Health Committee on April 6th, 2017

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

You're right that this is an important issue. Certainly many of us hear from...and in certain parts of Canada in particular it's a real challenge. I'm pleased that we were able to host a conference recently to develop a federal framework on Lyme disease. The draft report associated with that has recently been proposed.

There are many things that we as a federal government can do, of course, and we will work toward those. I'll ask my public health colleagues to expand on that, to a certain extent. A great deal of work needs to be done in public education and making people aware of the risks. There are ways that we're doing that through the Public Health Agency, but we're also working with provincial and territorial partners to get the message out to Canadians on how to prevent Lyme disease. A lot of work also needs to be done with health care providers, to make sure they recognize it early, get the diagnosis, and get the treatment to people.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Absolutely. Minister, I don't mean to cut you off, but I want to know about the actual funding. I only have a little bit of time here. Can you give us any detail on the funding that will be allocated and spent on Lyme disease?

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Theresa, perhaps you can give us some specifics.

[Dr. Theresa Tam, Interim Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada]

Within the Public Health Agency of Canada we are strengthening surveillance, education, and awareness. We're looking at where more information or knowledge is needed. We are leveraging, essentially, on any funding we may have under climate change, because we're looking at the expansion of mosquitoes, ticks, and vectors, and the expansion of Lyme disease.

We'll be trying to look at how we can leverage that funding. As the minister said, there's additional funding. We will be looking at some of that. That includes grants and contributions as well.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Thank you. I appreciate that. Obviously, I'm not getting any numbers here.

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

If I may, I just want to clarify what the actual number is. What Dr. Tam was referring to is $47 million of investment for health risks associated with climate change, and, of course, Lyme disease is one of the priority areas in that regard.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Okay. Will it go only to federal spending, or will it be targeted funding given to provinces? Will that money flow in this fiscal year, or is it subject to a lengthy application program that actually means funding will be re-profiled for future years? Exactly what part of the battle against Lyme disease will see extra funding this year, and in what amounts? That's what I'm asking. I just need numbers.

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

I'm happy to get you the breakdown on that $47 million. I don't have it at my fingertips, but we'll be happy to get that to you.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

That's a federal investment. I think it's also really important to recognize, as you have alluded to, that a large part of the diagnosis and treatment of this is provincial and territorial, and obviously is up to their discretion.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

All right. Thank you, Minister.

I'm sorry. I don't mean to cut you off. I have only a minute here.

I do want to bring up another topic that I am deeply passionate about. Last year one of my colleagues, MP for Edmonton Manning, Mr. Ziad Aboultaif, brought forward a legislative proposal for a national organ and tissue donation registry. The concept was well received by many Canadians, but his efforts were voted down by the Liberal government. That vote did see a few Liberals, including our chair—thank you, Mr. Chair—voting in favour, but it was defeated.

Of those who opposed this life-saving idea, were you, Minister, and also MP Judy Sgro, the member for Humber River—Black Creek. Imagine my surprise, Minister, when I saw a few months later, on November 28, 2016, that Ms. Sgro tabled Motion No.98, which reads as follows:

That the House underscore its desire and commitment to establish a national organ donor registry, and call upon the government to engage with provinces, territories, and other relevant stakeholders in an effort to devise and enact the legislative and regulatory framework necessary to establish the same.

I'm just asking, Minister, if you can explain this. How can the Liberals vote against a national organ and tissue donor registry in June and then propose one in November? Is the government admitting that it made a mistake and is now willing to support such a great initiative, or is this a case of the government being determined not to vote in favour of a Conservative bill just to be able to say that it passed a Liberal motion instead?

I sure hope this is not the case, because people are dying, Minister. Can you explain this to me?

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Let me preface it with two comments. First of all, I will say that I hope you and the committee are very well aware of the fact that health, of all issues that governments face, is not a partisan issue, and I will not make decisions on the basis of partisanship. My priority is the health of Canadians, and it is on that basis that I make decisions.

Second, I need to thank you for your leadership on the matter of organ and tissue donation, which is incredibly important. I will agree with you that there is a tremendous amount more work to be done, particularly in the area of encouraging Canadians to participate. I think you and I would both agree there is much more work to be done in terms of the donor community being increased.

