HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 22, 2001

• 1110

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Order.

The topic for discussion this morning is future planning. In my mind's eye, I have divided that topic into three parts. One is the immediate short term, which is the time prior to Easter and prior to receiving what would be the medium-term project. That would be draft legislation that I am expecting will be sent to us by the minister or by the minister and the House. I'm just not sure how they're going to do it, although I guess it will be sent by the minister. And then we have to think, at some point, about what we might like to do as a group after we get through that major project.

So as I said, after Easter sometime I'm expecting draft legislation on reproductive and genetic technologies. It will be the first time a parliamentary committee has looked at that subject, and I think the minister is expecting us to gather a wide range of views on it. I think we're lucky we're not just getting a white paper that discusses all the pros and cons. Rather, it at least lays out some direction as to where the government might want to go, and asks for consultation with us and for our consultation with Canadians on the subject.

It seems to me this will be our major project in the next year, and I'm calling it the medium term because this leaves us with the problem of what to do with the next five meetings. We have already scheduled one with the Auditor General. That leaves us with four more. What could we do to make the best use of that time?

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): The Bloc Québécois is very pleased that the minister intends to table a bill and that the committee will have an opportunity to consider reproductive technologies. This is an extremely important topic, one that led to the creation of a national commission of inquiry, as you may recall. A study of this nature promises to be quite interesting and is certain to take up several weeks of the committee's time, given its complexity.

Those members who have served on this committee for some time now will recall that I tabled a motion calling for a review of the policy whereby homosexuals are prohibited from donating blood. As this is a rather straightforward issue, w could dispense with it in two or three sittings. I know that the Federal-Provincial- Territorial Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS which was set up by Allan Rock in 1998, if my memory serves me correctly, also expressed the desire to have the Health Committee consider this matter. A number of options are possible, but we could meet with representatives of the Canadian AIDS Society and Health Canada officials to get a status report and to see if there might not be some way of ending this discriminatory situation, mindful, of course, that Canada is bound by the policies of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. I think three meetings would give us sufficient time to look at this issue.

It would be nice if our work could lead to some concrete suggestions and findings. We must avoid taking temporary steps so that we don't waste any time. I'm very interested in this topic, but I don't know if my colleagues feel the same way. In any event, I think we should focus our attention on this timely issue. We could set aside two or three meetings before the Easter break, if government members have no objections.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Madam Chair, perhaps my colleague Mr. Ménard could be more explicit as to why is he is making this suggestion. He mentioned a committee and previous debates. What exactly was he referring to? Are certain groups of people specifically prohibited from giving blood and so forth?

Mr. Réal Ménard: According to the regulations currently in place, anyone person in Canada who has had a homosexual relation since 1977 cannot give blood and is therefore prohibited from taking part in blood donor clinics held across Canada.

• 1115

This Health Canada regulation is patterned on a USFDA policy in effect.

It's obvious why homosexuals are banned from giving blood. It has a lot to do with the Krever Commission which even called for a review of this situation. However, it makes no sense that someone who has engaged in a homosexual relation since 1977 cannot donate blood, a humanitarian gesture. This reason is ostensibly because tests are not accurate enough to ensure that there is no risk factor and that the person donating blood is not HIV positive.

New technologies have been developed over the past three years and it would be interesting to come up with a new proposal. Obviously, the criterion “since 1977” needs to be reviewed, but what new requirement should be introduced? These regulations are administered by the Bureau of Biologics and Radiopharmaceuticals.

To examine this matter would not take the full 15 meetings. After two or three meetings, we could produce a report.

If we look back at our records, we will find that a similar proposal was made in the past.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Just to clarify this so that I understand it, would the process have to be that it has to come through us? If Health Canada has a system now in place to do more effective screening, would they not automatically be able to do that, or would it require legislation? Would it require having it come back here?

The Chair: There's nothing precluding us from studying it and making recommendations to them, even though it may not be on their agenda.

Ms. Judy Sgro: I have some concerns. Would Health Canada, now that they have more sophisticated testing mechanisms, not do it automatically?

