HEAL Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 21, 2002

Á

1105

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

Ms. McLellan

Á

1110

Á

1115

Á

1120

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

Ms. McLellan

Mr. Merrifield

Á

1130

Ms. McLellan

Mr. Merrifield

Ms. McLellan

Mr. Merrifield

Ms. McLellan

Mr. Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Guimond

Á

1135

Ms. McLellan

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay--Atikokan, Lib.)

Á

1140

Ms. McLellan

Á

1145

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

Ms. McLellan

Á

1150

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. McLellan

The Chair

Ms. Anne McLellan

The Chair

Ms. Anne McLellan

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

Ms. McLellan

Á

1155

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond--Arthabaska, PC/DR)

Ms. McLellan

Â

1200

Mr. André Bachand

Ms. McLellan

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

Â

1205

Ms. McLellan

Mr. Ian Shugart (Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Policy and Communications Branch, Department of Health)

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. McLellan

The Chair

Â

1211

The Chair

Doryne Peace (Chair of the Committee on Voluntary Labelling of Foods Obtained or Not Obtained Through Genetic Modification, Canadian General Standards Board)

Ms. Marian Gaucher (Secretary to the Committee on Voluntary Labelling of Foods Obtained or Not Obtained Through Genetic Modification, Canadian General Standards Board)

Â

1215

Ms. Doryne Peace

Â

1220

Â

1225

The Chair

Ms. Doryne Peace

The Chair

Doryne Peace

Â

1230

Â

1235

The Chair

Ms. Doryne Peace

Â

1240

The Chair

Ms. Doryne Peace

The Chair

Ms. Doryne Peace

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

Ms. Doryne Peace

Mr. Merrifield

Ms. Doryne Peace

Mr. Merrifield

Ms. Doryne Peace

Mr. Merrifield

Â

1245

Ms. Doryne Peace

Mr. Merrifield

Ms. Doryne Peace

Mr. Merrifield

Ms. Doryne Peace

The Chair

Mr. Castonguay

Ms. Doryne Peace

Â

1250

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Ms. Doryne Peace

Â

1255

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Mr. Speller

Ms. Marian Gaucher

Mr. Speller

Ms. Marian Gaucher

Mr. Speller

Ms. Marian Gaucher

·

1300

Mr. Spencer

The Chair

Ms. Doryne Peace

The Chair

Ms. Doryne Peace

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

·

1305

Ms. Doryne Peace

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Ms. Doryne Peace

Ms. Scherrer

The Chair

Ms. Marian Gaucher

The Chair

Ms. Doryne Peace

The Chair

·

1310

Mr. Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

Mr. Speller

The Chair

Mr. Speller

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

---

NUMBER 058

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 21, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's my tremendous pleasure to welcome to our table our new minister, the Honourable Anne McLellan. This will be her first visit with us, and I'm sure the members of the committee are anxious to hear her views on a variety of topics and to ask their questions. Without further ado, I'll invite the minister to introduce her officials and then proceed to share with us her thoughts on the subject of health in Canada.

    Madam Minister.

    Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Thank you, Bonnie.

[Translation]

    Thank you, Madam Chair and distinguished committee members for having invited me to speak with you today.

    This is the first time that I have addressed this committee in my capacity as federal Minister of Health, but I have worked with many of you before, so let me start by saying that I look forward to our working relationship.

    The Standing Committee on Health can be proud of its accomplishments. It has made a major contribution to various areas of health and research. It has provided ideas and advice on natural health products and organ and tissue donations. The committee is renowned for dealing with difficult issues.

[English]

    I have no doubt that this ability and willingness to grapple with difficult issues will be to Canada's advantage over the coming months and years as we work together to address health issues that may well redefine public policy in this area for generations to come.

    I am joined today, colleagues, by my associate deputy minister, Munir Sheikh, and Ian Shugart, my assistant deputy minister for the department's Health Policy and Communications Branch.

    I am here, Madame la présidente, to talk about Health Canada's plans and priorities for the coming year. I will provide you with an update of Health Canada's activities and talk about some of the key issues that this committee will be addressing in its work over the coming months.

    Let me start by talking about some areas of priority interest in the immediate future. Our first challenge is the renewal of the health care system. Over the last several years the Government of Canada has been engaged in a comprehensive strategy to evaluate health care in Canada and consider ways it can be improved. That is the role government can and must play. After all, the federal role in health care is one that pre-dates Confederation, dating back to the establishment of the Central Board of Health in 1866.