One of the challenges around the motion and indeed any of the areas on this is that when we wade into provincial and territorial jurisdiction, it gets complicated. I would look forward to the opportunity to work with you, because I know this matters to you so much and to many of our other parliamentary colleagues, to find better ways to figure out where our federal role lies and how far we can push it without invading provincial and territorial space, with the ultimate goal of making sure that we increase the donor base.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you.

Now we're going to Mr. Ayoub.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister. It is always a privilege to give you an opportunity to explain to Canadians the leadership you provide in the negotiations with the many provinces, especially Quebec, on home care and mental health, topics I will now focus on.

In my former life, I was a mayor, and constituents came to see me to get some suggestions to help them stay at home. Those seniors have a family that supports them, and they want to stay at home. They don't really want to go into institutions, unless they are forced to do so because of the nature of the care they must receive.

Canada is a federation, and the federal government negotiates with the provinces. I would like you to explain the leadership you have provided in the negotiations to give Quebec in particular, but also the rest of Canada, the notion of home care and mental health. In the latest federal budget, investments in those areas are of a truly historic nature.

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you very much. I will try to answer in French.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I congratulate you on the quality of your French. I see a nice improvement. It is to your credit.

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you.

As you know, we have had some very good discussions with all the provinces and territories, including Quebec. I know that Minister Barrette said very clearly that mental health and home care are among our shared priorities. I have seen several good examples of that, including a palliative care facility in Montreal. That is a great example of the good work being done in Quebec.

During the discussions, it was clear that the elements you mentioned were priorities for Minister Barrette and his government. We discussed how they could increase services. They have some very good ideas on mental health services for young people.

Maybe I'll just continue in English for the sake of time.

Minister Barrette has identified some excellent programs that they're very interested in for youth. They have, in fact, looked to international communities. I don't want to presuppose what their plans will look like, but just to give you a bit of an idea of the things that they are looking at there. We know that when we get care to young people, it can have a lifelong impact on them. We know that young people are not often identified as having mental illness early enough and don't have access to care. I know that Minister Barrette and his government are looking at expanding programs for young people to get access to cognitive behavioural therapy and using some of the very best world-class models in that regard.

They will make decisions on the basis of how the funding that we gave to them is spent. However, I know that you can assure your constituents that they should see improved access to mental health care as well as home care in the years to come as a result of our investments.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I am fully aware of that and I am very confident. Thank you.

We are also talking about the opioid crisis, which is much more prevalent in western Canada, but it is worsening in the eastern part of the country, especially in Montreal.

Lately, I was reading some information on the solid relationship with Minister Charlebois in terms of the incentive to open new sites. Montreal was able to benefit from that.

Could you tell us where the reconciliation stands and how far along the process to open those sites is?

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

I recently announced that three supervised consumption sites in Montreal were ready to resume. They have received an exemption.

They've also said I've had a good working relationship with Minister Charlebois who's determined to address this. I'd also say that I had a conversation with the Mayor of Montreal not very long ago about his concerns about the opioid crisis in Montreal. I would say that they have been highly proactive, and this is good news. It has not reached Quebec to the extent that it has in other provinces, for a variety of reasons, but it's good that this is very much on their radar. There's a lot of good work being done there.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

That's what we call team work and leadership. I congratulate you on that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Time is up.

Dr. Carrie, you are up.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Minister, in March, you refused to delay implementing the ban on neonicotinoids despite the agriculture committee's signal that the decision to ban the pesticide was not based on the best available science. In fact, nowhere in your mandate letter does it say you're required to ensure decisions are based on science, facts, and evidence and serve the public's interest. However, your decision to stick with the implementation of the ban, despite the lack of science, sets a dangerous precedent. With the upcoming legalization of marijuana, we know that the science is very clear. It says the brain develops until the age of 25. Minister, will you forego science in favour of special interest groups in this case too? What are you doing to ensure that your decisions are science-based?

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you.

I'm concerned that perhaps you've conflated a few issues that aren't necessarily fitting together nicely.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Well, it's based on science, and the reality is—

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

The reality is that decisions have to be made based on science. You referred to pesticides on a couple of different matters. One is the matter of imidacloprid, which is a neonicotinoid. A draft recommendation has been tabled. A final decision has not been made on that, but the decision related to that was based on science.

Then you talked about other pesticides related to cannabis, which is an entirely separate issue. But the principle—