The Chair: No, they wouldn't do it automatically because this issue has political ramifications.

It seems Mr. Ménard is saying we are following the American rules, pretty well. He thinks that, as Canadians, we should look at it ourselves to see if we want to have this policy in place, or whether we just want to automatically follow in lockstep with what the Food and Drug Administration in Washington is saying. He would like to review it in order to perhaps make recommendations to the minister, so this is a topic he is suggesting for this short-term period, and he thinks we could get an evaluation.

Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

Are there any other suggestions for the short term of about three meetings plus the Auditor General? Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Yes, particularly in the short term—and I like your approach in terms of whether it's short-, medium-, or long-term—one of the things that is actually very important to constituents I've been talking to and to people across Canada is the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, the impact it may have as far as health is concerned, and how we are going to or potentially might deal with it.

Foot-and-mouth is one thing, but mad cow disease has even more of a significant impact on human life. That's something I think we need to really be more preventive in looking at, so if we can have an update on where we're going with that, I think it would be an immediate thing. It would be just wise for us to be proactive on it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

Are there any comments on that suggestion? Seeing none, we'll add it to the list.

Are there any other suggestions that people have come with this morning? Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Just in light of the Royal Society of Canada report that was recently presented—in January, I believe—regarding genetically modified foods, there are questions that are of interest to a lot of our constituents and Canadians. This also ties in with biotech, or at least with reproductive technology, so it might be useful to review some of the concerns in this area.

The Chair: Okay, thank you very much.

Are there any comments on that suggestion? Mr. Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Madam Chair, the suggestions of our Alliance colleagues have considerable merit, but they are also quite broad in scope. They are complex issues which in some instances, come under the jurisdiction of several departments, not merely Health Canada.

We're looking at how we can make the most productive use of three meetings. The issues suggested by the Alliance would require weeks of work and while they have merit, we have to remember that we're talking about three meetings.

• 1120

The topic suggested by Mr. Ménard would fit the bill quite nicely, even more so considering that—and I say this for the benefit of committee members who weren't or haven't been around these past few years—this issue has been on the committee's agenda for years. We're always looking for an opportunity to bring it up. Here's is our chance to do it and settle the matter once and for all.

Issues as broad as the ones proposed could occupy this or several committees for weeks and weeks. My point is that they cut across the jurisdiction of several departments and committees. While I can't dispute the fact that they are valid questions, three weeks wouldn't begin to cut it timewise.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau.

I think that I should say hearing what people would like to study and asking for short-term suggestions is one thing. On the other hand, I find it helpful to be hearing from committee members about topics that interest them and that they feel we have some responsibility to look at. We could decide later whether things would fit in now, whether they might be suitable for subcommittees, or whether they might be something we would pursue in the longer term.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I apologize for being late. I'm slated for two committees at once, so I'm sorry I missed part of the discussion—but I guess that's not unlike many other members.

It sounds to me like we are dealing with the possibility of three sessions.

The Chair: Plus one with the Auditor General.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'd like to jump in in terms of supporting Mr. Lunney's suggestion. I think it is a topic that could be addressed, at least in part, with a session at least. We not only have the Auditor General's report dealing with, in part, food safety and genetically modified foods, but we also have this very comprehensive report by the Royal Society.

I think it would be important for the health committee to have at least one session on that topic, perhaps with representatives from both the Auditor General's office and the Royal Society, and maybe departmental officials. Let us have one good session in terms of addressing concerns that we have or that Canadians have with respect to uncertainties in our food safety system.

There are not only current Auditor General's reports before us in terms of the Health Protection Branch and food safety, but there are also studies from the previous session that were never brought to this committee but which I think could be tied in. We have one on the question of the worst outbreak of food-borne illness in the history of this country, and it never came to this committee.

So I'm wondering if we couldn't have a good session or two on that theme, with some specific subsets of or focuses on genetically modified foods and food safety in general, as well as maybe a chance to pursue with departmental officials the concerns that came up from our questions posed at the previous two meetings around the state of surveillance in the beef industry and of meat products on the market. There are lots of questions that are not answered, and we need to have some time at least to get some assurances around procedures in place now.

