair. Thank you for sharing that. I truthfully am grateful for your sharing that, but I guess that arrangement is dissatisfactory, to me. I can't decide how to vote on this motion if I don't know if it's going to be taking precedence over some of the other really important committee work or if it's going to be coming after. This is really important.

I take it that at the committee business meeting, it will be these committee members who decide what the order will be, so I don't know why we have to keep that secret until then. Why don't we just hash that out right now? Perhaps the members opposite would just let me know how they intend to order things. I mean, they have the votes. All we have is the ability to make these speeches. It is true that they have all the power in this situation. If they could just tell us how they intend to schedule this study at committee business, that would help me understand how I should vote on the motion at hand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Strauss.

You know, you have all the power to make that decision when we call the business meeting that sets up the agenda. Right now I'm going to focus only on the amendment brought by Mr. Mazier. I have to first deal with that. Then, if it gets amended, I have to deal with the motion as amended. My role is to keep the sequence right now. I have a motion on the floor. I cannot put this motion aside right now. It's the committee's will. It's whatever the committee wants me to do. Right now it's the committee's will to have a debate on Mr. Mazier's amendment. Until the list of speakers is exhausted, I cannot take that decision.

Dr. Strauss, I have put you on the list again. You will be speaking after Mr. Mazier.

Mr. Mazier, please go ahead.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

My colleague brings up a very important thing as far as scheduling goes.

To the clerk, how long would it take to do a report like this? Would it be two meetings? What's your estimate? What would that look like?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Those would be questions for the analysts. Let me see if they're willing to answer. Otherwise, I will make my decision.

Mr. Mazier, I'm able to answer your question. Right now there are two meetings, and it depends on the witnesses we bring forward. We are talking about hypothetical things right now, so I wouldn't be able to answer that, and the clerk and analysts wouldn't be able to answer either. We do not know what's going to happen in those meetings. After those meetings are over, then we will be able to answer that question.

Let's focus on your amendment right now. Once we get your amendment out of the way, and once we have the motion as amended out of the way, if the committee decides to pass it, we can talk about those things after the business agenda is set.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Is it fair to say that it won't be done before summer break?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I can't say that right now.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Do you think we can do it next week?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'll tell you right now that—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I guess the reason I'm asking, Chair, is that it's back to the scheduling order. It's also back to the comments that Mr. Eyolfson made, like, don't worry, the PrescribeIT study is going to be done.

When you introduced this motion, Doug, what was your expectation on scheduling? Did you—

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Are we working on HIV or are we working—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Mazier, please direct your comments to me.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Yes. I apologize.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I have to go to the member.

Right now, we are discussing the amendment to the motion proposed by you.

Go ahead, Mr. Mazier.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Just for clarification, Mr. Chair, I want to know what the sponsor's expectations were when he introduced this motion. Was it expected to be done before summer?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I cannot force the member to say that.

Right now, Mr. Eyolfson wants to address your concerns, Mr. Mazier. I will give him the floor before I give the floor to Mr. Strauss.

Mr. Eyolfson, go ahead, please.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Given the crisis, the expectation was for it to be as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

Are you done, Mr. Mazier?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Was it before or after the PrescribeIT study you mentioned in your tweet?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Again, Mr. Mazier, one member cannot make the decision about the agenda. The business meeting will happen after this meeting is concluded. We'll discuss it then.

Let's leave it there, right now.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

This was misinformation, then. Would that be fair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm not going to say “misinformation”. Right now, I want to focus only on the motion as amended. If this gets amended, I will move on to the motion as amended. Then, if this gets decided, I will come back to the hypothetical question you're asking.

Right now, we have speakers on the list. I am informing the honourable members, because my hands are tied, that I can only call the vote once the list is exhausted. If there is a member on the speaking list, I have to give them time before I call the vote.

I have Dr. Strauss on the list.

Mr. Mantle, welcome to the meeting. You will speak after Dr. Strauss.

Dr. Strauss, please go ahead.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm doing my best to make sense of everything I'm hearing, and I'm trying to understand what is actually happening. I'm really disappointed. I think I've started to figure out what is happening.

I remember when the Prime Minister said that they were going to get their majority and that this would mean there would be fewer procedural games at committee. However, I think we are seeing proceduralist games, the gamiest of games. We have—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I will interrupt you there.

As the chair, I will tell you, Dr. Strauss, that there is no procedural game right now. There is an amendment brought by Mr. Mazier. I will not take you calling that a game. I take this HIV topic very seriously, and I take the amendment brought forward by Mr. Mazier very seriously. Let's focus on that.

If you have anything that speaks to the amendment, I will give you the floor. Otherwise, I'll move on to Mr. Mantle.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I've come to understand the butt of what we're trying to accomplish and what they're trying to accomplish. I think I've distilled a way to clarify things.

I'd like to make a subamendment to Mr. Mazier's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We have a subamendment.

Members, please take your seats so you can listen to Dr. Strauss's subamendment. If it's long, I would like to—

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

It's short.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Dr. Strauss, please go ahead.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

It would be to add, at the end of his amendment, “to discuss health-related funding and programs under the purview of Health Canada.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Please repeat that slowly.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I'll describe the text again. I wrote it out for myself as, “to discuss health-related funding and programs under the purview of Health Canada.”

I think it's an important subamendment because, ultimately, what has come out of these Twitter statements.... I won't mention the G word again, but it seems to me that there's going to be disagreement about what the health minister is coming to do. If the health minister is coming to do the things Dr. Eyolfson assured everyone on Twitter she would be coming to do, that's terrific.

I think this is a very clarifying subamendment. Hopefully, everyone will support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Dr. Strauss.

I would like you to provide a copy in both official languages. I want to make sure that Mr. Blanchette-Joncas gets a copy in French as well as any other members who prefer to have it in French. I'm going to suspend the meeting for a few minutes so that you can provide that.

The clerk has it. She's going to distribute it to all the members. I will suspend for a couple of minutes while she does that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I call this meeting back to order.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Mantle has a point of order.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

I'm sorry, but I have not received the text of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Just a minute, please. I have to suspend for one more minute until Mr. Mantle receives it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Members are ready. It is my understanding that every honourable member has a copy of the subamendment in both official languages. We are debating Dr. Strauss's subamendment. Are there any speakers?

Mr. Mantle, please go ahead.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for welcoming me to the committee.

I'm new to the health committee, although I've known Dr. Strauss for some time now, as well as Dr. Jaczek. It's nice to see you here. We share a border in York region. I know she's a great doctor. I have great respect for her and her work in Ontario and in our community. We share Oakridge health network, so I know she's passionate about that.

I am going to recap where we are so I understand what we're discussing. As I understand it, as a new member at the table, there's a motion to conduct a study on HIV in Mr. Mazier's part of Canada, an amendment to bring the health minister in to discuss that outbreak in Mr. Mazier's area, and Mr. Strauss has moved a subamendment to expand the contours and put some guardrails around the discussion for the minister, if she were to attend, which would be to discuss health-related funding and programs under the purview of the health department.

Do I have that right, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Yes.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Excellent.

When I entered the committee room, Mr. Chair, I heard some pretty inflammatory language from the other side, from Mr. Eyolfson, to the effect that people were going to die if the committee did not undertake this emergency study of HIV. I can't comment on why he might have said that, although I would observe that the committee has no impact on the direct health care provided to Canadians. Of course, that's a provincial responsibility, number one, jurisdictionally, as he would know, although significant funding comes from the federal government.

To suggest and make a strong claim that Canadians will die from HIV if this committee doesn't do some research and hear from some witnesses is a little bit beyond the facts. I'll put it that way.

That's not to say that HIV and a study like that is not important; of course it is. I think all members around this table.... I know the members on our side, especially, are concerned about the health care of Canadians, which we know is in a pretty sorry state in certain parts of the country. I had a family member who was at a hospital just this past week and waited eight hours to get into an emergency room, so there are certainly emergencies across the country. HIV is an important one, and I think we would be amenable to studying that, but I think that's beyond the point.

The reality is this motion was put forward because the government would prefer to talk about anything other than PrescribeIT, which has dominated—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Mantle, can you please focus your comments? You weren't here, so I would especially give you the time. If we can focus on HIV, I would love to keep this committee meeting in order so there are no cross-exchanges.

The floor is yours.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Absolutely, Chair, and you will be the arbiter of that, as is your right.

I believe the subamendment, however, is to discuss health-related funding and programs under the purview of the Department of Health. Would PrescribeIT not be one of those health-related programs that's under the purview of the minister? Is that not directly relevant to this subamendment? It is a topic that the minister may be questioned about at committee.

Am I correct on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm not going to make the decision. It's up to you. You can continue. I gave you the floor.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

My understanding is that PrescribeIT is a health-related program that would be under the purview of the minister, so that would be available for discussion should the government decide to agree to this subamendment to the amendment to the motion.

As we know, the government has a majority on this committee, a recent majority, which it clearly is using to avoid discussion of PrescribeIT. I understand why. It's a fiasco, a debacle. There are no two ways about it. Three hundred million dollars were spent on a program that produced no measurable or tangible results for Canadians.

We understand that governments make mistakes and that not all programs are successful, but one of the actual jobs of parliamentary committees is to provide oversight and accountability of government, especially on spending. I make that point because, in our system of government, over 1,000 years of constitutional history, it has always been Parliament that can tax and spend money. Since the great charter in 1215 on the fields of Runnymede, that has been our tradition, so it is incumbent upon this committee, whose mandate is health-related programs, to investigate when the government falls short. I think it's fair, if the minister were to come on this subamendment to the amendment to the motion, that she could be questioned on that. It's a topic of public discourse.

As I said, I understand why the government may not want to discuss it, but I think we should discuss it. We should, as a committee, review that so that we can understand what happened, what went wrong and what could be improved upon, because, yes, there's blame to go around, for sure. Ultimately, we want to understand what happened so that we don't repeat mistakes that were made in the past with these programs.

Clearly, there has been at least some measure of accountability. Whether it's accountability or scapegoating, I'm not sure yet. We'll have to get to the bottom of that with the former CEO, who was unceremoniously dumped from his position after his testimony at this committee, which was less than ideal. I haven't reviewed it all myself, but I saw some of it, so I understand why he was quite quickly removed from his position.

Beyond that, the minister, who is responsible for that position, who herself admitted that she was involved in removing him so quickly, should be here to take responsibility herself.

Discussing health-related funding and programs would provide us with the ability to ask her those questions, even if it is in the context of a study and a motion on HIV. I know for sure that this side is interested in addressing that exigent topic, but we've been put down this path because of the obfuscation of the other side, which doesn't want to talk about PrescribeIT. If the other side would agree to discuss this in a more good-faith manner, bring in the minister on that specific topic and finish the already started review of PrescribeIT, then we could expeditiously, I'm sure, move on to the topic that Dr. Eyolfson would like us to discuss, which is, of course, important too.

I take a bit of umbrage to his comments that this must be the priority or people will die. This committee deals with many important topics that affect people's health, and I certainly wouldn't take the position that some people's health is more of a priority than others. If he wants to clarify his earlier comments, I'd invite him to do that. Perhaps he could also clarify his comments that he's made on social media, which have caused some of the concern at this table. I think that is why we are using our ability to push the government to do what it knows is right, which is to bring the minister here to face some accountability before this committee and before Canadians.

I don't understand why they are so resistant to that. We should have a system of ministerial responsibility. That is another long-standing tradition of our parliamentary system that seems to have gone by the wayside in the last 10 years.

No matter how big the scandal, no matter how problematic the minister, no one ever resigns and no one ever takes responsibility until they either are pushed out because of public pressure or are unable to complete their duties. It seems to me that there are a few on the front bench that might fit that, but we're concerned here with the Minister of Health.

We are unfortunately put in this position to be discussing the motion, an amendment and a subamendment solely and only because the government refuses to bring the former CEO of PrescribeIT to give evidence to this committee.

Now, why would they want to avoid bringing the former CEO of PrescribeIT to this committee? Well, I think they would want to prevent that for a few reasons. They fired him. They fired him, so whatever loyalty or whatever hesitation he might have in providing a full testimony—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Again, Mr. Mantle, if you could focus on the minister and the minister's mandate, I would let you speak.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Please continue.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

The minister's mandate is of course to exercise accountability over her office. She seems to have done that by firing the previous CEO of PrescribeIT. To understand her mandate and the decisions she made, we want to hear, from the individual she fired, the reasons for being fired and what context he could provide to the running of a program directly under the minister's purview. I think discussing having him here is directly within her purview—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Do you want to bring that as a subamendment? I would just suggest—

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

If you would entertain a further subamendment, then I would certainly be willing to move one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Let me get the decision on the subamendment first. If you want to make a subamendment afterwards, if the decision is not made in the way that you want it, we can always discuss. Basically, there is no order or suggestion for the chair here, right?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

I'm sorry. You're inviting me to make a subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

No. Right now, if you are not making any amendments or any friendly amendments, if you are done, I'll go to the next speaker.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

We have a subamendment already on the table.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

I take your comment. We can continue debating this subamendment. If that is not agreed to by the committee, then I may decide to move another one. Is that fair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Sure.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Thank you.

I'll just wrap up my comments by saying that I've been here for only a year, but it's clear to me that with the government's new majority, they are using it to block, obfuscate and avoid accountability. That's why we're having this debate. I encourage the members opposite to work more co-operatively with the opposition, which the Prime Minister promised he would do despite having a majority, and we can only take him at his word.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

Mr. Mazier, please go ahead.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm sorry. It was Dr. Strauss.

Dr. Strauss, do you...?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I'd like to yield my time to Mr. Mazier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay.

Mr. Mazier, please go ahead.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Thank you, Dr. Strauss.

Also, thank you, Mr. Mantle. That was a great comment in reminding all of us of what we're discussing here.

I do have one point. I guess it's a clarification again for Mr. Eyolfson.

Does the sponsor still support having a study on PrescribeIT? That's what he's implying online, but I just don't know. If he could just answer that question, a lot of things would be satisfied. My question is whether he still supports the idea of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The question has nothing to do with this. I don't think he has a hand up.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

It's up to the sponsor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Mazier, continue with the subamendment, please.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

It's just a question for the sponsor. That's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Basically, he does not need to answer that, because this is relating to committee business. He himself cannot make that decision. Let's focus on the subamendment, please.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Okay. That was my final question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

If we knew if he still wanted to do a study on PrescribeIT, that would be good. If he doesn't want to answer it, that's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I appreciate that. If there are no more speakers, I will call the vote.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

This is on the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Yes. It's the vote on the subamendment.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Oh, okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We will take the vote.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are back to the motion brought forward by Dr. Eyolfson and the amendment brought forward by Mr. Mazier. We are on the debate of the motion as amended by Mr. Mazier.

We have Mr. Mantle on the list, then Dr. Strauss.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

It's the other way around.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Is it the other way around? Do you want to go first, Dr. Strauss?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Sure.

I'm totally confused now. They seem to agree about having the minister come, but they won't have the minister come with any clarity about what she's coming for. She can come, but she can't come to discuss programs under the purview of Health Canada. This is nonsense. I don't mean nonsense in a derogatory sense. I mean it in a tactical sense. I don't understand. They suggested earlier in this meeting that they would vote for Mr. Mazier's amendment, but when I tried to provide some clarity, they voted down the subamendment.

I'm inviting any of them to explain to me what the heck this means.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

Now we will go to Mr. Mantle.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're back to the amendment to the motion to bring the Minister of Health here to discuss we're not sure what, because the subamendment was defeated, which, again, puts truth to this whole facade going on, on the other side.

My observation is that this calls into question the sincerity of the emergency that Dr. Eyolfson said exists and the necessity for this committee to review it. Of course, we think HIV is an important issue and should be reviewed, but that's not what's happening here. It's pretty clear that the other side is using this to avoid other topics.

Based on your invitation previously, I'd like to move a subamendment to Mr. Mazier's amendment.

It would simply add a comma after the end of his amendment related to bringing the Minister of Health here. It would read, “and Michael Green.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm going to pause for a moment.

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, I hope this is very clear to you. It's just adding “and Michael Green” after “the Minister of Health”.

Is that okay?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Chair, who is Michael Green?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

If you don't know, I don't know either.

This is out of scope, so I'm going to call this subamendment out of order.

We are back to the amendment by Mr. Mazier.

Mr. Mazier, please go ahead.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, we'd like to challenge your decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The decision of the chair is being challenged.

Clerk, please take the vote on whether to sustain the decision of the chair.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are back to the amendment brought by Mr. Mazier.

Are there any speakers?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

I believe I had the floor when I moved my subamendment, so I would return to having the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It's at my discretion, but I will give you the floor.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

Understanding that you ruled that out of order, Mr. Chair, as was our right, we challenged that. Again, I think it shows exactly the problem here. The government is not interested in hearing from certain individuals on certain issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Could you stay on topic, Mr. Mantle? The topic is HIV. If you have the motion in front of you—

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

I do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

—that's fine. If you want, we can give you a copy of that and the amendment brought forward by Mr. Mazier. Right now, we are discussing the amendment brought by Mr. Mazier. If you could please stick to that topic instead of giving your decisions at this committee, I would appreciate that.

The floor is yours.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Understood. I just think it's important that people watching have some clarity on what's happening and the procedures. We're not all—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You don't need to explain the procedures. I'm able to explain those procedures. You are not here as the chair. You are here as a member. I would love to give you the time, but if you're going to be insistent about talking on the same topic, I can tell you that as chair—I read the statement earlier—I can move on to the next member.

Respectfully, I'll give you the floor. Please stick to the amendment from Mr. Mazier.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Okay. That is the amendment to bring the health minister to testify on the motion by Mr. Eyolfson on HIV.

As a principle, it's a good idea to bring the minister, but it's hard to know exactly where that would lead. As we've discussed, even if this committee conducts this study, the result of the study will be a draft report written by the analysts.

I think you call them analysts here. We do in our committee as well.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

They're long-suffering analysts.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

They're long-suffering analysts, yes. All analysts are long-suffering, I think, but we appreciate their work nonetheless.

The result will be a draft report written by the analysts. The committee has no clarity on how long that may take. Then the committee is required to actually review it, debate it and go through it line by line. The opposition could potentially write a dissenting report. Any member could write their own report as well. As I understand it, the committee has completed several studies but has not finished the reports. It also remains unclear which studies the committee would prioritize in its review.

Therefore, again, I invite Dr. Eyolfson to explain himself as to how this study will address what he has described as a pressing medical “emergency” in a certain part of the country, because I'm not seeing that, and I'm not seeing the tangible benefits to Canadians by the committee conducting the study. If I'm wrong, I'm open to being wrong, and I'm open to saying that. Unlike some ministers in this government, I'm open to saying that.

I'll leave my comments there, Mr. Chair, and pass the mic to Dr. Strauss.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Mantle.

Dr. Strauss, please go ahead.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I've been really open with this committee about what I understand is happening, both at this meeting and at the last meeting. It seems to me that this committee was working very well in a minority Parliament. Vice-chairs convened meetings where all three parties agreed to share committee time and get studies done that each party thought were important. I thought that worked wonderfully. I thought we conducted three great studies. I'm excited to see those reports.

Dr. Eyolfson has now informed the committee, without any discussion or meeting of the vice-chairs, that the issue he would like to be studied, which I'm looking forward to, should have precedence over all other committee business. He's disclosed that to us. This is dictatorial.

We had a majority on this side between ourselves and the Bloc member, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas. We didn't think that because we had 50% plus one of the members on this committee that it should entitle us to do 100% of the things that we wanted for the duration of the Parliament. That was never something that we thought about.

We can put this to Canadians. Does it seem fair that because one member from Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong crossed the floor, giving the Liberals 50% plus one in the House, the Liberals should now get to do 100% of the things that they want in this committee for three years? Will they not simply acknowledge that some of us on this side could have some interesting ideas that should be entertained at some time?

As I've said before, I acknowledge that they have the votes. I can only appeal to the better angels of their nature, as well as the basic sense of fairness and justice of the Canadian public. Failing the first, I think I know which way Canadians will decide. This is bullying. It's dictatorial. It wasn't the result of the last election.

I'm putting the question to them. I can talk about this for three years. It's so fundamental to our system of government. It's so fundamental to the idea of fairness itself that just because you have 50% plus one doesn't mean you get to talk about whatever you want for three years. They have the votes to do that. I acknowledge that, but if we're going to fight fire with fire, I also have the ability to talk for three years.

I know with certainty that my constituents, and Canadians broadly from coast to coast, want this committee to investigate PrescribeIT. Until it does, they will want to hear me talk about basic fairness and the obfuscation that is causing the Liberals to indulge in these tactics.

The issue of HIV is very important. I studied HIV at medical school, so did some of the members opposite. We can all go home and study HIV tonight if we want. What this committee does should pertain to the peculiar powers that a committee of Parliament has. We can talk to stakeholders. If Dr. Eyolfson wants to book a stakeholder meeting in his office, I would be pleased to attend that with him to hear from the stakeholders that he mentioned in his motion. We can do that here or we can do that there. That doesn't pertain to any peculiar powers of this committee.

What this committee can do peculiarly is produce documents and summon witnesses. That's the incredibly unique space that we're in. In some ways, it's an awesome power. It's a privilege. It's an honour. It's humbling that we're here at this table with those powers. We should use them for good.

