Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's true that it's not specified in the motion. I'm nonetheless surprised by the question because it seems that we won't be able to discuss the motion until the fall.
In the interest of fairness, each party usually presents one of its priorities. I fully understand that Mr. Davies would like to discuss breast health generally. The wording of his motion is also very good. But how can we discuss breast health without factoring in the pandemic? How can we talk about access to treatment, wait times and late diagnoses while ignoring the pandemic? There were circumstances prior to the pandemic, and circumstances during the pandemic. We could combine all these factors under the general topic of pandemic follow‑up.
But my motion wasn't part of that, because it's too precise. Now this motion has some virtues, including the fact that it's precise. Because it is specific and short term it would enable the committee to come up with a strong recommendation.
The purpose of the study is, among other things, to determine whether it would be appropriate to introduce a breast implant and reconstruction registry. How come Health Canada handles certification, without any way of tracking cases in the event of problems. Wouldn't it be important to have a registry like this?
Because it is so specific, this study would be a short one. I have been a member of this committee for only two years, but in my view, a committee like this one always needs short studies on specific matters of this kind because it gives us the time to do longer-term studies and reports on other subjects.
Everything about this struck me as positive. I find Mr. Davies' motion very interesting, but believe that it could very well be dealt with during the meetings devoted to pandemic monitoring. When we studied the collateral impact of the pandemic, a topic I put forward during the third wave, we could see that the pandemic had had an impact on screening and access to services for breast cancer, one of the foremost and most serious forms of cancer.
I would therefore not want the study I have put forward to be appended to a study that may be very interesting, but that might continue throughout the 14 meetings about the pandemic. Mine should not be a part of that.
Committee work often varies and I am receptive to the idea that it could be the fourth or fifth study. But I would not want to see it disqualified on grounds that it is too specific. I think that being precise has merits, as I have already explained.
I would like my colleagues to consider this to be an important motion. If they are interested, I could send them a package of literature on the subject. This would enable them to see that it's an important issue.
The key is not the total number of women who have experienced this type of situation. Indeed, even if there were only one case where certified implants had caused a woman stress and led to the recurrence of a cancer, it would be one case too many.
We need to establish today the measures that would be most appropriate to ensure that not even one woman who has had to have breast reconstruction surgery following cancer should have to experience anxiety 20 years later if a problem were to occur.
I don't think the motion should be downgraded simply because there are more important issues. What's important is clearly the pandemic. Is there access to care during the pandemic? Mr. Davies could certainly suggest that his motion be dealt with as part of the pandemic follow‑up process. I personally would like to have my motion adopted. If that works for us, then indeed,…