Health Committee on May 30th, 2024

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I don't see how Dr. Ellis's speech is relevant to the motion on the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Dr. Hanley.

As I was listening to Dr. Ellis, it seemed to me that he was pointing out that there are other studies that should take precedence over this one. He got into an unnecessary amount of detail with respect to his choice, but I don't think he's that far removed from the point for it to be entirely irrelevant.

If you could bring it back a little bit, Dr. Ellis, go ahead.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Absolutely, Chair.

That's why, as I began down this road, I started.... The article goes on and on. I didn't realize it was quite so long.

The point is, of course, that this is information. I think there are two really important things. First, this happened today. The second thing is that this article points out and underlines that, if there is any avenue in this country to get this incredibly important issue into the mind of the Minister of Health, Mark Holland, we are the closest people physically and from a “loudness of voice” perspective to get that information to him.

That being said, this is an urgent issue that we already had on the docket previously, which does relate specifically to the drafting instructions that we were to get to today.

I just can't understand it. We got into this problem before in this committee, where we, first of all, had a health human resources study that got backed up for, I want to say, over a year. That's a disservice to Canadians.

Then we had a children's health study for which we had so many different members here that, in the end, I think there were probably three, four or five of us here for the majority of the testimony related to that. Trying to create a report that is in any way, shape or form useful on behalf of Canadians when the majority of people were not even here during the report to hear the testimony becomes very difficult.

I think, too, when we talked about this previously, we had talked about trying to clear some of the backlog of issues that we had. Using the half an hour that we had today would have made perfect sense to do that, and then, as I said, to have some planning meetings around looking at the other topics that are of critical importance to Canadians.

I'm not saying, Ms. Sidhu, that your motion is not of critical importance—perhaps it is. I think perhaps hearing it again would be useful. Our minds were significantly turned to another issue that's of critical importance to Canadians right now and unbelievably topical since the federal government was involved in a partnership with the B.C. government for an experimental decriminalization project with respect to opioids, which are killing more than 22 people a day on average. You all know that.

We were focused on that particular study, and that study wanted to be interrupted.... I can't understand why when we had significant witnesses here—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I have a point of order, Chair.

There are not 22 people a day in British Columbia dying from toxic drugs, just to clarify.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Johns, it isn't a point of order.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

It's a point of clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

It's a matter of debate on something that isn't particularly relevant to the motion.

Go ahead, Dr. Ellis.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thanks, Chair.

To be clear, if I said “in B.C.”, I misspoke. I meant in Canada.

You're very welcome, Mr. Johns. It's six a day in B.C.

That being said, the point here is that we're not making a useful and judicious use of the limited time we have. We also have another motion and I'll take my hat off to Mr. Johns. He presented his motion, which was germane. He presented it quickly. We agreed on it quickly, and we moved forward with it because it is incredibly important that, before the end of this session, we be in a position to have the ministers respond to the estimates again.

My plea to this committee is that we have work before us, some of it perhaps is more important than others. Some of it—and this is my summary, Chair, just to give you a heads-up—is incredibly important on behalf of Canadians and perhaps some of it is less so. I'm not going to tell you that I think I'm the arbiter on that.

There is the fact that we have a bit of a backlog of things that we need to get to and we are coming toward the end of the session. If members have the desire to sit all summer and have Standing Committee on Health meetings all summer, I think the Conservative side is quite happy to do that.

If that's your plea, Ms. Sidhu, I'm happy to be here to do that and to be of service to Canadians. I think that's incredibly important.

Specifically with the study on opioids.... Again, this is my own prioritization. The study on opioids and the study on breast cancer and screening guidelines specifically, for me, would be at the top of my list of things that we need to do on behalf of Canadians.

Because of the dire straits and the difficulties we got into with respect to other studies in the past.... This is not the fault of the analysts. That's not what I'm meaning to say in that direction. In the past, we've gotten into some difficulties with the studies because they've been so prolonged and drawn out. That causes extreme difficulties and makes reports—with all of our names on them—perhaps not as good as they could have been if we had done them in a more timely fashion.

That's my plea. For that reason I move to adjourn debate on Ms. Sidhu's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

A motion to adjourn debate is a dilatory motion. It is not debatable. We must go directly to a vote.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Chair, I'd like to request a recorded division. There are too many people online for me to process that.

Could we ask the clerk to do it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

You don't need a reason; you can have it as a right.

We will have a recorded division.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Mrs. Goodridge, you have the floor.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's really frustrating. It's just one of those things....