    The future of health care is consistently one of the top concerns of Canadians. I think we're all aware of this. We have heard over the past number of months and quite recently from the premiers in relation to their concerns around health care. We are all aware of the numerous provincial reports on the future of health care, and we have received the interim report from the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada chaired by Roy Romanow.

    Mr. Romanow's interim report was clear and unequivocal in its challenge to Canadians. It said, “Tell us what kind of a system you want, what kind of a system you need, and what kind of a system you are prepared to pay for.”

    The next step in the commission's work will be to hear from Canadians. It promises to be a most interesting dialogue, and I know all of us look forward to these discussions that will take place in all our communities in the coming months.

    In fact, I encourage all members of Parliament to get their constituents engaged in this discussion, so that we--you as members of this committee, I and my provincial and territorial colleagues--can benefit from as wide a variety of views as possible on this important challenge of the renewal of our system.

    I will not presume this morning to know or pre-empt the outcome of the commission, but in my view, there is at the very least a general consensus that a common list of factors is driving the cost of health care in Canada. Key among these factors are an aging population and the demand and need for new technologies and new drug therapies. Despite what has been said by some, the federal government has endeavoured to address funding levels through increases in the Canada health and social transfer, or CHST. In addition, we have made available $800 million for a primary health care transition fund to help the provinces and territories build a primary health care system of integrated health care teams.

    While money helps address immediate needs, it does not tell us how effective our health care system is. To do this, the system has to be measured. That is why accountability in the health care system is part of the renewal process. This is just one of the commitments to which the premiers agreed in September 2000 in the historic First Ministers' Agreement on Health Care.

    I want to quote from that agreement as follows:

Respecting each other's responsibilities, all governments believe in the importance of being accountable to Canadians for the health programs and services which they deliver. Clear public reporting, with appropriate, independent, third party verification will enhance the performance of health services, and is important for achieving the vision and accomplishing the priorities set out

    Canadians have the right to feel confident that their health care system is being well-managed.

Á  (1110)  

    Another way we can achieve a better understanding of the system is through more thorough health information. It is about getting reliable facts. In doing so, we will collectively be able to make informed decisions, better decisions, about our health care system and the future of our health care system.

    An intergovernmental group, chaired by the Government of Alberta, is now working on comparable indicators that will measure health status, health outcomes, and quality of service. These indicators will be used in performance reporting by each government to their respective citizens. In September 2002, we hope to table the first performance measurement report on health care.

    Good health policy, by definition, requires long-term thinking and long-term investments. That is why governments have to be committed to research and innovation. I'm struck by something Dr. Henry Friesen said a while ago. He used to be, of course, head of the Medical Research Council, and is now head of Genome Canada.

    I'll paraphrase, and I won't say it nearly as eloquently as Dr. Friesen, but he basically said that without good health research there will be no renewal of our health care system. We need that commitment to research, to the development of knowledge, and the knowledge that flows from research. Without that commitment, we will not be able to renew our health care system and sustain it into the future.

    That is why our government sees, as a key component of any real renewal of health care, a strong commitment to research in this area. In June 2000, the Government of Canada created the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, or CIHR, our government's primary health research funding agency. Through 13 virtual institutes, this organization stimulates leading-edge health research, not only in Canada but around the world.

    Our government's commitment to research and innovation at Health Canada was also reflected in the 2001 federal budget. This commitment was reflected in a number of ways, including a $75 million increase in funding to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, to a new annual total of $560 million.

    The budget also included an additional $100 million for research that will be undertaken by Health Canada, together with its partners. Of that sum, $95 million will be invested over four years into research activities at the Canadian Institute for Health Information, otherwise known as CIHI, as well as at Statistics Canada. The remaining $5 million will be used to produce health data on first nations residents who live on reserve.

    Let me turn to another priority of the Government of Canada and my department, and that is health promotion and protection. This is an important issue because it holds the dual purpose of promoting the health of Canadians and reducing some of the burden on our existing health care system. Our commitment to health promotion and health protection includes providing Canadians with the information and tools they need to make informed decisions about their health.

    It also includes our work to prevent and reduce risks to health through the regulation of food, drugs, and other products. Whether it's information on nutrition, substance-abuse prevention, or ensuring a safe work environment, our efforts translate into helping our citizens live healthy lives.

    Leaving aside the human cost incurred by disease and sickness, imagine the savings that could be realized, the hospital beds that could be freed up, the tests and procedures that wouldn't have to be performed. We need to successfully cultivate a culture that makes the pursuit of health a public good and a private goal .

