Evidence of meeting #34 for Health in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
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.
Liberal
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.
Conservative
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.
Liberal
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—
Conservative
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—
Liberal
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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you, Dr. Eyolfson.
I'll go to Mr. Mazier.
Mr. Mazier, the floor with you.
Conservative
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.
Liberal
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.
Conservative
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.
Liberal
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.
Liberal
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—
Liberal
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.
Conservative
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.
Liberal
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])
Liberal
Bloc
Liberal
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.
Bloc