We don't just have the ability to study things. We have the ability to investigate things at this committee. What is it that Canadians want to investigate that is related to Health Canada programs and related to the minister's mandate? Flip through The Globe and Mail for the last few months; it is PrescribeIT.

Money sounds like a dirty word. When we talk about $300 million, people have the sense that it's filthy lucre. In some ways it is. I think that's what it ended up being in this case. Money, however, is what people work their whole lives for, and $300 million.... To my calculations, the average Canadian will make $1.5 million in their whole life at a median income. Someone can go to work from nine to five, Monday to Friday, for their whole life. The life's work of one Canadian amounts to $1.5 million, whereas $300 million—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Please come back to the amendment made by Mr. Mazier.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

—is the life's work of 150 Canadians, which is roughly the size of the Conservative caucus and the Liberal caucus. Therefore, what has been blown in PrescribeIT is 150 people's life's work. It's as though the entire Liberal caucus for their entire lives went to work all day and were forced to work on this project that accomplished nothing. That's why I think we should put it to Canadians: “Would you like an investigatory body with peculiar powers to investigate the HIV crisis in Manitoba, or would you like them to investigate the life's work of 150 Canadians that was blown with high-minded rhetoric?”

I'll remind you that I quoted former minister Philpott's comments on PrescribeIT when she brought it in. It was supposed to make prescription practices in Canada better, and it did not.

Frankly, I think that obviously pertains to the HIV crisis. I've tried.... I think I've been thoughtful and hard-working in trying to show how we can marry these two issues—what we're interested in and what they're interested in.

It's like the sign that says, “Everything I learned, I learned in kindergarten.” You have to learn to play nicely with others, and just because there are six out of 10 kids with a red shirt and four kids with a blue shirt in this playroom, I don't think the six kids with red shirts should decide what we're going to play for the next three years. No kindergarten class runs like that. No child who has an idea of socialization, that sense of basic fairness, is going to be popular with their playmates.

I guess I'll put that to them again. Is what they're doing right now consonant with their sense of basic fairness? Is it consonant with their understanding of what their constituents would consider basic fairness? We can start this HIV study immediately if they would simply indicate in any way that they're interested in studying the thing that we, Canadians from coast to coast and The Globe and Mail are obviously very interested in investigating.

I invite them to ask for floor time from the chair, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

We will go to Mr. Bailey, and then Mr. Mantle.

Mr. Bailey, please go ahead.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Yes, thank you. I'd like to give a verbal notice of motion, please. It reads:

Given that:

a) the Liberal government's PrescribeIT program spent $300 million in Canadian taxpayer money over 10 years, reached fewer than 5% of Canadian prescriptions and was quietly shut down in February 2026, with doctors still faxing prescriptions exactly as they were when the program launched;

b) David Fast served as executive vice-president of finance and chief financial officer of Canada Health Infoway throughout the operation of the PrescribeIT program and was present at the November 12, 2025, board meeting at which the decision to wind down PrescribeIT was made, and is therefore among the most senior Infoway officials with direct knowledge of the program's financial management from beginning to end;

c) as chief financial officer, Mr. Fast has direct responsibility for the financial controls, internal reporting, compensation frameworks, expenditure approvals and fiscal oversight of an organization that received and $300 million in federal public funds for PrescribeIT, and would have been the senior executive most closely involved in the preparation and approval of financial decisions that this committee has been unable—

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Can you clarify if a member can give a verbal notice?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Yes, they can give verbal notice, but we cannot have a debate on that one. As soon as he finishes his motion, I will ask him to go back to the motion as amended by Mr. Mazier.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm already past the 5:30 deadline, so I'm looking at the clock as well.

Mr. Bailey, please go ahead.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I'll continue:

c) as chief financial officer, Mr. Fast has direct responsibility for the financial controls, internal reporting, compensation frameworks, expenditure approvals and fiscal oversight of an organization that received and $300 million in federal public funds for PrescribeIT, and would have been the senior executive most closely involved in the preparation and approval of financial decisions that this committee has been unable to obtain satisfactory answers on from other witnesses;

d) testimony before this committee on May 5, 2026, confirmed that prior to joining Canada Health Infoway, David Fast served as president of AGFA HealthCare North America, and that Michael Green, who served as president and CEO of Canada Health Infoway for over a decade, previously served as president and CEO of AGFA HealthCare for the Americas region—meaning both men held senior leadership roles at the same private health technology company before together overseeing the PrescribeIT program;

e) testimony before this committee on May 5, 2026, further confirmed that Michael Green personally recommended David Fast for the interim CFO position at Canada Health Infoway, establishing a direct relationship between the two men that was never disclosed to this committee or to the Canadian public;

f) testimony before this committee on May 5, 2026, confirmed that the CFO position was never competitively posted; Mr. Fast was brought in on an interim basis, a process that bypassed the competitive hiring standards that apply to senior executive appointments at a federally funded organization, and he remains in that interim role to this day, more than two years after his appointment;

g) this committee asked the chair of Canada Health Infoway how much money Canada Health Infoway has paid to AGFA HealthCare since 2017, the witness could not provide any figure, leaving open the question of whether the organization shared a financial relationship with the company where both its CEO and CFO previously held senior leadership roles, and whether any conflict of interest declarations were made in relation to those payments;

h) when the former CEO of Canada Health Infoway, Michael Green, appeared before this committee on April 21, 2026, he refused to disclose his own compensation when directly asked by members, claimed not to have that information at hand and left the committee without providing a clear account of the financial decisions made during his tenure; the person at Infoway best positioned to provide that account is the chief financial officer;

i) $10.2 million in additional expenditures flowed out of Canada Health Infoway after the November 2025 wind-down decision, with no complete public accounting of how that money was authorized, categorized or spent; as CFO, Mr. Fast would have overseen or approved those expenditures and is in a unique position to account for them;

j) Infoway's own disclosures show that $167 million of the $300 million total was consumed by operations and overhead, of which $108 million was personnel costs, representing a ratio of approximately $50 in administrative expenditure for every dollar of fee revenue the program ever generated; no witness has yet explained to this committee how financial controls and value-for-money assessments were applied to those costs year after year, and that explanation must come from the organization's chief financial officer;

k) Mr. Fast has not appeared before this committee at any point during its investigation into PrescribeIT, despite being among the most senior officials with direct knowledge of the financial decisions at the centre of this investigation, and his absence represents a significant and unacceptable gap in the committee's ability to fulfill its accountability mandate on behalf of Canadians;

(l) the committee summon David Fast, chief financial officer of Canada Health Infoway, for two hours to testify on the financial mismanagement related to the $300-million PrescribeIT program, within one week of the adoption of this motion.

I want Canadians to hear the motion so it's not confidential.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bailey.

I have speakers on the list before you, Mr. Eyolfson. You can only speak on a point of order.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

I have a point of order.

Given the length of time this has been delayed—

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

That's not a point of order.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

—and given that we are coming very close to the time of the meeting, may I ask for unanimous consent to accept Mr. Mazier's amendment—

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

It's not a point of order.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

—and then unanimous consent to accept the motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

On the point of order—

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

It's not a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

—I don't see that there's unanimous consent.

I'm sorry, Dr. Eyolfson.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

It's okay. It's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There is no unanimous consent, and we are way past 5:30. I'm going to suspend the meeting because there are speakers on the list.

The meeting is suspended.

[The meeting was suspended at 5:42 p.m., Thursday, May 28]

[The meeting resumed at 3:34 p.m., Tuesday, June 2]

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We will now resume meeting number 34 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.

I would like to remind the participants of the following points.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair. Members, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

At the last meeting, on both sides—

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I have a point of order, Chair.

Last week we sent in a 106 letter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm coming to that. If you can wait, let me read. When I go to that business, then you can raise the point.

As chair, I fully understand what my duties are and what my powers are. I will now read those and I will do those. If you can let me finish first, then you can raise a point of order if you need to.

Is that okay?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

At the last meeting, I was happy, because we almost met or exceeded the expectations, so I don't need to read those duties and powers of the chair. I want to thank both sides for doing what you fellows did, and I expect better moving forward.

Before we begin, I would also remind members that, where possible, motions should be submitted by email in both official languages, so they can be circulated without taking time away from matters currently before the committee. This is just a request.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108 and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, September 23, committee shall resume its study of Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty.

The committee suspended its meeting on Thursday, May 28, during debate on the motion of Dr. Doug Eyolfson and the amendment moved by Mr. Dan Mazier.

However, I received a request by five members, under Standing Order 106(4), to convene a meeting to discuss a request to study the PrescribeIT program, invite the Minister of Health, Madam Marjorie Michel, and summon the former Canada Health Infoway CEO Michael Green to testify as part of the committee's investigation.

I want to note, as a procedural reminder, that section 20.98 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, “If the committee has an ongoing, yet suspended, meeting, it would resume the suspended meeting within the timelines prescribed by Standing Order 106(4) and decide how it wishes to consider the request.”

Therefore, at this time, I would like to see if the member wishes to move a dilatory motion to consider Standing Order 106(4).

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There is a dilatory motion that members want to present.

Call the vote, please.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Don't we get to speak to it first?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm going to take the vote.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

On a point of order, I need explained to me what I'm voting for. Could you please read that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

That's what I'm going to explain. I'm going to explain that clearly.

The committee is voting on a motion to consider Standing Order 106(4). If you vote yes, then we will go to 106(4). If the committee votes no, then we go to Dr. Eyolfson's motion as it was when the meeting was suspended.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I have a point of order.

Can you please read the 106(4) letter that was issued by five members of the committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Members already have that and are voting right now.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Can you please read it into the record?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I will tell you right now that all the members have their copy and I have already called the vote.

Clerk, please take the vote.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There's no point of order in the vote now.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

This is not appropriate for Canadians watching this. They're not even sure what we're voting on. It's not appropriate. You need to read it. I'm sorry, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It's at my discretion.

Please go ahead. The vote is on.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I'm confused. They're voting no on Doug's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm going to clarify this one more time. The committee suspended its meeting on Thursday....

I'm not supposed to do this time and time again during the vote, but I'm doing it as a courtesy, because Madam Konanz asked as well.

The committee suspended its meeting on Thursday, May 28, during its debate on the motion by Dr. Doug Eyolfson and the amendment moved by Mr. Mazier. However, I received a request by five members under Standing Order 106(4) to convene a meeting to discuss a request to study the PrescribeIT program, invite the Minister of Health, Marjorie Michel, and summons the former Canada Health Infoway CEO, Michael Green, to testify as part of the committee investigation.

Madam Konanz, I want to be clear that I read it before, but I read it a second time for the record.

If you vote yes, we will go to the Standing Order 106(4) meeting. If you vote no, because the committee was suspended, we will go to Dr. Eyolfson.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The motion is defeated. We're going to the study we were studying.

We have two speakers on the amendment brought by Mr. Mazier. We had Mr. Mantle. He's not here. We have Dr. Strauss, and then we have Dr. Eyolfson.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, I take it from the vote we just had that we will not be pursuing Standing Order 106(4) at this time, or is it that we will not be pursuing Standing Order 106(4) at all?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It's at this time.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Can you advise us on when we will be pursuing Standing Order 106(4)?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I have an amendment on the floor. Right now, we are debating the amendment. Let me finish the business that's on the floor right now.

There's an amendment that's been brought by Mr. Mazier. If there are no speakers on the list, I will call the vote.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Am I supposed to speak to it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

No, because it's an amendment. If you want to speak, you're welcome to. I'm giving you another chance.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

What are we discussing? Who is on the list? Who is next to speak on the list?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

On the list was Mr. Mantle, who is not here today, and then Dr. Eyolfson. He had not....

Do you want to speak?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

What is he about to speak on?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Your amendment.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

If you could you read that as well, it would be great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The amendment would add, after “the Public Health Agency of Canada”, “Minister of Health”.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

This is on the amendment to bring in the Minister of Health.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

That's what Mr. Mazier brought forward.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

It's about PrescribeIT. What's the total amendment? Can you read that into the record?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm going to read the whole motion now, even though I'm not supposed to. For his sake, I will do that. This is the motion brought forward by Dr. Doug Eyolfson:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Health undertake an urgent study on the rising rates of HIV infections in Canada, with particular attention to the recent declaration of a public health emergency by the Province of Manitoba related to the spread of HIV, including the disproportionate impacts on Indigenous peoples, women, rural and northern communities, and individuals experiencing homelessness, mental health challenges and substance use disorders;

That the study examined federal programs, funding, prevention strategies, access to testing and treatment, harm reduction initiatives, public awareness efforts, and intergovernmental coordination related to HIV prevention, care and support services;

That the committee hold no fewer than two meetings on this subject;

That witnesses include officials from the Public Health Agency of Canada, representatives from Manitoba Health, Indigenous health organizations, front-line community organizations, medical and public health experts, and individuals with lived experience;

And that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

This motion has been circulated in both official languages, and I'm certain that members have that.

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, do you have that from the last time? Okay. Thank you.

Then Mr. Mazier brought forward an amendment that the motion be amended by adding, after “Public Health Agency of Canada”, the following: “the Minister of Health”.

Have we got it, Mr. Mazier?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

You bet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

We are debating the amendment brought forward by Mr. Mazier. The floor is with Dr. Eyolfson.

Please go ahead.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

I would like to reiterate that I wholeheartedly support Mr. Mazier's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Are there any other speakers? There are no more speakers.

Is there unanimous consent of the committee to adopt this amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

Now we are back to the motion as amended. The motion was brought forward by Dr. Eyolfson and was amended by Mr. Mazier. We are speaking on that, and we have Dr. Strauss to speak on that one.

Dr. Strauss, please go ahead.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you so much, Chair.

As everyone on this committee has heard from me already, I'm really looking forward to this study. I think the HIV crisis in Manitoba is really a crisis. There's important work that this committee could do.

There's still this issue of basic fairness. They do something, and then we do something. That's the fairness that we extended to them.

I'm looking forward to voting for this motion, at some point, once I understand what the schedule will be thereafter. In particular, I am very excited to move forward to the 106(4). Once I'm done speaking, perhaps some members of the Liberal Party on our committee could delineate when they intend to allow us to move forward with this very important 106(4) that many Canadians have written to this committee about the necessity of seeing. Then we wouldn't have to drag things out any further on that point. I look forward to them saying something about that. I invite them to.

Before I finish speaking, though, I'd like to move the following amendment to Dr. Eyolfson's motion. It's that the motion be amended by adding the following after the words “recommendations to the House”:

no later than July 20, 2026;

That, for the purpose of completing this study and ensuring that the report is tabled by July 22, 2026, the committee continue its work through the summer, if necessary, and the chair be authorized to schedule meetings related to this study after the House rises for the summer;

And that the committee report to the House requesting permission to table this report after the House rises for the summer, if necessary.

I'd like to speak to it for a bit after having introduced it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I would like to see if you have this in both official languages.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Sure. Would you like me to read it in French as well? Or has it been emailed?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

If you can read it in French and distribute it, that would be really fine.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I can certainly do that.

Here is the text of the amendment:

That, for the purpose of completing this study and ensuring that the report is tabled by July 22, 2026, the committee continue its work through the summer, if necessary, and the chair be authorized to schedule meetings related to this study after the House rises for the summer; And that the committee report to the House requesting permission to table this report after the House rises for the summer, if necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Is everybody good with the French and English versions?

I see no objections. I'm very happy.

Dr. Strauss, the floor is with you.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Yes, I just wanted to add that I present this largely to underscore how important the study is. I don't think that it quite rises to an emergency—a committee report is never an emergency—but it is urgent. This is a rapidly escalating problem that our friends in Manitoba are witnessing. I think that if it is as important as we all agree it is, the committee should certainly not hesitate to get its work done over the summer. I hope everyone will vote for this.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

I have a speaking order.

I have Mr. Bailey, Madam Konanz and then Mr. Mazier.

Mr. Bailey, please go ahead.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I wanted to comment.

At one point, Ms. Sidhu included a statement that I don't see in this motion. I thought we voted on it. That was the LGBTQ matter that we talked about.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Two Qs....

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I'm just wondering if we've decided that we're not going to include that. I bring it up because this month is extremely sensitive, it being June and Pride month.

Was it something that we overlooked?

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It is my understanding, Mr. Bailey, that at the last minute, the committee decided to go as it is.

Is that agreed?

Madam Sidhu can speak better to it.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I think we didn't go for that, and then there was unanimous—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There was some discussion between the—

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

It was unanimously passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It was unanimous.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Should it not—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It should be there.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

It should be there, because it was unanimously passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay. I'm sorry. Yes, it should be there.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Just so I'm clear, when do we get that into the motion? At what point does the clerk have to redistribute it with that statement, or do we just understand it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Because already the motion is passed, this is in the proceedings of the committee, so once we pass.... We pass the amendment now brought forward by Mr. Mazier. Now we've brought another amendment by Dr. Strauss. Once the committee goes back to the motion as amended and adopts this, then we will circulate you that wording again to make sure, and we will read it, the final version, just to make sure that everyone is on the same wavelength.

Thank you for pointing that out. It is a very important subject.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that. Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It means that members are doing the work they should be doing.

Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Yes.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

—just as a point of clarification, I think “syphilis” was not there. Is it passed too?

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

That's why I brought it up—those two—but now I get it. Once it's passed, we'll bring it up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Whatever the final wording is, the clerk will distribute that, or we will read it. Once the amendments are done, we will go back to it, once we call the vote. Then I will read the final version of the motion as amended. Does that make sense?

I appreciate, Mr. Bailey, that you have done extremely good work here to remind members. Thank you.

You still have the floor.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That was my question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Madam Konanz.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I want to speak to Dr. Strauss's amendment.

I agree with Dr. Eyolfson. I think this is really important. Again, if this is urgent because of what seems to be happening in Manitoba, this will be across the country. In particular, B.C., as we know, has one of the highest rates of fentanyl deaths and an extreme, urgent and horrible issue with addiction and the use of needles, etc. We definitely need to do this research for across the country.

Also, it is so urgent that we are skipping the issue of PrescribeIT, which was a May 5 issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Can we come back to the topic and focus on the thing? These props and stuff, I will not let them go. The last time we had a very good meeting.

We are speaking only to the amendment brought by Dr. Strauss. If we can focus on the dates, I would really appreciate that. I get heck from both sides, so I have to be very fair to everyone.

Please continue on Dr. Strauss's amendment.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I know it's really important to all members around this table that we address the issue with HIV. It's very important to me. I know we've had to skip the 106(4), and we're not able to look at PrescribeIT because this is so urgent. I'm hoping we will go back to that. In the meantime, I think it's so urgent that, if we need to work over the summer, we should.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Go ahead, Mr. Mazier.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I echo my colleague's thoughts around the urgency of this. As I commented in the other meeting, Manitoba is probably ground zero for HIV and any type of blood infection. As I also mentioned the other day, whatever we're doing in Manitoba is not working, by what's going on with the stats. I very much look forward to discussing this over the summer.

I do have some concerns about how much engagement we're going to get from our minister on this. Yesterday I was at the finance committee, and I asked her point-blank if she would come to health committee and explain what was going on with all these emerging issues in health care in her file. She would “not commit”. Those were her exact words, which sent a very clear signal that she was not willing to come to this committee any time soon. That is quite disappointing.

I would urge Liberal committee members to encourage her to come to this committee before the House rises to get a lot of these issues figured out. One of the topics we could discuss is the HIV issue that we have in Manitoba and across Canada. Then we could also get to the bottom of the PrescribeIT issue, as well as many others, like Grifols and everything else we have going on in the health committee.

If the Liberals are really going to take health seriously as an issue, I would encourage the health minister to come out as part of this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

I want to remind the honourable members that if I am chairing the committee—or, Mr. Mazier, if you are chairing—we have the duty and the power to call committee meetings during the summer. We as a committee can call meetings; we don't have to get permission from the House or anybody else, just so it's very clear.

Is there any more discussion or debate on Dr. Strauss's amendment?

I don't see any.

Is there unanimous consent in the room to pass this amendment?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

May we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There is a call for a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The motion is amended.

Because Mr. Bailey brought a very good point, I'm in the process...I will suspend for a few minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We are back to the motion as amended by Dr. Strauss.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Chair, just to clarify, if this amendment and motion were to pass, who would be next to speak on the list?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We will go back to the motion as amended. There will be a—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

If the motion passes as amended, is there anyone on the speaking list?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There is no one.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I would like to be on that list first, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I will not entertain that now, because there are people on the other side—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I have a question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

—who have come to me as well.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Do we have unanimous consent that I can speak next after this motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

No, because we're suspended right now.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

No, we're not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Strauss, you have the floor.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to ask, now that we're back—we've gavelled in—if either I or Mr. Mazier could have the.... I'm happy for this amendment to proceed with unanimous consent. I would like to make sure that we're able to get on the speaking list after that.

Do I have your assurance?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I go one step at a time. I'm doing my job as chair. I cannot promise things long before it's time. I have to go one step at a time, Dr. Strauss.

Honestly, I act as fairly as I can. I'm a human being. I might make some mistakes, but my intent is to be 100% fair to all sides here.

If we do not have any more speakers on the list, we are going to take a vote on the amendment brought forward by Dr. Strauss.

Does everyone agree with that amendment? Is it unanimous?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

We already voted on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We already voted. We adopted it. It was 11 to zero.

We're now going back to the motion as amended.

Do you want me to read it one more time or not?

I know Dr. Strauss is on the speaker's list, but don't you worry.