The Chair: So you have broadened Mr. Merrifield's suggestion from just a quick look at GMOs, into all kinds of issues around food safety and the surveillance of our food safety. I think you took what you started off saying could be done in one meeting and you've made it into about three months' worth.

An hon. member: Maybe longer.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, except that, assuming we only have several sessions right now to deal with, it would seem to me one of the most pressing issues is food safety, and GMOs are a key part of that. If we had at least one session or two with the Auditor General, with departmental staff, and with the Royal Society, I think we'd have an interesting day or two.

The Chair: That would be three meetings, yes.

Were there any other suggestions that people had thought of for this short term? Ms. Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): No, mine are all long term, except for the one I mentioned to you after our last meeting, Madam Chair. That was to perhaps have Senator Kirby, who is chair of the Senate committee doing a broad health care study, in before the committee just to fill us in on—

The Chair: Right. I forgot about that.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: —the scope of that study. They're doing a very ambitious study, and I think it would be very interesting to all of us to just see what their work plan is and how they're progressing. That could take a very interesting meeting.

• 1125

In addition, I would definitely support having a meeting upon the estimates and another meeting with the Auditor General. We can touch on some of these things that Mr. Ménard and Ms. Wasylycia-Leis have brought up as well, because I know the Auditor General has had things to say about all of those issues as well.

The Chair: Good. Thank you.

Anything from this side? Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Yes, Madam Chair.

So far we have several very fascinating areas in which we can be spending much of our time. They are very, very complex. It's a web of factors and issues that have been brought together, and it will take quite a few meetings in order to cover some of these.

So far, only two have been brought forth that I think could be handled within the three-session period. One is regarding the problem we have in agriculture that is coming from Europe and to the mainland of North America. I can see that session as being informative only—in other words, presenting information to the committee by the experts, wherever we get them, and making us more sensitive and more aware. Whether that information would have any repercussions on our future plans is hard to say right now, but at least I think we should be on top of it, and we should be sensitive to what is happening and not wait until it becomes a very serious problem. I hope it never does in North America because of the economic factors, health problems, and everything else.

The other problem that was presented by Mr. Ménard is regarding blood. Now, I don't know what his expectations are, whether he's anticipating—in three meetings, or even two—to cover the areas that he has introduced already and whether that was going to result in further study leading to some document, or just making us aware to the point where we can maybe just make recommendations. I really don't know what he has in mind as far as the final outcome of three sessions dealing with this blood problem.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: First of all, let me remind you that in the past, this committee has always felt that the question of GMOs did not fall within its purview, but rather within the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee. The division of responsibility may be somewhat different now, but I understand that the Agriculture Committee will be turning its attention to the subject of GMOs. We need to be careful and avoid duplication.

Health Canada is, in my mind, the regulatory body and here is one topic that we can focus our attention on for two or three meetings. We can invite representatives of the Canadian AIDS Society, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and Health Canada to testify, along with two or three experts. We can listen to what they have to say and review the policy whereby homosexuals are banned from donating blood.

Current Health Canada regulations are patterned after FDA regulations. However, Health Canada does have an independent regulatory system. Currently, anyone who has had a homosexual encounter since 1977 cannot give blood. Clearly, this policy makes no sense. However, we need to come up with a valid alternative since the safety of blood products must remain our top concern.

I think we can review this whole question in two or three meetings. I know that the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Canadian AIDS Society have a number of recommendations to make to the committee and we could then draw up an issue specific report for the Minister.

I'm also very concerned about foot-and-mouth disease, GMO labelling and so forth, but we can't cover these subjects in their entirety in two meetings. Once we have completed our study of new reproductive technologies, there's nothing stopping us from turning our attention to these issues, but we need enough time to do that.

