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.
Conservative
Matt Strauss Conservative Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
I think it's a great cliffhanger. I know everyone is excited for the results.
Liberal
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]
Liberal
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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Okay. There is a dilatory motion, so I will ask the clerk to take a vote. Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
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])
Liberal
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.
Conservative
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.
Liberal
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.
Liberal
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.
Conservative
Burton Bailey Conservative Red Deer, AB
Thank you, Chair and honourable colleagues.
As Conservatives, we've always placed the health and safety—
Liberal
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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
No. It's the main motion as amended by Dr. Strauss.
Is that clear, Madam Sidhu?
Liberal
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.
Conservative
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—
Liberal
Conservative
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.
Liberal
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.
Conservative
Burton Bailey Conservative Red Deer, AB
I'm good, unless you think the interpreters need a one-minute break.