Does anyone want me to read the motion into the record?

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, you have the motion in both official languages. I'll read it to make sure you're happy with it.

We are going to be debating this motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Health undertake an urgent study on the rising rates of HIV infections in Canada, with particular attention to the recent declaration of a public health emergency by the Province of Manitoba related to the spread of HIV and syphilis, including the disproportionate impacts on specific regions and populations, including 2SLGBTQI+ communities, Indigenous peoples, women, rural and northern communities, and individuals experiencing homelessness, mental health challenges and substance use disorders;

That the study examine federal programs, funding, prevention strategies, access to testing and treatment, harm reduction initiatives, public awareness efforts, and intergovernmental coordination related to HIV prevention, care and support services;

That the committee hold no fewer than two meetings on this subject;

That witnesses include officials from the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Minister of Health, representatives from Manitoba Health, Indigenous health organizations, frontline community organizations, medical and public health experts, and individuals with lived experience;

That, for the purpose of completing this study and ensuring that the report is tabled by July 22, 2026, the committee continue its work through the summer, if necessary, and the chair be authorized to schedule meetings related to this study after the House rises for the summer;

And that the committee report to the House requesting permission to table this report after the House rises for the summer, if necessary.

Does everyone have this in both official languages?

That's good. I don't see any objections.

I have the speaking list, and Dr. Strauss, you are on the speaking list.

Please, go ahead.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you so much, Chair.

As instructed by you, you didn't want to deal with this while we were on the amendment. I very much want to know if we have some assurance from the Liberal members opposite that once we vote for this HIV study, we can proceed to an investigation on PrescribeIT.

If it is the case that they're willing to go on the record saying that they're willing to do that, I'm looking forward to voting for their motion. If they are not willing to go on the record saying that they're willing to do that, I'm looking forward to discussing this motion further.

Who's next on the speaking list? Dan, are you on it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm sorry. Talk through the chair, please.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Oh, excuse me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm giving you all the time you need.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I know. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm giving you all the terms you need. I can't explain your question to you. I cannot say that, because you have to speak through me. I don't see anyone with their hand raised. I'm not in a position to answer your question.

Do you see what I mean?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I guess I wanted to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The only way that question can be answered is if the vote is called. It's by whichever way the vote goes. The members can change their minds at the last minute.

Do you understand that?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Of course.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It's not up to me. It's not up to one committee member. It is up to the committee as a whole. The majority have to decide how they want to vote on this. That's what it is. I cannot attach any conditions.

I have read the motion in place, as amended. That's what we are debating right now. Once the list is exhausted, we'll go to the vote on this.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Of course. I understand, Chair. I just want to hold space—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You can do those things off-line. You can talk to the members on the other side. I'm not going to have that debate here.

They're not willing to answer. I don't see any hands up. The only hand up is Mr. Mazier's.

Once you stop speaking, I will go to the speaking list.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Great. Well, yeah; I wanted, myself, to hold space for them to answer that query. As you say, Chair, nobody can definitively say 100% how they're going to vote until they do vote, but I think most of the members in this House, most of the members on this committee and most of the members on the opposite side are people of integrity. If they go on the record with the cameras on—thankfully, the cameras are on today—to say that they'll vote one way or another, I would generally trust that, and I would then be willing to move forward to a vote, but as you haven't seen any hands go up, I think we'd better discuss this motion further.

I do want to inform the committee that there are literally thousands of epidemiologic and other medical papers on HIV in Manitoba. I think, before we proceed with yet another study on HIV in Manitoba, we ought to consider some of the research that is out there. I'm delighted to be able to talk with you all today about a study I found on this topic. It's in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases Regions, a sub-journal of the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, which is one of the premier journals in the field. The International Journal of Infectious Diseases Regions deals specifically with communicable diseases in regions, and in this case Manitoba. Although I have not fully critically reviewed the study that I'm going to be talking about for the next while, it is in a high-quality, scholarly source. I hope we'll all take its findings really seriously.

The lead author on the paper is Megan Sorokopud-Jones. I understand her to be in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Manitoba, so she is very much on the ground. The objectives of the paper are as follows: “Describe the proportion of people newly living with HIV with sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections...before, at, and after HIV diagnosis in Manitoba, Canada.” I think that's really topical. As the motion as amended includes syphilis, I think this will touch on both this paper and our study. The paper was published in just December 2024, so it's quite topical. It was perhaps ahead of the wave in terms of what was about to happen with the increased number of cases we're seeing of HIV in Manitoba presently.

The paper says, “People living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) with additional sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections...have poorer health outcomes.” That's as opposed to people with just one, which I suppose is not terribly surprising.

It goes on to say the following about sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections:

STBBIs can cause an inflammatory response, leading to the release of cytokines and immune cells in the genital tract, which can increase the risk of HIV transmission and acquisition. Having a syphilis infection has been shown to nearly triple one’s risk of HIV acquisition and in men who have sex with men, previous rectal gonorrhea or chlamydia and having multiple repeated sexually transmitted infections were associated with increased risk of HIV acquisition. People diagnosed with HIV co-infected with syphilis progress more frequently to neurosyphilis than controls. People living with HIV and concurrent hepatitis C virus...have accelerated liver fibrosis, which may be caused by HIV viremia, HIV-associated immune dysfunction, or a side effect of antiretroviral therapy. Women living with HIV are more likely to have higher recurrence rates of genital herpes and genital ulcers from syphilis than women without HIV. In addition, women living with HIV who have pelvic inflammatory disease experience increased severity of symptoms and a greater probability of progressing to tubo-ovarian or fallopian tube abscess.

In Manitoba, Canada, the total number of people newly living with HIV has increased 52% over the past 5 years. The demographic composition of individuals newly diagnosed with HIV has changed dramatically in Manitoba—

I'll just bring the committee's attention to the fact that this was published in 2024, so it was probably written a bit before that. This is a slow-moving catastrophe that we're now terming an urgent crisis, but it was noticeable—the signal was there, I take it—as early as 2019.

The demographic composition of individuals newly diagnosed with HIV has changed dramatically in Manitoba, with a recent sharp increase in females, and injection drug use and heterosexual sex as primary risk factors for HIV acquisition. The increase in new HIV diagnoses has been partially linked to increased methamphetamine use in the province. Between 2013 and 2018, there was a seven-fold increase in the number of people documented as using methamphetamines in Manitoba and those using methamphetamines were found to be younger adults, live in lowest-income areas, and have comorbid mental health conditions.

Alongside the increasing incidence of HIV, Manitoba also reported higher incidence of other STBBIs than national reports. The provincial test positivity for syphilis has doubled between 2018 and 2021 and Manitoba continues to have the highest rate of infectious syphilis of all Canadian provinces. Furthermore, in 2019, there were 370.8 chlamydia and 94.3 gonorrhea diagnoses per 100,000 people nationally in Canada, but Manitoba reported 601.0 chlamydia and 272.7 gonorrhea diagnoses per 100,000 people. Manitoba also reported the highest rate of HCV of any province in 2019 with 54.2 diagnoses per 100,000 people.

Substance use, houselessness severity, and female sex are associated with a greater prevalence of STBBIs. Previous research has shown that unstable housing was associated with HIV acquisition and affects the HIV continuum of care, reduced treatment effectiveness, and not receive appropriate HIV care. In a metanalysis of studies of STBBIs prevalence among American houseless adults, young women were found to have the highest prevalence of chlamydia and gonorrhea infections. Women living with HIV in Canada are increasingly additionally burdened by houselessness, food insecurities, and use of illicit substances. In three Canadian provinces, 79% of women living with HIV experienced food and/or housing insecurity. Our study group recently found that females newly diagnosed with HIV are additionally burdened by houselessness, injection drug use, mostly methamphetamine, and mental health conditions.

As part of a larger investigation of HIV syndemics in Manitoba, our primary objective was to describe the proportion of people diagnosed with syphilis, HCV, hepatitis B...gonorrhea, and chlamydia before, at, and after HIV diagnosis among people newly diagnosed with HIV in Manitoba between 2018 and 2021 by sex, housing status, injection drug use, and methamphetamine use. Our secondary objective was to identify the factors associated with syphilis, HCV, gonorrhea, or chlamydia acquisition and any of the four STBBIs after HIV diagnosis.

That's just the introduction of the study. I'm interested in going through the rest. I don't see any Liberal hands going up.

When I look at the motion before us.... We had a brief discussion about Ms. Sidhu's amendment to add, I believe, “LGBT”, only one Q, “I”, no A and then a plus. Oh, I'm sorry. I missed “2SL” at the beginning. At the time, there was some confusion about which letters she included and which she didn't, and whether she included the Q for “queer” or the Q for “questioning”.

Now, as I read the scholarly literature already out there, it sounds like this crisis in particular is not affecting that community. I almost wonder if this committee erred in thinking it was. I wonder if that, in itself, speaks to stigma and bias against the community—assuming that because there is an HIV epidemic in Manitoba, it pertains to that community. In the scholarly literature before us, at least, I don't see any evidence that it is.

I will let the chair interrupt me at any point if he sees Liberal hands coming up. I invite him to do that. I'm not seeing any. I suspect he's not seeing any either, so I think we should continue to go through this study.

Methods

Study design

All people referred to the Manitoba HIV Program in Manitoba, Canada, and confirmed to be newly diagnosed with HIV by the Manitoba Health Epidemiology and Surveillance Unit between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021 were considered in this retrospective cohort study. This centralized program provides care to all people living with HIV in the entire province of Manitoba and has three HIV care sites in Manitoba: Health Sciences Centre and Nine Circles Community Health Centre in Winnipeg and 7th Street Health Access Centre in Brandon.

That's really interesting to me, and I think it pertains to our motion. There is already a centralized program that provides care to all people with HIV in Manitoba. Perhaps it would make sense to add Dr. Sorokopud-Jones to the witness list as part of this study motion. I'm already grateful to her for informing me of this before we continue.

Chair, I understand there are Liberal hands up now. I'll cede my time. We can perhaps return to this at a later point.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Yes, there is a switch. The other chair is indisposed.

Mr. Bailey is actually next. Then it's Ms. Konanz and then me.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to ask the analyst if she could provide an estimate on when the report could be reviewed, translated and tabled in the House.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Who would you ask?

I'm sorry. I was not paying attention, because I was looking at the list.

It's for the analyst.

[Kelly Farrah, Committee Researcher]

It's hard for us to provide an estimate, given that we haven't heard the meetings yet. It depends, too, on what members want to see in the report and how long they want the report to be. If the report is short, then it would take less time for us to produce.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I was thinking more about resources and the urgency of it.

Could we actually produce this by July 22, or is this something that will take longer? Could translation be done? Could you provide anything to the committee on these types of questions?

[Kelly Farrah]

We'd have to touch base with the House of Commons publication service to see what their translation deadlines are at the moment.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Would you be able to get back to us on that by Thursday?

[Kelly Farrah]

I could contact them and see if we could find an answer for you.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you.

I wanted to add a few things.

I actually googled, similar to what Dr. Strauss did. I was really surprised that our government has spent $44 million on HIV studies in the last few years. I want to make sure that these studies are being utilized.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Yes, Mr. Strauss, go ahead.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I'm wondering if the clerk could advise us as to whether all of the documents ordered by this committee from Canada Health Infoway have been received?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

That's a good question.

No, we have not received all of them.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Could she advise us of when they will be received, or if she will be enforcing...?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

It's only up to them. We're still waiting for responses.

There's been no indication from Canada Health Infoway of when they will decide to respond, which is kind of weird in itself.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

My point was that the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research have spent over $44 million. A simple Google search indicated this to me.

I would like to know how we can use these studies as an analysis. Can you start to print some of this out, share it and give us some of the findings? I'm very interested in the one that Matt was talking about that's directly pertinent to Manitoba.

This simple Google search has told me the surveillance.... I can read it, but I don't want to waste the committee's time.

Can the analysts help us use some of these already-done studies to help us with our study?

I'm sorry, Chair, I caught you off guard.

It's a very simple question. There are all of these studies that have been done by our federal government. There are 44 million dollars' worth of studies. I am wondering if the analysts can weed through them and give us the basic facts that Dr. Strauss was talking about to help advise us on how we are going to request our experts.

I don't want to be doing stuff twice that we have already spent $44 million on. There is some really good material here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We will see what we can do. I will talk to the analysts later on.

Right now, the debate is still on. There are lots of people on the list.

If it is necessary, we will circulate it. Right now, we don't even know whether the motion is going to go through and whatnot.

You still have the floor. Do you want to continue, or are we going to Madam Konanz?

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

No, Mr. Chair. I'm going to read this study, because I think it's very important that everyone understands what I'm talking about.

The government reports continually track new HIV infections and progress towards what are called UNAIDS' 95-95-95 goals: 95% of the people with HIV have a diagnosis, 95% are on treatment and 95% are virally suppressed. The diagnosis rates in Canada in 2024 report 2,288 new HIV diagnoses. Prior to this, reports had observed a spike, with the “HIV in Canada, Surveillance Report to December 31, 2023” showing 2,434 diagnoses, representing a rebound and subsequent plateau after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Progress towards national testing and treatment targets is summarized in the “Canada's Progress Towards Ending the HIV Epidemic, 2022” report—another study that I would really like to learn more about—offering detailed breakdowns of the care continuum across different demographics. It even goes so far as to give the Canadian guidelines on pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis, which was a funded study that outlines the evidence-based recommendations for clinical indications in drug regimes. It then goes into Health Canada's synthesized medical data to evaluate the risk of sexual transmission between partners. Of course, this would get into some of the groups that we listed in our motion.

The results of the study of the risk of HIV transmission support the undetectable equals untransmittable—U equals U—consensus, providing that the risk of sexual HIV transmission is negligible when an individual is on an effective ART and has a suppressed viral load.

Another study is the surveillance details of how HIV impacts priority groups. This is where we get into some of the minority groups. Again, a cross-sectional investigation was done. I really feel that a lot of these studies on which we've spent millions of dollars need to be taken into account with our committee study. For full access and professional guidance, monitoring data, and methodologies, there are two organizations that are all part of our Canada.ca portal, and it lists over 800 studies.

This is why I'm asking the analyst this: How can we take all these studies that the government has spent $44 million on and incorporate them into our study, as opposed to trying to get all these professionals in and hearing from them in two meetings for that matter?

Again, I would ask the analyst....

I don't know, Mr. Chair. How would she communicate that to us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Bailey—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

—from my experience from many years of sitting on committees, I can say that there are an enormous number of reports done. When the committee brings in business, we determine our own destination, what we want to do and how we want to proceed.

The committee is trying to vote on this subject. There might be thousands and thousands of books that have been written in the past on HIV and syphilis, but the committee particularly wants to focus on Manitoba in those two meetings. My focus will be to keep that whole discussion to Manitoba and on this.

You can ask the analysts as many questions as you want, but I can tell you right now that the questions should come to me, and I will only entertain.... If the witnesses come in and refer to those reports and you want them to table those reports, then we can do that. However, right now I'm not going to ask the analysts to produce any reports. Right now, their duty is to make sure that they take notes on what's happening here. Once the committee decides to study this topic, then we can determine all these things—predetermined things—you are asking. That's what my experience tells me.

Let's focus on the motion as amended, and particularly on Manitoba, and we will continue.

I have a speaking order already. After you, we have Mr. Mazier, Madam Konanz, Dr. Eyolfson and Dr. Strauss, so there are quite a few people.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Yes.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I will wind it up—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

It's something that came across my desk. It's talking about...and I'm reflecting on the conversation I had with the minister yesterday about the Ebola situation that's hitting the world, especially in Canada—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Again, I can tell you—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I'm wondering if I can seek UC to have the minister come in and give the health committee a briefing on Thursday on how our government's responding to Ebola.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Is there unanimous consent for this?

There's no unanimous consent.

I'm going back to Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Bailey, the floor is yours.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I sure understand what you're saying. I take this committee very seriously.

I think what you've told me is that it becomes my responsibility to start to review it. I can't rely on any of the staff to help me get prepared for these meetings.

I will take it upon myself to focus, as Dr. Strauss did, on some of these studies, because I believe there is a lot of information that could aid us in this study.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay.

I have Madam Konanz, and then it's Mr. Mazier.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Please go ahead.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I must say I'm disappointed that this committee is not addressing the PrescribeIT study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Madam Konanz, I will tell you right now, if you want to make my life easier and yours easier, let me focus on the motion as amended. If we focus on this right now, we will get this out of the way, and then you can bring in new studies that you want to do.

Please, let's focus on this.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Do we have a promise from the Liberal members that they will go on to the study—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Madam Konanz—

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

—on PrescribeIT?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

— I have told you time and again.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

To study this—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Can I have the floor?

I have told the members that I, as the chair, have a duty. I will tell you right now that I am being very fair about what should be done. Right now, my focus is that the committee should focus on the motion as amended.

I cannot give any promises to you, because you are speaking to me. You are not speaking to the members. Members have every right, and you have every right, to vote however you want to vote at the last minute. We haven't even voted on this. Once we vote on this motion as amended, then those questions can be asked.

Let's focus right now on this.

On a point of order, I see Mr. Mazier.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I think the member has an absolute right to question the schedule of what is going to happen here in committee.

It is right in the motion, where it actually refers to a timetable of what we're going to talk about. However, there are so many other issues that had to be.... Basically, this was sidelined because we were on an emergency meeting. I thought we were going to actually talk about the emergency meeting. Five members thought that PrescribeIT was a very important issue, with the whole $300-million boondoggle. Meanwhile, you won't even let a member talk about the schedule of the meeting and how HIV and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Mazier, can I—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I think she deserves—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

—right now—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

—to be able to actually talk about the schedule.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Mazier, I didn't want to use this language, but I'm telling you something right now. This matter has to do with HIV. There might be an intent of the members to filibuster this meeting, even though I'm not bringing it, and members have every right to speak.

What is next? For us, right now, we have an amended motion. That is the business of the day, and that's what I'm focusing on. My duty is to make sure that I bring the members back to this.

Members can speak for hours. I've been giving you guys all the time you needed for the last three or four days, with five meetings, and I'm not stopping you here. You have every right to speak. You continue to speak until I exhaust the speaking list. Once the speaking list is exhausted, then I will call the vote. I'm giving you enough opportunity, and I'm not intervening.

The only time I'm intervening is when those decisions cannot be made at this point in time. At this point in time, I have an amended motion in front of me, and I have to make sure that I focus the debate on this. Once it gets finalized, then we will come back to all the questions you are asking me about.

Thank you.

Madam Konanz, please go ahead.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Chair, I want this on the record. Every single one of those members is on their phone right now. We had a motion here about a disaster in this world, Ebola, and they're on their phones, not even paying attention. I want the public to know that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You cannot say that. Again, I told you, what members are doing—

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I will take that back, but what I will say is that I am seriously concerned that the minute we vote on this motion, the Liberals will turn out the lights. They will shut the door, as they have in the past, and put this in camera. Do I have a commitment that every single one of them will not close the door again and turn off the cameras to the public for 30 years, as they have done over and over again in this room?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You can continue speaking. I'm not going to entertain that question. You continue speaking, please.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Okay, so we don't have a commitment that they will not shut the lights out on the Canadian public. Then I want to make the following verbal motion. “Given that Liberal—”

[An hon. member]

It's just a notice.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

It's a verbal notice. I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Again, I'll tell you right now, honourable members, that in the beginning of the meeting, because we have two official languages, I requested that we do not take the committee time away from the important topics of HIV that we are studying.

If you can circulate that motion by email, I would really appreciate that. You have every right to read the motion, but you know that it's taking time away from this study. You have every right, but I am requesting it of you. If you want to circulate it, that's fine. If you want to read it, it's your choice.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

As I said, it's an extremely important study, and I will give this verbal notice:

“Given that

“(a) the Liberal government's PrescribeIT program cost Canadian taxpayers $300 million over 10 years and was quietly shut down in February 2026 after reaching fewer than 5% of Canadian prescriptions, meaning doctors are still faxing prescriptions in 2026, exactly as they were when the program launched;

“(b) Michael Green served as president and chief executive officer of Canada Health Infoway for over 11 years, overseeing every major decision related to the PrescribeIT program from its inception through its wind-down, and was therefore the single most knowledgeable witness available to this committee;

“(c) Mr. Green appeared before this committee on April 21, 2026. He refused to disclose his own compensation when asked directly by members, claiming he did not have that information at hand, and had to be instructed twice by the chair to provide it;

“(d) Documents subsequently disclosed to this committee revealed that Mr. Green received nearly $900,000 in total compensation in fiscal year 2024-2025, including an at-risk bonus component that increased in the same fiscal year the Infoway board voted to declare PrescribeIT unviable and begin winding down the program;

“(e) Mr. Green was dismissed as CEO, effective immediately, on April 29, 2026, eight days after his appearance before this committee, a decision taken by his own board that raises serious questions about his fitness to have led this program and the adequacy of the accountability mechanisms in place throughout its operation; and

“(f) When asked by committee members whether Telus Health was the lowest bidder for the original PrescribeIT contract, Mr. Green could not confirm this when asked—

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There is a point of order, Madam Konanz.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Has that motion been distributed in both languages?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

It's just a verbal motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

This is a verbal notice. She can read it in one of the official languages.