It all depends on how we wish to proceed. I want our work in committee to produce results and for members to call on the government to take action. The question of homosexuals being prohibited from donating blood is a timely one. Sooner or later, the government will be questioned about this regulatory policy. We came very close to examining the subject once. Why not take advantage of this brief period of time to turn our attention to this matter. Two or three meetings should be ample time. It's not as if we need to hear from 50 witnesses.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

None of these suggestions, I want to suggest, will be lost. In other words, I'm grateful to have you thinking between meetings and coming forward with these ideas. They won't be lost. It will be a matter of what we, as a group, decide to do over the short term.

• 1130

I did not realize you'd be so creative. I now have five things here.

I was fearful that we might assemble and have no suggestions, so I did ask the researchers to review the questions that you had asked when we had the officials in—some that you submitted early and others that came up during those sessions. I asked them to put together a potential follow-up to that. One is centred around the Auditor General, one is centred around the estimates, and the third one is a combination of the Auditor General and the estimates. So they did do it on paper. Could you take a minute now and look at what they're suggesting for the next few meetings?

As the chair, I don't want to be heavy-handed. I want to elicit from you your ideas so that I know the committee is working on things that the committee members want to work on. I just did this as an insurance policy so that we would have something to discuss this morning if nobody came up with anything. So this is not me trying to overlay something on you; it's rather something to throw into the consideration and should have no more weight than anybody else's suggestion.

Ms. Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Chair, first of all, let me commend you on your creativity, because that's good leadership, and I appreciate that.

I have a number of issues that I think the committee should study, but I sense that we're going to get into this argument about, well, we can't do that in three sessions, so we shouldn't put that on the table. I might suggest, if we're only looking at three sessions, that we look at those three sessions and settle that. Then if the proposed legislation doesn't come through when we think it will, we can go on to the next. But if I put another five things on the table, I think it's just going to be confusing, and we won't get anywhere.

So I do support sticking to the researchers' suggestion of doing the estimates, which we have a duty to do, looking at the Auditor General, who's touched on a lot of the issues that we want to discuss anyway, and if we have extra time maybe having Senator Kirby in to enlighten us about something the Senate may be doing. That will take up three good sessions, and then we're home free for the next stretch, I guess.

The Chair: Thanks, Ms. Ablonczy.

If I may respond, I'm looking at this now and thinking that if there are these few meetings, and we have one with the Auditor General, we also might consider just having what I call expository meetings on some of these other topics. I know that Mr. Ménard is concerned about his, and it's possible that in one meeting we could get the flavour of it and what the issues are and then perhaps decide what it is we want to do about it, if anything. So there's that possibility, too, of doing single meetings on different topics until we get to the end of this, actually having learned more.

It's just that I felt I was testing your patience with two meetings with the officials droning on, and that you might want to get into one thing that you can get your teeth into.

Anyway, could you take a minute now and read this thing that has been handed out?

There are three options and then a little chart to explain it. So you want to read that section that has three options.

• 1133

• 1135

The Chair: Just as a reminder to you, it's this coming Tuesday that we supposedly have the Auditor General, but it's actually three assistant auditors general who are coming in, because he's leaving.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I was just going to suggest that because it's such a broad scope, the Auditor General coming in should take up one meeting.

The Chair: Oh, yes, it will.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I can't see us going with option three and combining them.

The Chair: Well, there are just three meetings listed there in each case. The first one of any one of those options will be the Auditor General's people on next Tuesday.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: So he's coming in next Tuesday, is that what you're saying?

The Chair: Yes.

Are there any questions about this? Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: As I see it, we mustn't get sidetracked. We have a statutory obligation to hear the Auditor General. After that, we need to examine the budget. In my view, we need to wait until the Minister returns. I have a great deal of respect for Herb Gray, whose great intellect is appreciated by all, but the Minister is the one who ultimately should come before the committee and defend the budget. Currently, he is recovering from surgery. I don't know when he will be back. Again, I think we should use this block of time to focus in a constructive manner on some of the problems that have been identified.

For instance, we could spend a full three meetings on the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, given the complexity of this issue and the link between the pharmaceutical industry and controls on pharmaceutical prices.

I'm concerned that we might be getting sidetracked and while members may have many suggestions, there is no connecting thread. Let's set aside Tuesday's meeting to hear from the Auditor General. As parliamentarians, it's our duty. After that, let's select one topic for consideration.

