Evidence of meeting #123 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was women.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chair.
I do want to talk about Mr. Powlowski's motion.
I would go back to the original motion. For the reasons I just gave, I feel perfectly comfortable making recommendations even though I'm not an expert. It's clear that it's the committee making these recommendations. We're obviously not the ones who will be making the decision. The government will.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
I support the amendment, and I agree in principle with what Mr. Thériault is saying. I want to make it clear, again, for the record, that I would love for us all to get a consensus to make this unanimous so we can express the urgency. I have no problem making noise. I have no problem with the urgency of this, but I think we have to respect the proper process.
The minister doesn't direct the task force, and neither do we direct guidelines. As politicians, we are not responsible for issuing guidelines, but we can ask the task force to consider an urgent review, with a view to arriving at a recommendation to screen women aged 40 plus.
I think the goal is to get there in an expeditious way. Hopefully, we can all agree on that by following due process.
Liberal
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
We're going to a vote. I was on the list for the motion, so we'll go to the vote and then we can talk about that.
Liberal
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
This is a very important topic. It impacts a lot of women in this country. The mark of this committee has been to do thoughtful work and thoughtful analysis.
I'm sure that we all agree on the recommendation we will be making through the work this committee has been doing. What saddens me is that at this moment, with the original motion and the amended motion, which I support, we're basically writing the report. We're really missing the opportunity to capture the pretty much unanimous analysis that we received from some incredible witnesses. The value of capturing and documenting the witnesses' testimony is being missed by using the process we're using. We're not getting a more substantive document in front of the task force in their 60-day review period, which has been extended, as the minister has asked them to do, by basically having a five- or six-line set of recommendations.
That's my concern. I think that's what Mr. Hanley was referring to as well—shortchanging the process. I don't believe in being loud for the sake of it when being loud is not substantiated by a rational thought process. Being loud is far more effective when you can justify why you're being loud, and I think we're missing the opportunity to write a report that analysts would have captured by hearing the testimony.
In any case, I support the amendments that have been put forward so we can help ensure we are moving forward with protecting the lives of women, especially, as we heard, those who are racialized. I come from that background. I've talked about the experience I went through with my mother, who's an educated woman—all of us are—and the kind of anxiety that we faced as we worked through that process.
We should do this in a way that is befitting of this parliamentary committee.
Conservative
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with the proposed amendment. We heard Ms. Zarrillo's testimony.
Thank you, Mrs. Goodridge, for your work. We all agree. My mom is also fighting cancer.
Members are in agreement with the amendments, but we also heard testimony. This is not how we write reports. I would like to remind members opposite that we are writing other reports. We are also discussing this in FEWO. We were going to listen to even more witnesses, to come up with a more exclusive report. This is something I urge the committee to do. If everyone agrees and we have the same views, why can't we listen to more witnesses?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
The speakers list is now exhausted, so we're ready for the question.
The question is on the amendment proposed by Mr. Powlowski.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're now on to the main motion as presented by Mrs. Goodridge.
We'll go to Ms. Zarrillo.
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I really appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion today, and I appreciate the motion put forward in relation to fast-tracking this.
Some of the discussion we've had reminds me that for two years I had to fight my own health care provider to get heard and seen. I feel a sense that some of the underlying messages the Liberal Party is trying to send—asking for women's health to be prioritized and asking for women's health to be seen in the House of Commons—are not rational, and I fundamentally object to them.
I have an amendment that I would like to move today, and I hope it can be passed unanimously. I know the health minister has already put forward directives on the draft recommendations from the task force. The health minister has a lot of power to ensure that women are seen, and I hope we can move quickly on this and finally be at a point where women are seen in the health care system and by this government.
One part of my amendment is guidance, as a follow-up to what my Bloc colleague had to say about how many witnesses spoke today about their concerns.
After the wording “‘deeply concerned’ by the task force's guidelines”, I would like to add a comma and then “and so were the majority of witnesses”. Then after the wording “help save lives”, I'd like to add “that the Minister of Health direct the task force to go back to the drawing board and revisit the guidelines based on the latest science; and that the Public Health Agency of Canada table to this committee the parameters given to the task force to update breast cancer screening guidelines.”
