Health Committee on Feb. 9th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I'm happy to have Mr. Thériault intervene. It is not specified in the motion, but he can clarify his intent.

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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,…

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Lake has a point of order.

Go ahead, Mike.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

It's not really a point of order, but I'm going to say super quickly that I think this motion will pass if we just let it come to a vote. I suspect it will pass, given that he's not moving that it's number three on the priority list, or anything like that. Then we can get on to planning next week's meetings, which is really important for us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

You're right. It's not a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Lake is not the only one entitled to talk for a long time when it suits him. It's now my turn to speak.

My colleague did not properly understand what I said. I'm not at all opposed to have this motion come up third on the list of priorities. I said that it would probably not be studied until the fall. I would like it to be studied this fall, as early as possible. The health of women depends on it. They are waiting for us to address this very specific and important issue of concern to them.

When it was a matter of the Conservative or the Liberal motion earlier, did the question of whether it would be studied first, second or third come up? No. It was just assumed that the Liberal and Conservative motions would be adopted, and it seemed to me that it was my turn to introduce one, because no one else had anything to propose at that time.

Given that the number of meetings had been accepted and I had not put an amendment about it, I did not necessarily expect the study to be carried out between now and June. Given the specific nature of the motion, it would not be a problem for this study to be the third on the priority list and considered in the fall. If that presents a problem, I'd like to be convinced of it. Personally, I don't see a problem.

In any event, I'm not sure that we're going to complete the second study by the month of June. There are always imponderables. For example, we sometimes have to devote meetings to the appearance of a minister who comes to speak to us about urgent problems. Sometimes urgent meetings are called in compliance with Standing Order 106(4).

I'm not saying that the study I'm proposing ought not to be considered third. I repeat that its narrow focus and the fact that it would be a short study means that it could be handled without difficulty in a timely manner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Next on the list is Mr. Lake.

Before I go to Mr. Lake, as we're rapidly approaching the appointed hour, I'm going to throw open the suggestion that we perhaps talk about a deadline for briefs for the two or three studies that we've committed to and witness deadlines for those studies in terms of getting witnesses in.

We are on Mr. Thériault's motion, and Mr. Lake is next up.

Go ahead, Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

You can take my name off the list, but I'll just say that if we all stopped talking, we could come to a vote and move on to that other idea about planning the next meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I'll remove my hand so we can vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Dr. Powlowski.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I remove my hand, too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Are there any further interventions on the motion?

Seeing none, it sounds like we're ready for the question.

Is it the will of the committee to adopt the motion of Mr. Thériault by consent, or is it necessary to have a standing vote?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

We need a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

All right.

Mr. Clerk, could you please do a standing vote? Thank you.

[The Clerk]

Absolutely, Mr. Chair.

The vote is on the motion of Mr. Thériault to initiate a study on the registry of medical devices.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We are very close to our allotted time, but if we're going to move to getting these studies set up, there are three things we need to do. We need to adopt a word limit for briefs, because we would normally call for briefs to be submitted for anyone who is appearing or anyone we're not able to accommodate as a witness. We need to set a deadline for witness lists. We need to do at least those two things.

Right now, we have adopted studies in respect of COVID, in respect of workforce, in respect of child health and in respect of medical devices. My understanding is that we're going to proceed immediately with COVID and workforce. Could we take the advice of the committee as to a deadline, a word limit for briefs and a deadline for witness lists, please?

Mr. Lake, you have the floor.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Yes, we're trying to be as quick as we can.

We had the opportunity to have some conversation in the room while technical difficulties were happening. A suggestion would be that we do that COVID update on Monday, and then on Wednesday we have our first meeting with witnesses on the human resources study. The deadline for us to submit witness lists would be five o'clock tomorrow, eastern time, in order to start the committee study next Wednesday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

It sounds like you had productive discussions. Has Mr. Lake captured the consensus of the committee?

Go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

While I appreciate the efficiency, it's very fast. We have six meetings. That's 24 witnesses. In order to consider who might want to testify, to give us less than a day is too short.

I also must confess that I've been wondering, with the volume of material that has been prepared by the analysts, whether one day is sufficient to summarize the COVID evidence. I would suggest we take Monday and Wednesday next week to review the COVID evidence and get briefed. We have a break week after that, and we can pick up the study after that. We also have to have witnesses for the COVID study. It makes sense to get ready to start the week after the break week, with one of the days on COVID and one of the days as the first day of the human resources study.

I wouldn't suggest we take much more time, because the other thing is that we have to give the clerk time to get in contact with the witnesses and arrange them. It's probably more reasonable to say we have witnesses in by, say, early next week, on Monday or Tuesday. That gives the clerk all of next week and the break week to arrange the witnesses to start the study for the week after.

At the same time that we're asking for witnesses for the human resources study, we could also submit some witnesses on COVID. Maybe we should determine how many we'll do. If we're devoting half the time to COVID and maybe firing in four or five witnesses that we each want to hear from on COVID, we can give the clerk time to schedule that as well.

However, it's far too fast to try to get this done for tomorrow.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Ms. Kramp-Neuman.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I have a point of clarity with regard to the length of briefings.

You suggested that we try to sort out how long they should be. I don't know whether there's a standard length. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. Is there a standard length for a briefing? This is new to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I'm advised by the clerk that the standard limit is normally 2,000 words. If we're not reinventing the wheel, that's probably a good measuring stick. He indicates that sometimes it's framed as 10 pages, but otherwise, it's 2,000 words.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Okay. Thank you. If that's the will of the group....

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. Lake.