I call this meeting to order. Welcome, everybody, to meeting number 26 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.
The committee is meeting today to study Bill , an act to establish a national framework for diabetes and then proceed to the clause-by-clause consideration. After that, we will discuss the first report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.
I want to thank the witnesses for appearing today.
First up, we have Ms. Sonia Sidhu, MP for Brampton South, whose private member's bill this is. From Diabetes Canada, we have Ms. Kimberley Hanson, executive director, federal affairs. From JDRF Canada, we have Dave Prowten, president and chief executive officer, and Ms. Juliette Benoît, volunteer.
Ms. Sidhu, please go ahead with your statement.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and colleagues.
It's my pleasure to speak today on my private member's bill, Bill , an act to establish a national framework for diabetes.
Before I begin, I want to thank all members immensely for your support of this initiative at second reading. I'm glad to know we share the goal of fighting diabetes.
This year we commemorate the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin by Sir Frederick Banting and his partners at the University of Toronto. It was also at U of T that stem cells were discovered in the 1960s. These have led to promising research that may lead to a cure.
Since Canada has been home to these great inventions in the fight against diabetes, we should also have a comprehensive strategy to help those living with this disease.
We have 11 million Canadians living with diabetes or prediabetes. The number of diagnoses doubled in the last 20 years, and every three minutes, another Canadian is added to this list. In my own community of Brampton, almost every sixth resident lives with diabetes or prediabetes.
In my 18-year career as a health care professional, I saw patients with cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, amputations or high blood pressure and diabetes was frequently an underlying and complicating condition. That is why a strategy is so important. By effectively fighting or preventing one disease, we will make an impact on many others.
When you consider the expense to the public health care system and to individuals living with diabetes, it represents a massive financial burden. Every dollar spent fighting and preventing diabetes means greater savings down the line.
It is one of the most common chronic illnesses in Canada and the rate is only growing. Some Canadians are at increased risk of diabetes, such as South Asians, Black and indigenous Canadians. We also know that diabetes disproportionately affects Canadians with low income and education. Diabetes rates are three to four times higher among first nations than among the general Canadian population. Furthermore, indigenous individuals are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at a younger age than other individuals.
The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected Canadians with chronic diseases, including diabetes.
For all these reasons, we need a cohesive national plan to respond to diabetes, one that coordinates funding for awareness, prevention, research and treatment, and that ensures equal access to treatment across Canada.
Mr. Chair, we can learn from Canada's past diabetes plans and programs, and we can make sure that the framework called for in Bill is data-driven, accountable and engaged with stakeholders such as Diabetes Canada, JDRF and others.
A national framework for diabetes would provide a common direction for all stakeholders to address diabetes, and by extension, other chronic diseases with the same risk factors. It would enhance coordinated efforts across federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions and provide a mechanism for tracking and reporting on progress.
The framework would allow for the identification of gaps in present approaches, strengthen action to address health inequities in diabetes and decrease the duplication of efforts by coordinating across jurisdictions.
The bill calls for promoting research, data collection and treatment. It would offer an opportunity for indigenous people and organizations to engage in federal, provincial and territorial strategies using a distinctions-based approach.
It would make a difference in the lives of millions of Canadians. Back in April 2019, this committee conducted a study and released a report on this very issue.
Mr. Chair and Mr. Davies, you were both part of the committee at that time. The comprehensive report already outlines the steps the government should take in the fight against diabetes.
The number one recommendation in this report was that the Government of Canada, in partnership with the provinces and territories and in collaboration with stakeholders, plan and implement an approach for the prevention and management of diabetes in Canada through a national diabetes strategy. Bill mandates the minister to do just this.
The HESA report made 10 other recommendations. Among them were that the government explore options to reduce diabetes-related stigma and improve public awareness and education on diabetes; provide funding through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for research into preventing and treating diabetes; hold discussions with the provinces and territories to explore possible approaches to providing uniform coverage for diabetes-related medication, supplies and equipment across Canada; work with the provinces and territories to explore possible approaches to improving access to health care for individuals living with diabetes in rural, remote and northern communities and address the difficulties faced by many Canadians in accessing a family physician; and work with the provincial regulatory bodies to ensure that health care professionals receive comprehensive education and training to properly identify and manage diabetes and diabetes-related complications in their patients.
