Health Committee on May 7th, 2026

[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.