I will remind the committee that the health minister did say that with the additional $500,000 given to this task force, his expectation was that the report would be based on current science.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I just want to make sure we have your amendment. From what I heard, it appears that your amendment is in order. Just give us a minute to distribute it.
I have Dr. Powlowski and Mrs. Goodridge to speak to it.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
I would like to see the amendment before I speak to it.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I'm ready to speak to it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Dr. Powlowski is next, and he has asked to see it, so we're going to respect that. It's not going to take much longer.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I appreciate that he is next. We have provided it to the clerk, and I have a printed copy for all those in the room. We have very limited time. I believe a very common-sense, reasonable proposal has been put forward by Ms. Zarrillo. It's clear that some members are looking to filibuster, but frankly, women's lives are on the line.
I'm asking that we move to a vote so we can move forward on this very important topic for women and all Canadians.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
We won't be moving to a vote until the speakers list is exhausted.
Dr. Powlowski, you should have the amendment now. Please go ahead.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
I suggest going to Laila first while I read it.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I believe this is the result of working across party lines.
I want to thank MP Zarrillo for working with both me and Mr. Thériault.
This helped us come up with a motion and an amendment that really meet Canadians' needs.
I do not believe we need to talk out the clock on this. We have a handful of minutes left, and I'm pleading with committee members to allow us to get to a vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
We actually have resources until 2:30. A motion to adjourn can be presented at any time before 2:30, but if there isn't one, that's when we'll cut off the meeting.
I have Mr. Naqvi, Dr. Powlowski and then Dr. Hanley.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
The challenge I have with the amendment that's been presented is that it asks the minister to do something the minister does not have the power to do. Again, I'm challenged about approving a motion that is outside the scope of a minister's authority. In particular, it's the part that says, “that the Minister of Health direct the task force to go back to the drawing board and revisit the guidelines based on the latest science”. The minister does not have the authority to do that.
I want to highlight for the committee that the minister has taken some very important steps to address this issue, and he did so the day the draft guidelines were issued by the task force. Among the steps he's taken, he has highlighted his serious concerns about the task force's findings. He has encouraged all leading experts on breast cancer to carefully review the draft guidelines and to provide their feedback to the task force during their consultation period. He has also called for an extension of the public consultation period from six weeks to a minimum of 60 days so there is ample time for that to happen.
He has asked the chief public health officer to convene a meeting of senior provincial and territorial officials and key experts to review the guidelines in order to share their best practices as well. That is an important step because, as we know, the delivery of health care takes place at the provincial and territorial levels. Furthermore, the minister has noted that the task force has identified some important research gaps and uncertainties. He has outlined steps to meet those gaps.
Last of all, the minister has asked that the Public Health Agency of Canada accelerate the launch of the external expert review that will examine the processes of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care and provide recommendations to improve the process of the task force so we don't run into similar issues in the future. That's a really important step the minister has taken. PHAC funds the task force but doesn't direct the task force, nor does the minister direct the task force. We need to make sure that if there are some systemic challenges to the manner in which this task force operates, which I think we are all seeing in this process, we don't run into them moving forward.
To me, the challenging part is that right now we are debating a motion asking the minister to do something that he does not have the capacity to do. I think we all want to move forward with this. We want to make sure that, if it is the will of the committee that we move by way of a simple motion, we do so in a responsible way, in a way that is within how the process works.
I suggest that instead of using the word “direct” in the motion, which says, “that the Minister of Health direct the task force”, we use “urge”. That change will allow the minister to do something he is able to do and that he has already spoken to, as opposed to asking him to do something he does not have the authority to do.
This is a really important issue. This issue is personal to so many Canadians. It's personal to members of this committee, including me. This is not a political or partisan issue. We need to make sure we move in a way that befits this committee so that, as has been said—and I agree with members—Canadian women know we are doing our work in a thoughtful and responsible way by making sure their health is front and centre.
Thank you.
