Scott Reid

[Health, June 14th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, Health Canada's priority review program exists to allow the expedited review of new, potentially life-saving, therapies. Qualifying drug submissions are able to seek approval for therapeutic use in advance of other, less urgent therapies. Health Canada's posted time frame for this expedited process is a target of 180 calendar days.

How often is Health Canada meeting this target? How often has this target been missed in each of the years since the priority review program was established?

[Correctional Service of Canada, June 13th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, one of the questions I asked was whether the minister can confirm where the quota is coming from, how much it will cost and what it will be used for. I would like an answer to that question.

[Correctional Service of Canada, June 13th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, on May 31, I asked the following question:

...with respect to the dairy barn at the Joyceville correctional institution that is scheduled to open in July, number one, what was the original budgeted cost? Number two, what is the actual cost? Number three, has dairy quota been made available by Dairy Farmers of Ontario? If so, what are the contract details and how much will that cost? Finally, will any of the milk that is produced be entered into the general supply for public consumption?

I will give some details. When the restoration of the Joyceville prison farm program was announced in 2018, Mr. Goodale, who was then the minister in charge of corrections, stated that the authorization came with three conditions, of which the first two were, “staying within the budget of $4.3 million over five years, [and] being implemented in a timely fashion.” The first of these conditions was breached almost instantly. In May 2018, the cost was revised upwards by more than 100%, to $9.75 million. In October 2018, this was changed to $15.2 million, three times what it had been less than a year earlier, but that was just the beginning.

In July 2019, this estimate was again adjusted to $18 million, and internal documents from the time contained a notation stating, “This estimate requires further review...as each project scope of work has yet to be confirmed.” In January 2020, the estimate was again increased, this time to $20 million, and in May 2020, it was increased to $21.08 million. By September 2020, internal documents showed that costs would hit $25.9 million, which, if anyone is keeping track, is five times the original estimate. Finally, in March 2021, the goat dairy that was driving many of these cost increases was put on hold, although, I will note, it was never formally cancelled, and it is still an open question, as to whether Correctional Service Canada intends to open a goat dairy as well.

Regarding the issue of dairy quota for cow's milk, I am aware that a few months ago, Correctional Service Canada said that there were only 12 dairy cows in the herd housed at Collins Bay, and at that time, CSC still did not have an agreement for the purchase of milk quota. The facility is designed to house 30 cows and, supposedly, is to be used for research quota. CSC has stated that this research would be shared between two universities and that the quota is currently being negotiated, but McGill University and the University of Guelph are unwilling to comment on this arrangement.

Therefore, can the minister confirm where the quota is coming from, how much it will cost and what it will be used for? Finally, can the minister guarantee that milk produced using inmate labour, paid prison wages, which are far below the minimum wage, will never enter the regular milk supply stream for human consumption?

[Amendments to the Standing Orders, June 12th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[Amendments to the Standing Orders, June 12th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks I observed that the purpose of Motion No. 109 was “to ensure that no future government would be able to amend the Standing Orders without the consent of all recognized parties.” The mechanism laid out in the motion and the proposed additions to the standing order that are contained in the motion is to ensure that debate would continue as long as there is a meaningful body of individuals opposed to whatever change to the Standing Orders is being proposed. This would ensure that debate would simply continue ad infinitum unless a consensus is sought. This does not translate into meaning unanimous consent is required. In practice, it would mean that all-party consent is required.

Let me turn away from the rationale for doing this and toward a discussion of how I think the process ought to proceed. There is a role model for this: a change to the Standing Orders that I proposed back in 2015 for changing how the Speaker is elected. Formerly, the Speaker was elected through what is known as an exhaustive vote. There would be multiple candidates. If no candidate secured a majority on a vote, we would have a second vote. We kept on doing this until we eliminated all the candidates. I proposed changing this to a preferential ballot, but I did not propose simply that the House vote on my motion. I said instead to send it off to the procedure and House affairs committee, where expert witnesses could be brought in to look at the preferential balloting system used in a number of other jurisdictions, most notably in Britain in their elections of Speakers, both in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons. That is what we did.

As such, the same language is incorporated into the motion proposed here. I just want to read it. Ignoring all the substantive content, the procedure part of the motion reads as follows:

That...it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to undertake a study on the advisability of amending the Standing Orders as follows:

The substantive part of the motion follows, of course, and then the last part of the motion says:

[that] the committee report its findings to the House no later than 75 sitting days following the adoption of this motion.

Assuming that the motion is approved at some point the next time we vote on Private Members' Business next week, it would be reasonable to assume that we would have this matter back before the House for a final vote on a report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in February. Let me say what that committee report would probably look like. I am now holding in my hands the procedure and House affairs committee's report from the 41st Parliament, its 21st report. I will read what is said here. I would anticipate something like this being said again. The report said:

The Election of the Speaker is a matter for all Members to decide. The Committee does not oppose nor endorse motion M-489...and feels that the entire membership of the House of Commons should have the opportunity to vote on whether or not to change the Standing Orders in the manner suggested by M-489.

In order to accomplish this purpose of having a vote in the House, the Committee recommends that Standing Order 4 be amended as follows:

There is then the substance of the motion. That was respectfully submitted by the chair of the committee.

I think the same process would allow us to act now as we did then. We took an issue that could have been treated in a partisan manner. Maybe this is not a matter of concern, because it sounds like all parties support this, but that process allowed for it to be dealt with by means, essentially, of free votes of all the party caucuses in a manner that normally is not dealt with this way. There was actually a free vote in the House. Every single party in the House actually wound up dividing, with some members for and some against. A majority was in favour. I think that was a really proper way of handling changes to the Standing Orders. I do hope it happens again.