I can tell you right now that I made a request in the beginning that if we.... Because I did not clearly say.... Last week I did the same thing. I allowed the member to read the motion, because they have every right to read the motion, but I requested that, if motions like this came in, because of the two official languages, instead of reading the motion, we could have it circulated. The member has decided not to circulate it but to read it. It's her right, and she's doing that.

Go ahead, Madam Konanz.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

“(f) When asked by the committee members whether TELUS Health was the lowest bidder for the original PrescribeIT contract, Mr. Green could not confirm this. When asked how many companies competed for the contract, he did not know. When asked whether PrescribeIT measurably reduced opioid-related harm or fraud as budget 2017 explicitly promised it would, he said he did not have that information;

“The committee summon Michael Green, former president and chief executive officer of Canada Health Infoway, to appear before the committee for no less than two hours on June 9, 2026.”

That's it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Madam Konanz.

Madam Konanz has read this motion.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I am asking for unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It is fair for her to read it, but at the same time, the question that Madam Sidhu raised in her point of order was also very fair. If we want to save time at this committee by just focusing on HIV, these motions can be circulated in both official languages in the future.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I'm just asking for UC. It won't take time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It has been read. The only thing I allow is for it to be read.

We'll now move on to—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I have a point of order.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I haven't finished yet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

If you haven't finished yet, Madam Konanz, you can continue.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Is there no UC?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I need to know when you are finished, because I would not interrupt you.

Please tell me when you are done.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I asked for UC.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Is there UC?

No, so please continue.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I will continue.

Speaking about HIV, one thing that probably—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Madam Konanz, I don't want to say it directly. I'm trying to say indirectly, being very professional and very fair. When you ask for this, half of the people don't even know what you are asking the UC for. You see what you are reading.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

It's not her fault.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Honestly, I'll tell you right now. If I'm raising this, Mr. Mazier, I'm raising it fairly, because if I get it from non-partisan sources, I have to respect that. You have to respect that too.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The floor is with Madam Konanz.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

As I mentioned earlier, this is an extremely important study and vote that we have coming forward—eventually. However, I think that it's important for this group and for all of the MPs to understand that this is not just a Manitoba issue. This is an issue throughout the country.

Many people don't know that my riding of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, in the interior of B.C., has the second-highest senior population in Canada, of any riding. It has more people over 65 than any riding, except a riding on Vancouver Island.

One thing that isn't mentioned in this motion, which I want to speak about, is the serious issue of HIV infections among seniors. It's something that is alarming. Also, they are a vulnerable community we're going to have to address when we do this HIV study. It's extremely important.

When I was doing some research on it, there was a study done, and it is from the Journal of Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology. It was a study done by Phan Sok, a scientist who studied infectious diseases among older persons with HIV in Canada. If you look it up, you can find it in volume 5, issue 4, 2019, in the Journal of Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology.

I will read this study so that we understand, again, that this is a highly vulnerable group we need to focus on when we do this study.

The background is that, across the globe, the number of those who have HIV who are age 50 and over, is growing exponentially:

They live with a chronic illness because, despite its many benefits, ART does not fully restore health and well-being. Treated HIV infection is characterized by persistent low-grade inflammation, residual immunodeficiency, and a variety of ART-induced toxicities.

Excuse me, but with my not being an MD, I might not pronounce some of these words properly.

The aging process itself plus lifestyle behaviors such as smoking and alcohol or drug use—

Again, this is a very persistent situation throughout Canada and B.C.

—result in the growing frailty of this population. Frailty refers to an impaired ability to fight off health challenges and to recover from bouts of illness. It is associated with a gradual decline in everyday function. While ART can completely suppress viral load, current data show that the life expectancy of persons with HIV is still 13 years shorter than that of HIV-negative age peers; it is, however, improving.

Persons with HIV today face two major challenges. The first challenge is to suppress the original virus and fight off all opportunistic infections. The introduction of ART reduced the mortality rate from 28.4 per 100 person-years in 1995 to 8.8 per 100 person-years in 1997. The incidence of opportunistic infections such as—

Again, it's difficult to pronounce. There are many complex diseases that are also prevalent.

It goes on:

The second challenge is more difficult to meet. It is to slow the pace of the aging process, which continues to be exceptionally rapid in person with HIV. HIV50+ individuals experience prematurely high rates of cardiovascular disease, cancer and cognitive decline. It remains unclear whether HIV itself, its treatment and associated side effects, or other risk factors are responsible, but the natural aging process appears to be accelerated. Premature age-related co-morbidities and the increased risk for adverse outcome of illness, or frailty and event mortality remain characteristic of this population.

It goes on:

The pathophysiology of inflammation resulting from HIV infection is impossible to distinguish from the inflammation associated with natural aging. Both consist of cell damage, then tissue damage, followed by organ damage and eventual organ failure. Initially, damage can be reversed, but once organs begin to degenerate, the progress to death appears inevitable. The pathways in chronic HIV and aging are identical; the combination adds speed to the process. Firstly, the diagnosis of HIV tends to be delayed in older patients. Additionally, HIV50+ may be extra vulnerable to the toxic effects of treatments and the pharmacological interactions of combinations of medications.

I want to also say that, in a place like Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay or throughout rural Canada, the effects of HIV are going to be even more exaggerated, because so many people—thousands—do not have a doctor right now, and, since they do not have a doctor, they're going to be diagnosed much later than they should be.

According to this study, it's sometimes hard to tell HIV from the normal aging process, so it's even more important to have a family doctor in order to see the initial results of that. In my riding alone, thousands of people do not have a family doctor.

The natural history of normal human aging versus the natural history of aging with HIV can be seen in the figures they have in this study. It goes on:

Data from the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS...shows an increase in the over 50 HIV population from 2.8 million in 2006 to 4.2 million in 2014. In...Africa alone, the estimate in 2014 was that more than 2 million individuals over 50 were living with HIV. A recent study reports that, globally, there were 5.7 million...HIV individuals aged 50 or older in 2016 and this number was expected to increase to an estimated 7.5 million...by 2020 if the...treatment target were [to be] met.

I really recommend that everybody around this table do more research on aging, the senior population and HIV. I look forward to looking at that in our study.

I'm ready to cede my time to the next speaker.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

Now we will go to Mr. Mazier. Please go ahead.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I learned a lot from Ms. Konanz.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Yes, I know.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I didn't realize just how much work has actually been done on HIV, but here we are again. We have to do another study just to see what's actually going on in Manitoba. Again, I thank the sponsor for bringing this study forward.

However, I think that, for a lot of people listening in on this debate about why we're talking more about HIV and continuing to bring it up today versus leaving it for another day, it comes down to trust. I think that, for the whole committee, trust has been broken. We don't trust that the Liberals are actually going to take any action on this. In the study itself, it actually gives the Liberals a deadline here:

by July 22, 2026, the committee continue its work through the summer

They accepted that amendment. However, the problem is that—and this is for the listening audience—we don't trust that the Liberals are actually going to follow through with this. Because of this, we keep on talking about PrescribeIT, which is the reason that we submitted, and just resubmitted, a Standing Order 106(4), of which I will give verbal notice as well. For everybody who's listening in on this, a Standing Order 106(4) is an emergency meeting. We want to have an emergency meeting.

This is the way the 106(4) motion reads. It is that, given that Canadians deserve transparency and accountability on PrescribeIT, “the committee summon Michael Green, former president and CEO of Canada Health Infoway”. He was the chairman who received $900,000 in reimbursement.

I'm sorry, Chair, but that was not part of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It is not part of the motion. I will not allow that.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

That was not part of the motion. I apologize.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Mazier, you, as a vice-chair, know better.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Yes, and I'm sorry for that.

It is:

That the committee summon Michael Green, former president and CEO of Canada Health Infoway, to testify in person for no less than two hours within one week of the adoption of this motion; and...that the committee request the Minister of Health and officials to testify before the committee on the $300-million PrescribeIT program no later than June 18, 2026, for the entire meeting; and that the chair be instructed to schedule the minister's appearance at the earliest possible opportunity, including using additional resources by holding a meeting outside of the committee's regular schedule in order to accommodate the minister's availability if needed.

It's a pretty wide open 106(4) motion. I thought we were going to get to that today, but we have had—

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, I'm just wondering whether you could seek unanimous consent to Mr. Mazier's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Honestly, right now I don't want to do that, because he has not finished the motion. He's just reading the motion. It's not a motion—

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I thought he was speaking to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It's not a motion. He's just reading, and I'm not going to ask for unanimous consent for this. All I am allowing him is....

Dr. Strauss, through.... This is not to focus only on you, as I want to remind all other members. I can read, from the beginning, what I said today. I said:

Before we begin, I would also remind members that, where possible, motions should be submitted by email in both official languages, so they can be circulated without taking time away from matters currently before the committee.

I have requested this from members time and time again. Even though members are not listening to this request, they have every right to read the motion. I'm letting him only read the motion, and I'm not going to ask for unanimous consent on this one.

Mr. Mazier, the floor is yours. Please continue.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I want to thank Mr. Strauss. That's a heck of a great idea.

In all fairness to the Liberals, who are not paying attention to this motion, I will be seeking unanimous consent when I read it again. It was a verbal motion, but I am going to be seeking unanimous consent, so I'm asking the Liberals to listen to this. Then they can—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Mazier, you are a vice-chair.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Remember, I have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I want to correct you. I'm going to tell you right now that you have a right to read the motion. You can call for unanimous consent only if you are going to present it as a motion.

I will see whether the motion is in order. If the motion is not in order, then I can take it away. However, right now, it is your right to read the motion. I'm allowing you to read the motion, so please continue to read the motion.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Okay, well, I guess the bottom line is that I was trying to get the Liberals' attention so that they could seek....

Chair, just in all fairness, you've used the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Just read the motion, please.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

No, this is a point of order now—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Mazier, you—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

—because you've used the reason that they're not paying attention to this and that they haven't really had any photocopying—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

How do you say they're not paying attention?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

You said that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

No, you said that—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Yes, you did. Anyway, I'm asking—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I didn't say that. In fact, if I said it directly, it was to you members, because they did not bring in a motion today. It's the Conservative members who are bringing motion after motion. I have not said Liberals. I have not said Conservatives. I was talking generally, but I know—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

That's my job.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Now you want me to say it, and it was the Conservatives, so continue to read.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Conservatives what...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

They're the ones who are bringing the motion. They're not paying attention to what I said earlier. You said the Liberals. It's not Liberals.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Actually, the 106(4) motion was brought forward by Conservatives and the Bloc.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

That has been dealt with.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

That's who signed off on this. This is to have an emergency meeting on PrescribeIT and Michael Green, former president and CEO of Canada Health Infoway.

I will go back to my original statement about trust. I think this has demonstrated.... We sought unanimous consent. My colleague Mr. Strauss asked for UC. That wasn't even acknowledged. I've asked for it, through you, Chair. I have asked the Liberals. There's been no uptake. There have been no arms going up at all. It's just to seek UC to get this done. Then we always go back to...here, we're going to start talking—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Mazier, this is not a point of order. It's debate.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I'm talking about my motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Just read the motion.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I'm still talking—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Please read the motion.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I'm still talking about the verbal motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm not going to let you debate on this one. Just read it.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I did read it. I can read it again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Don't read it again. Just start from where you finished.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Okay. I am not finished, but now I can continue on with the verbal motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Just so we're clear, it's that the committee summon Michael Green, former president and CEO of Canada Health Infoway, and that the committee request the Minister of Health and officials to testify at committee on PrescribeIT.

That's what I was seeking unanimous consent on, just so we're clear, Chair.

Now I will go back to the HIV motion. It directly links back to this because I go back to my statement on trust. As presented by Mr. Strauss, the amendment and the motion was for no later than July 22, 2026. The purpose of completing this study and ensuring that this report is tabled by July 22, 2026, when we have all risen—

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Go ahead on a point of order.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I'm sorry to interrupt, Chair, but can you tell me what the speaking list is? I have one more thing that I would like to get across.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You are on the list.

I have Mr. Mazier. He still has the floor because he has to read a notice of motion, and now he's speaking. Then we have Dr. Eyolfson, Dr. Strauss and then you, Mr. Bailey. There's a long list.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There's a long list, and I will entertain everybody. I have been doing this for the last three or four meetings, since we have suspended. Don't you worry. Everybody will get their fair share, their fair time.

Instead of interrupting Mr. Mazier, I would love to go back to you, Mr. Mazier.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I get your message.

I have another verbal motion.

Given that:

a) the Liberal government's PrescribeIT program spent $300 million in Canadian taxpayer money over ten years, reached fewer than 5% of Canadian prescriptions, and was quietly shut down in February 2026 with doctors still faxing prescriptions exactly as they were when the program launched;

b) David Fast served as Executive Vice-President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Canada Health Infoway—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Mazier—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

This is a verbal motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Do you want to bring in a motion?

[An hon. member]

It's a notice.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

This is verbal notice. Thank you. That's good language.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You should say that first.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I'm sorry. Thank you for keeping me on my toes, Chair.

I'll continue:

b) David Fast served as Executive Vice-President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Canada Health Infoway throughout the operation of the PrescribeIT program and was present at the November 12, 2025 board meeting at which the decision to wind down PrescribeIT was made, and is therefore among the most senior Infoway officials with direct knowledge of the program's financial management from beginning to end;

c) as Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Fast has direct responsibility for the financial controls, internal reporting, compensation frameworks, expenditure approvals, and fiscal oversight of an organization that received...$300 million in federal public funds for PrescribeIT, and would have been the senior executive most closely involved in the preparation and approval of financial decisions that this committee has been unable to obtain satisfactory answers on from other witnesses;

d) testimony before this committee on May 5, 2026 confirmed that prior to joining Canada Health Infoway, David Fast served as President of Agfa HealthCare North America—

My gosh.

—and that Michael Green, who served as President and CEO of Canada Health Infoway for over a decade, previously served as President and CEO of Agfa HealthCare—

Really....

—for the Americas region—meaning both men held senior leadership roles at the same private health technology company before together overseeing the PrescribeIT program;

e) testimony before this committee on May 5, 2026—

That was almost a month ago.

—further confirmed that Michael Green personally recommended David Fast for the interim CFO position at Canada Health Infoway, establishing a direct relationship between the two men that was never disclosed to this committee or to the Canadian public;

f) testimony before this committee on May 5, 2026 confirmed that the CFO position was never competitively posted; Mr. Fast was brought in on an interim basis, a process that bypassed the competitive hiring standards that apply to senior executive appointments at a federally funded organization, and he remains in that interim role to this day, more than two years after his appointment;

g) [when] this committee asked the Chair of Canada Health Infoway how much money Canada Health Infoway has paid to Agfa HealthCare since 2017, the witness could not provide any figure, leaving open the question of whether the organization shared a financial relationship with the company where both its CEO and CFO previously held senior leadership roles, and whether any conflict of interest declarations were made in relation to those payments;

h) when the former CEO of Canada Health Infoway, Michael Green, appeared before this committee on April 21, 2026, he refused to disclose his own compensation when directly asked by members, claimed not to have that information at hand, and left the committee without providing a clear account of the financial decisions made during his tenure; the person at Infoway best positioned to provide that account is the Chief Financial Officer;

I think we all remember that meeting and how we were all taken aback.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Just read the motion, please.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I'll continue:

i) $10.2 million in additional expenditures flowed out of Canada Health Infoway after the November 2025 wind-down decision, with no complete public accounting of how that money was authorized, categorized, or spent; as CFO, Mr. Fast would have overseen or approved those expenditures and is in a unique position to account for them;

j) Infoway's own disclosures show that $167 million of the $300 million total was consumed by operations and overhead, of which $108 million was personnel costs—

That's $108 million in personnel costs. My God.

—representing a ratio of approximately $50 in administrative expenditure for every dollar of fee revenue—

That's 50:1.

—the program ever generated; no witness has yet explained to this committee how financial controls and value-for-money assessments were applied to those costs year after year, and that explanation must come from the organization's chief financial officer;

k) Mr. Fast has not appeared before this committee at any point during its investigation...with [his] direct knowledge of the financial decisions at the centre of this investigation, and his absence represents a significant and unacceptable gap in the committee's ability to fulfill its accountability mandate on behalf of Canadians;

l) The committee summon David Fast, Chief Financial Officer of Canada Health Infoway for two hours to testify on the financial mismanagement related to the $300 million PrescribeIT program, within one week of the adoption of this motion.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will stop.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much.

Honourable members, I want to tell you the committee rules. You might be wondering about this, because the same motion was brought forward by Mr. Bailey. Even though every member has a right to read a notice, the only member who will be able to raise it is Mr. Bailey.

Just a minute. I'm going to suspend for a few minutes. I have to check with the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We're back to order. It's the same thing. I had a discussion with the clerk—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

What did you just find out with the clerk?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I don't need to tell you.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

You suspended the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm giving you the direction now. That's where I took the floor—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Why did you suspend the meeting?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I suspended the meeting to give you direction on this, because any member—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

On what...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Just a minute. Let me speak. Do you want to speak, to continue to speak?

If I have the microphone, let me speak, and then, if you have questions, you can raise your hand and I will intervene.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I'm interested in your decision, Chair. That's why I'm asking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The decision is this: On the same motion, I wanted to, first of all, tell the members, because the members might be wondering.

The same motion was brought forward by Mr. Bailey. Mr. Mazier had the right to read the notice, but when it comes to debate or discussion, Mr. Bailey will take precedence. That's all I wanted to say.

Now the floor goes back to—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

On a point of clarification, Chair, can we ask for unanimous consent on that motion, then?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

No, you can't.

Mr. Eyolfson, please go ahead. The floor is yours.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Thank you.

I'm glad that people appreciate the importance of this study, and I'm hoping that we, the members, can all see forward to allow this to go to a vote soon.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Eyolfson.

As I said earlier, a list does exist, so I cannot....

I have Dr. Strauss, Mr. Bailey and Madam Konanz next on this list.

Dr. Strauss, the floor is yours.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Okay. Well—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It should be on the subject of HIV, please.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I'm disappointed that we have to continue to talk about the motion further.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You don't need to. If you want to call it, you're welcome to.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

No, but I'm going to have to. I'm disappointed because we have to. I was hoping Mr. Eyolfson would make a more substantial pronouncement than that.

The reason I was hoping for it is that I think he's quite a nice guy, and I think he's a man of his word in general. If he were to say that they were interested in studying PrescribeIT after his HIV study, which everyone here is really anxious to get to, then we wouldn't have to—I don't know—continue our preliminary considerations before moving to the HIV study. As it is, I think we are going to have to continue those for how much time...? I'm not sure: possibly three years. There are more than three years' worth of HIV studies in Manitoba that we could discuss.

For another thing, the last time I was speaking, I said that if a Liberal wanted to put up their hand and discuss whether they would be interested in investigating PrescribeIT after the HIV study—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Strauss—

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I'm getting there—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm telling you right now that my focus—and my duty as chair—is to make sure that I bring you fellows to the subject matter, which is HIV. You can ask me a hundred times the same question and the answer is the same.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Yes—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Right now, in front of us, because we are already at 5:30, I have speakers on the list—

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

—and I would have to, as you know, keep on suspending the meeting until I bring it to the vote or until you guys make a decision otherwise.

My focus right now is that you have the floor.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I have to give you the floor, and you focus your talk, because I've given you the floor time and time again—

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I know and I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

—for the last two weeks so that you focus on this motion that is amended.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I was coming to it because...what I was saying was.... Just as I had asked, through you, whether we would be seeing any Liberal hands, I think I'm going to ask on a different topic, now pertaining to the motion more exactly....

We went through the paper by Dr. Sorokopud-Jones. It's there in black and white pretty clearly that the present epidemic is not now and has not been over the last five years to do with increased rates among the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community. We've learned this in the study that I've been reading into the record. It causes me to wonder whether the Liberals would like to re-evaluate the amendment that added a specific reference to that community to the motion, because it now seems inappropriate to me. In fact, it seems stigmatizing to me.

This is not an epidemic centred on that community, so why would our motion say that we're going to consider the disproportionate impacts on that community? It seems inappropriate, and I don't think that members of that community would appreciate being dragged into this discussion of communicable diseases that is not pertaining to them, according to the study that I have been reading.

I look forward to seeing some Liberal hands go up to address that point. I think it's an important point. I think that before we start the study, we really ought to reconsider that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Strauss, may I suggest something to you?

I can't go back and forth between you and the Liberals, but if you want to have a subamendment—because you cannot submit an amendment to your own amended motion—if one of the members wants to bring in a subamendment, you have every right.

Basically, that is the way to go instead of going back and forth in this way. We want to proceed.

Continue, please.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

As you said, I can't amend the motion, but they have the vote, so nothing's getting passed unless they support it. Beyond that, whether they support it or don't support it, I would appreciate their input. I love bipartisanship. I love collaboration. I would like to know, with this further information now being on the record, whether they would like to retract or backtrack on that amendment.

Do you know what? I think I'll go further. I don't think it might be; I think it is stigmatizing to the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community to have adopted that and to declare in the motion that there are disproportionate impacts on the present epidemic in Manitoba to that community, when quite the contrary seems to be true.

That's not just in the study I was reading. I saw a news bulletin from the public health service in Manitoba underscoring this point, and I think it is an important point. I think that if that misapprehension is further promulgated, it could expose members of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community to further stigmatization.

I'm just putting that on the floor because I want to make as much space as possible for them to provide their input on that consideration. I will continue talking until such time as they want to provide their input.