I believe that with more coordination among all levels of government and stakeholders, we will be a better position to win the fight against diabetes. I know that the government will give full consideration to the HESA report and the dozens of witnesses who shared their expertise and experiences to help shape the recommendations. For example, I personally think the Diabetes Canada 360° proposal is an excellent one.
This past November I went to Banting House in London, Ontario, where the Flame of Hope, a perpetually burning torch that serves to honour all who have been affected by diabetes, is located. It is a reminder that we must still work for a real cure. It will only be extinguished when one is discovered.
The discovery of insulin is remembered as one of the greatest medical achievements of the 20th century. It was the first time the Nobel Prize for medicine went to someone outside Europe. It went to Canada. The best thing we can do as a country to honour this discovery is to recommit to helping everyone battling this chronic disease, whether they are patients, doctors, researchers or loved ones.
Mr. Chair and fellow committee members, Canadians have always been leaders in the fight against diabetes. I want to thank you all again for the support you have shown for this bill, which I hope will eventually lead to the day when we can extinguish that torch at Banting House. Canada gave insulin to the world. Why can we not lead the way?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, committee members. I'm grateful to be living and working on the traditional lands of the Haudenosaunee, Anishinabe and Algonquin peoples.
I would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity to appear before you today on this important bill, but more importantly for your ongoing work to improve and protect the health of all Canadians.
Never have I been prouder to be a Canadian than during the last year. Witnessing our elected officials work together in challenging and ever-changing circumstances to help Canadians weather the COVID-19 pandemic has been inspiring.
My proudest Canadian moment, though, might be when, earlier this month, members of Parliament from all parties unanimously voted in support of MP Sidhu's Bill . As someone who has lived with diabetes and several of its complications for 25 years now, and who has lost many loved ones to its consequences, it was powerful to see every MP acknowledge that diabetes is a serious problem in Canada, and one we must take bold and urgent action to address.
In 2019 this committee studied diabetes strategies in Canada, as MP Sidhu mentioned, and recommended the following:
That the Government of Canada, in partnership with the provinces and territories, and in collaboration with stakeholders such as Diabetes Canada, plan and implement an approach to the prevention and management of diabetes in Canada through a national diabetes strategy, as outlined in Diabetes Canada’s Diabetes 360°: A Framework for a Diabetes Strategy for Canada. The partnership should facilitate the creation of Indigenous-specific strategic approaches led and owned by any Indigenous groups wishing to embrace this framework.
Those were your words, committee. You recommended this because you recognized that countries with a national framework or strategy to address diabetes do better.
Diabetes is less prevalent and people living with it experience fewer complications, which is why the World Health Organization recommends that each country develop a national diabetes strategy.
Still, Canada does not currently have such a strategy, and in the eight years since Canada last had a national diabetes strategy in place, nearly two million Canadians have received a diagnosis of diabetes. That is why Diabetes Canada, our colleagues at JDRF who are here today, and the community we represent feel such a strong sense of urgency that Canada act to reduce the burden of this disease on Canadians. With someone new diagnosed every three minutes in Canada, at least 12 preventable lower-limb amputations occurring every day, as well as 20 more deaths, we don't have a moment to waste in embracing Bill and implementing a nationwide approach to preventing type 2 diabetes and all diabetes complications.
The COVID-19 pandemic only heightens that sense of urgency. People who have diabetes have been shown to be at least three times more likely to die of COVID-19 than someone who does not have diabetes. Emerging research suggests that COVID-19 infection may be triggering new cases of diabetes, and the economic insecurity and physical inactivity triggered by the pandemic has put many of us at greater risk for type 2 diabetes and its complications.
People living with diabetes are significantly more likely to struggle with mental health challenges, including depression and anxiety. COVID-19 has also exacerbated that risk. I have barely left our home in more than a year now because of the risk if I catch COVID-19, and I know that many of my friends and colleagues living with diabetes are in the same situation. The sense of isolation and worry that all Canadians are experiencing during these times is powerful, and it adds to the mental and emotional burden of living with diabetes.
During COVID-19, many people are delaying accessing health care, and that appears to be increasing the risk of diabetes complications such as blindness and lower-limb amputation. As Dr. Karen Cross said at the most recent meeting of the all-party diabetes caucus, if diabetes before COVID-19 was the earthquake, COVID-19 is the ensuing tsunami. We must act now to minimize the impact of the tsunami of diabetes and diabetes complications that we are facing.
Bill will improve diabetes prevention and treatment, promote essential diabetes research, improve data collection and address health inequalities. It requires the Minister of Health to table a national diabetes framework in the House of Commons within one year.
