Evidence of meeting #119 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was drugs.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
British Columbia Provincial Health Officer, As an Individual
I'm sorry. I couldn't hear that question. It was cut off.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Do you think releasing someone desperately seeking help is meeting their needs?
12:50 p.m.
British Columbia Provincial Health Officer, As an Individual
I think it depends on the situation the person is in. We absolutely want all children to have the supports and connections they need.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Dr. Henry.
Thank you, Mrs. Goodridge.
Ms. Sidhu, you have five minutes. Go ahead, please.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to, once again, thank all the witnesses here with us.
Thank you for the work you are doing on the ground, especially in British Columbia.
Mr. Chair, we know B.C. has already been impacted by forest fires this 2024 season. This is why, colleagues, I want to use my time in this meeting to move a motion I distributed earlier that, given Canadians and indigenous peoples experienced extreme weather events and pollution in 2023, including but not limited to wildfires that occurred coast to coast, from the Okanagan and Shuswap to Tantallon area; high poor air quality indexes across the country; flooding in Alberta, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec; and industrial waste impacting communities or regions, such as the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation or Abitibi-Témiscamingue—
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Wait just a second, Ms. Sidhu. We have a point of order from Mr. Doherty.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Can we have a brief suspension to confer with our colleagues on this?
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Ms. Sidhu, if you could finish moving the motion, I'll suspend the meeting to allow for a huddle. I find oftentimes that expedites things. We'll probably also dismiss the witnesses at the same time.
Finish your motion. We'll dismiss the witnesses. We'll suspend the meeting, and we'll take it from there. Go ahead.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
There's industrial waste impacting the Athabaska Chipewyan First Nation and Abitibi-Témiscamingue, and the most recent wildfires have affected Fort McMurray, Fort Nelson, Quesnel and Vanderhoof.
This is why I move:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of no less than six hours on the negative—
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
I have a question. If this was moved quite some time ago, is the motion the same? It appears that there's some new information added. Am I mistaken?
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Ms. Sidhu, on the motion that you are moving, is that the one that was put on notice on Monday, May 27?
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Okay, I think what happened was that you started speaking to the motion, and then you introduced the motion, so it looked like there was additional information.
Have you finished moving the motion?
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
I move:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of no less than six hours on the negative effects climate change and pollution have on the health of Canadians and Indigenous communities, including the cost to the healthcare infrastructure, resources and impact on vulnerable communities and populations; that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Government table a comprehensive response to the report.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Ms. Sidhu.
To our witnesses, we are rapidly approaching the top of the hour, which is the time that you agreed to commit to us. We're unlikely to get back to you before the top of the hour, so I'm going to take this opportunity to tell you how much we appreciate your flexibility in being cancelled at the last minute and then coming back to provide your testimony in such a patient and professional manner. We are grateful and indebted to you for all of that.
You are welcome to stay, but you're free to leave. Thank you so much.
With that, we're going to suspend for five minutes to allow everyone to figure out what they're going to do with respect to the debate on this motion.
I will say this. The motion is in order. After the suspension, the question will be on the motion.
We're suspended.
1:08 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I call the meeting back to order.
When we suspended, Ms. Sidhu, you had just moved the motion. I'm not sure whether or not you relinquished the floor.
The debate is on the motion. You have the floor, and Dr. Ellis is next.
1:08 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thanks very much, Chair.
I appreciate Ms. Sidhu wanting to move this motion. There are just a couple of things that I think are important to point out.
One is that, most importantly, today was scheduled for drafting instructions related to a study on women's health. I think there are some incredibly significant things that we need to get to, on behalf of all women in Canada, with respect to that study. There are issues that I think we can all agree need to be said out loud. I'm not entirely sure why, in this committee, we seem to struggle to get through reports without having more and more motions come forward.
The other issue, Chair, is related to the fact that we really haven't had a planning meeting to try to better understand what we are going to undertake next. Because we have quite a few new members here, what we have done, historically....
I know the waters have become a bit muddied because of some of the studies we've undertaken, but that being said, we had a tradition. I'll use the word “tradition” here, even though it would make us think it's been this way for decades. The tradition here has been for a short time. Some are long and some are short. We have had a tradition whereby a study is proposed by each of the different parties, perhaps in proportionality to their representation here, and then we move around in a circular direction.
We should have a planning meeting to get back to that and really have a more fulsome look at the proposed studies that are before the committee. Obviously, if there are studies that are more urgent than others, we would certainly talk about that as a larger group to understand, on behalf of Canadians, what we should do in sequential order.
The other thing that's really important is that my colleague Mrs. Goodridge has put forward a study on breast cancer, which is, of course, somewhat mentioned in the women's health study, but there's more evidence that came out today.
If you'll indulge me, in a recent news article put out by Global News, it says:
Canada’s guidelines for routine breast cancer screenings will remain unchanged, despite mounting pressure from medical experts who have labelled them as “dangerous.”
The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care released its updated guidelines Thursday recommending that people in their 40s should not get routine mammograms but can request one if they want.
The current guidelines set by the task force are to begin routine breast cancer screening at age 50.
“The first and most important recommendation coming out of this guideline is that breast cancer [screening] is a personal choice, and that people deserve information so that they can make the right choice for them,”....
“We recommend that women between the ages of 40 and 74 are provided with information about the benefits and harms of screening to make a decision that aligns with their values and preferences,” she said during a media briefing on Thursday.
She added that this information should cover factors like family history, race or ethnicity, and breast density. If someone is aware of these factors and wishes to be screened, they should be offered mammography every two to three years.
The task force said it holds firm on its position not to lower the recommended [age] due to concerns of over-diagnosis and unnecessary biopsies.
The new breast screening guidelines released today by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care are “dangerous and harmful to Canadians,” Dense Breasts Canada executive director Jennie Dale, said Thursday....
“We are beyond disappointed in the recommendations,” Dale said. “The guidelines should reflect the latest evidence and prioritize the lives of Canadians. The Task Force has failed us and we ask Canadians to tell Minister Holland to suspend these guidelines and use modern science to save lives.”
It goes on. People talk about how they're deeply concerned, there's good evidence and the guidelines are outdated and flawed. I'm just paraphrasing to try to speed things up here a bit.