    These activities are carried out by four branches of my department: population and public health, health products and food, healthy environments and consumer safety, and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. They work as a team to manage the health and safety risks facing Canadians today. My guess is that you may want to return in more detail to some of those elements in our discussion later.

    But let me now turn to another priority area that is of key concern to me as Minister of Health. That is the federal government's role in the provision of health care to first nations and Inuit peoples.

Á  (1115)  

    First nations and Inuit communities have special concerns that need to be addressed, such as a disproportionately high incidence of diabetes, tuberculosis, and cardiovascular disorders. Health Canada is working with aboriginal organizations, along with provinces, territories, and health service providers, to modernize health services in first nations and Inuit communities.

    In the most recent federal budget, the Government of Canada allocated resources to the following areas: $50 million in each of the next two years to build on federal programs that support early childhood development, with a focus on first nations children on reserve; $10 million in 2002-03 and $15 million in 2003-04 to intensify efforts on reserve to reduce the incidence of and the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome; and $25 million in 2001-02 and $75 million in 2002-03 to address sustainability challenges for the first nations and Inuit health systems.

    These elements help fulfill the commitment we made in the most recent Speech from the Throne to aboriginal Canadians living on reserve. In addition to these investments, Health Canada will also look at ways to help develop a tele-health system. Keep in mind that many of our aboriginal and Inuit patients live in remote and rural areas; consequently, the development of tele-health regimes will be key to our ability to serve this community well.

    We also want to contribute to bursaries and scholarships for aboriginal students in health-related programs, and we want to identify and eliminate gaps in service to this community. In addition, we will implement measures to ensure that health care in these communities is accountable, effective, sustainable, and cost-effective.

    Just let me say that, as it relates to the delivery of health to first nations and Inuit people, my challenge is that of the provincial health ministers and territorial health ministers in relation to delivering health to their populations. We have escalating costs. We have the same, and perhaps even more critical, human resource challenges. We have the same challenges around the increased use of drugs and costs of drugs. We have a community in which we know there are tragically poor health outcomes. So in fact my challenge is to renew the health care system as it relates to first nations and Inuit people, just as this challenge is faced by provincial and territorial health ministers as it relates more generally to their populations.

    Now, Madam Chair, let me say a few words about global health, an area that I know this committee is well aware of but which perhaps has become more urgent and acute since September 11. We are working with other countries to develop a global vision of health issues, to identify common goals and share common experiences. The tragedy of September 11 made many things clear to us. One of these is that all countries need to improve their surveillance ability, laboratory capacity, front-line responsiveness, and stocks of necessary drugs.

    In addition, Health Canada has developed six training courses and has already trained over 300 first responders and laboratory personnel in all aspects of responding to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear terrorism events. The Government of Canada is investing $170 million over five years to improve Canada's capabilities and capacity to deal with threats of this nature.

    So, colleagues, as you can see, Health Canada's mandate is very broad and our agenda is ambitious. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the Standing Committee on Health does not shy away from tough issues. I look forward to working with the committee on these issues, including assisted human reproduction, labelling of genetically modified foods, and legislation on pesticide regulation. I do want to take a moment and just briefly address each of these three issues because I know they're top-of-mind for you.

    The first area of your activity I want to mention is the work you have done in reviewing the draft proposals on assisted human reproduction. As the committee knows, these proposals encompass complex and difficult issues.

Á  (1120)  

The draft legislation seeks to provide the necessary framework to ensure that Canadians who build their families using these technologies can do so without compromising their health. Also, the draft legislation would ensure that promising research, which may help find treatments for serious conditions such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and cancer, takes place within a regulated environment.

    The treatment benefits that are possible from the AHR-related research must also be accompanied by a thorough discussion of the choices we as lawmakers have to make. The speed with which the committee reviewed our government's draft legislation and provided a report ahead of schedule is very much appreciated. It is clear that many are eager to put a Canadian framework in place as soon as possible. My officials and I are at this time reviewing your report, and we will be preparing a formal response by May 10.

    Madam Chair, I would also like to discuss briefly genetically modified foods. I know that at this point you are studying this matter, as is the agricultural committee. The Government of Canada is committed to an ongoing process of ensuring that its regulation of genetically modified foods is appropriate. That is why Health Canada has been engaged in formal consultations regarding the assessment and approval of genetically modified foods.

