Health Committee on Dec. 14th, 2010

[Dr. Susan Forbes]

Sure. Why not? I don't mean to be flippant about that, because I'm one of those odd Canadians who really doesn't skate well.

I think the most important thing to recognize is that every kid develops differently, so I think some of the most intelligent people around that are the parents. It's intuitive around what your child is capable of doing and not capable of doing, so let common sense prevail. If the kid is always falling down, now is not necessarily a good time to introduce him to sports where falling down is going to be an issue.

As far as equipment goes, everybody has a vested interest. Can we educate people in retail? It's really hard, because it's sort of a McDonald's mentality, and the turnover rate is astronomical.

With regard to websites, absolutely, we could do that. Play it Cool has some information around hockey helmets in particular, but certainly there are other sources out there. I would suggest to look for the ones that are non-profit organizations interested in kids' participation, and to stay away from the manufacturers, because obviously they have a vested interest.

[Paul Kells]

If you had a centre for disease control in Canada that was actually a source of independent advice, then maybe you'd be able to find that kind of information if indeed that was a priority. The problem is in the vacuum that exists when the leadership is not there or the resource isn't there. Then you'll get all sorts of people from the marketplace, understandably--no pointing of any fingers at that--but they'll fill the void with their own cases and arguments. If you really want that to be a priority in terms of developing guides for consumers and Canadians, then you'll need to help create that.

[Dr. Louis Hugo Francescutti]

The other thing you can do is work with your family doctor, pediatrician, and public health units, because they should be the ones who are giving you that information. So every time a child sees a health care provider.... I always tell my patients who have ear infections that the only reason God gave them ear infections is so I can give them the lecture on injury prevention.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Dr. Louis Hugo Francescutti]

That's the time you use because that's what's going to kill them. The ear infection is not going to kill them.

We need to do risk assessments for kids when we interact with them, and as they grow that's going to change.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

In a sport, what's the timeline from the time a injury is identified as a problem? Let's say it's in ice hockey. When I was younger and playing ice hockey, we didn't have the stop sign on the back of the jerseys saying not to hit from behind. At the time, it was obviously an offence, but it wasn't as much of an issue. But now all these young kids I know in our area have that little stop sign on their backs, which probably helps them in many ways.

How long does it take before you can identify a problem and you get it to the coaching level, to the organization level, and it gets further?

[Dr. Louis Hugo Francescutti]

Let me give you the best example. Alcan, which is a company that makes aluminum, has hundreds of thousands of employees around the world. They solved the problem within the organization by having an online reporting system for occupational injuries. From synthesizing that information and having it out in less than 24 hours to their worldwide operation, they had one of the lowest injury rates in the world.

With the technology that exists today, you should be able to be on that problem within minutes, because those injuries can be reported with either an iPhone or an iPad and then analyzed. The appropriate guidelines can then be disseminated by text back to the parents as they're watching their kids playing.

The technology is there. We're just not using it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you very much, Dr. Francescutti.

Now we will go to Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you.

I enjoyed the presentations very much.

One of the things I was reflecting on was that for years inside the Manitoba legislature I would introduce a bill to make bicycle helmets mandatory. What I found was that throughout Canada, there's a great deal of discrepancy with respect to minimum ages, maximum ages, the amounts of fines, and you name it. There's a lot of discrepancy. Alberta probably has one of the better laws.

I'm interested in knowing what you feel the role of a federal government could be in addressing an issue of that nature. What sort of advice would you give?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Who would like to tackle that one?

Go ahead, Dr. Forbes.

[Dr. Susan Forbes]

Why don't you start?

[Dr. Louis Hugo Francescutti]

The best example I can give you is the H1N1 disaster we just went through. We had no fewer than 14 ways to immunize people against H1N1. How ridiculous. There's really only one way to immunize people properly.

That's the trouble we have right now. Each province is helter-skelter introducing its own legislation. I don't know what the hell it's based on, but it's sure not based on science.

Even if the feds had a repository of what the evidence says should be done that governments can go to, whether they choose to do that is up to them. That's why we end up with 14 different strategies for doing things there should be only one way to do, and it should be based on evidence.

[Paul Kells]

Once you've set a national standard—I'll come back to that—you can encourage the different groups to conform to it.

My question to the folks who ask what, as a parent, they can do, is whether they are wearing helmets when they're on a bike. Are they wearing helmets when they're coaching on a hockey rink?

Those are examples of best practices. Introducing those things through sports associations, provincially and federally, and through procurement policies are all the pieces that can be put in place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Ms. Fréchette.

[Danielle Fréchette, Director, Health Policy, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada]

Another example you can think of is the guidance of this government on extreme heat events. Working with the Public Health Agency, they developed some standards for alerts and interventions and advice for the population, and disseminated it at the municipal level.