Bill is strongly aligned with Diabetes Canada's diabetes 360° strategic framework, which was developed in collaboration with more than 120 stakeholders and has strong support not only from the entire diabetes community but also from other key health stakeholders, including the Canadian Cancer Society and the Heart and Stroke Foundation. Diabetes Canada encourages that, when Bill C-237 becomes law, the minister refer closely to the diabetes 360° strategy in preparing Canada's new national diabetes framework.
When Bill becomes law, Diabetes Canada will be pleased to collaborate with the government to define the national diabetes framework and to implement governance and evaluation mechanisms and supports for intergovernmental collaboration, to ensure that it quickly benefits the maximum number of Canadians possible. That is why Diabetes Canada strongly supports Bill C-237 and congratulates MP Sonia Sidhu for her leadership in tabling it and for her commitment to our cause.
We urge Parliament to pass this legislation quickly so that we can begin implementation as soon as possible, which is what Canadians want. In an Ipsos poll conducted in November 2020, 86% of total respondents and 91% of BIPOC respondents urged the federal government to embrace a national diabetes strategy urgently.
This year, Canada and the world are celebrating the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin by scientists at the University of Toronto. This momentous discovery saved the lives of millions of people around the world and is rightly recognized by most Canadians as one of our proudest achievements. By passing Bill now, the federal government can make a fitting recognition of the significance of this anniversary and begin to reap the human and financial rewards of a nationwide approach right away.
Thank you for your attention.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.
I'm joined today by Juliette Benoît, a JDRF youth advocate who joins us from L'Assomption, Quebec, and will speak to the lived experience of type 1 diabetes. Just as background, Juliette was one of our two youth co-chairs during our Kids for a Cure this past November and would have met some of you during those sessions.
We're pleased to speak today in support of Bill , the national framework for diabetes act. JDRF is grateful to Ms. Sidhu for her leadership in introducing this bill, as we are to those MPs and other diabetes organizations like Diabetes Canada that worked hard to develop a diabetes strategy for Canada.
Our mission is to accelerate life-changing breakthroughs to cure, prevent and treat type 1 diabetes and its complications. Type 1 diabetes causes the body's immune system to attack and destroy insulin-producing cells in the pancreas, making children and adults dependent on daily injections or infusions of insulin for life. As other have noted, 2021 marks the 100th anniversary of the life-changing discovery of insulin, rightly celebrated as Canada's gift to the world. As Banting himself said, “insulin is not a cure”.
The incidence rate for type 1 diabetes is growing at over 5% a year in Canada, which is higher than the global average. The incidence rate for type 2 diabetes is growing even faster, as is the proportion of annual health budgets taken up by diabetes.
Therefore, JDRF would like to encourage passage of this bill. It will be critical that all levels of government work together to make this diabetes strategy impactful by fostering conditions that prevent diabetes and take actions to keep diabetics healthy, such as finding ways to make diabetes technologies more affordable and accessible as their price is out of reach for many working families.
For type 2 diabetes, prevention means lifestyle interventions. For type 1, prevention means investment in new research into the autoimmune response that causes it.
I'd like to take a moment here to acknowledge the JDRF-CIHR partnership to defeat diabetes. It's a remarkable collaboration between JDRF and the Government of Canada, which is up for renewal this year. Launched in 2017 with $15 million of funding through the CIHR and matched with $15 million from JDRF, this partnership is funding critical research to prevent diabetes complications and investigate groundbreaking immune therapies and stem cell-based cures.
It's important, too, that we focus our resources on psychosocial supports, as Kim Hanson just mentioned. Because we can't change what we don't measure, a robust strategy needs to track outcomes for both types of diabetes through a registry, repository or both.
I'd like to turn it over to Juliette to talk about the urgency for a national diabetes strategy.
Thank you, Mr. Prowten.
Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Juliette Benoît. I'm 17 years old, and I'm from L'Assomption, Quebec. I've lived with type 1 diabetes for almost five and a half years.
My life changed when I was 11 years old. I was diagnosed shortly after Hallowe'en. It is quite unusual for a child to ask to stop trick-or-treating to go to the bathroom.
I was thirsty and hungry, but the more I ate, the more weight I lost. I had also lost my energy and zest for life. As my family really started to worry, my parents took me to the hospital. I remember the cold walls and the staff trying to reassure me, but I was rather annoyed by all the questions I was being asked. Finally, they put three words and a number to my symptoms: “type 1 diabetes”.