    Under the Food and Drugs Act, Health Canada has established a stringent process for evaluating the safety of foods derived through genetic modification. The committee has heard from witnesses from my department, Industry Canada, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is my understanding that the testimony of these witnesses has helped provide the committee with a broad overview and understanding of the issue. I have no doubt that this testimony will serve the committee well when it prepares its report.

    The final area I would like to address is the regulation of pesticides. All pesticides are assessed rigorously by the scientific evaluators of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA. This agency only approves pesticides for use if scientific evidence demonstrates that health or environmental risks are within acceptable limits. PMRA continually updates its pesticide assessment methods.

    We are considering new legislation. It is time to modernize the Pest Control Products Act in order to make pesticide control more transparent and open to public scrutiny. We have consulted with many groups as we have drafted the bill, and we have carefully considered all points of view. We recognize that this bill is an important one to many stakeholders, and that's why it's important to note that I am committed to weighing the concerns of all stakeholders while respecting the public health and safety dimension of my department's mandate.

    As someone who is relatively new to this portfolio, let me say that I do believe this is an exciting time to be involved in health. As you have heard, my department has much to accomplish over the coming year. To address our agenda items, Health Canada will continue to work in partnership with our provincial and territorial counterparts and stakeholders across the country, seeking their advice and support. We will listen to Canadians about the kind of health care and health care system they want in the future.

    With that, Madame la présidente, I will say thank you, merci beaucoup.

Á  (1125)  

[Translation]

    I would now be more than pleased to answer your questions.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister, for that overview of your priorities and those of your department.

    Time is ticking away, so we'll move immediately to questions. We'll begin with Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): I want to thank you for coming in and explaining where your priorities are in the coming year. Since our time is short, I would like to sort of pick up my first question from your last comments with regard to collaboration with the provinces.

    You're well aware, and probably quite proud, of the social union contract and the commitment there to bring forward a dispute settlement mechanism. We read in the papers today that it sounds like there may be some difficulty with bringing forward a body that will act as a dispute settlement mechanism and will actually make some recommendations. Is it your intent to put forward a body that will bring forward recommendations so that you'll be able to have the best advice in how to deal with any conflicts with the Canada Health Act?

    Ms. Anne McLellan: We are involved in discussions with the provinces at this point. Officials have been working on this for some time. I believe federal, provincial, and territorial governments are very close to reaching a resolution of this issue.

    The Social Union Framework Agreement anticipates the fact, or encompasses within its general language the fact, that one would put in place both avoidance and resolution mechanisms, and as they relate to resolution, advice and recommendations could be made.

    I certainly know where the provinces stand on this issue. It would not be appropriate for me at this point to talk more specifically because I know these discussions are taking place and will take place between myself and my provincial and territorial colleagues. I know that my provincial colleagues will want to talk among themselves about proposals and how we will move forward. But I have every reason to believe we will meet the deadline put in place by the provincial premiers, and we are very close to resolving this matter.

    I see no reason why it can't be resolved very soon.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Thank you. I hope you're right on that one.

    The other thing is that the social union contract was struck in 1999--I think February 4--and is up for review right now. Is that review taking place? When will the results of that review be available?

Á  (1130)  

    Ms. Anne McLellan: The actual review of the Social Union Framework Agreement is the responsibility of my colleague, Minister Dion, because this is a matter that goes well beyond the area of health. Minister Dion, as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, is the federal government's lead minister on the overall review of SUFA.

    I can tell you that Mr. Dion is fully charged with this issue and is looking forward to beginning that review process with his provincial counterparts.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Can you tell us when? This is of great importance to health care in Canada.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: No, in the sense that this is a matter that Minister Dion is taking up with his provincial counterparts, and there is much more in the SUFA than matters dealing with health. It speaks to social policy in the federation generally and comprehensively.

    Timelines will be established by Minister Dion and the provincial and territorial ministers, whether they're intergovernmental affairs ministers or social affairs ministers. Whatever the case may be, they will be designated by their respective provinces. I don't know where that process is at, but Mr. Dion certainly does.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Thank you.

    The reproductive technology bill is a piece of legislation we worked very hard on. Everyone on the committee is very excited about bringing forward some legislation on this. We have reports almost every week on technology advancing in this area, whether it's a fertility clinic in Connecticut or the patenting of genes in the human body. This legislation lags behind many countries, and it certainly lags behind the research in Canada.

    If it's priority number one, why is it going to take until May 10? Can you see that piece of legislation actually going through the process of all three readings prior to the end of this sitting?

    Ms. Anne McLellan: May 10 is the date by which we must respond to your committee report, so that is the outside date. It is my obligation to report no later than May 10. But I certainly understand the importance of your report and putting forward to Parliament legislation in this area.