There are many examples of how we can tap into modern technology, as Louis was saying. Use of public awareness as one of the greatest ways to change the culture.

[Dr. Susan Forbes]

The answer is public awareness. You can legislate helmets all you want. But I see kids all the time in hockey and on bicycles and in other sports not wearing them properly. It doesn't matter if you have a helmet on. If it's not on properly, it's not going to do the job it's designed to do. How do you get them to do that? You educate people on the consequences of not engaging in safe behaviour.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Kells, do you have a comment?

[Paul Kells]

I have just one final comment on all this. I would just say that there's an army of people at the community level who would be willing to step forward and help. I actually personally intend to spend the rest of my time working on this and bringing victims and families to the forefront.

We have 14,000 people a year. With a couple of parents, in most cases, grandfathers, kids, brothers, and sisters, there are probably 75,000, 80,000, or 100,000 new people a year in that club. Most of these people, because of the trauma that's happened, are shell-shocked. They lack counselling, unlike for cancer or other things. They're left, all of a sudden, with a departed son. For all of these other health issues that happen or occur after the fact, there's actually no support in our health care systems anywhere to help.

You can actually encourage, mobilize, and peer-support people to come forward and actually support you in your efforts across the country if we can only tap into those kinds of volunteer activities, as we have with AIDS, cancer, and others.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you very much. Our time is up now.

I want to thank the witnesses so much. This has been one of the most beneficial meetings we've had, I think. There's lots of new information. We will be looking to you in the future for your expertise. I know that.

I want to especially thank you for coming today and for giving us your insightful comments and your expertise.

Having said that, I am going to suspend this committee briefly and then we're going into committee business.

Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Okay, we're in public session now.

We'll start with Dr. Duncan.

Let's start with your first motion, which has been outstanding for a long time, the year of the brain. Can you speak to that, please?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

For the committee, we've heard repeatedly in our subcommittee that we need a galvanizing effort. So the motion as was passed by the subcommittee would be that the committee recommends that the Government of Canada declare 2013 as the year of the brain.

I'll give you some background as to why that would be a good thing to do. The EU has named 2013 year of the brain in Europe. As you all know, our first national population health study of neurological conditions concludes at that time. The EU has funded a similar study. The World Parkinson Congress will be held in Canada that year. It brings 4,000 people together. It's the largest conference. The World Congress on Conductive Education will also occur in Canada. That's for children and adults who have motor disorders with neurological origins. We'll have the conclusion of the Canadian Dementia Knowledge Translation Network project, which is funded by CHR. The neurological health charities of Canada would be willing to work with the community to leverage planned events into significant year-of-the-brain occasions. They would be keen to coordinate a knowledge exchange event between the Canadian and European population health studies.

It's a timely target to work toward improving the quality of life for more than eleven million Canadians who live with a neurological or psychiatric condition.

I just want to finish by saying that in the 1970s we took real action on smoking, and on the heart in the 1970s and 1980s. We made a real difference. We have an opportunity with 2013 and Canada doing so much to use this as a galvanizing effort.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

Discussion?

Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I did want to take a moment. I want to commend my colleague for her interest in and commitment to the issue, because it is a commitment that the government does share. We've invested $120 million for neurological diseases. We launched a four-year national population health study of neurological conditions. As well, we've signed international MOUs with France, Germany, and the U.K. for Alzheimer's research.

We took a quick glance at the items tabled for private members' business, and it reveals a long list of designated days, weeks, and months. We're probably all very aware of that. One example I've been involved with is Bill S-211, which I think is coming up in the House on Wednesday or Thursday this week. The bill brought up by the member's colleague, Senator Jim Munson, would designate April 2 as Autism Awareness Day. I very much share his passion for this particular private member's bill.

My concern with this motion is I feel it is disrespectful to our fellow parliamentarians. I know the intent is very good but they have chosen to go through the approved process with a private member's bill and for this reason I will be abstaining from the vote, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Dr. Carrie.

Any further discussion?

Monsieur Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you very much Madam Chair.

I would just like to understand what harm there is in using a private members' bill when it is a normal process for this type of recognition. We are talking about nothing more than a recommendation here. In fact, the committee has no authority for imposing this. If the government wants to proceed with this proclamation for 2013, it will have to do so through a bill that will debated in the House.

I am simply trying to understand how this might be contradictory. If the committee's objective is to ask the government to introduce a bill to be debated by the House to proclaim 2013 the year of the brain, how is that different than other types of processes where hon. members introduce bills in the House to designate a day, a month or a year commemorating a certain disease or event that they consider important?

Wherein lies the problem?