After that, I took all kinds of training to tame the monster that was inside me. I thought it was rather strange to see my mother, father, step-mother and step-father sitting around the same table trying to make jokes to lighten the situation.
Before I knew it, I was at home, 11 years old, giving myself injections and trying to survive it all. The child I was was being asked to be an adult, to be strong and to hold it together. The diabetes diagnosis was really what I thought was the worst for a child. I was told I had to give myself shots several times a day and stop eating candy. That's really how I saw my disease.
Fortunately, thanks to research, I now have an insulin pump that allows me to administer insulin without injection and a continuous blood glucose reader that allows me to know my sugar levels faster and without injections, in addition to allowing me to adjust my insulin doses more easily.
That said, it's not a cure. These devices make my daily life easier, but I still spend many hours a day caring for my diabetes. Imagine, before and after eating anything, before, during and after physical activity, when I'm not feeling well and at many other times, I have to check my sugar level, calculate the carbohydrates of what I eat and adjust accordingly.
That's why Bill is so important to me. The research needs to continue in order to find ways to achieve a genuine cure. Canadians with diabetes need support from the federal and provincial governments to make insulin pumps and continuous blood glucose monitoring systems affordable. Diabetes is a very expensive and difficult disease to live with.
We need help managing the stress and mental burden of the illness, and we also need it to reduce the stigma. It's very important that people stop asking me if I have diabetes because I ate too much sugar, for example. This is an annoying remark that all type 1 diabetics hear on a daily basis.
At 11 years of age, I became a mini-adult, but more importantly, a warrior. I have become a symbol of strength for all type 1 diabetics. Now we just have to hope that the bill to create a national diabetes framework will pass so that real action can be taken.
Thank you for your attention.
I'm going to say thank you to Sonia for bringing this bill forward. I am a parent of a type 1, as I was saying to Juliette, and my son was diagnosed five years ago. You should get a pin—a five-year pin, a 10-year pin. Kim's agreeing with me here. It is difficult.
Juliette brought up something very important here. Not only are we continually, as parents or as patients, trying to find ways to manage the disease, but in the back of our heads we have to find that way to work towards the cure. That's why I think it's a great balance today to have Diabetes Canada here and also JDRF. It does talk about the research component with it.
Again, here we are talking about diabetes, something that is very close to my heart.
My question to Sonia, though, is, as this bill comes forward, it talks about lots of great ideas and that we should work together, we should have a national framework for this, but who's going to enact it? Once MP Sidhu is finished with this, and it passes in the House of Commons, who is supposed to enact the bill or what the bill is asking for?
Thanks so much, MP d'Entremont. Those are excellent questions.
We developed diabetes 360° beginning in September of 2017. We are really pleased to see that the discussion carries on today. We would love to be able to cap that off with a formal commitment to a national diabetes framework, such as this bill proposes.
As I believe you are aware, we have strong support at the federal level, thanks to this committee. The finance committee has also recommended the strategy three times in a row. Importantly, we have really strong engagement from the provinces and territories. In November of 2020, Diabetes Canada convened a second round table that had representatives from every provincial and territorial government, as well as the federal government, in attendance.
The strong consensus from provinces and territories was that they are committed to working as much as they're able towards implementing provincial or territorial diabetes strategies, but they see the need for a coordinated approach, for a common framework and language, and for a way of sharing best practices. They would look to the federal government to provide that as soon as possible.
In response to the question you just asked MP Sidhu, I would agree with what she said. When this bill passes and receives royal assent, I would encourage the government to give strong consideration to implementing a multisectoral and multi-level government advisory committee or governance structure that features representatives of the provincial governments who—you're absolutely right—are going to have to implement the treatment-based approaches involved in this framework, and also patient groups.
Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen. It's a great question. Thank you for your support all the way.
You're right. We need to consult with the indigenous stakeholders as well because, as you know, on reserve and in indigenous populations there are higher rates than with any others. We need to consult with indigenous stakeholders, provinces and territories. The government needs to consult with the stakeholders such as Diabetes Canada and JDRF and listen to the proposals.
Ms. Hanson mentioned diabetes 360°, which we all supported in the HESA committee. It has very good aspects and I hope it can address many indigenous concerns as well.