To go a little bit further, I appreciate Ms. Sidhu bringing this motion forward, but it's really frustrating. We had possibly some of the most powerful testimony I've heard on this opioid study come from Mr. Earl Thiessen when it comes to his own personal, lived experience with addiction. The fact that we decided, because a motion was moved, to not continue having questions with him and the other witnesses who were here is extremely difficult.

Mr. Chair, there's a lot of conversation happening in the room. I'm having a hard time hearing myself think.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mrs. Goodridge.

Could I ask everyone just to extend the courtesy to Mrs. Goodridge and to your colleagues that, when they have the floor, you keep your side conversations outside?

Go ahead, Mrs. Goodridge.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To just follow up on some of what my colleague, Dr. Ellis, stated, the motion I moved on looking at the breast cancer guidelines isn't just politics for me. This is something that is incredibly important to me. I was 21 years old when I lost my mom to cancer, and my mom was 49 years old. She was younger than what she would currently be able to get a mammogram for. In the time since I've lost my mom.... That shook our entire family. That created trauma, heartache and so much challenge for my entire family.

I remember watching my dad, who was the strongest person I ever knew, turn into a very broken man for a while after my mom died. She was the love of his life. It was breast cancer. It was something that should have been completely preventable had she simply been able to have adequate diagnostic testing available to her at an earlier age.

The Canadian Cancer Society, in fact, today put out a statement:

The Canadian Cancer Society is disappointed by the new breast [cancer] screening guidelines released today by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) and specifically the lack of a recommendation to lower the start age to systematically screen for breast cancer nationwide.

These conversations happened as we were studying women's health. We heard from multiple witnesses about the importance of breast cancer screening earlier and about the difference between breast cancer screening when it comes to dense breasts and different breast compositions. We heard a lot about women's health, and it was something that hit me, as someone who is the daughter of a breast cancer person. It hit me that we could make an actual immediate difference in the lives of people like my mom and our family, as well as all the other families in similar situations.

Also, women's health is so understudied at the best of times. There's the fact that most people don't even want to talk about women's health and the fact that in this health committee, when we decided to study women's health, we didn't study breast cancer. We didn't study endometriosis. We literally looked at just women's health, as if somehow studying health for more than 50% of the population is an okay thing.

It really bothers me, because I can't imagine a time when we would say, you know what? Let's have a study on men's health. No, we wouldn't. We would study men's mental health. We would study prostate cancer. We would study the guidelines.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I'll say it right now here on Hansard. If men had to put their reproductive organs into a mammogram machine as their form of diagnostic, we would already have a different test. If that were something men were subjected to, we would already have a different test. This just speaks to the systemic challenges women's health has.

Here we have an opportunity, then, to study women's health, to have conversations with the analysts and to have this conversation. Instead—

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I certainly understand Mrs. Goodridge's passion on this important subject, but I don't believe this is relevant to the motion on climate change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I'm inclined to agree. We do extend a wide latitude, but I would ask you, Mrs. Goodridge, to bring it back around to the motion, please.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it is deeply relevant, because in this committee, we have had a precedent of having different studies come forward.

My question is what the motivation was for Ms. Sidhu to bring this up. She mentioned my home community, or thereabouts, having forest fires. I will share with the committee that, as of a few days ago, the forest fires are now being held and they're actually under control because of the amazing work that's been done by Alberta Wildfire and the wonderful wildland firefighters who put themselves out there to protect our community and create all of this structural space. That work was done by Alberta Forestry.

The vast majority of the firefighting capacity is done specifically by provincial forest firefighting groups. This is something that is quite probably more provincial in scope, if we're going to be looking at forest fires specifically, but that's a whole other space.

Going back to the breast cancer motion, which is deeply relevant, we are effectively saying that getting further in our women's health study and getting to a space where we can actually release this report isn't important. That is what has happened here today. That is what is happening right now.

While I appreciate this, and I would appreciate our continuing this conversation another day and at another time, I would—

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

On a point of order, I would submit that moving a motion has nothing to do with planning and prioritization. I don't think this is relevant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I think it is absolutely relevant, Dr. Hanley. She's talking about what's being bumped because of what's proposed in the motion. I don't think that's off base at all.

Go ahead, Mrs. Goodridge.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With that said, I have other commitments, so I would move that we adjourn the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Is it the will of the committee to adjourn the meeting?

(Motion agreed to)

The meeting is adjourned.