As for Senator Kirby, that's an interesting suggestion, but the Senate is committed to a longitudinal study on drugs. I don't believe it has completed this study yet. I think we should wait until the Senate has completed its work and then determine where we stand. What would be the point of having a meeting, unless the committee has finished its work with Senator Nolin? As far as I know, this isn't the case.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: With all due respect to my colleague from the Bloc, I'm not sure the minister's availability is relevant here. In the past, we haven't had that much access to the minister. If we're lucky, we might get the Minister of Health for an hour once a year, and I don't know if we've even achieved that.

I think the issue for us today is what our obligations are as a health committee in terms of reports that have been done and developments that have occurred that impact on the health policy field. It seems to me you hit the nail on the head when you said there are obligations on our part to deal with the Auditor General's reports that impact on Health Canada.

We have a backlog of reports. We have three or four that were released in December of last year or were just released—I've lost track of time—and we still have two or three from 1999 that we haven't dealt with as a committee. All those reports touch on very major aspects of the health policy field. Some of them have to do with food safety and health protection. Some of them have to do with the whole issue of enforcement of and compliance with the Canada Health Act, and developments around enforceability and compliance. I think our obligation at the start of a session should be to deal with those reports.

I'm having a little difficulty commenting on the specific proposals. My recommendation would be that within the three sessions available to us, we make sure we break down those reports and the major developments into three manageable packages, and make sure we have a chance to air concerns and to ask questions.

• 1140

I think it's embarrassing that we, as a health committee, have yet to be able to deal with the food safety issue or the question of genetically modified foods in any shape or form. The environment committee has had the Royal Society appear before it, yet of all the policy fields, it is in fact health that is most in question in terms of the safety of human health.

So I think we have to use the reports of the Auditor General as the leaping-off point, as the way to structure our committee's work for the next few weeks, because those reports touch on the major aspects.

I'll throw one more thing in, and it's just on the Auditor General's report pertaining to the Canada Health Act. You will know, Madam Chairperson, that we have a longstanding request from the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, and other professional organizations to appear before this committee to give us updates on the status of their professions in Canada today. They also have an interest in commenting on the developments pertaining to the September accord, which is very much a part of this theme and that report by the Auditor General.

So I think a day on food safety, the Auditor General, and the Royal Society, a day on Health Canada, with some of the professional associations, and then a day on something else would make sense.

The Chair: Okay, now I'm mixed up. For a few minutes there I thought you were speaking in favour of what I call the accountability plan.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: In effect, I think I am.

The Chair: Okay, can I say this to you? If you adopted that, we always have the option of having some people in to talk to us on Wednesday afternoons at 3:30—if you want to add a couple of meetings to this—to further enhance what you're finding out from the Auditor General's reports and the priorities documents.

I think I heard you speaking in favour of essentially what the researchers have structured as accountability. Let me explain to you why I picked that. First, it was coming out of your own questions, but, secondly, because there's a movement afoot on both sides of the House about parliamentary reform, as you know.

One of the speeches I attended, and I think Ms. Ablonczy was on the panel—it was last spring—put forth the idea that committees have more power than they use. They have a responsibility to fulfil the accountability function, but a lot of them aren't doing it. A number of committees last year never even looked at the estimates. The ones I was on did, I think, but some people aren't doing it.

So I thought that if that is one of our more serious roles, maybe we'd be better to get it over with quickly. We can then say to people that we've done the accountability at our committee for this year. It doesn't mean we couldn't have a further session in the fall about it, but it would seem to me we could take....

Mr. Owen.

Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Excuse me, Madam Chair. Just so there's no misunderstanding that this is a whole-scale walkout from the committee, three of us have another obligation that couldn't be avoided at noon—as the chair is aware—and we have to leave for it now.