    We want to move on this as quickly as possible; therefore May 10 is the absolute outside date for me. In fact, we may very likely be able to move more quickly. I would certainly like to be able to introduce legislation and see that legislation get through the House and the Senate before we rise for the summer.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay.

    The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Merrifield, we don't have that much time.

    Mr. Guimond is next.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Madam Minister, I want to thank you for the vast majority of your presentation. In some places, your presentation oddly resembled Elvis Stojko's best skating performances. In some places, you showed how eloquently you could skate.

    I'd like to go back to a comment that you made with respect to a consensus that exists in Canada. If I remember correctly, you mentioned two areas of consensus in Canada: the aging population and an increase in prescription drug use.

    I do not know if you intentionally or deliberately omitted something, or simply forgot about it or made a mistake, but you did not point out that there is another area of consensus in Canada, at least among the provinces: the needs are in the provinces and the means, the money, are in Ottawa.

    You will surely acknowledge that in recent years, your government, especially, largely reduced funding for health care in the provinces, and that is why today, the provinces, not only Quebec... We saw that in Newfoundland, military personnel was being asked to take over in the hospitals on weekends. We have seen the problems in the hospitals in Ontario and in some provinces in the West. So these problems with health care are not limited to Quebec. But the main point, the dominant theme, the common thread, is the inadequate federal funding for health care, when the federal government has the money and the surpluses.

    I would like to hear your comments on that.

Á  (1135)  

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Thank you for your question.

[English]

    Let me just clarify. First of all, in my remarks I identified where I thought there was a consensus around the key cost drivers in the health care system. That was the consensus to which I was referring. I also indicated that we in the federal government have attempted to acknowledge and meet some of those increased costs coming from those cost drivers.

    While I am the first to concede that the premiers feel that the federal government needs to revisit its contributions to health care, I want to remind everybody that it was only in September 2000 that the premiers and the Prime Minister entered into an agreement whereby we put another $21.1 billion into the health care system up to 2005-2006. At the request of provincial health care ministers, we also put additional dollars on the table to target particular needs, such as renewal of medical equipment and assistance for them in terms of pilot projects and building on work they'd already begun in the area of primary health care renewal. So in fact the federal government has not only increased its funding to health care, but we have acknowledged the ongoing fiscal pressures. We will continue to discuss this with the provinces.

    I do not start from the premise that to renew our health care system we necessarily begin by just simply saying, “if you'd just put more money into the system, we would have a sustainable health care system”, because sustainability of the health care system deals with a lot more than affordability. Affordability is only one factor in determining the sustainability of a health care system. Therefore, I am certainly willing to acknowledge the cost pressures. I did that deliberately this morning. It would be naive not to.

    Having said that, we need to look at more than simply more money in the system to determine if our health care system is sustainable into the future. That's why we have to look at the renewal of primary health care, pharmaceuticals, our definition of health care, and health care wellness and promotion. That's why I talked about that this morning. It is not discrete. It is a fundamental key component of the sustainability of our health care system.

    Therefore, to me, funding is an important issue. But at this point I am not willing to say that this system needs more money, and if it does, how much more money it needs to help ensure its long-term sustainability. There are other factors we must consider if we're going to have a sustainable health care system into the future.

    However, I am not naive. I appreciate the fact that the premiers have asked for more money, and that is a discussion that will continue to take place.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Guimond.

    Dr. Dromisky.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay--Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you very much.

    I have two areas of concern, and I don't know if in all fairness we can get a complete response to both of them.

    Several communities in Canada have a problem where the native population is moving from a multitude of reserves and settling in organized communities such as cities. Thunder Bay has a new regional hospital, which will open in a year and a half. Two small hospitals will close at that time. For the last few years there has been a huge influx of the native population into the community. I understand that the provincial government is involved with the Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of Health. I'm just wondering if there will be any kind of re-examination of the way we support community health services in light of this huge, unexpected influx of native population into the community. Many of them are coming in with health problems, of course, which puts a huge burden on whatever facilities exist in those communities.

    The other area of concern is with regard to the National Forum on Health of 1997. They had some recommendations regarding pharmacare, palliative care, and home care. I'm wondering if the ministry's officials have been doing any work in this area and whether you are contemplating any movement in these three areas in the future.

Á  (1140)  

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Thank you very much, Mr. Dromisky.