There have been consultations on subjects that help those with diabetes. For other aspects, like Canada's food guide, there has not been a national holistic consultation called for, and that is why my bill calls for that. It would bring together both levels of government, indigenous partners and other stakeholders with the common goal of creating a national diabetes strategy, which I'm asking for in my bill, Bill .
It's also to address Canadians of all different ages and demographics, and will be sensitive to cultures and socio-economic backgrounds, too.
Maybe I can start quickly, and Dave, I know you'll want to talk about the registry.
Today in Canada, we can't tell you how many of the number of people who we know have a diagnosis of diabetes have type 1 versus how many have type 2. That's very basic and fundamental to understanding different treatment pathways and drug pricing and usage.
Unless and until we can create some kind of national data repository that allows us to amalgamate and understand data that shows us the picture of diabetes in this country, then really, we're throwing spaghetti up on a wall and hoping it's going to stick, where developing treatment protocols is concerned.
Obviously, provinces need to have jurisdiction over the health care system within their regions, and we completely support that. The federal government, however, could play a critical role in compiling data that would help us better understand the picture of diabetes at a national level and that would help provinces and territories better put into context their own perspectives. We think that data is a critical underpinning of this strategy.
Dave, did you want to add?
First of all, I would like to tell Ms. Benoît that her presentation was very interesting. It's important that she took the time to testify about what she and many other young children and adults are going through. I was very touched by it.
Chronic diseases are diseases that people learn to live with. But because people learn to live with them, we seem to lose sight of them. They are insidious, they settle in our daily lives. Indeed, when someone has type 2 diabetes, it's a whole lifestyle process. It seems that at that point, the patient, or the victim, is made responsible.
We were talking about stigma earlier. Often, the person with the disease is blamed for the fact that they may have a bad lifestyle. That may be true, but we still need to do all the prevention and all the education upstream to avoid this kind of situation. I think that's what's constantly missing, and it's related to the fact that when diseases aren't as dramatic as a heart attack, for example, it strikes less of a chord. We know how striking a heart attack is, but we also know that many heart diseases often have diabetes as a determining factor. Because chronic diseases are less obvious, you get used to living with them and you lose sight of them.
What I find interesting in the approach taken by my colleague Ms. Sidhu is that we know that there have been discussions for years on national strategies and strategic frameworks. There have been since 2005, and there were discussions in 2018 around Diabetes 360. Today, we're being told that we need a bill, that we need to put all this in a legislative intent.
Very briefly, Ms. Sidhu, could you tell us why this is happening today rather than in 2005 or 2018? Why do we think it is essential that all these intentions be reflected in a legislative framework?
Thank you, Mr. Thériault.
Why it is important is, as I mentioned even in my speech, in my home riding of Brampton, one in six Bramptonians are living with diabetes. Many more are prediabetic or undiagnosed. As you know, Brampton is home to a large South Asian population that is impacted by diabetes. We also have a large Black community, which is twice as likely to have diabetes.
The number of people in Peel Region living with diabetes doubled between 1996 and 2015. That's what the data shows there. That is why Brampton city council is very supportive. They know what's happening on the ground, and that is why they endorsed my bill. It is so important. The programs are not working well. We need this strategy.
Mr. Chair and Mr. Davies were there last term when we did a diabetes study in the last HESA. We made recommendations. There are always other factors like genetics and environment, but type 2 diabetes is often preventable with healthy eating, active living, education and awareness. That is why, if someone is aware of the early signs, they can maybe prevent this disease or maybe they can delay onset of the disease. Long-term consequences are more dangerous. Cultural sensitivity is another thing. That is why it's so important to bring this strategy now.
Thank you, everyone, for being here.
Julia, in particular, thank you for sharing your story about the stigma, because I think we can't lose sight of that.
I have very limited time.
I want to follow up on the previous comment about why not just have the government implement it. Well, then why not just get rid of private members' bills? It is absolutely a member's prerogative to move forward with issues that are important to them and their constituents. I think that's what we should be debating here today.
This question is for any of the witnesses who want to jump in. Is there a country with a framework that you think has done it quite well and how has it been implemented?
Maybe you could speak to some of the comparators around the world.
Ms. Sidhu, thank you and congratulations on bringing a PMB forward.
Thank you [Technical difficulty—Editor
I do not oppose Mr. d'Entremont's amendment, but would remind committee members that the CRA is an arm's-length agency for a reason. [Technical difficulty—Editor] to be dictating this type of decision.