For what it's worth, I've found this discussion to be very interesting. As interesting and as critically important as many of the specific, substantive issues that have been raised are to our ongoing work, this time before the Easter recess would be very useful to deal with previous reports and to bring us up to speed on a broader understanding of the issues that are critical to our ongoing work. I know such information meetings would be useful to some of us. To jump right into a substantive issue that we might hope to want to come to a conclusion on might be a little ambitious at this stage for some of us, particularly the new members of the committee.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Owen.

We've had a lot of talk, and I think we now have six or seven issues that have been put forward. I'd be willing to accept a motion that we adopt a little plan for the next couple of meetings.

Mr. Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I have a short question for you before I make another suggestion. We're talking about the budget. Could the minister meet with the committee before Easter, since we are talking about the budget and we do want to meet with him?

[English]

The Chair: No, I have no indication of that. We can have officials in who we can question about the estimates. We don't have to have the minister. We can save the minister.

• 1145

By the way, on that point, I'm not as pessimistic as Ms. Wasylycia-Leis about how frequently the minister will come. We are so charming a group and so pleasant and courteous, I'm sure we can get him two or three times a year.

As the clerk has reminded me, we do have this notice requirement for a motion. Obviously there has been no motion prepared ahead of time, so I have to ask for your unanimous consent to waive the 48-hour rule for the motion, in order for us to agree upon a plan. Do I have your agreement?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Let our colleague finish. Let the secretary finish what he had to say.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Just to finish up, Madam Chair, you've answered my question. I do have a suggestion to make. We are not yet at the motion stage, but we can at least speak in hypothetical terms.

To respond to Ms. Ablonczy's concerns about what the Senate is doing, the Nolin Committee is addressing the drug issue. A longitudinal study is also being done by the Kirby committee. I think we could resolve everything with a note. Our services could get in touch with the Senate committees secretariat and request a note clarifying mandates and ongoing activities. This alone could provide us with sufficient information. As far as everything else is concerned, I'd like to propose a compromise between accountability and studies.

I think we should do both. We have four meetings. We could devote two to examining accountability. We would need to be a little more selective. We could begin by hearing from the Auditor General and then select one or two other topics. If possible, we could set aside two meetings for the budget. Two meetings would be ample time to address the issue raised by Mr. Ménard, which is a genuine concern. Constituents have brought this matter to our attention and it is an old problem that needs to be addressed.

If our committee were to conduct a mini-study for the purposes of enlightening the minister about this issue, I think the initiative would be well received. The scope of our study would be quite limited and we could accomplish this important task in two meetings. It also ties in well with the two aspects of our committee, namely accountability and a small study. If we could accomplish all of this in the space of four meetings, then I think this is the right way to go, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: You're suggesting the Auditor General at the first meeting, the estimates at the next, an exposé of Mr. Ménard's problem at the third, and what are you suggesting for the fourth?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Third and fourth—

The Chair: Okay, now we have another suggestion on the table, which includes a précis of Mr. Ménard's—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I concur with Yvon Charbonneau. His proposal is well balanced: two meetings set aside for accountability issues... In any event, there is little likelihood that the minister will meet with us before Easter. If there is unanimous consent to set aside the 24-hour prior notice rule and if colleagues wish to vote, then I would like to make Yvon Charbonneau's suggestion a formal motion.

[English]

The Chair: Do I have your agreement to set aside the 48-hour notice rule?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Charbonneau, we have one little problem. The estimates aren't going to be tabled quickly enough to come up in meeting number two. They'd have to be at the end. We'd have to have the Auditor General and part of the accountability. Then we'd have to move to the second topic, which would take two meetings, and we'd have to have the estimates at the end. The positive thing about this might be that because that's the last meeting before Easter, perhaps the minister would be well enough by then to begin to participate in this small way, and I will see if he could come.

Ms. Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Just for clarification, we're talking about having four sessions. Do we need to?

I look at the items here, and it's so important for us to have an opportunity to deal with them as well. But I would like to also look at what we can do with Mr. Ménard's suggestion. Can we deal with Mr. Ménard's issue in one session?

