Health Committee on May 7th, 2026

[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.