Resuming our discussion of the study, I think we mentioned that it's a retrospective cohort study of individuals who are referred to the centralized program in Manitoba. By the way, kudos to Manitoba. I practised medicine in Ontario for a long time, and we do not have such a centralized service. Things are quite ad hoc. It's surprising that, even with the centralized service, unfortunately the epidemic seems to be centred there presently.

Whom did they study? The study says:

Adults 18 years or older who received a new HIV diagnosis in Manitoba during the study period and whose previous HIV test result was unknown or negative for HIV were included.

Those are the individuals who were included. The study continues:

People previously diagnosed with HIV who were transferred to care in Manitoba from out-of-province or another country were excluded....

Data were collected from medical records. The variables gathered at the time of HIV diagnosis included age in years, sex assigned at birth (female and male, no intersex was reported)—

That makes me wonder if.... We left out the “A” in the motion, but we included the “I”. If there were no “I”s in this paper, I wonder why one was included and the other was not.

—self-reported gender, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity...substance use and route, and living in a rural or urban area. Houselessness (yes or no) was defined by self-reported houselessness or if the treatment team documented houselessness or unstable housing.

That's unfortunate to me—a bit of editorializing here—because I think that in the introduction, they talked about how the severity of houselessness was associated independently with HIV infection in Manitoba during the study period. It's kind of unfortunate—just reading in the study design—that they decided to treat it as a binary variable when the authors know very well that houselessness is indeed a spectrum.

The outcomes were all diagnoses of STBBIs that a participant had documented from the start of their medical record (earliest result in 2010) until the time of data collection and were recorded. The final date of data inclusion was December 31, 2022—

Oh my. Wow. All of this they found out....

What we're about to find out from the study is from data collected before December 31, 2022, so this has been going on for quite some time. It is now years later that our present study is taking this up—our putative, hypothetical, perhaps-going-to-start HIV study, as soon as some agreement is reached about also studying PrescribeIT.

The paper continues:

STBBIs detected more than 15 days before HIV diagnosis were classified as “before HIV diagnosis”. STBBIs within the time frame of 15 days before to 15 days after HIV diagnosis date were classified as “STBBIs at time of HIV diagnosis”. STBBIs diagnosed more than 15 days after HIV diagnosis were classified as “STBBIs after HIV diagnosis”.

That's pretty simple and logical, but I'm glad they spelled it out. In addition:

STBBIs were defined as the following diagnoses and associated tests: gonorrhea and chlamydia (urine nucleic acid amplification test or swabs of the cervix and/or anus), syphilis (rapid plasma reagin, venereal disease reference laboratory test, and treponemal antibody serologic tests), hepatitis B (serologic tests for hepatitis B surface antigen and hepatitis B core antibody), and HCV (HCV antibody serology and HCV RNA).

Syphilis rapid plasma reagin and venereal disease reference laboratory test titers were used to determine the number of distinct syphilis diagnoses. Titers that remained stable or changed in one direction (i.e. decreased or increased four-fold over time) were recorded as single diagnoses. Titers that increased four-fold after a decrease were considered a syphilis reinfection and recorded as two separate diagnoses. Additional syphilis diagnoses were only recorded if there were decreasing titers, followed by increasing titers, suggestive of treatment between separate infections. Only the first positive treponemal antibody test was recorded because this test remains positive after syphilis infection.

For gonorrhea and chlamydia diagnoses, if a positive test was followed by a negative test and subsequent positive test, the participant was recorded as having two distinct diagnoses. Each additional gonorrhea and chlamydia diagnosis recorded had to be separated from the next recorded case by a negative test result. If the participant had repeated positive gonorrhea and chlamydia tests without an interim negative test, it was assumed that the person had one untreated infection. The [dates] of hepatitis B and C results were recorded as the first positive results only, unless a person had evidence of HCV sustained virologic response, followed by repeat positive testing.

Biases

To avoid measurement bias, several records were reviewed by two reviewers to ensure consistency in data collection between reviewers. All people newly diagnosed with HIV in Manitoba during the study period were included, which minimized selection bias.

That's really impressive. They included all people newly diagnosed with HIV in Manitoba during the study period. I don't think many jurisdictions can say they have such excellent health records. It's probably a function of having this centralized HIV service that they can confidently put in black and white, in their paper, that they caught every single one of the positive HIV tests in this present research. Wow.

It continues:

Statistical methods

The rates of individual STBBIs before, at, and after HIV diagnosis were analyzed by sex at birth, injection drug use status, use of methamphetamines, and housing status. We also calculated the proportion of concomitant STBBIs (none, one, two, three, four or more new STBBIs diagnoses) before, at, and after HIV diagnosis by sex at birth, injection drug use status, use of methamphetamines, and housing status. Finally, we calculated the number of new STBBIs diagnoses in females and males before, at, and after HIV diagnosis.

A Fisher's exact test was used when a chi-square could not be appropriately applied for qualitative variables and the Mann-Whitney U test for quantitative variables. The crude and adjusted relative risks (RRs) were calculated to identify the factors—

[An hon. member]

The chair wants to interrupt.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Oh. I'm sorry, Chair. I'm just getting going.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Dr. Strauss, I know you are going to keep going for a long time. We have Mr. Bailey and Madame Konanz on the list.

Unfortunately, I have to suspend again—

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I think it's a great cliffhanger. I know everyone is excited for the results.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

—so the debate on this motion will continue at the next meeting.

[The meeting was suspended at 5:40 p.m., Tuesday, June 2]

[The meeting resumed at 3:36 p.m., Thursday, June 4]

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I call the meeting to order.

We will now resume meeting number 34 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

I would like to remind participants of the following points.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.

For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. At the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Whenever an honourable member raises a point of order, I would ask the person who's speaking to stop right there so I can entertain the point of order.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding.

To the honourable members—I'm not picking on one member or another; I'm saying this generally—right now, we are not on the subject matter of the study because there's a motion in place, so I would request that all questions come to the chair, not to the analysts. Analysts do the non-partisan work when a study is in place. They provide us with all the research and all the material, and I appreciate that. We can always go back to them to ask for help. Right now, it is sometimes too partisan, so I would ask members to refrain from going to the analysts in this situation.

When it comes to the interpreters, I have to consider their health and safety. We're very fortunate to have three doctors on this committee. They understand medical terms very well. If we have to speak for a long time, let's slow down the pace so that the interpreters can interpret. That would be greatly appreciated, and the interpreters would appreciate it as well. If one person is speaking for a long time, I might give the interpreters a health break periodically—five or 10 minutes in between—by suspending the meeting.

With that, pursuant to Standing Order 108 and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, September 23, 2025, the committee shall resume its study of Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty.

The committee suspended its meeting on Tuesday, June 2, during a debate on the motion by Dr. Eyolfson. However, I received a request under Standing Order 106(4) to convene a meeting to discuss a request to study the PrescribeIT program, invite the Minister of Health, Marjorie Michel, and summons the former Canada Health Infoway CEO, Michael Green, to testify as part of the committee's investigation.

As a procedural reminder, paragraph 20.98 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, “If the committee has an ongoing, yet suspended, meeting, it would resume the suspended meeting within the timelines prescribed by Standing Order 106(4) and decide how it wishes to consider the request.” It is up to the committee to decide whether it wishes to consider the request of Standing Order 106(4) or continue with the debate of the suspended meeting. Therefore, at this time, I would look to see if a member wishes to move a dilatory motion to consider the Standing Order 106(4) request.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay. There is a dilatory motion, so I will ask the clerk to take a vote. Thank you.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I'm sorry. Can you repeat what was just said?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

At this time, we are voting on whether or not to consider the Standing Order 106(4) request.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Now the floor goes to Mr. Bailey. It was going to go to Dr. Strauss, but he is not here today. I send him sincere condolences on behalf of the committee, because his dog passed away.

We have Mr. Genuis. Welcome to the committee.

The floor is with Mr. Bailey and then Madam Konanz.

Mr. Bailey, please go ahead.

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

On a point of order, before Mr. Bailey begins, I wonder if we could hear what the current list is from the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The current list had Dr. Strauss, but because he's not here, I'm jumping to the next speakers, which are Mr. Bailey and Madam Konanz.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I'd like to go after him.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

The list is very clear now. We have Mr. Bailey, Madam Konanz, Mr. Genuis and then Mr. Mazier. There are four people on the list.

Mr. Bailey, please go ahead.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Chair and honourable colleagues.

As Conservatives, we've always placed the health and safety—

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, are we speaking to the amendment? I just want to clarify that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We are speaking to the motion as amended.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Okay. We're on the main motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

No. It's the main motion as amended by Dr. Strauss.

Is that clear, Madam Sidhu?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Yes, Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Is it clear to all honourable members? Thank you.

I'm sorry, Mr. Bailey. Please go ahead. Thank you for respecting that. As soon as a point of order is called, if we stop, it makes it easier for the interpreters.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Chair and honourable colleagues, as Conservatives, we've always placed the health and safety of all Canadians at the forefront through practical, accountable and results-driven policies that respect taxpayers and deliver measurable outcomes.

We support this motion under Standing Order 108 for an urgent study on the rising rates of HIV infections in Canada, with a particular focus on the public health emergency declared by the Province of Manitoba.

After years of federal Liberal management of health programs and coordination efforts, we are witnessing troubling localized surges that demand serious scrutiny, transparency and concrete recommendations to protect vulnerable communities and ensure that every dollar spent produces real results for families across the country.

On May 7, 2026, Manitoba took the serious step of declaring a public health emergency because new HIV diagnoses had climbed dramatically from just 90 cases in 2019 to 328 in 2025, representing more than a tripling of cases in six years. In 2024, the province reported a rate of 19.5 cases per 100,000 people, which is over three and a half times the national average of 5.5 per 100,000. Early data for 2026 already shows around 120 new cases in the first quarter alone, and projections suggest that without effective intervention, the province could face as many as 1,080 new cases by 2028.

This crisis is compounded by rising syphilis infections, co-infections and heartbreaking perinatal transmissions, with one infant born with HIV in 2024 and another in 2025. These are preventable tragedies that underscore the urgency of our work.

Nationally, Canada had 2,288 HIV diagnoses in 2024, reflecting a modest 3.3% decrease from the previous year, yet the national rate stands at 5.5 diagnoses per 100,000 people. While some provinces show stability or slight improvements, the prairie hot spots are Manitoba and Saskatchewan, with rates of about 18.6 per 100,000 people in the latter.

The overall picture is the wrong direction. Conservatives have consistently championed evidence-based policy-making and proposed studies to give us the chance to take a hard look at questions about why, despite substantial federal investments over many years, certain regions and populations continue to experience escalating challenges. We must examine the data thoroughly, identify the gaps in prevention and care and recommend practical solutions that prioritize outcomes over announcements.

This study may pay close attention to the disproportionate impacts on specific communities as outlined in the motion. Indigenous people are tragically overrepresented in these new diagnoses, especially in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Historical factors, combined with ongoing realities such as remote geography, housing instability, barriers to culturally safe care and intersecting social determinants, have contributed to these disparities.

Conservatives believe in empowering indigenous communities with practical tools, supporting self-determination, ensuring sufficient use of funding through organizations like the first nations and Inuit health branch and delivering services that combine cultural respect and modern medical excellence. We need to hear directly from indigenous health organizations about what is working on the ground and where federal supports can be made more responsive and less bureaucratic.

Women in Manitoba are bearing a particularly heavy burden, accounting for more than 50% of the new cases in recent years, compared to roughly 32% nationally. Many of these women are under 40, and the intersections with heterosexual transmission, injection drug sites, caregiving responsibilities, economic pressures and the experience of violence often delay testing and treatment.

Conservatives support family-centred approaches that strengthen prenatal screening, ensure rapid linkage to care and provide holistic support so that mothers and children can thrive. Even a single perinatal transmission is one too many, and our study must explore how federal prevention tools can better reach these women in real-world settings.

In the 2SLGBTQI+ communities, stigma continues to create barriers to testing and consistent care. Proven strategies such as regular testing, education on risk reduction and access to tools like PrEP have shown success in the past when implemented with clarity and personal responsibility at their core.

We must build on those models while ensuring that campaigns reach beyond urban centres into rural and northern realities, where needs differ. Rural, northern and remote communities face their own distinct challenges: long travel distances, a shortage of providers, limited pharmacy access and difficulty with follow-up care. Regions like Prairie Mountain Health and Northern Health Region in Manitoba illustrate these issues vividly.

Conservatives understand rural Canada intimately, and we believe federal programs should cut unnecessary red tape, support effective telemedicine and enable flexible delivery that respects provincial and local innovation rather than imposing one-size-fits-all Ottawa solutions.

Individuals experiencing homelessness, mental health challenges and substance use disorders find themselves caught in a dangerous syndemic. Unstable housing increases exposure through survival, sex work or shared equipment; mental health struggles affect treatment adherence; and injection drug use, particularly involving—I'm going to say this slowly so the interpreters get it—methamphetamine and fentanyl, drive a significant portion of transmission in Manitoba, sometimes linked to up to 70% of the cases.

Conservatives advocate a balanced, compassionate approach to harm reduction. Needle exchange programs and supervised consumption sites can play a role in immediate risk. However, they must be paired with strong pathways to treatment, recovery, housing and economic opportunities. Models that focus solely on enabling use without emphasizing getting people healthy have not reversed broader addictions and overdose crises in many cities. This study should examine integrated solutions that break cycles and then manage them indefinitely.

Turning to the federal role, Canadians rightly expect transparency and accountability for how their tax dollars are spent on health initiatives. The federal initiative to address HIV/AIDS and broader sexually transmitted and blood-borne infection efforts channel tens of millions annually. With community grants, surveillance, research and awareness programs led by the Public Health Agency of Canada in coordination with other departments, we must scrutinize whether these investments are yielding the desired reduction in infections, particularly in hot spot regions.

Prevention strategies include PrEP scale-up, education campaigns and condom distribution, each effective among high-need populations. Do current awareness efforts truly connect with indigenous audiences, rural residents and those facing substance use in culturally relevant and direct ways? Testing and treatment access, including rapid point-of-care options and progress towards the 95-95-95 targets of diagnosis, treatment and viral suppression, deserve closer examination because gaps remain stubborn in remote and marginalized communities.

Harm reduction initiatives warrant balanced review. While clean needle programs save lives in the short term, Conservatives stress that they cannot stand alone without robust emphasis on recovery and treatment on demand.

There is a risk of normalizing addiction amid the ongoing fentanyl and methamphetamine crises, which fuel injection-related HIV transmissions. Public awareness efforts must have clear, evidence-based messaging rather than vague approaches, and they should be tailored to indigenous languages and formats that resonate with northern and 2SLGBTQI+ audiences. Intergovernmental coordination among the Public Health Agency of Canada, provincial authorities like Manitoba Health, indigenous organizations and frontline providers is critical.

Delays in data sharing or mismatches in funding can cost precious weeks or months in outbreak responses. This study should explore how federal levers can support provincial innovations without duplication or excessive bureaucracy.

Witness testimony will be invaluable. Officials from the Public Health Agency of Canada can detail national surveillance systems and response times to Manitoba's alert. The Minister of Health should address accountability for outcomes and any coordination bottlenecks. Representatives from Manitoba Health can outline specific federal supports requested versus those received and how emergency measures are unfolding on the ground.

Indigenous health organizations will bring perspective on culturally safe models and funding efficiencies. Frontline community organizations and medical experts can speak to daily barriers and clinical innovations, while individuals with lived experience can offer powerful insight into what actually turns lives around.

Whether through consistent treatment adherence, stable housing or recovery-focused programs, at least two dedicated meetings provide a foundation, but we should be prepared to dig deeper into the program, evaluations and return on investment analysis. Past reviews have not led to gains in awareness and knowledge exchange but to weaker performance on concrete infection reduction metrics, and that pattern must change.

The proposed timeline matters deeply. A reporting deadline of July 22, 2026, combined with the flexibility for summer meetings if the House, when it rises, provides authority for the chair to schedule sessions, plus the ability to seek House permission to table the report afterwards, will demonstrate that the committee takes the active public health emergency seriously.

Manitoba's situation cannot wait until fall. Conservatives have always pushed for the efficient use of parliamentary time that puts people ahead of procedural delays. A focused report emerging from this work can deliver actionable recommendations on immediate federal levers, such as improved data protocols, targeted funding pilots for rural infrastructure, reduced administrative hurdles and balanced harm reduction paired with recovery metrics.

Let us consider the broader context and lessons from history. Canada has made meaningful progress against HIV over decades through scientific advances, community dedication and focused policy. Previous Conservative governments emphasized strong surveillance, targeted funding and measurable accountability. In recent years, despite continued or increased spending in some areas, we have seen localized surges that reveal gaps where social determinants, chronic housing shortages, the addiction epidemic, family breakdown and the economic pressures intersect with health delivery.

We must learn from jurisdictions and models that successfully balance biomedical tools with behaviour, prevention, personal models, responsibility and the recovery pathway. Strong border controls against importing illicit drugs, support for law enforcement tackling fentanyl networks and economic policies that lift people out of poverty all form part of the comprehensive national strategy.

To expand on Manitoba's emergency in great depth, the tripling of cases from 90 in 2019 to 328 in 2025, the fact that more than half are among women under 40, the regional concentration in prairie, mountain and northern health areas and the syphilis co-infection surge all point to a syndemic that requires coordinated action.

We should ask witnesses what precise federal resources Manitoba requested and whether delivery was timely. How can successful provincial testing expansion, PrEP, and outreach and community initiatives be amplified nationally while fully respecting jurisdictional roles? On indigenous health, the overrepresentation demands attention to self-determination, efficient funding flows and integration of traditional knowledge with evidence-based medicine.

Flexible block funding models that let communities set priorities could yield better results than top-down programs. Rural and northern access issues deserve extended discussion. Transportation barriers, pharmacy shortages in remote areas and specialist wait times are not abstract. They prevent people from staying on treatment and achieving viral suppression.

Conservatives favour federal transfers that empower provinces and territories to innovate with mobile clinics, provider incentives, and technology solutions tailored to local needs. The substance use dimension links directly to the wider opioid and stimulant crisis. Data shows that injection drug use is driving many Manitoba cases, and that reinforces the need for oversight and a safer supply approach and to make this a clear priority.

Manitoba cases on the treatment-first model.... Comparing outcomes between recovery-focused programs and harm reduction-only approaches will provide valuable evidence for recommendations.

Federal funding deserves rigorous value-for-money scrutiny. Tens of millions are flowing annually through the federal initiative, yet outcomes in the prairie provinces lag. We must trace multi-year allocations, examine the history of underspending or inefficiencies, and calculate the true return on investment. Lifetime costs of antiviral treatments for one person run into hundreds of thousands of dollars, making effective prevention not only compassionate but financially responsible.

International and historical comparisons can inform our work. Canada's progress towards UNAIDS targets in hot spots versus other countries that have achieved sharper declines through combined strategies, and lessons from the 1980s and 1990s responses, which paired medical advances with clear behavioural messaging, remain relevant today.

In preparing for witness sessions—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Bailey, I can give you one minute, if you want, for a break.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

The point I'm trying to make to the committee is that I investigated all of these 3,400 studies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I didn't mean that you had only one minute. I meant that I would give you one minute for a break.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I'm good, unless you think the interpreters need a one-minute break.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

No. They're good.

You can continue.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

In preparing for witness selections, committee members might consider targeted questions.

Every new infection carries profound personal, family and societal costs beyond the human suffering of diagnosis. With treatment adherence challenges and stigma, there are substantial long-term health care expenses that strain provincial budgets and federal transfers alike. Prevention through smart, practical policies saves both lives and money. This study would allow us to honour those living with HIV and those at risk by converting testimony into tangible improvements and reducing new cases through better coordination, efficient spending and policies that work for rural families, indigenous communities, women and individuals battling addiction and homelessness.

We can return to the core statistics repeatedly for emphasis. Manitoba's rate remains dramatically higher than the national figure. The women's share of cases exceeds national averages significantly. Indigenous overrepresentation persists, and injection-related transmission intersects with the broader drug poisoning crises. These patterns have developed over years, and a thorough committee examination offers the best path to course correction.

Conservatives stand prepared to collaborate constructively on a report that prioritizes vulnerable Canadians, demands accountability from programs, and charts a pragmatic path forward. By supporting this motion and conducting the study with diligence, even through the summer if required, we fulfill our duty to evidence-based governance and the health of our nation.

Continuing with further details on prevention strategies, PrEP has demonstrated high efficiencies when adhered to consistently, yet real-world adherence in unstable housing or active substance use situations can falter. Education on condom use, partner communication and regular testing remain foundational.

Conservatives support comprehensive yet responsible education approaches that include personal agency and health decision-making on the treatment cascade. Shortfalls in diagnosis rates, timely initiation of antivirals and sustained viral suppression in high-risk cohorts need addressing. Some studies show lower suppression rates among certain indigenous persons who inject drugs, heightening the need for wraparound support. Harm reduction balance is essential. Acknowledging the lives saved by clean needles does not preclude recognizing data that links unchecked drug use to ongoing transmission.

We should advocate for a housing-first model paired with treatment, enforcement against dealers fuelling the crisis, and metrics that track movement towards recovery, rather than perpetual harm management.

Public awareness campaigns have sometimes fallen short in measurable impact. Direct audience-specific messaging via northern radio or an indigenous storytelling format and clear school programs on healthy choices could strengthen outcomes. Intergovernmental coordination benefits from national standards that do not override provincial flexibility, drawing best practices from other federations and creating rapid funding mechanisms for declared emergencies.

