Mr. Speaker, it is always a true honour to stand and speak in the House of Commons on behalf of my riding, Peterborough—Kawartha, but many of the issues, obviously, impact Canadians across our country.

What we are discussing, as my colleague and friend from Cumberland—Colchester talked about, is the 20th report from the health committee, or HESA. To give a bit of background for folks watching at home, the report, “Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines“, reads:

That the committee report to the House that the decision by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care should be immediately reversed and breast cancer screening should be extended to women in their 40s, as this will help save lives; that the Minister of Health urge 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.

A lot of women watching, a lot of families watching, have been impacted by breast cancer, and this was a very important study brought forward in the health committee. I had the privilege to sit on the status of women committee, where we also brought this forward. For context, so folks will know, under the Liberal government there is the Minister of Health and then there is the Public Health Agency, which designated a task force, and a chair of that task force, to study breast cancer. However, what the chair and the task force came back with was a recommendation that there should not be screening for women under the age of 50.

Now, as members just heard, this had unanimous consent, and it certainly did in the status of women committee, across all party lines, but this is a terrible recommendation from the task force and the chair. It was interesting to listen to witness after witness in the status of women committee testify against the recommendation of the task force.

Here is the thing. I would post these stories and get feedback, I love to hear what people say, and most provinces have already said screening should happen at 40, or self-screening. Those are the provincial rules. However, we have a federal task force, sort of a bureaucratic body, saying no, it should be from 50 and over, which is really bizarre.

I asked this question to a lot of the witnesses: “Why does it matter? If the task force and the chair are saying it should be over 50, but the provinces already have it at 40 for self-referral, which is the recommendation of the provinces, what does it matter what the task force and its chair says?” Every single witness said, “Because it sends a message that you should not get screened under 50, and that is wrong.”

I want to bring members up to speed a little, because the chair of the task force actually wrote an editorial during our study in the status of women committee, doubling down after hearing witness after witness in the committee saying no. I heard the member from the NDP even agree with this. I think everybody at home knows there are not many things we agree on in this House when we go across the floor, but this is women's health. Women are dying because they are not getting screened in time or it is not being detected that they have breast cancer.

However, the chair, Dr. Guylène Thériault, wrote this article while we were hearing testimony from every single witness to change the age of screening. She said, “the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care...conducted a comprehensive review of evidence on breast cancer screening.... The key message is that breast cancer screening is a personal choice, and that women need the full picture so that they can decide what is right for them.”

That makes sense. We should not have to fight and beg our doctor. We should be able to advocate for what we want.

She went on to say, “The evidence did not show a clear benefit of screening for breast cancer in women, especially those aged 40 to 49”.

I will now read some testimony from the status of women committee by experts in the field.

Anna Wilkinson is a medical doctor. I asked her some questions. She said, “First, regarding the expert involvement, the actual task force and working group for this had no breast cancer experts on it.” Nothing about this makes any sense. My colleague, who is a doctor and whose wife survived breast cancer, said it very well. Why do we as politicians have to stand up and tell this arm of the Public Health Agency that it got it wrong? It is just bizarre.

I am going to move on because there are tons of survivors and tons of families. I think it is really important to note that breast cancer impacts not just the person who has been diagnosed; it also impacts a whole community.

Kim MacDonald is a patient advocate for Breast Cancer Canada. She said, “Right now, at stage 0 or stage 1, if it's found that early, as it often is in screening, you have about a 99% survival rate. By the time it gets to stage 4, we're talking about a 31% survival rate.” These are significant numbers. Kim MacDonald also said, “I first want to say how shocked and disappointed I was in the task force recommendation of keeping the breast cancer screening age at 50 and how heartened I am by provinces like Ontario for lowering the age of self-referral to 40.”

Dr. Anna Wilkinson testified again. She said:

My research with Statistics Canada has focused on breast cancer in women in their forties. We found the incidence of breast cancer in these women has increased almost 10% in recent years and that women with access to organized breast screening programs have an earlier stage at diagnosis and significantly increased survival....

Even if we use the task force...and minimize mortality benefits of only one death averted per 1,000 women screened over 10 years, this amounts to over 2,500 deaths of 40-year-old women.

I brought something up to a couple of witnesses. I said that we literally have not heard from one witness who agreed with the task force chair. The task force chair was the only one. Then she doubled down on an article during committee as sort of a passive-aggressive way of saying that she was right and everybody else was wrong.

I spoke to Ms. Alethea Kewayosh. She is a director of the indigenous cancer care unit. I asked her whether she thought the chair should resign. That was one of the things I wanted to ask because we have to write recommendations. The point of a study in any committee is recommendations. We were hearing things and wondering what was going on and whether we should disband the task force. In any other world, the person would resign if this were what was happening. Nobody else agreed with them.

I asked Ms. Kewayosh if she wanted the resignation of the task force chair. She said, “I don't know who he or she is, but he or she is obviously very out of touch with the topic. I'm sure there was a task force struck at one time that created residential schools, and look how well that went over. They need to be more in touch with the topic, then. They need to have understanding of what's happening with community and with people. They need to have their pulse on the hands of what community are saying and what people are saying. They're very out of touch.”

I want to say that we need a lot of help in health care in this country. It is one of the biggest things I get asked about. People cannot even get in to see a doctor. Conservatives have a plan. We have talked about the issue in terms of a policy and a solution. It would be called the blue seal program. I know that my colleague has spearheaded it tremendously, to get all of the doctors who are driving for Uber and who are qualified to practice medicine, in order to have access.

This sends a bigger message. We need to increase our access to the newest technology like thermogenics. Patients need to have choice and informed consent. We need to give back the power to the women who want to be screened for breast cancer so families do not have to bury their mothers, sisters and daughters.

Michelle Ferreri

$469,988.00