• 1150

I'm sure we're going to hear information that's going to require subsequent reports back at some time. I would hope we could really get all that information in one session and make some recommendations. The way I see things going here, they seem to take a fair amount of time to then get other information back. If we're going to have four sessions, could we not do these three and Mr. Ménard's with one session?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Senior officials need to attend, along with representatives of community groups. I think we can manage with two meetings, but if we schedule only one, we might be tight for time.

[English]

The Chair: Now we have a combined suggestion on the table, and I believe Mr. Charbonneau put it as a motion.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I think it could be a good compromise and allow us—

The Chair: Yes. Mr. Merrifield wanted to comment on this motion, then.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: We actually started this whole discussion by talking about immediate, medium-term, and long-term positions on health, and it's absolutely important to do everything you suggested. I have no argument with that approach. I am with Mr. Ménard. I have no problem with going into that issue. I certainly don't see that as an emergent issue, as something we need to take and do right now. I have no problem in discussing it perhaps after the break. But I think we have limited time now and we do have the absolute potential of an emergency in this country and we are not prepared to sit down and use a little defensive, preventative thought process on this issue, which could blow up into a massive problem.

I would suggest that we come up to speed on the issues of health concerns about food safety. This morning we have the potential just south of here of a severe problem that could be mad cow disease and where we're going in it. I suggest that we should look at that very soon because of the potential that we would have for reducing any kind of a problem there. It is a major health and food safety issue, and I think we're missing it. I'm not suggesting others aren't important; I'm just saying that as an immediate issue, this is something we should look at.

The Chair: You're saying you'd like one meeting to get a briefing?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: We should be briefed so that we know where we can go and what needs to be done. And we're negligent by not doing that.

The Chair: There's a logical thing happening. People are defending the thing that is of critical interest to themselves, but the fact is we do have a motion on the floor from Mr. Charbonneau, and I would ask you to restrict your comments to whether you support it or you don't. Mr. Merrifield does not, because he feels we're missing the boat on one emerging important health issue.

Does anybody want to comment? Ms. Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Madam Chair, Mr. Merrifield raises a very important issue. I know that agriculture, supposedly, is looking at that. It's hard to separate that from health issues as well. I guess I'm torn, because if I can go to an agriculture committee and get my questions answered and get the briefing information I would need on that issue, I suppose then I would be satisfied with that. But is there going to be an opportunity for us?

The Chair: Can I offer a compromise that we maybe could use one of those Wednesdays, for all members of the committee who are interested, and assemble the right people to come and brief us on that issue, on the foot and mouth and mad cow prevention stuff.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Yes, I certainly support Mr. Merrifield's cause and his concern, because I'm very concerned and interested in that when you take a look at the whole scenario. However, right now we know what's happening south of the border. We know there's a lot of testing going on. The results will not be conclusive for some time. We don't know what is happening in Canada. We don't know what kind of testing is going on right here.

I'm not saying delay forever, but I'm saying just wait for more evidence to pile up, more information from the various authorities and the various ministries and departments on all the levels to see what kind of scenario will emerge within a month, let's say. And then we could act. Or we can have a Wednesday meeting.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. I'm going to call the question after this speaker.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I find myself—

The Chair: Torn.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: —agreeing with the Alliance.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Would you like to have my seat?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's not to diminish the importance of the issue—

The Chair: Madam Wasylycia-Leis, try to address the chair.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sorry, Madam Chair.

The Chair: You keep looking at your friend, Mr. Ménard, and people will talk.

• 1155

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I certainly don't want to leave the impression that I think the issue raised by Mr. Ménard is not important, but Madam Chairperson, we're dealing with two factors here today: one—put very well by Mr. Merrifield from the Alliance—that in fact we are dealing with a critical situation in terms of questions about food safety in general and uncertainties around the state of beef products in the country today. It's so significant we can't afford to let it sit for a month, with all due respect to Mr. Dromisky.

In fact, some of the unanswered questions that impact on human health should be of urgent concern to us all. Maybe it's a perceptual problem and not a reality, but it must be addressed. Canadians are concerned.

It behooves us to at least have the Auditor General and department officials appear before the committee, to have some of the overall issues dealt with in terms of who's in charge. Who's responsible? When does the Minister of Health get involved? Which scientists are a part of the equation?

