Health Committee on Dec. 13th, 2022

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

The next amendment is on paragraph 3(3)(b). I move that Bill C-224, in clause 3, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 2 with the following

fighting and compile information relating to those needs;

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Dr. Ellis.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Once again, as a health care provider, understanding what clinical practice guidelines are is essential to this. We heard very clearly from the firefighters today that health care professionals need clinical practice guidelines to help them understand who should be screened, which cancers are important, what the latency period of certain cancers are, etc. To not include that in here doesn't really make any sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Are there any further interventions with respect to G-6?

Are you ready for the question?

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

I would like a recorded division, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

A recorded division has been requested. The question is whether G-6 shall carry.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

That brings us to G-7.

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I'm not mistaken, G-7 renders BQ-3 from the Bloc Québécois irrelevant. We are proposing that clause 3 be amended by deleting lines 1 and 2 on page 3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I agree with Adam that G-7 and BQ-3 deal with the same thing.

I want to go on the record as saying that I support BQ-3 because the result of the government amendment would be to eliminate “provide for firefighters across Canada to be regularly screened for cancers linked to firefighting”. I understand why that's problematic. I don't think the federal government can provide for firefighters across Canada to be regularly screened for cancers; I think that is provincial.

That's why I like the Bloc's amendment. Again, we're in the context of what the national framework must include. It would make the national framework

(c) make recommendations respecting regular screenings for cancers linked to firefighting;

I think that's a useful role the federal government can play. The ultimate goal here is that we want to get more regular screenings. I don't want to take this out completely, because it would mean that the bill doesn't have anything on screening, which I think would be a terrible error.

I'm going to vote against the government's G-7, but I'm going to be supporting BQ-3 so that we have a clear provision on regular screenings for cancers linked to firefighting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Colleagues, this might help the discussion.

Mr. van Koeverden and Mr. Davies are correct. We're obligated to consider G-7 before BQ-3 simply because it was submitted first, but it's also correct that if G-7 is adopted, then BQ-3 is out of order. If you're on the same page as Mr. Davies and prefer BQ-3 to G-7, you should defeat G-7 and vote on BQ-3 because you won't get to consider BQ-3 if G-7 passes.

I hope that was clear.

Go ahead, Dr. Ellis.

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

I think it's important that we give this due consideration. I think the last thing we want with respect to regular screenings is to not have recommendations that are supported by science. As I think we heard very clearly from the firefighters who were here, part of their expectation is that we have recommendations around regular screening.

It sounds like I'm being very particular, but I do mean to be that way because it is easy to think that we should screen for every type of cancer we can possibly think of. However, not every cancer has good screening procedures or the ability to do that.

I think having recommendations supported by science is the intent herein. Certainly, I would go along with exactly what Mr. Davies said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I 100% agree with the notion that screening is of the utmost importance. That was the context of my question for the witnesses today, and I fully agree. However, the fact remains that provincial and territorial governments are responsible for the delivery of health care, and that includes the provision of screening for cancers. Doing otherwise would be and has been considered an intrusion into areas of provincial and territorial jurisdiction. However, we submitted G-7 before BQ-3, so I don't completely disagree with the notion of having a conversation around it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Is there any further discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

With regard to BQ-3, I don't think it's an incursion on provincial jurisdiction for the federal government to have a national framework that makes recommendations, if that gives any comfort.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Next is Dr. Ellis and then Mr. van Koeverden.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We heard Mr. van Koeverden say he was open to a conversation about this.

Well, what exactly do you mean? Are you in agreement with Mr. Davies and me that we should get rid of your amendment and support the Bloc one?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I mentioned, we submitted G-7 before BQ-3 came through, so we think they achieve fairly similar things. I'm all for more inclusion around screening, and I want it on the record that the Bloc Québécois proposed something that might incur more jurisdictional considerations.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. van Koeverden, just so you know, there actually is one other option to deal with this. I indicated that one option was simply to defeat G-7 so as to consider BQ-3. The other option available to the committee is, by unanimous consent, to withdraw G-7. You will need the unanimous consent of the committee if you decide to take that step.

Mr. Garon, you have the floor.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

No. It's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Is there any further discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I withdraw my snarky comment about the Bloc Québécois.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!