The human stories behind the numbers deserve reflection. Imagine a northern community member describing multi-day travel for medication refills, or a woman facing caregiving duties while managing her own diagnosis, or an indigenous leader outlining successful community-led testing combined with cultural supports. Generalized examples from lived experience illustrate that fragmented services prolong suffering while integrated recovery programs restore hope and productivity. These voices must inform every recommendation.

This study represents more than procedural work. It is an opportunity to move beyond rhetoric towards actionable, compassionate and fiscally responsible solutions. Conservatives stand ready to collaborate on findings that protect the most vulnerable, hold programs accountable and reverse these concerning trends. Let us approve the motion, conduct the study thoroughly and deliver a report that serves all Canadians.

We have ample material here to explore each theme at length, pose additional questions, examine hypothetical scenarios from witness testimony and reiterate the call for practical outcomes grounded in evidence and common sense. By doing so diligently, we hold up our share of responsibility to public health and the well-being of our nation.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Bailey. It was a very good pace. I appreciate that. There were no disturbances. I appreciate that from other members as well.

Now we'll go to Madam Konanz.

The floor is yours.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

As I mentioned in the last meeting, this study on HIV is extremely important. I'm hoping we can move forward with it as soon as possible. As mentioned, we need to make sure that the members around this table commit to a PrescribeIT investigation before the summer.

I don't think I even need to tell anyone around this table, or the public who are watching, about the importance of this study in Canada right now and throughout the world. In Canada, that's what the focus is going to be on, because it obviously needs attention right now, similar to our motion for Ebola. That was boots on the ground...and something we needed to look at as soon as possible, but that was turned down by the Liberals at this table.

Moving on with this HIV study would be extremely important, because we all know that years ago, when HIV and AIDS were first diagnosed and hit our world, it was horrible. It was a horrible, terrible time for all of us.

I was living in Los Angeles at the time. As you know, in the eighties, it was one of the ground zeros for AIDS and HIV. Quite a few people I knew contracted AIDS at the time, and also people I didn't know, but there was so little known about it that people were dying right and left. I'm sure many people around this table know some people who have died of this. It was an agonizing death at the time. Obviously we have medication now that helps prolong life, which is a miracle and can be credited to the research that was done by scientists at the time and continues to be done.

I have family members who contracted it, unfortunately. I also have a family member who died not of AIDS, but had AIDS. Years of having the disease affected his mental health and he committed suicide. It was devastating to our family.

On hearing that this is raising its ugly head again, there's no way that we shouldn't be able to do this research, especially through the summer, at this committee.

One thing that's interesting is that if you go online, as mentioned by my colleague, you see that hundreds of research projects and scientific studies have been done on AIDS and HIV—even some just recently—so we have to make sure that we don't waste any time with it. When we pass this eventually, of course, we will need to do this research. We need to make sure that we bring in the latest findings. A lot of research has been done that's sitting on shelves, collecting dust. This needs to be current.

If you look at the studies, as my colleague Mr. Bailey mentioned, a large percentage of AIDS patients right now and people with AIDS and HIV have been using meth and fentanyl, because drug addiction has become rampant and out of control in the last decade. I'm sure there's out-of-control drug use.... Every person sitting around this table sees drug addicts walking around their cities and towns every day. It's something we never used to see before. Parents are going to playgrounds with their children and making sure they do a sweep for needles before the kids can even use the playground, which is something we never had to do even five years ago. We know that those needles may have diseases and may have been used by somebody with HIV/AIDS.

The study we do here has to focus on that. I'd like that to include research in rural towns, as I mentioned the last time I spoke. It needs to be done in rural communities like my own.

Also, as I mentioned before, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay has one of the highest senior populations. As I mentioned in the study I quoted on Tuesday, it's really hard to tell if somebody has HIV in an older population, especially if that person doesn't have a family doctor, as thousands of people in my riding and throughout Canada don't, so they cannot be diagnosed properly. Even when someone has a family doctor, if they haven't seen these types of symptoms before, they may get it wrong. That will need to be part of this study.

A couple of studies have been done recently, in 2025, in Canada. We may want to get one of those scientists in here to speak about this. One is a 2025 study by Hopwood-Raja, Tseng and Sheehan called “CHANGE-Rx: frailty, falls, polypharmacy, and inappropriate medication use”. The other is a 2025 study by Collins, Cunningham and Vaughan called “Promoting Healthy Aging in People With HIV-Into a New Era”.

There are studies coming out on, in particular, HIV and the aging process. These studies explore links between frailty, falling and excess medications in people with HIV. One report says:

As people with HIV age, their burden of non-HIV medications can increase.

Researchers found that more than 50% of older adults with HIV take at least five non-HIV drugs.

Taking five or more non-HIV medications was associated with an increased risk of frailty and falls.

That is not only difficult for the person with HIV. It's also an incredible burden on our already burdened health system and over-committed hospitals.

Thanks to HIV treatment (antiretroviral therapy, ART) many people with HIV are living long, healthy lives. The impact of ART is so profound that researchers increasingly project that many ART users will live well into their senior years.

As ART users age, the risk for comorbidities increases, just as it does for people without HIV. Older people in general tend to have health issues such as high blood pressure, high levels of bad cholesterol (LDL-C), and so on. As they age, people with HIV are being prescribed more medicines to manage these comorbidities.

Researchers have found that older people without HIV are taking multiple prescribed medicines for comorbidities—this is called polypharmacy. Studies have found that although multiple medications may be necessary for some people, in other people the prescriptions may be excessive and may increase the risk of problems such as falls.

Of course, this becomes even more prevalent when the prescriber may not even know that the person has AIDS.

A team of researchers involved in a study called CHANGE-HIV analyzed health-related information collected from 440 older people...with HIV at seven major Canadian clinics.

They were aged 69 years or older. Ninety-two per cent were male at birth, and 8% were female. The major ethno-racial groups were white at 76% and Black at 13%. They had all been diagnosed with HIV for at least 26 years.

The report continues:

In reviewing the data, researchers made the following findings about all participants:

16% were frail.

21% had experienced a fall in the past six months.

54% had polypharmacy (taking five or more non-HIV medicines)....

nearly 50% had what the researchers called “potentially inappropriate medications”.

the most common comorbidities were abnormal lipid levels...high blood pressure...and cancer....

As mentioned earlier, doctors prescribe medicines to manage comorbidities. Apart from their intended effects, some medicines can have side effects. Specifically, the researchers assessed participants’ non-HIV medicines to find out if they had an inhibiting effect on the neurotransmitter acetylcholine....

I'm sorry if I pronounced it wrong. Was that okay?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

It's acetylcholine. You pronounced it correctly.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thanks.

They were interfering with messages sent between cells, particularly between brain cells, or brain cells and the nerves and muscles, and that could increase the risk of dizziness and falls:

Statistical analysis found that in participants who had a high burden of [these] drugs and/or [other] drugs that caused them to be drowsy during the daytime, the risk of frailty was increased about three times above that of people who did not have a high burden of such drugs.

According to researchers, the most common PIMs were proton pump inhibitors, aspirin, testosterone or benzodiazepines. They said, “For every additional PIM, researchers found that the risk of falls increased by 25%.” The analysis showed that “doctors prescribe medicines to treat or prevent comorbidities.” They said:

Sometimes it is medically necessary for people to be taking many non-HIV medicines. This is often the case after a heart attack or stroke or in people with multiple or complex underlying health conditions.

It some cases, a person's health changes and it may no longer be necessary to be on those drugs. They may not need to be on as many non-HIV medications as before, and they need regular checkups with their physician and pharmacist, which can be useful, but as we know, many people don't have a family doctor and have to go to a walk-in clinic or the emergency room. Many times, these particular drugs are not going to be checked for that. There's a worry of that. Researchers said:

Studies done in Switzerland, the UK and other countries suggest that as people with HIV age and accumulate comorbidities, their risk of polypharmacy increases. These studies support the findings from CHANGE-HIV.

This report also said, “The researchers noted that participants were overwhelmingly male, and a majority were White.” This may limit the findings, they say, which is why we need to look at this further.

The report went on:

The Canadian researchers encourage clinicians caring for people with HIV to “incorporate a geriatric approach to managing non-HIV co-medications and evaluating their anticholinergic and sedating properties.”

The researchers made the following statement: “Addressing polypharmacy, PIMs, anticholinergic and sedating medications should be prioritized in older adults living with HIV. Identifying and deprescribing/tapering [some of these drugs] would be a reasonable first step that can be accomplished during a clinic visit.

Again, we have to make sure they're able to make that clinic visit.

They said, “There are multiple tools, including clinician-focused websites, that can provide guidance on how to safely deprescribe medications”.

I'm going to let my colleague continue, but I want to say that we need to make sure we move on with this study as soon as possible, which is why we're looking forward to seeing the Minister of Health and Michael Green come to this committee to speak with us about PrescribeIT.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much, Madam Konanz.

Now we will go to Mr. Genuis.

The floor is yours, Mr. Genuis. The topic is HIV.

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

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. It's good to see you in the chair. I fondly remember our days of working together on the immigration committee and in various other places. We've had a lot of good discussions about various issues, domestic and international, over the years.

It's good to be here at the health committee, supporting my colleagues and subbing in for Mr. Strauss, who I know has distinguished himself in many ways already in his early career as a parliamentarian and as a doctor. We don't end up with a lot of doctors in Parliament, and it's an honour to serve with him. I'm married to a doctor, which is not the same thing, needless to say.

I am pleased to speak to this motion.

I think it's important to provide some context for where I see this motion coming from. I want to be careful not to be too definitive about the motives of some aspects of it, but this is the sort of thing we have seen before at other committees, in my experience. There are different aspects of the context.

This motion essentially proposes to set aspects of the committee's agenda. It's an agenda-scheduling motion, and it has various provisions around a particular study on HIV and syphilis. It also has various other elements of scheduling—prescribing a minimum number of meetings and potential witnesses.

This motion also involves a proposal for summer work. I want to commend the committee for the interest in doing committee work during the summer. I've generally been of the view that committees can and should work from time to time during the summer, not only because I fundamentally enjoy committee work but also because, for better or worse, we now have the tools of virtual Parliament. When there are big, emerging issues and members are not able to travel to Ottawa, being able to do a few two-hour meetings doesn't dramatically cut into what we're otherwise doing in the summer, which is primarily, of course, focused on engaging with our constituents. The motion involves continuing to work into the summer. I commend the committee for its willingness to do this.

I'm on the human resources committee. We tried to get a study of youth unemployment going last summer, which I saw very much as an urgent situation. Sadly, there wasn't appetite on our committee to do that. In that regard, I am hopeful that this might reflect a trend across different committees of being willing to take on important public issues during the summer break.

Having said that, though, I think there's another piece of context here, which is that members of this committee have been doing their best to get to the bottom of a major IT scandal in this Liberal government—the PrescribeIT scandal.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

You have a motion—

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, just for clarification, I think it was two weeks ago that when we said they were filibustering, Mr. Bailey said that Mr. Genuis was not here.

They are not filibustering. Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It's okay. Let me give Mr. Genuis the floor.

Mr. Genuis, if you can keep your comments HIV- and syphilis-related, it will be much appreciated.

Please go ahead. The floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Chair. I think it's fairly obvious that this is precisely what I was talking about. I appreciate your clarifying that for Ms. Sidhu.

We're discussing a motion on scheduling the work of the committee. There's a proposal in this motion to schedule meetings on HIV and syphilis. The context of that scheduling request has to include the other items the committee has on its prospective agenda.

I know this motion was moved while another study was on the floor in a previous session of the same meeting. This was also moved in the context of the committee undertaking efforts to prosecute the PrescribeIT scandal. Opposition members of the committee have been, I understand, united in requesting certain information about that scandal and requesting an appearance by the minister, as well as some central figures involved in that scandal.

Sometimes, what you have at a committee procedurally are efforts by the opposition to study an issue that is, frankly, potentially embarrassing for the government. Then the government puts forward a study on a legitimately important issue, but they do so with impure motives. That is, they do so with the goal of displacing what is otherwise the important work of the committee: holding the government accountable for a scandal.

You have at this committee efforts by the opposition to say that hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted on a system that was quietly discontinued. Where did the money go? Then you have a motion put forward on—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Genuis, please, I would like you to focus on HIV and syphilis, because I want this committee to function smoothly. It was functioning very smoothly when Mr. Bailey and Madam Konanz were speaking. I don't want a back-and-forth going on.

I know you have a lot of experience. At the last meeting or the meeting before, your colleagues made some kind of intervention about how they hadn't brought Mr. Genuis in to filibuster. I don't want that impression to go out, because you are a very respectable member. You are very knowledgeable and have a lot to contribute.

Let's focus on HIV and syphilis-related issues. Thank you. That would be very kind.

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

Chair, I certainly intend to be very kind in my intervention, so thank you for that. I'm going to comport myself in accordance with the rules, which I know you will enforce as chair. There may be a difference between the things you want me to talk about and the things the rules prescribe in terms of what I can talk about. I will be very much on the topic of the motion.

It is a scheduling motion. The motion proposes that the committee study certain matters and, in the process of studying those matters, not study other matters. The question of whether the committee studies HIV and AIDS right now, according to this motion, is a question of the committee's agenda. It's a question of how the committee manages its agenda, so I think it's natural that we would have a discussion of the committee's agenda in the context of that and alternatives.

That is simply to say that you have a context in which Liberals brought forward this motion on HIV and syphilis while there was an effort at the same time at the committee to pursue the matter of the PrescribeIT scandal. It might appear to the public that the government is putting forward this study with the goal of displacing a potential discussion of PrescribeIT. I think the public would probably want us to look for a way to respect the seriousness of the subject matter of this motion while also addressing the issue of PrescribeIT, not allowing one issue to displace the other, but taking an approach that respects the importance of both issues.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I really want to object to this. My colleague's hometown has an emergency situation. That is why we brought this motion. I just want to let Mr. Genuis, who is not a permanent member of this committee, know why this motion is important for my colleague.

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

On the same point of order, I'll just observe that having a different opinion is not a point of order. The member is welcome to be on the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Let me put it this way. Right now, the motion in front of us is not on PrescribeIT. It is on HIV and syphilis. We cannot presume what the motives of the opposition are or what the motives of the government are. I would request that members on both sides not go there.

Let's focus on the very important issue that's in front of the committee right now, which is a particular study. Mr. Mazier and Mr. Eyolfson are from Manitoba. That's where it started. We're focusing on people dying with HIV in Manitoba. When the PrescribeIT program comes up, I will give time to the speakers. That's what I always intend to do, because I don't want to interrupt you, Mr. Genuis. I just want this committee to function well. I don't take this position to embarrass anyone.

PrescribeIT is not the subject matter of this motion, so I would like you to focus. This is not scheduling either. Right now, we are studying a motion and should focus on that motion, please. I really wish it. It would make my life easier, and it will make the committee work very cordially moving forward.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I know that my constituents' primary expectation of me is that I work hard to make your life as easy as possible when I'm here.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I'm just teasing, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I have no doubt that you work hard. You work very hard. I commend you for that.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Sidhu, you have asked me not to be too definitive regarding suggestions about the motives of members, and I respect that rejoinder.

What I was working up to is this. We have an amendment to this motion that, if it were to pass, would make the motion very fair and supportable. It's to try to establish the conditions in which the work of the committee can unfold in a way that would be respectful of the work we are trying to do on PrescribeIT. It would also be respectful of the desire to proceed with a study on HIV and syphilis.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

I want clarification. Mr. Genuis is mentioning an amendment. My understanding is that we're debating the main motion. Can I get some clarification on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

This is the motion as amended, but this amended motion does not have anything to do with PrescribeIT.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

It's about scheduling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It only sets up the deadline. That's it. It's not even scheduling anything. There are two meetings. He can talk about the meetings that are part of the scheduling. He can talk about how many meetings have to be scheduled and who is coming. When those people come in, those questions can be asked.

I will not stop you from asking questions on any other subject, but right now, my focus is on getting this motion off the floor so we can move on with the next study. It does not note scheduling. It only says that scheduling is particular to this motion regarding HIV and syphilis and is on the number of meetings and who's going to come in. That's where our focus should be.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Perhaps I can respond to the parliamentary secretary. She's correct in pointing out that there is no amendment currently on the floor. What I said was that I was working my way up to proposing an amendment, while explaining a bit of background on it. There is currently no amendment on the floor, but stay tuned; there will be one on the floor in about 90 seconds, if there aren't any intervening points of order. If there are, it will be a little more than 90 seconds.

The amendment to this scheduling motion proposes to establish, in the scheduling of the study on HIV, meetings that would also be set aside for a discussion on PrescribeIT. It would allow the committee to undertake studies on both of these issues and to do so within the timeline prescribed.

I understand that a version of the amendment was previously sent to the clerk under embargo, so perhaps I will ask the clerk to distribute that to colleagues. I will read the amendment as is.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I'd like to speak to the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

First, I need the amendment. I'm not going to do that in advance.

[An hon. member]

There are two of us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

No, I'm telling you right now that I will not look for hands raised.

First of all, let me focus on his amendment. I can't prejudge who's going to speak. I will give every member the opportunity to raise their hand. I'll figure out who to give the time to.

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

Madam Clerk, you have that amendment. You can distribute it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We will suspend to distribute it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I call the meeting back to order.

I will suspend the meeting until Tuesday.

[The meeting was suspended at 5:03 p.m., Thursday, June 4]

[The meeting resumed at 3:57 p.m., Tuesday, June 9]

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome. We are now resuming meeting number 34 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. I would like to remind participants of the following points.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. At the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

On this committee, we have two honourable members filling in for others. I would love to welcome honourable member of Parliament Mr. Genuis to the meeting virtually.

Welcome.

We also have Ms. Zahid.

Ms. Zahid, welcome to this meeting as well.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, September 23, 2025, the committee shall resume its study of Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty.

As you know, the committee was suspended on Thursday, June 4.

There's one comment I want to make. I know all the honourable members work very hard. I'm sure your constituents commend you for that. I will tell you another thing. There is a staff here. We will soon be moving into the summer recess break or constituency time, whatever you want to call it. We are elected to do this 24-7, 365 days a year. These staff members—support staff, interpreters and technical staff—they plan their lives as well. This is time they want to spend with their families, and they plan their trips long before we schedule things.

When we schedule things during summer, I will try to make sure we keep that perspective and keep in mind that support staff, like analysts, clerks, interpreters and other support staff, have their family time as well as their planned vacations.

Let's get back to it.

During the suspension of the debate on the motion by Dr. Eyolfson and the amendment moved by member of Parliament Mr. Genuis, I had to give this a lot of thought before I came up with this decision. Based on section 12.12:

An amendment is out of order, procedurally, if:

it is irrelevant to the main motion (i.e., it deals with a matter foreign to the main motion, exceeds its scope or introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion with notice)....

Therefore, I rule that the amendment is out of order.

We will go back to Dr. Eyolfson's motion.

Mr. Genuis, you have the floor. Then it will be Mr. Mazier, Mr. Bailey, Ms. Konanz and Dr. Strauss.

Dr. Strauss, our sincere condolences to you on the passing of your dog. We totally understand. Our hearts and prayers are with you and your family.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I have a point of order.

Mr. Bailey is being subbed in by Mr. Genuis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Genuis already has the floor. Mr. Bailey will not be there.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

It's further down the list. Would Mr. Genuis go back into his spot, or will you go by him?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

No, he won't. I think it's okay. If he wants to be, then after Dr. Strauss, I can put him on the speaking list. Unless he wants to....

Mr. Genuis and I work along well. I'll give him all the time that he needs.

After Ms. Konanz, we'll have Dr. Strauss, and then—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Can I go after Mr. Eyolfson?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You're the next one after Mr. Genuis. Let me finish your turn. There are some other members now.

All right. Mr. Genuis, my dear friend, the floor is with you. We are talking about the motion brought forward by Dr. Eyolfson and the amendment brought by Dr. Strauss, having to do with HIV and syphilis. Please continue with that topic. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is good to see you, although I have to begin by highlighting my profound disappointment at your ruling. It occurs to me that this sets a dangerous precedent insofar as when you have a motion put forward on a study—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Genuis, you can either challenge my ruling or just go back to the topic that I gave you. You have only two choices.

I understand. You already expressed your dissatisfaction. That's fine. You have every right to do that, but now I'm going to ask you to focus on Mr. Eyolfson's motion, amended by Dr. Strauss. That's where your focus should be. Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, my focus has always been and will remain on the subject matter of the motion before the committee, in accordance with the rules for adhering to that subject matter. I had barely spoken for about 20 seconds before you intervened again. I'm not sure what the goal of interrupting me so quickly into my remarks is, but I will assure you that whatever your objective is in doing so, it's unlikely to be realized.

The motion before the committee is a motion that proposes a specific study. It also contains various provisions on the way in which the study would unfold. I have a number of different amendments that I will propose that relate to how that study unfolds, that seek to help us get to a consensus among parties. This is because for studies to proceed well, there does need to be some level of consensus.

There may be new members on the government side who are less familiar with this reality and who think that an illegitimate majority can simply bang their way through to getting what they want at committee, but that is inevitably not how committees work in practice. The sooner government members start treating opposition members and opposition concerns with respect, the sooner the committee will get back to the important work it needs to do.