    In relation to your first question, yes, that is a key pressure for all the provinces, one that has been identified by premiers as a pressure point in their health care systems and one that I've indicated a willingness to discuss with the provinces. It is not going to be an easy resolution. It raises a host of issues that go well beyond health care, issues that are being dealt with right now by the reference group on aboriginal issues, chaired by my colleague, Stéphane Dion, and of which I am a member.

    A number of concerns arise from the fact that first nations people live in communities of all kinds in this country. They move from reserve into urban centres, in many cases, and may move back to the reserve for a certain part of the year and then back again to the urban community. They may leave the reserve, never to return. And you're right, in at least some cases they face a host of acute health problems, which then create, I would be the first to acknowledge, at least some level of fiscal pressure on provincial health care systems.

    This is an area where I think there has to be greater discussion between federal and provincial governments. It's one that's been flagged for me by the chair of the premiers, Premier Campbell. I've indicated to him that it is one that I would be willing to discuss further with my provincial counterparts. It's not going to be easily resolved, for a number of reasons, but we're certainly aware of the concerns. It's part of a larger issue.

    The National Forum on Health, you're right, dealt with a number of issues. The accord entered into by the Prime Minister and premiers in September of 2000 identified pharmaceuticals and pharmacare as two of the areas where further work needed to be done on a collaborative basis between and among governments. I've already alluded to the fact that one of the cost drivers in our health care system is drugs, or pharmaceuticals. It's a complex issue, and one where there's a lot of federal-provincial work going on. That work will continue.

    We need to look at not only the cost of drugs but also the utilization. There are a lot of drugs being prescribed in the health care system. Are we getting better health care outcomes from that greater utilization rate? A lot of research needs to be done in and around that area.

    In terms of palliative care, my predecessor appointed the government House leader in the Senate, Sharon Carstairs, as a special emissary, if you like, in relation to palliative care. She has special responsibilities in that area. She has met now with most of her provincial and territorial counterparts in an attempt to, first of all, ensure that we have information on and an understanding of what is happening in different parts of this country as it relates to palliative care. Some provinces have moved further than others.

    Obviously this is an important area if, when you talk about renewal of the health care system, part of that renewal is to make the best use of our health care resources and our health care professionals. We know there is a desire to keep people out of hospital and then also to have them leave hospital as soon as is possible for them. That speaks to home care, but in critical cases, particularly involving those who are elderly, it involves palliative care in facilities and with health care professionals that make the best use of our resources.

    So we need to do a better job in the palliative care area. At a time when people are coming to the end of their lives, where there is perhaps stress on families, obviously we need to look at this area and determine how we can have a caring and compassionate health care system for those who are coming to the end of their lives.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you.

    The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I want to say congratulations, Minister, on your appointment as health minister. Having shadowed your predecessor for five years, I'm looking forward to some clear answers and some prompt action on a number of files.

    In fact, I think you're known around the Hill to be the “cleanup” minister after Allan Rock.

    My first question to you is, what is on your cleaning list? You've mentioned three items, long overdue issues. We also have serious problems around food safety surveillance, around water standards, around a growing shortage of health care professionals, around adverse reactions in drugs and mandatory reporting, and the list goes on and on.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes, it's quite a long list.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I want to know if you have had a chance to get a sense of some of those many problems that were left languishing and what else might be on your cleaning list.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Not to accept the premise of your question, obviously I think the department has been working in probably all the areas you have identified, and perhaps not as quickly as some, including yourself, would like in some areas. But I think in fairness to the department, there are reasons for that. My predecessor started to address those reasons, and we are addressing them. We understand the pressures, for example, and the needs and desires of Canadians to ensure that they can be reassured about the food they eat and that they can be reassured around things like the registration of pesticides and the use of pesticides.

    I think you will see that we have in fact over the past three years....

    Munir, you were telling me that we have actually put into our system over the past three years a very large amount of money, over half a billion dollars of new money, in relation to science-related activities, and I think they deal with most of the things you've identified.

    The food safety issue, the blood safety issue, disease surveillance, pesticide regulation, laboratory upgrading, the Winnipeg lab--which I understand is in your riding--these are some of the things we are putting the half billion dollars we have received over the past three years into.

    I am aware, we're all aware in the department, as was my predecessor, of the pressures, we're aware of the standards that Canadians expect to be met, and we are doing everything we can to deliver in those areas. Obviously that is part of the mandate of the Department of Health, and I've outlined in my comments in a very general and abbreviated sense that these are priorities for us, but so are other things. I think it goes without saying that right now probably the key priority for Canadians is the renewal of their health care system. They want stability in that system, they want to know what it is, and they want to know that it's going to be there in the future for them and their families.