I do not believe that DTC regulations mention any specific disease or condition. My understanding of DTC is that it is meant to help people with a disability that impairs their ability to work or takes a lot of time to manage, like significant physiotherapy. Not all individuals with diabetes meet this threshold.
Regardless of whether an individual is eligible for the DTC, tax relief for medical expenses, such as the cost of insulin, insulin pumps and other supplies, may be available through the medical expense tax credit, with additional support for low-income working Canadians provided through the refundable medical expense supplement.
Diabetes can be expensive for some people to manage. I know that personally. As providers of health care, it should be the provinces that help to fill that gap. That is why government will need to work closely with the provinces and territories to ensure there is clarity about what each level of government is responsible for and that they are putting resources into the right program.
I once again thank Mr. d'Entremont for his input and feedback.
I certainly have a copy of it.
Are there any further questions or comments?
Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to conduct a vote, please.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Chair: The amendment carries, and we'll proceed to the clause itself.
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to)
The Chair: Shall the short title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: That all being said and done, congratulations, Ms. Sidhu, on the successful passage of your bill.
It will go back to the House at this point. I will be able to report this to the House, I believe, in the next sitting, which will be in two weeks. Then it will go back for the report stage and the third reading process for private members' bills.
We will now proceed to the consideration of the report from the subcommittee.
I believe we need to ratify the report from the committee. I believe the clerk has distributed to all members a copy of the subcommittee report.
In general, we proposed, for the NDP portion of the current study, the first round of topics for this COVID-19 study would be four days, and similarly, four days for the Bloc Québécois study as well.
Following those two portions of the study, we would schedule the two remaining meetings of the PMPRB study for Mr. Thériault. In that process, prior to May 31, we would invite the minister for main estimates.
Mr. Thériault, I see you have your hand up. Is it on this matter?
We will recognize both of you after we deal with the report from the subcommittee.
May I have a motion to adopt the report from the subcommittee?
I don't know if I need a motion for that, but I see Mr. Van Bynen is making such a motion.
Is there any discussion on this matter?
Seeing none, we shall vote on the matter. Is there any dissent to ratifying the report from the subcommittee?
Seeing none, I declare that the committee has ratified the report from the subcommittee.
Thank you all.
We will go now to other business.
Monsieur Thériault, you wish to move your routine motions. Please go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Thériault.
Is there any discussion on Monsieur Thériault's motion?
I would advise, Monsieur Thériault, that absolutely the clerk makes every effort to do exactly this. It certainly is one of the reasons why we need substantial notice, several days' notice, to bring witnesses forward.
In any case, seeing no further discussion, I will call a vote.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Thériault.
Mr. Davies, I believe you have a motion to move as well.
At the subcommittee on agenda, all parties had a chance to discuss and—I think I can speak for all of us to say—agree upon our desire to have this motion pass at the main committee.
For the members' benefit, because it was quite a while ago, and for new members, on Tuesday, February 18, 2020, we passed a motion that essentially would have the committee readopt reports from the 42nd Parliament that had already been adopted and submitted to the government in the last Parliament but for which we had not yet received a response from the government.
There were seven different reports. These included reports on a diabetes strategy for Canada, on tackling sports-related concussions, on the impacts of methamphetamine abuse in Canada, on young Canadians' exercise and health, on LGBTQIA2 communities' health and on violence facing health care workers in Canada, as well as a letter written to the , the and the requesting a response to a letter written by the chair of the health committee that dealt with the issue of the forced sterilization of women in Canada.
All of those issues, by the way, are still quite current, so I am moving that motion again today. Everybody has received notice of it. It would simply permit this committee to readopt those reports and then permit the chair to table those reports in the House so that we can hopefully get a response from the government on those reports, which represented the hard work of the committee last time. Most, if not all of them, I think, were passed unanimously.
Do I have the unanimous consent of the committee to adopt these seven motions in one go?
Is there any dissent? I see none.
(Motions agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Thank you, all.
When we passed these motions a year and a bit ago, the Conservative members then on the committee had concerns that they might want to submit dissents, and I advised them that I would give them notice before I tabled the reports.
My intention, now that this has passed in committee, is that when we get back after our two-week constituency interval I would table these in the House at the first opportunity. If there is any will to do a dissenting report, that would be the time you would need to be present in the House to table that dissent.
Is there any further business to discuss?
Seeing no further business, I think we will adjourn.
I thank you all. Have a productive two weeks in your constituencies, and I'll see you all in a couple of weeks.
The meeting is adjourned.