I guess I will get to say this again, but I do hope there will be a recorded vote on this, as opposed to seeking some other form of consent to the motion when we deal with this.

[Correctional Service of Canada, June 7th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, Corrections Canada has a mandate to retrain Canada's 10,000 inmates so they can find employment upon release. In the past three years, Corrections has issued 112,000 meaningless in-house vocational certificates and a grand total of 64 Red Seal certifications. Corrections has also made zero effort to engage in provincial apprenticeship programs, which could produce life-changing certified job skills, reduce recidivism and be beneficial to everyone in the community. Why this neglect?

[Health, June 5th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, last Friday I had the opportunity to sit in the Speaker's chair for an hour. I had no idea until that moment how hard it is to remember the names of people's ridings, so you have my empathy.

I appreciate what the parliamentary secretary said in his response. It sounds like the November deadline, which I speculated and hoped would be achieved, is likely to be achieved.

I am hoping the parliamentary secretary has information as to whether or not the manufacturer has provided all information and whether the process has begun. I do not know if that is available to him, or if that was in his briefing deck, but if it is, I would like to get confirmation that, indeed, the process has begun and the manufacturer is not lagging behind. It is a relevant consideration, because Canada is a relatively small market, and this is a relatively small production run. I would just seek any reassurance he can give on that subject.

[Health, June 5th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, on May 24, I raised the following question, which I will repeat verbatim for the purpose of context:

...pulmonary arterial hypertension, also known as PAH, is a disease that blocks arteries in the lungs, causing high blood pressure in the lungs and damaging heart tissue. Patients diagnosed with PAH have, on average, three years to live.

In the [U.S.], a drug called sotatercept was recently approved by the FDA. This drug increases quality of life and lifespan for PAH patients and even...reverses the damage caused by the disease.

When will this life-saving drug be approved for use in Canada?

At that time, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health promised to get back to the House at a later date with a detailed answer. I am hoping he will be able to do so today. Here are some of the details that I think might be relevant to the discussion.

In the United States, the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, holds the power to determine whether new drugs will be permitted. To be approved, a drug must complete three trial phases that, collectively, determine whether the drug is both safe and efficacious. Phase 3 trials on sotatercept were completed in 2023 and were published in a peer-reviewed journal in September, 2023.

The published results were impressive, including the observation that the drug “significantly improved multiple important secondary outcome measures, including reducing the risk of death from any cause or PAH clinical worsening events by 84% versus background therapy alone”. FDA approval for therapeutic use of sotatercept was granted on March 26.

These promising results are probably the reason why, in March, Health Canada assigned sotatercept to its priority review policy, a policy within Health Canada designed to allow for the more rapid approval of efficacious therapies for life-threatening conditions. According to section 1.5 of Health Canada's guidance document relating to the program, “The performance target for the screening and review of the original submission is 215 calendar days (10 days processing within the Submission and Information Policy Division, 25 days screening with the Submission Management Division of the appropriate Directorate, 180 days submission review)”. It is a total of 215 days.

Of course, the review could produce a negative result. However, in the event that the review described above is positive and that Health Canada is satisfied that the published clinical results cited above are valid, would it be safe to assume that sotatercept will become an approved therapy for Canadian PAH sufferers within 215 days of the end of March, that is to say by the end of November of this year?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 3rd, 2024]

With regard to the final report of the Minister of National Defence’s Advisory Panel on Systemic Racism and Discrimination: (a) how and to what extent have the findings in Part III, section 6, entitled “Re-Defining Chaplaincy”, been rejected, adopted, actioned, interpreted, or otherwise implemented; (b) how and to what extent has Part III, recommendation 6.1 been adopted, actioned, or otherwise implemented; (c) how and to what extent has Part III, recommendation 6.2 been adopted, actioned, or otherwise implemented; (d) how and to what extent has Part III, recommendation 6.3 been adopted, actioned, or otherwise implemented; (e) how and to what extent has Part III, recommendation 6.4 been adopted, actioned, or otherwise implemented; (f) what published policies, practices, instructions, or orders have been promulgated, amended, updated, or changed as a result of the findings, observations, and recommendations in Part III, section 6 of the report; (g) how and to what extent have decisions respecting hiring, promotion, evaluation, contracting, or termination in the Canadian Armed Forces been influenced by the findings, observations, and recommendations in Part III, section 6 of the report; (h) how and to what extent have decisions respecting hiring, promotion, evaluation, contracting, or termination in the Department of National Defence (DND) been influenced by the findings, observations, and recommendations in Part III, section 6 of the report; (i) how and to what extent has Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) operational decision-making been influenced by the findings, observations, and recommendations in Part III, section 6 of the report; (j) how and to what extent has DND operational decision-making been influenced by the findings, observations, and recommendations in Part III, section 6 of the report; and (k) how has the composition of CAF chaplains changed since the publication of the report, broken down by number of chaplains and faith or spiritual affiliation of chaplains, as of the first day of January, April, July, and October of 2022 and 2023, and as of the first day of January and April 2024?

[Pharmacare Act, June 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to withdraw the remarks, and I do deeply apologize to the member for Timmins—James Bay, who is indeed the model of decorum for all of us here. He sets the standard for all of us, along with the member from Kingston and the Islands—