Conservative members are very supportive of studying the issues around HIV and syphilis, as well as being committed to getting to the bottom of the Liberal PrescribeIT scandal. As such, we are hoping to be able to proceed with the work of the committee in a way that respects and includes both those considerations: the considerations around the need to exercise the accountability responsibilities of the committee, as well as the need to do important policy work on the issues related to rising rates of HIV.

There have been various studies on these issues before, and the work of the committee would likely draw on those existing studies and best practices. Nonetheless, Conservatives are supportive of doing what would, substantially, be compiling existing research and re-upping that, but we also need to get to the bottom of this PrescribeIT scandal.

I don't think it is right or reasonable to say that somehow one of these things should displace the other. This is the amendment that I have tried to put forward, which is to propose a compromise. It is a compromise in which we would see studies happen concurrently, in which we would see both the HIV study and the PrescribeIT study happen concurrently.

However, Mr. Chair, you have, in my view, going outside the rules, made a ruling that is clearly on behalf of the government—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Genuis—

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

—and that prevents those things from going forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Genuis—

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

Saying mean things about the chair is not a matter of order, Chair. I'm allowed to express my opinion. You might not like it—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Genuis, I will tell you right now that you could have challenged the chair, but you did not. I have given you an opportunity to talk about that other subject matter, which you should not be allowed to. I'm telling you this, as chair. Hopefully, you will respect that.

I respect you as a member of Parliament. If we can focus on the topic I said, the motion brought forward by Dr. Eyolfson and amended by Dr. Strauss.... You know that I'm very fair.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Go ahead.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

All Mr. Genuis was really doing was expressing his thoughts on the decision. That's not against—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It's not debatable. He had not challenged me.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

He wasn't debating anything. He was just expressing his opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Mazier, I am in the chair. If you want to challenge the chair, go ahead.

Mr. Genuis, the floor is with you.

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

Thank you, Chair. I think I've shared—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Respectfully, I ask you again, if you can focus on the study on HIV and syphilis, I will give you all the time on the floor. Otherwise, I'm going to move on to the next speaker.

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

Chair, a decision to deprive a member of the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It's not that. That's my power as chair, and I will do that.

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

No, it's appealable to the House, actually, Chair. That's a new standing order that was championed by your colleague Bardish Chagger. When members are cut off, they can appeal that to the House.

Nonetheless, in terms of my comments on that matter, I was generally finished making those comments. You interrupted me at the point at which I was being critical of the work you're doing as chair. It's not a matter of order to comment on the way that chairs carry out their functions. It's simply within the freedom of speech of members. It doesn't look good that I'm able to speak and then, all of a sudden, when I criticize the work being done by the chair and his ruling, the chair jumps in. It looks somewhat self-interested, I will say.

I have another amendment that I want to put forward that hopefully passes the ever-shifting test you seem to be applying. Hopefully, this will help us in the important work of moving towards a consensus, because this is what we want, to try to come up with a framework that allows this committee to work collaboratively and move forward in its work in a way that involves studying both the issue that the government has put forward and to get the bottom of the PrescribeIT scandal.

The amendment is one sentence that I'd like to add to the motion. It follows the paragraph “that witnesses include officials from the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Minister of Health, representatives from Manitoba Health, Indigenous health organizations, front-line community organizations, medical and public health experts and individuals with lived experience”. What I'm proposing to add follows that paragraph.

The sentence would be as follows: “That meetings on this study occur at every second meeting of the committee, allowing time for the continuation of the committee's other work”.

I hope members have heard and understood that amendment. I will now proceed to speak to that amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Just hold on a minute, please. Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Is everybody clear about the amendment?

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, would you like to see it in both official languages?

Mr. Genuis, I will give the floor back to you, but I have to suspend for a couple of minutes until we have the motion circulated in both official languages, if it's there. If not, then I have to ask you to speak slowly, and the interpreters will interpret it. Once Mr. Blanchette-Joncas is satisfied, only then will I be able to proceed.

Mr. Genuis, have you emailed this, or do you have it in writing in both official languages?

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

I will send it to the clerk now. I do not have it in both official languages. You'll understand my predicament, Chair, given that I didn't know how you were going to rule on the original amendment. I thought you would rule that it was in order, of course.

Now the clerk has it. It's one sentence, so once it's translated and distributed, we can then continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

In the meantime, I'll suspend the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I call the meeting back to order.

It's my understanding that the clerk has distributed the amendment brought forward by Mr. Genuis in both official languages. I call this amendment to be in order. I also welcome Dr. Hanley to this very important meeting.

Dr. Hanley, welcome for the rest of the day.

We will go back to Mr. Genuis. The floor is yours, Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Genuis, your camera is not on. I'm still giving you another opportunity. If you have technical issues, please do tell, because Mr. Mazier is next on the list to speak.

I have a request from Mr. Mazier to pause for a few seconds so we can contact Mr. Genuis.

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

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

Chair, I'm glad to be back. I had so many wise things to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I hear you and I call this amendment to be in order.

You have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, I welcome your generosity.

For the viewing public who may just be tuning in here, I'll say that the amendment adds the line, “That meetings on this study occur at every second meeting of the committee, allowing time for the continuation of the committee's other work”.

Why do I think this amendment is important? We certainly have before us here at the health committee a number of different topics that require discussion. Of course, the HIV issue is very important. I was noticing, in terms of the work of the health committee, that there are many different studies currently open that have not yet been reported on, with two exceptions. You've done studies on breast cancer screening guidelines and on women's health. Both of those studies have resulted in reports. The first report was on the breast cancer study, and the second report was on women's health.

However, there are many other studies open that have not yet led to a report. Although it's not obligatory for committees to table reports in response to their studies, generally it's been the common practice—on every committee that I have been a part of—that when you start a study, you gather information. The goal of gathering that information is to turn the information that you've gathered into some kind of output, which is to report to the House as a whole and provide all members of Parliament with an opportunity to benefit from the work that's been done by the committee.

That's the purpose of having committees that specialize in particular topics. You have a small group of members of Parliament who become specialists in a particular subject matter. They come to understand big issues in that subject matter, and they report to Parliament as a whole. This is a process that then triggers the government to provide a response and can trigger debate in the House. That's the reason we have parliamentary committees. It's not just so that, for their own sakes, members of Parliament can become experts in particular topics. Rather, it's so that they can use that expertise to provide information and feedback to Parliament as a whole.

You've done that thus far in this Parliament with reports on breast cancer screening and on women's health. However, there are outstanding matters on which the committee has sought briefs, conducted studies and gathered information, and has not yet then reported back to the House. I'm just making note of this.

I'm not including in the course of the studies.... Of course, you have studied legislation as well. You've looked at divisions of Bill C-15, and you've looked at Bill C-234. It appears the study on Bill C-224 is still going on as well, on the natural health products. In some cases, studies on legislation or estimates have been completed. In one case, there's work outstanding to be done on legislation.

I'm talking about how there are other areas that the committee needs to look at. That's why this amendment is important for striking a balance between seizing hold of new subject matter and also creating space in which the committee can have a look at the existing studies that are ongoing.

One example of an area of study that is still outstanding with the committee is antimicrobial resistance. This is an interesting area of study. The last meeting on this occurred on February 3, 2026. There have been 27 witnesses and 11 briefs gathered as part of that study. That's an example of an outstanding study. It's outstanding in the sense that it hasn't been completed yet. It may be an outstanding study in both senses. I don't know since I wasn't involved in that particular study. However, this study has been ongoing and has not yet led to a report to the House, so it's an example of something that is still open.

I understand the impulse for committees to say that they should study something new because there's this new, urgent issue that's grabbing our attention. I think that is a legitimate impulse when there are always a lot of very real issues that come up on the table, but I think committees do have to balance that impulse to grab hold of the latest, newest issue with the value of completing work that has begun. If you never complete the work that has begun, then you essentially end up never reporting on anything. You start all these important studies, but you don't end up reporting on them.

As a practice of good committee management, yes, having multiple items on the table can make sense. However, you do want to have a plan that involves not just starting work but also completing work, as you move through planning your calendar.

I noted the antimicrobial resistance study. I also note that this committee has done a lot of work on the impact of immigration policy on health care. That's an issue where there has been a lot of engagement—54 different witnesses have been heard so far on that study, and 24 briefs have been submitted. There has been a large amount of engagement from witnesses and from members of the public, who have been providing their input and feedback. That's a study that has stretched through the fall of last year and has continued into February of this year, with the last meeting taking place on February 12. Again, it doesn't appear that there was anything tabled in the House that came out of that work on immigration. I'm not sure if it's a matter of hearing more witnesses on that or just proceeding to consider a report.

In any event, the principle of this amendment—to have the new study take up every second meeting while still allowing space for the continuation of other work—does seem like a sensible way to proceed, taking into consideration the outstanding study on the impact of immigration policy on health care, as well as the outstanding study on antimicrobial resistance work and research.

It appears that, looking at your website again, on the study of Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty, there were 21 witnesses heard, and there were 35 briefs. The last meeting of that.... I guess, technically, we're in that space now because it says the last meeting on this was May 7, and I believe this meeting is formally the continuation of that meeting. That's another study that is ongoing.

Then I know this committee has considered studying the opioid crisis in Canada, which is, I think, always a worthy issue to study. I know there's a study on that listed on your website, but it says that no meetings have taken place on that yet.

Not including legislation, those are four examples of studies that the committee has already begun working on.

Of course, there's also the issue of PrescribeIT. I don't know if PrescribeIT has been mentioned at all recently in this committee or if I'm the first one to bring it up, but the PrescribeIT situation is something that this committee has been interested in, in the past, and has requested documents on. Again, this is another example, alongside the others I've highlighted: antimicrobial resistance, the impact of immigration policy on health care, pharmaceutical sovereignty, the opioid crisis and PrescribeIT. These are all examples of issues the committee has undertaken work on up until now.

The introduction of another study concept on top of these existing ones and the desire to have that new study should be understood and respected, but also balanced against the need for the committee to continue its work, including on all of these matters I've mentioned, from antimicrobial resistance to PrescribeIT.

The work on PrescribeIT should involve hearing from the minister. Perhaps the minister could appear on multiple topics at once. That is not always ideal, but it's something that certainly happens at other committees. As part of its work on PrescribeIT, I suspect this committee would be very interested in hearing from Mr. Michael Green. The issue with this program is that, over 10 years, the government has put hundreds of millions of dollars into it and it has not delivered results, and now the government is quietly moving to shelve it. We definitely need to get to the bottom of what happened there.

We probably have, in my view, some systematic problems when it comes to IT procurement, and IT procurement as it relates to health. This is an issue I worked on a lot during my time in the last Parliament, serving on the government operations committee. We looked at the ArriveCAN app. What we realized in the process was that a lot of people paid a lot of attention to ArriveCAN, what it was and the fact that the app was annoying. This app cost tens of millions of dollars, when it probably could have been built for tens of thousands of dollars.

The larger question, as it relates to this—PrescribeIT and other IT projects—is how the government goes about buying technology for deployment as part of its other systems. Does it have effective systems or not?

What we identified at the government operations committee is that the government often uses something called staff augmentation firms. Staff augmentation firms are the middlemen. They could be middle persons, but in the cases we dealt with, they were the middlemen of IT procurement. That is, instead of the government specifically finding the people who have the skills to do the work and hiring those people to do the work, it hired often small firms that acted as middlemen or brokers. They would then go out and find people who had the capacity to do the work.

These middle companies would specialize in being able to access government procurement. Their business wasn't in doing the work, but in knowing how to get contracts. You'd then have these middle companies that became very well connected and very effective at acquiring government contracts, and that knew the extremely complex—even Byzantine—rules for getting government contracts. They would get those contracts, and once they acquired them, the middle companies would go on LinkedIn or wherever and find the resources, the people who could actually do the work.

The government would contract the in-between company, which would then hire someone else to do the work, and then the company in the middle would really make a killing financially. All it did was know how to access a government contract, and then it went out and found someone else to do the work. It collected a very substantial premium in the middle.

This is what happened with ArriveCAN. This is what has happened in a number of other cases. It wasn't just an ArriveCAN issue. It was a systemic issue with IT procurement. Basically, to get back to the fundamental question, why can't the Government of Canada effectively identify the resources it needs to do the work?

Ideally, for some of these projects anyway, you'd have people inside of government who can do this work. If you don't have people inside of government who can do this work, then maybe you have to contract out one step, where people inside government go out and find someone or some company that has the ability to do the work.

What was happening in practice wasn't the internal completion of the work on these IT projects, nor was it the government going out and finding people who could do the work and contracting them to do that work. We saw, effectively, a two-step procurement process—two steps at least—where the government would hire someone to hire someone else.

I compared this flawed procurement structure to this: If Mr. Mazier hired me to paint his fence for $100, and then I hired Dr. Strauss to paint the same fence for $50, and I made $50 for having facilitated the transaction. At some point, someone would say, “How come this middle person is making so much for facilitating the transaction? Why can't the person who needs the work done”—in this case, Mr. Mazier—“simply directly hire Dr. Strauss to paint his fence?”

If this happens once or twice, okay, but the fact that this was a structural issue within government and that there have been literally hundreds of companies involved in “IT staff augmentation”, as they call this.... I think when we last looked at this, towards the end of the last Parliament, there were over 600 companies that were involved just in the issue of staff augmentation.

To get to the bottom of what has happened on some of these IT projects that cost huge amounts of money but didn't work, didn't have the uptake, weren't effective and were eventually shelved, I think we have to look at the procurement process.

I see there's been a desire to have the health minister come in on this whole discussion. I think that would be very valuable, but also it may be valuable to hear what the procurement ministers over time have had to say on this issue. What we identified at the government operations committee when we were studying this issue of IT procurement was the fact that procurement ministers seem to see themselves as passengers within their own departments. They would say, “Well, we don't want to interfere in these decisions. We don't want to politicize these decisions.”

The effect of that argument, taken to the extent that they took it, was that essentially they didn't want to be accountable for anything and they didn't want to see themselves as having responsibility for doing anything. There is a point to be made in procurement ministers not being too involved in certain kinds of individual decisions, but they certainly have responsibility for the overall policy. When you have systemic policy problems around IT procurement, that's when you want to have a competent minister of procurement saying, “The system isn't working, and we probably need to revisit how the policies guide and impact procurement decisions.”

This whole area of IT procurement as it relates to health has played out here again. It was a major issue in the last Parliament, with discussions of ArriveCAN and some of the larger procurement structural problems and abuses that came out of that. It's interesting for me to see we have another..... It's in the area of health, and it's also another instance of an IT procurement problem. We have this case where, again, there's a desire on the part of government to deploy the newest, latest technology to make systems efficient and effective, and then we end up spending a whole bunch of money and shelving the whole thing.

This is a big problem. The specific issues around PrescribeIT are a big individual problem, but it's also a larger problem in terms of the capacity of government.

Look, technology changes fast. That has been true for a long time. Perhaps it has always been true, but especially now, with continuing advances in connectivity, AI and a whole bunch of other areas, it is inevitable that governments will have to respond to constantly shifting and changing realities as a result of new technology. There will be a certain inevitability to those pressures, but deploying new technology effectively can also be a way of improving the user experience. For people who are interacting with government, members of the public who are interacting with health care in various situations, the effective deployment of technology in those situations could be a real opportunity for improving people's well-being and the quality of service that they are encountering.

For us to be able to meet the pressures and the opportunities associated with rapid technological development, I think we need effective systems of IT procurement. With some of the work I've done in Parliament over the last few years, including involvement in the government operations committee and looking at IT procurement there, and some of the scandals in the last Parliament around ArriveCAN and other things, and now looking at the PrescribeIT situation, it suggests that there is a significant problem systematically in terms of the Government of Canada's ability to procure and deploy new technology to solve problems.

If you look across governments in Canada and around the world, there are some governments that are pushing this and have been more successful. I know that in my province of Alberta, there has been a real push to deploy technology to improve the effectiveness of government and to allow public service delivery to be augmented through the deployment of new technology. The local MLA here, who's a minister, Nate Glubish, has been very involved in this. I know, in fact, that the Government of Alberta is open to supporting the national government and the national interest on how to deploy technology in effective ways. As the federal government looks at this, I think it should also look at best practices in other jurisdictions.

It's clear we have a problem. Large amounts of money have been spent on these middlemen companies that are profiting off the Byzantine nature of the procurement system. They know how to manage the procurement system in order to get contracts, even if they don't know how to do the work. They get the contracts, and then they hire someone else to do the work. They cash in big time. In the meantime, when the work being done may not always be the best work, the government isn't making well-considered decisions, directly, on who the resources should be.

There are different terms that have been used for how these systems get broken along the way. One is that these middleman companies have done a kind of bait and switch. They will pitch a contract on the basis that a particular resource will do the actual development work on an app or on a piece of technology, and once they get the contract, they switch who is doing the work.

We've also had instances where.... Effectively, at the government operations committee, Kristian Firth, one of the principals at GC Strategies, admitted that they would manipulate numbers on résumés. He explained their process for getting a contract. Let's say the requirement for the IT procurement said that they had to have a certain minimum qualification. He would change the résumés to align with the minimum qualifications required by government. Then he would send these CVs back to the original resource and say that he had made these changes to imagine what their résumé would look like if it was compliant with the requirements of this application. He would ask if that was okay. In one case, he said they accidentally sent the wrong version of the résumé in for review.

These were the kinds of frankly flagrant abuses that were happening and that were admitted to at the government operations committee when we were undertaking this study of the broken system of IT procurement.

This is how we started, in the last Parliament, to reveal these problems. Now here we are. We're back here again talking about a problem of IT procurement. It's a significant issue in the system that led to.... In this case it didn't even lead to a usable outcome. At least in the case of ArriveCAN, there was work done that led to the production of an app. It was glitchy. It sent people into quarantine who weren't supposed to be in quarantine, but at the end of the day, at least the money spent led to the creation of an app.

PrescribeIT was never widely used. It never delivered on the promise that was expected and then it was quietly shelved. There are multiple different questions here. What happened in this specific case? Where did the money go? Who got it? How was it spent? Who were the different middle persons who got money in the contracting process? How much dd they make? I think those are some important questions that we should consider along the way.

I think the broader question is whether the Government of Canada possesses the capacity to do this kind of major IT procurement and complete the task such that, at the other end of it, we have a product that is usable, effective and improves the user experience.

In all of these different health areas that we're looking at as members of this committee, can we imagine an outcome in which the effective procurement of new technology leads to the deployment of solutions that actually make people's lives better? This is a basic question of state capacity on something that I think should be fundamental.

Lots of people in the world, in the private sector and other governments, are able to procure technology solutions to problems they face. Political parties can do it. Provincial governments can do it. Other governments can do it. When private sector companies need new systems, need tools to communicate or want to integrate emergent technology with existing systems, they have mechanisms for going out and finding the talent they need. They then compare different bids, identifying the specifications they want, getting the product, testing the product and then deploying it. This is how technology advances. Technology advances because institutions have the capacity to identify needs, procure that technology, drive the innovation and then deploy that technology.

It's not just about the existence of innovation. It's about the actual deployment of that innovation. There's a lot of technology that maybe exists but isn't deployed in particular situations. Therefore, you don't see the kind of improvement in efficiency that would otherwise result if that technology were deployed.

The vision behind the concept of PrescribeIT is that you can deploy that technology and it can be used for some purpose—

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Excuse me—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Do we have a point of order?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Chair, I have a question of privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Go ahead, Ms. Konanz.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to raise a question of privilege that you alluded to in the letter you sent to Canada Health Infoway today.

On April 28, 2026, this committee adopted, by unanimous agreement, a motion ordering Canada Health Infoway to produce a comprehensive set of records relating to the failed $300-million PrescribeIT program. The order set a deadline of two weeks. That deadline was May 12, 2026. For the record, the motion ordered Canada Health Infoway to produce contracts, invoices, termination agreements, board meeting decisions, consulting fees and overall expenses relating to PrescribeIT. More than six weeks—as your letter alluded to—have passed, and Canada Health Infoway has not complied with this.

The clerk has confirmed that the following items from the order remain outstanding and have not been produced:

d) all agreements and contracts between Canada Health Infoway and TELUS Health and TELUS relating to PrescribeIT, including the original agreement, all subsequent extensions or renewals, the 2024 renewal, and the termination notice;

e) all complete and unredacted (i) agendas, (ii) minutes, and (iii) records of decision for Canada Health Infoway board meetings...since April 2016;

f) the total annual expenses Canada Health Infoway incurred for consultants, since April 2016, broken down by (i) year, (ii) supplier/vendor name, (iii) expense amount, and (iv) details of service;

g) all contracts, agreements, purchase orders, statements of work, and invoices with any external service provider relating to PrescribeIT;

These are not minor administration gaps. The Telus Health agreement governs a $98-million contractual relationship that sits at the core of the entire program. The consultant spending records cover what Infoway's own documents prescribe as $23 million in consulting expenditures. The board records are the primary governance record of how $300 million was managed and ultimately wound down. This committee has a right to see them in full.

On June 9, 2026, the chair of this committee sent a formal letter to Mr. Vaughan advising the Canada Health Infoway that the committee's order-to-produce power is rooted in the Constitution, pursuant to section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act, and that it supersedes statutory and contractual restrictions, including commercial and third party contractual agreements. That letter made it explicit that Infoway's concerns about commercial confidentiality do not override the order. The chair urged immediate production and warned that continued non-compliance could result in the committee reporting the matter to the House as a contempt of Parliament. Canada Health Infoway has not produced the documents.