We need at least these basics in place, this understanding, so we can deal with people's growing lack of confidence in the system.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I would urge that we deal with something on the issue of food safety and treat it as urgent.

The Chair: Mr. Charbonneau, would you consider amending your motion to include a briefing on this issue brought forward by Mr. Merrifield? We could do that on a Wednesday afternoon.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Sure.

The Chair: There's a friendly amendment.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'm not here to argue the point.... Well, I am here to argue the point. I'm merely suggesting that we should not—

The Chair: We should have a briefing.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, as long as a briefing is going to be enough.

I'm looking at preventative maintenance on this thing. I think that's absolutely critical that we do that.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I just want to remind you that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency reports to the Department of Agriculture.

I realize full well that this is an important issue. Perhaps we need to schedule a joint meeting with the departments of Health and Agriculture. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for food safety and reports to Agriculture Canada. The role of Health Canada is this matter is restricted to drafting regulations. I'm not minimizing the importance of this fact, but at this time, given the division of responsibility, this is an area for which Agriculture Canada has primary responsibility.

I have no problem supporting Yvon Charbonneau's proposal. We would hold four meetings, as projected. On Wednesday, we could hold a joint session. As I see it, it's not up to the Auditor General to answer these questions. The answers must come from Health Canada and Agriculture Canada officials.

First we need to understand the division of responsibility. If, after Easter, our Alliance colleagues feel that this is a very important issue, we could delay consideration of the bill and set aside one, two or three meetings to focus specifically on this topic. However, we need to understand where responsibility lies. All of the questions raised by the Opposition have not been answered by the Minister of Health. The answers have always come from the Minister of Agriculture.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard is correct about the division of responsibility. But there is a movement afoot having something to do with this parliamentary reform. We need to begin to transgress some of the silos that our responsibilities have been put into.

Of course, this will give our clerk additional problems he doesn't need. On the other hand, it will begin to create, I believe, some of the horizontal, synthesized thinking that needs to go on around this place, according to what I hear from the parliamentary reformers.

We've had several comments on this motion, which I understand has two meetings of accountability with the Auditor General, maybe with estimates, and two to do with Mr. Ménard's very small piece of the puzzle, but one that he feels strongly about, and a fifth that would have to do with the current crisis that seems to have the potential to enter North America, according to the latest news. That would be five meetings structured in this way.

I'm going to call the question. All those in favour of Mr. Charbonneau's motion?

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: The motion carries, solving our short-term problem.

• 1200

I'll reiterate that in the medium term we expect draft legislation, which it's my understanding will not be introduced in the House, but I may not be right about this. Rather, it will be sent back to us, because the minister wants to gather Canadians' opinions about the thrust of it before it is refined. This gives us a very good chance to get in at the bottom of this study and have our views recorded.

In the long term, none of the ideas put forward today would be lost. As Mrs. Ablonczy has pointed out, it's possible there may be a delay between Easter and the arrival of the draft legislation, which would open the door for a few more meetings on some of these topics.

I thank you for your creativity.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: As for future meetings, I suggest that from now until Monday or Tuesday, members forward to the Clerk or to your office their list of preferred witnesses. For instance, I have four or five names to suggest to you for the two meetings. I can submit them to the Clerk and to Yvon, if he wishes, so that we can get the ball rolling as soon as possible.

[English]

The Chair: I was hoping, Mr. Ménard, you'd thought this through to the point of knowing who you'd like to hear from, so that's good; and anybody else is welcome to do the same thing.

We have not dealt with the question of the timing of witnesses. I'll try to get a proposal on paper for you. I don't want to interfere with the Auditor General's meeting.

I think we're doing fairly well. Are you feeling satisfied with the flow of the questions so far?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, I am.

[English]

The Chair: Perhaps we don't need to be too tied down. Let's see how we do in the next meeting. I'll try to keep it as fair as possible and watch my little clock here, which the clerk has provided.

Is there any further business this morning? Seeing none, I declare this meeting adjourned.

Thank you.