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.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I hope we can get to a quick vote on this motion and get back to committee business. It is very troubling that members, particularly Dr. Hanley, who is a medical doctor, won't vote in favour of it after all the testimony we've heard here, but I'm hoping we can get to a quick vote.
June 13th, 2024 / 1 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Generally speaking, I'm in favour of this issue and I have been involved with it a long time. Dr. Yaffe and I spoke about it a number of years ago. Don Davies from the NDP—let me give a shout-out to him—has also been very involved in trying to get this issue addressed.
I have some concerns, as Brendan does, with a parliamentary panel of admittedly non-experts trying to overturn the decision of a body—albeit a seemingly flawed body—like the task force. In my life, I separate the medical—I still practise medicine—from the parliamentary. I think that's important. We're not experts.
I'm just throwing this out there because we haven't had time to fully consider the whole thing. I wonder if there's an appetite for amending the motion. I haven't even cleared this with my own party, but I'm suggesting there might be an appetite for this wording:
That, given that the federally created Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care decided not to lower the breast cancer screening age guidelines, and that, Breast Cancer Canada said it was “deeply concerned” by the task force's guidelines, the committee report to the House that the decision by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care should be immediately reconsidered and that consideration be given to extending breast cancer screening to women in their 40s....
That would perhaps strike a better balance between the two concerns about a parliamentary committee making an attempt to go where perhaps it shouldn't.
Having said that, I agree that we have heard some compelling evidence on this. Certainly, there's enough expertise here that suggests the decision ought to be reconsidered.
This would be a better balance. I don't know if I have to make that a formal motion to amend. Perhaps we need to pause for five minutes for parties to consider it.
1 p.m.
Conservative
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
It would be best if you formally move the amendment. It appears that the Conservatives have already made up their minds about it, or at least one of them has.
I'm going to take that to mean the motion is being amended. The amendment is to change the word “reversed” to “reconsidered”, and after that, the wording would be “that consideration be given to extending breast cancer screening” and so on. I think that's the essence of what you have suggested.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
After the wording at the end—“and that consideration be given to extending breast cancer screening to women in their 40s”—I would put “as this will, in the committee's opinion, help save lives”.
There's an interpretation of the evidence there and we're not experts in it, so I would either drop “as this will help save lives” or put “in the opinion of the committee, this will help save lives”.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
The amendment is in order, so the debate is now on the amendment.
We did have a speaking order on the main motion, but the speaking order resets, so if you want back in, put your hand up.
Dr. Ellis is next.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thanks very much, Chair.
I thank Dr. Powlowski for that.
With the change, the wording is somewhat watered down, but it's incredibly important that we move on this sooner rather than later. I would hope that my colleagues support the wording change. I know that here on this side, we are supportive of it because we can't move fast enough to make this happen.
The task force committee has been a dilly-dally committee that has known this evidence for some time now. I don't think that in 2024, this is a sudden thing. I think the inaction and the inability to hold the Canadian task force to task have allowed this to continue and have allowed thousands of Canadian women to die every year needlessly.
Time is of the essence, folks. Let's show our colours and support this motion.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Sean, can someone do that? I have to type on my little screen and you're probably much quicker than I am.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
We're going to require a suspension to get the wording and get it translated, so what I'd like to do is dismiss the witnesses and get the amendment circulated.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Sean, can the witnesses stay if they're interested?
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Absolutely. This is one of these scenarios where you're welcome to stay but you're free to go.
To each of our witnesses, thank you.
Yes, Mr. Hanley.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
I'm sorry, but I have a point of order before you suspend.
I want a chance to float the wording I had, which is very similar to Marcus', before we get a written—
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
You can do a subamendment or you can defeat his amendment and then propose a new one. Those are your two options. That could perhaps be discussed during the suspension.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
Since it isn't in writing yet and Marcus isn't sure of his own wording, I have a refinement to make. I'm happy to do it as a subamendment. I want to get us to a place where we can all—
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
You and Dr. Powlowski should talk.
To our witnesses, we will not get back to you today. You are welcome to stay but you are free to leave. We greatly appreciate you being here. You can see that you've sparked a spirited debate, a debate that needs to be had. We thank you for your work and for your presence.
We're going to suspend to get the amendment in both languages and in writing to the committee.
The committee stands suspended.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I call the meeting back to order.
We do not have the amendment available for distribution in both languages, but during the suspension it was agreed that we're ready to recommence.
Where we left off, the debate was on the amendment proposed by Dr. Powlowski. The amendment is to delete all the words after the word “immediately” in the motion and to replace them with the following: “reconsidered and that consideration be given to extending breast cancer screening to women in their 40s, as this will, in the committee's opinion, help save lives.”
Where we left off, Dr. Ellis had the floor, so I recognize Dr. Ellis on the amendment.
1:40 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thanks very much, Chair.
The concern I have is that it's a somewhat watered-down version. I think we should move to a vote on it as quickly as possible.
1:40 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Chair, I will try to be brief because we are running out of time.
I agree with the substance of the motion. Usually the committee meets, reports back and makes recommendations, but given the urgency, we will make a recommendation to the House today. That does not mean that we will not draft a detailed report to express the full argument around this recommendation.
I have no qualms about not being an expert. If we had to wait to be an expert before making recommendations, not one committee would do it. In that sense, I agree with moving forward. It is rare to see all the witnesses have such a clear view. I asked my questions and I got very clear, unambiguous answers. I agree with the initiative, even though it is a bit unusual. I think the seriousness of the matter calls for the committee to urgently indicate to the House what it wants, as this session ends. I see no problem in the wording that I have before me.
1:40 p.m.
A voice
[Inaudible--Editor]