I would add that their non-compliance does not end with this April 28 order. At the committee's April 24 meeting, Mr. Vaughan made a series of specific oral undertakings to table additional information. He committed to table the votes on performance awards for Mr. Green, including whether any of the board members opposed his maximum performance bonus. He committed to table comparable compensation data for other federally funded not-for-profits. Mr. Vaughan committed to table information on the numbered Ontario company 2184103 Ontario Inc., including who owns it and what Infoway purchased for $178,500.

He committed to table conflict of interest declarations for all board members. He committed to table the number of applicants for the CFO position. He committed to table all compensation disclosures since 2016. He committed to table the CFO's salary and compensation details. He committed to table a detailed breakdown of all Infoway-tendered contracts since 2016. He committed to table a full breakdown of the $108 million in PrescribeIT personal costs. He committed to table details of three contribution agreements Infoway entered into with entities funded by the Government of Canada. He committed to provide a copy of Mr. Green's termination letter and the minutes of the termination meeting. These commitments have not been fulfilled.

It is worth pausing on who is refusing to comply with this committee. Canada Health Infoway is not a private company that has stumbled into our scrutiny by accident. It is a federally funded organization, created and financed by the federal government to lead this country's digital health agenda, and its board chair was appointed by that same government. It has received nearly $300 million in public funds for PrescribeIT alone, on top of billions of dollars in total federal funding over more than two decades. It paid its chief executive officer nearly $900,000 in a single year, and it presided over a program that reached fewer than 5% of Canadian prescriptions before it was shut down.

The chair's letter of June 9 also noted that the spring sitting of the House of Commons is coming to an end. That makes this moment urgent. If Canada Health Infoway is permitted to run out the clock on a lawful parliamentary order, the accountability this committee was sent here to pursue will not survive the sitting. That can't be allowed to happen.

I would draw the committee's attention to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition. Standing Order 108 empowers this committee “to send for persons, papers and records,” and the power to order the production of documents is among the oldest and most fundamental privileges of the House and its committees. Chapter 3 confirms that disobedience of a lawful order of the House or one of its committees constitutes a contempt of Parliament. This is not a power that exists only in theory. In 2021, the House found the Public Health Agency of Canada in contempt for failing to produce documents that had been ordered and summoned its president to the bar of the House to be formally admonished.

An order of this committee is not a request. It is not subject to the recipient's own judgment about what is convenient or appropriate to disclose. Canada Health Infoway received a lawful, constitutional order. The committee chair wrote to reinforce it, and Canada Health Infoway has still failed to comply.

If a federally funded organization can accept billions of dollars from Canadian taxpayers, oversee the failure of a $300-million program and then disregard a lawful order of this committee, even after the chair's formal intervention, then the ability of Parliament to hold government and its agencies to account is greatly diminished. As such, we believe that Canada Health Infoway's failure to produce documents relating to PrescribeIT, as ordered by the committee, constitutes a breach of privilege.

I ask that you rule on this question of privilege, given the importance and the seriousness of this issue and the reason that you sent that letter.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Ms. Konanz.

I thank you for bringing this motion of privilege forward on the letter that I sent. Because it is a long motion, I need some time to grasp it, and it might take me a while to make a decision.

We need to have a copy in both official languages. It is not going to be a matter of a few seconds. We need time to circulate the copies. I cannot do anything if it's not in both official languages.

Before I make a ruling on this question of privilege, on all sides—the Conservatives, the Bloc and the Liberals—I have the implied consent of the members to adjourn this meeting. Is that correct?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

It sounds like you have a lot to do. Can you suspend the meeting for now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You were saying to me earlier that you wanted to adjourn.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I never said I wanted to adjourn. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I never said I wanted to adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay. Next time, I will not take that for granted.

Conservative members did come to me to adjourn this meeting. If you're going to play games with me, I'm not going to accept it.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I'm sorry—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The meeting is suspended.

[The meeting was suspended at 5:37 p.m., Tuesday, June 9]

[The meeting resumed at 4:28 p.m., Thursday, June 11]

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Welcome. We are now resuming meeting number 34 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. I would like to remind participants of the following points: Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

At the bottom of the screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard. Even though we are experiencing some difficulties with the PVO console and there might be a little delay, please wait for the red light to be turned on, on the microphone, before you start speaking.

Before we begin, I will say that over the past several weeks, the committee has been unable to move forward because of the ongoing discussions in the committee. As a result, we have not been able to begin a study on the rise of HIV infections, an important public health issue.

As chair, I have been fair and impartial. I have consistently recognized members who wish to speak and have ensured that all parties have had every opportunity to make their views known. The fact that the overwhelming majority of the interventions during this period have come from the Conservative members speaks for itself.

As we had six suspensions at our last meeting, I had the implied consent from the majority of members and majority of parties to adjourn the meeting, but two Conservative members ultimately wanted another suspension.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I have a point of order. Should we not be dealing with 106(4)?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I will be. I'm coming to that. Just wait.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I have a point of order.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

There's a question of privilege as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Yes. I'm coming to that, if you can hold on. Let me read this first. Then I'm coming to it, if you can give me time and be patient. That's why I'm reading fast, so—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I didn't know where you were going.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I also want to address comments—

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Excuse me, Chair, I need you to repeat what you just said. Did you say that there was unanimous consent and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

No, no, never. Okay. I will read that.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

—from a couple of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

If Mr. Mazier hadn't intervened, you would have heard.

As there were six suspensions on the same subject matter, the matter we are studying, I had the implied consent from the majority of members and majority of parties to adjourn the meeting—

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

That's what I wanted to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Why are you interrupting?

[An hon. member]

That's not true, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Listen to me first. Let me speak and then you can take your turn, okay...?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Okay, but I hope you're not speaking for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm not speaking for you.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

That's what I'm saying. If you can listen to the full thing that I want to say, then you will realize....

This is where the problem is; it's when you start intervening when I haven't read everything that the problem comes.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Will I get to speak after you finish?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Yes. I'll give you the opportunity.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

While the majority of members indicated they were prepared—majority of members and majority of parties—two of the Conservative members ultimately withheld that consent, resulting in another suspension.

I also want to address—

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

Chair, I will just say that we've got about 13 minutes left until the vote now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Sure.

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

I want to understand, because you need unanimous consent to continue—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Your members are the ones interrupting. I'm reading fast.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, September 23, 2025, the committee shall resume its study of Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty.

Before proceeding, I would like to inform members that earlier today the clerk circulated a supplementary draft budget of $1,000 for the study on Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty.

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt that budget?

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

I have a point of order, Chair. I think there's already a motion on the table. There can't be two motions on the table at once.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm on the budget.

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

A budget is a motion of the committee, is it not?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay. Let's continue with the meeting.

I have received a request under Standing Order 106(4) to convene a meeting to discuss the decision by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, to close its Longueuil laboratory and the impacts of this decision on food safety, consumer protection and federal scientific capacity.

If the committee has an ongoing yet suspended meeting, it will resume the suspended meeting within the timeline prescribed by Standing Order 106(4) and decide how it wishes to consider the request.

I have a reminder that the committee may consider only one motion at a time.

As I mentioned, the committee is currently on Dr. Eyolfson's motion. Therefore, we need to make a decision on whether we proceed with the subject matter requested pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) now or if we continue with Dr. Eyolfson's motion on the floor.

At this time, I would like to see if a member wishes to move a dilatory motion to consider Standing Order 106(4).

[An hon. member]

I so move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay. There is a motion. It's a dilatory motion, so I will ask the clerk to take a vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The motion is defeated.

Let's resume the debate on the amendment moved by Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Genuis, you have the floor.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There's a point of order, Mr. Genuis.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

What about the question of privilege?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

As for the question of privilege, I am still going through it. I have not made a decision. I need more time to make a decision on that.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Maybe we can offer some guidance. What is the problem with making a decision?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

As the chair, I have to make sure that I go through it properly. Whatever decision I make is the decision that should be made. That's all I can say.

Mr. Genuis, the floor is yours.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Go ahead, Ms. Konanz.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Since it was my question of privilege, could you please explain, Chair, what the timeline is for your decision?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I cannot say that, but I will make the decision at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Genuis, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I would join my voice to those of others eagerly anticipating the results of your deliberations on this matter.

In the meantime, I will continue with my comments regarding the amendment I moved to Dr. Eyolfson's motion, which was on the fact that the committee should establish a schedule for consideration of this new study, a schedule that accords with the obligation of the committee to continue with its pre-existing work.

There are various matters the committee has taken up and is in the middle of taking up. One of them is, of course, the matter of PrescribeIT, but there are other matters that the committee has been involved in studying. In the context of other work of the committee, I want to provide the following notice of motion. It is as follows—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Genuis, just wait one second before you read the motion. It may take you longer, and I don't want to interrupt you.

I would like the consensus of the members. Would every member like to vote on their app?

In the House...? Okay. I have to suspend the meeting in two minutes so members can make it to the House.

Mr. Genuis, if it's a short one, you can read it now, or you can read it after we come back.

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

Chair, it's not that short. I don't want to strain the interpreters by talking too fast.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Okay.

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

As I speak here, can I get an understanding of your plans? Are we going to suspend and resume after the vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

That's correct, as soon as every member comes back.

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

Yes, I was just wondering so I knew.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm going to suspend now, so members can go and vote in person if they want to.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I call the meeting back to order.

The floor is with Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Genuis, please go ahead and read your notice of motion.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'm very pleased to be back here, as I was saying.

I have a notice of motion I want to share, and then I'll resume where I was with my previous remarks.

The motion is as follows: “Given that The Globe and Mail published an article on June 9, 2026, titled ‘Ottawa puts Canada Health Infoway funding on hold after PrescribeIT failure’, by Chris Hannay, where it reads, ‘Health Minister—

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Go ahead on your point of order, Madame Chi.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Has it been circulated?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

No, he's reading it. It doesn't need to be circulated.

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

It's a notice of motion.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I apologize.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm sorry. Mr. Genuis, go ahead, please.

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

I suspect it will be circulated in due course, but it's not being moved today, so I think you'll have plenty of time.

It continues: “Marjorie Michel says the government is withholding $50-million in federal funds from Canada Health Infoway, the organization responsible for the $300-million failed PrescribeIT program, until it addresses concerns about governance.

“Separately, the chair of the House of Commons health committee wrote to Canada Health Infoway on Tuesday to urge it to turn over documents to a parliamentary probe, or else it could potentially be found in contempt of Parliament.

“Canada Health Infoway is a government-funded non-profit that runs some federal digital health programs. It launched PrescribeIT in 2017 as part of ‘axe the fax’ initiatives to replace fax machines with digital alternatives. But the program was shut down in most of the country last month because fewer than 5 per cent of prescriptions flowed through it.

“The organization's board dismissed its long-time chief executive officer in late April after a disastrous committee hearing, as well as a series of stories in The Globe and Mail about the program's problems and high expenses, such as the CEO's nearly $900,000 in annual compensation.

“In response to questions from Conservative MPs in the House of Commons in recent weeks, Ms. Michel said the government budgeted $50-million for Canada Health Infoway this fiscal year, which began April 1.

“During Monday's Question Period, Ms. Michel said the government is careful about its spending and continued: ‘That is why, when we realized that Canada Health Infoway was not completely fulfilling its mission, we decided to halt funding.’

“In response to questions about whether the $50-million would be spent, Ms. Michel's office said Tuesday that the minister has not yet signed off on the contribution agreements to send those funds and that they represent the organization's entire federal funding for this year.

“Canada Health Infoway did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

“Although PrescribeIT is ending, Canada Health Infoway has also been working on setting national standards for electronic health records. The organization could take a leadership role in implementing Bill S-5, which was introduced earlier this year to create new rules that would make it easier for patients and doctors to share health data, a concept the industry refers to as interoperability.

“Alexandre Bergeron, spokesperson for Ms. Michel, said the organization's future responsibilities have not yet been decided.

“‘While its work on interoperability has informed the development of S-5, the development of the regulations associated with the bill will be determined once the bill has been adopted,’ Ms. Bergeron said.

“During Monday's Question Period, Ms. Michel acknowledged there were ‘governance issues’ at Canada Health Infoway.

“‘Someone from the federal government sits on the board of directors, and the necessary measures were taken,’ Ms. Michel said. ‘The CEO has left, and we have an acting director right now. The people involved are currently reviewing the mandates together to see how we can do a better job of solving the governance issues.’

“She said the board would report back to her by the end of the summer.

“Canada Health Infoway announced last week it had named executive vice-president Abhinav (Abhi) Kalra as the interim CEO and president.

“Canada Health Infoway and PrescribeIT have been the subject of hearings by the House of Commons health committee in recent months. The committee's work has largely ground to a halt in the past month because—

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Ms. Chi, go ahead on your point of order.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I just want to make sure that we're following the rules from the book of procedure, that the motion cannot contain a preamble and that the member states very clearly what the motion is all about.

It sounds as though the member is reading directly from the article right now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You're absolutely right.

Mr. Genuis, I ask you to respect that. Please continue.

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

Sure. I just have a few observations.

I'm not quite sure what the objection is, but I'm happy to work to adhere to the rules and/or the unique customs of this committee.

I am reading the text of a motion, which includes a fairly lengthy quotation from the article, but this is the text of the motion that I'm putting on notice. In any event, I do have the floor, and this is the motion. I think the parliamentary secretary was maybe under the impression that this was a preamble to a motion, but it is in fact the text of the motion.

I will continue where I was. If you want to provide further guidance on how I should proceed, I'm happy to hear it. The motion continues: “Canada Health Infoway and PrescribeIT have been the subject of hearings by the House of Commons health committee in recent months. The committee's work has largely ground to a halt in the past month because of attempts by Conservative and Bloc Québécois MPs to request Ms. Michel testify about PrescribeIT at the committee—requests that Liberal MPs are blocking.

However, Liberal MP Sukh Dhaliwal, who chairs the committee, wrote to Canada Health Infoway on Tuesday to urge it to turn over documents that MPs had requested in April.

“The Globe reported last week that the non-profit was weeks overdue in turning over agreements and contracts with Telus Health and other vendors, as well as details of its spending on consultants. Telus Health was the main technology vendor and has disclosed it received $98-million of the total $298-million in federal funds spent on PrescribeIT.

“‘The power to send for persons, papers and records is rooted in the Constitution and is constitutional in nature,’ Mr. Dhaliwal wrote in the letter. ‘It is not subject to statutory and contractual restrictions and supersedes other privileges, such as commercial and third-party contractual agreements.’

“The letter concludes: ‘I must remind you that failure to comply with the order to produce the documents could result in the committee reporting the situation to the House of Commons, which in turn, could lead the House to find Canada Health Infoway in contempt of Parliament.’

“Conservative MP Dan Mazier, his party's health critic and a member of the health committee, said ‘if this organization cannot be transparent about where taxpayers' money went, Canadians should have no confidence in its ability to oversee another dollar of public funding until the Health Minister answers for the mismanagement.’

“Canada Health Infoway told The Globe last week—

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Go ahead, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say that the interpreters are unable to interpret what my colleague is saying, because he is speaking quickly. Would it be possible to get his co-operation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Genuis, if you could...

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

Thank you.

Got it. I will speak a little more slowly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis, for accommodating this. Please go ahead.

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

Thank you.

I will continue: “‘Canada Health Infoway told The Globe last week it was working on the committee's request but had to sort through a large volume of records and had concerns about secure transmission of files.’

“The committee report to the House its view that the Standing Committee on Health should immediately undertake a full public investigation into the PrescribeIT program, including its costs, contracts, governance, performance and federal oversight.”

That is the motion, Mr. Chair.

Providing that verbal notice of motion underlines the argument that we're making in the context of this amendment.

To put those things together, the current business of the committee is a motion from Dr. Eyolfson regarding a potential study of the committee on HIV. As Conservative members have noted, we are supportive of the concept of doing this study, recognizing that many studies have been done in the past on HIV and that the committee would likely be drawing on an existing body of work and various studies that have been undertaken by various experts in various jurisdictions. I don't know that a parliamentary committee would be likely to reveal anything dramatically new on this subject in a study we would do as parliamentarians, as opposed to experts on the science of this.

That being said, Conservatives are supportive of doing this study, and we're also supportive of continuing the work that the committee is doing on various other issues. That work includes work on health care and immigration. It includes work on—

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

—various other subjects—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There is a point of order.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Could you tell us what the speaking list is?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Yes. We have Mr. Mazier, Madame Konanz and then Madame Chi, so there are a lot of people.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We don't have much time, so we should not interrupt Mr. Genuis.

Please continue.

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

Thank you.

I have a few more points I want to put on the record, but members who are waiting to speak next will, I think, be wondering about when we'll go on to the next phase, and we'll see. It may depend on whether there are votes again in the House, because that has seemed to be a fairly common occurrence lately.

The spacing that I have proposed in the context of my amendment is to say that, yes, we'll proceed with the HIV study but that instead of having that study take place at every single meeting, we will have that study take place at every second meeting. That will create the space for the committee to continue with studies of other matters, one of which is PrescribeIT.

On the issue of PrescribeIT and the study the committee is going to do on that, I think some of those in-between meetings could be used for some further discussion of the subject matter of this article that I have included in this notice of motion and, really, of the absurdity of the arguments being used to justify the non-transmission of records.

This is a principle that, for whatever reason, various government institutions have had a surprising problem in understanding. However, it's a foundational principle of our constitutional order, which is that parliamentary committees are not just committees of parliamentarians. A committee is not just a group of parliamentarians sitting around a table and talking about issues that they want to talk about. A parliamentary committee meeting has a distinctly different character. If all of us who are meeting right now as part of the health committee were to separately decide that we were going to get together in a room and talk about health care, but not under the official auspices of the health committee, it would not be the same. It would be a very different reality.

The easiest way to explain this is by stating the fact that parliamentary committees have a character similar to that of a court. When they make decisions, they exercise specific powers that are necessary for those committees to do their work. The same principle applies in a court. There are specific offences that relate to conduct that shouldn't happen in court. There are specific requirements around the form that action takes in court, and courts are able to order certain things to take place, things which someone wouldn't be able to order outside of those proceedings. Our system invests the official action through those fora with specific powers, and the same is true of parliamentary committees.

The structure and the form are not exactly the same, but the principle is that committees are not just places where important policy discussions happen. They are also places where powers delegated by the House of Commons are definitively exercised, and those include the ability to subpoena witnesses and to send for documents.

In my time as a member of Parliament, I've been through many different situations—and this is another one—in which institutions make up fantastical excuses to justify not handing over documents. They will claim in some cases, for instance, that they are bound by the Privacy Act or that they don't want to because it would cause some problem for them.

Well, the Privacy Act has provisions in it that exempt situations in which documents are lawfully ordered by a body with the authority to do so. That exception clearly applies to parliamentary committees. Moreover, the constitutional principle of the supremacy of Parliament predates and supersedes any statutes that would be used as an excuse not to hand over documents.

To hear the excuses that we're hearing from Canada Health Infoway for not being accountable—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Genuis, there's a point of order by Mr. Mazier.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I was listening to Mr. Genuis and wondering how the chair plans on getting the documents from Canada Health Infoway that they're not willing to hand over.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I will address that.

Let me go back to Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Genuis, please continue.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Really, if they're not handing them over, do we have to summon them? How are you going to do it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I know the procedure, and you know the procedure, as vice-chair. We will follow that.

Mr. Genuis, please go ahead.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I don't know the procedure.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I believe I just said that I don't know, either.

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

Thank you, Chair.

In the course of what I was saying, as part of the committee's work on the PrescribeIT scandal, it does have the power to order witnesses to appear. It can't order the appearance of members of Parliament or government ministers. Only the House, as a whole, can do that, but committees can order the appearance of other individuals before it to answer questions.

I've been part of processes at other committees—processes involving IT procurement issues—in which witnesses have been ordered to appear. I've also seen cases in which orders have been made for the production of documents, the documents haven't been handed over, various excuses have been used and then that has been escalated. The head of the Public Health Agency of Canada was summoned to the bar to be admonished by the Speaker in a process that came out of the Canada-China committee. That resulted, initially, not so much from a failure to hand over documents but rather from a brazen refusal to answer direct questions from members of Parliament. I had asked him for some information.

The point is that the people at Canada Health Infoway, I'm sure, have some familiarity with how these events have unfolded in the past, yet they're continuing with this brazen decision not to hand over documents. To use the excuse that they are worried about the secure transmission of files is quite rich.

I've been on committees in the past in which.... Committees generally exercise these responsibilities in very thoughtful and judicious ways. There have been times when committees have ordered documents of a sensitive nature, and they've put a series of parameters around how those documents are viewed and distributed. The normal thing is that committee documents are distributed by email to everyone on the committee's distribution list, but it is certainly within the powers of the committee to say, “Okay, we have some sensitivity here in these documents, so—

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There's a point of order, Mr. Genuis.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I'm curious. I think Mr. Genuis was talking about the amendment. Now, I'm a little....

I don't know if you're still on the amendment or back on the motion that you introduced. You're talking about production of documents now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Madame Chi is—

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

I can answer, Chair, if you like.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Wait just a minute.

He's on his amendment.

I see that the clock is at 5:30. I call the meeting adjourned.