    But there are a number of areas that you've identified in which work is being done. We know we have to enhance our science capacity; we know we have to put the resources in on the regulatory side. That is a key responsibility for us and we will do that.

Á  (1150)  

    The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, you have a minute left,so if you have another question I suggest you be brief.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have two quick questions. I appreciate your unwillingness to acknowledge my hypothesis. I would suggest to you that you look into our sense, at least, of some low morale, chaos, disarray, in parts of your department, particularly in the whole area of health protection.

    My two other questions are with respect to the stability you've talked about for Canadians and our health care system. Given the constant threat of provinces like Alberta and Ontario to pull out of medicare, would a real threat be sufficient for you to actually put additional money on the table, or at least targeted transitional dollars in areas such as a shortage on the human resources side or growing drug costs?

    Secondly, if there are any outright breaches of the Canada Health Act, would you enforce the act now, something the Auditor General said has been an area of negligence, or would you be waiting for some new dispute resolution mechanism that you've talked about?

    Finally, on the aboriginal issue, as part of the FAS strategy, would you agree to implement the motion passed by Parliament for labels on all alcohol beverage containers indicating that drinking during pregnancy can cause birth defects?

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Well, as you're--

    The Chair: I'm sorry, Madam Minister. Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis chose to use the last of her time on her question, so I'll have to move on to ensure other people have a turn.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Okay.

    What you're telling me, Madam Chair, is that I don't get to answer.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Okay.

    The Chair: Madam Scherrer.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    I congratulate you, Madam Minister, because I know you are facing some very important challenges.

    I am especially pleased with the part of your statement where you say that maintaining an effective health care system does not necessarily require investing money, but a major investment in prevention.

    You are Minister of Health, and you probably always have to deal with disease, but there is an issue that I am particularly concerned about: the young people of today. I look at statistics on the population, for example, in Quebec, and the most recent statistics show a very high level of obesity, and an astoundingly high level of inactivity. If we calculate the investments that are normally made in sports infrastructure, when we see what schools are asking for to have a return on that, the results clearly show that young people are inactive. To my mind, prevention starts in childhood with an investment that must be made at an early age.

    Having participated in several committees on sport and having tried to make many members aware of the need to invest in physical activity, I can see that this issue is still being neglected. The matter is often passed from one department to another because young people are not really sick, because there is no emergency.

    I am sounding an alarm: I think that is where we have to begin. I would like to know if you plan to be especially aggressive in terms of investing for young people, because that's where being healthy starts. We have made an effort with respect to food, but with respect to physical activity, I think that it is really urgent that we do something in Quebec and probably throughout Canada.

[English]

    Ms. Anne McLellan: I couldn't agree more. That's why prevention and promotion are going to be a key component of the long-term health of Canadians and our ability to sustain our health care system.

    You mentioned obesity, physical activity and fitness--or the lack of physical activity. And there are obviously other things, such as smoking. These are all things that can contribute to poor health and disease.

    This week some of you may have met with representatives from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and the Cardiovascular Nursing Society, where so much of what they talk about is prevention and the promotion of wellness. This is going to be key.

    One of the things that shocked me when I saw the statistics--and it probably would you--was the fact that we are becoming a nation of obese people. And even in third-world and developing nations, where we thought nutrition and malnutrition were the big issues, obesity is now becoming the major problem. This speaks to, I think, a failure on our part in terms of putting enough emphasis and resources into prevention and the promotion of wellness.

    We have to do more. Otherwise it will become very hard for us to be able to sustain our health care system, because the demands upon it will grow and become greater. Munir is telling me that at the moment we are spending $238.1 million on health promotion and protection. But, having said that, while that is a large amount of money and it's important, we have to get the message out. We have to get the message to families, to moms and dads, to kids, to schools, and to health care professionals to put greater emphasis on prevention and wellness.

    I'll make just one brief point, Madam Chair, if I might.

    There was a longitudinal study done by Harvard researchers that traced nurses for 15 years of their lives.

Á  (1155)  

     What they discovered, tracing those nurses, was that you could reduce the risk of heart attack and heart disease by 80% by not smoking, by watching what you eat, and by physical activity. Just think about that, ladies and gentlemen--80% reduction of heart disease and heart attack. Think of the freed-up resources in our health care system to deal with other things. That is possible through health promotion and through wellness. Your point is an excellent one.

    The Chair: Thank you, Madam Scherrer.

    Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand (Richmond--Arthabaska, PC/DR): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Welcome, Madam Minister.

    First of all, I will not ask you to comment on the premise of my comments, but I must say that I am convinced that you are much more competent and much less arrogant than your predecessor. And that is undoubtedly very good news for us.

    Having said that, I will ask you some quick questions, because your answers are very long. Do you agree or not with advertising pharmaceuticals? That is my first question. We know that there is currently a debate on the topic in the United States. So do you agree that the pharmaceutical industry should be authorized to advertise pharmaceuticals? As part of the review of the regulations that is currently under way at the Department of Health, you are currently examining the issue.

    You also raised the issue of the cost of drugs. Many people question the act governing pharmaceutical products. Your predecessor, having gotten caught up in a difficult issue—we know his background—was very open to the idea of reviewing the Drugs Patent Act, among other things, regarding the regulations on the 20-year period. Do you agree with reviewing that protection under the act in order to try and save money?

    I will ask several questions, because I have many, and I know that the minister likes to go into details in her answers.

    After your presentation last week in Montreal, the newspaper La Presse, in its Saturday issue, reported your remarks. You said that at the end of the day, the question of money would always be something we would have to take into account. Unfortunately, I do not have the press clipping with me, and I apologize. It was when the progress report made by Mr. Romanow was being discussed and the point was made that funding remained a very important aspect. So it means acknowledging that, despite the agreement that goes until 2005-06, there is not enough money in the health care system, and the shortfall will have to be dealt with. Did I understand you correctly?

[English]

    Ms. Anne McLellan: I think you were talking in terms of advertising and pharmaceuticals, direct consumer advertising, which is prohibited, of course. As we all know, that is a somewhat controversial issue, and there is pressure coming from a number of different sources in relation to direct consumer advertising. We monitor this very carefully within the department and will continue to do so.

    At this point, I have no intention of suggesting to my colleagues in the Government of Canada that we change the existing policy in this regard. But, as I say, I can reassure you that this is an area where we continue to monitor the advertising that does take place very carefully to ensure it is not violating existing laws.

    In terms of the funding of the health care system, to go to your last point, I think, what I have said is that we are not going to renew the health care system in a long-term sustainable way by simply saying let's put more money into the system. Sustainability involves a lot more than that. We may need additional funds; in fact, that's something that I know we will continue to discuss. I look forward to the recommendations of Mr. Romanow, and, for example, Senator Kirby and others, in relation to that as their work moves forward.

    I think it's something that we in the federal government are conscious of. We do not pretend that because we have put $21.1 billion of new cash on the table, that will end the discussion around funding of the system, nor will it end the pressures in relation to cost. Those discussions will continue between the two levels of government.

    However, I do want to put on the record that I am not of a view that by simply putting more money on the table we will create a sustainable health care system. Renewal of the health care system is about a lot more than that. It's about the kinds of things we were talking of in terms of wellness and prevention, pharmaceuticals, and continuing care--a whole host of things.

    I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure I understood your question around the cost of drugs.

  (1200)  

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: I was referring to the 20-year-old-patent protection legislation which, along with the regulations, was adopted by the previous government and was also amended by the current government.

    Your predecessor had studied this legislation, which he did not agree with. I don't think it was a secret that he did not like it and that he felt there was perhaps a way to decrease the cost of medication. I feel it is important to know whether you, as minister, agree with the existing legislation or whether you would consider amending it because, as some people believe and others don't, it would be a way to bring down the cost of medication in Canada.

[English]

    Ms. Anne McLellan: I do not believe you control the costs in the health care system by not protecting, or by ignoring, the intellectual property of companies who have put hundreds of millions, and in some cases billions, of dollars into research and development of new drugs. We live in a globalized world in which there are expectations in relation to the protection of patents. I believe those laws must be observed; otherwise we become some kind of renegade nation, quite truthfully, and that's completely unacceptable. We know what the rules are, and the rules, it seems to me, are fairly clear in terms of patent protection, and there are reasons why those rules exist.

    That, it seems to me, is not the way to understand the complex issue of the use of drugs in our system, the purpose they play in our health care system, and how to control their costs. I think we need to look at this issue as the Prime Minister and the premiers committed to in the accord of September 2000. But the degree of patent protection is clear in the laws of this country, and this government has no intention of changing those laws.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

    Our lead critic from the opposition, Mr. Merrifield, has a very short question, which he promises me will only require a short answer. I'm trying to conform with your schedule, Minister, so we'll just have this one last question.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: This is a really quick one on reproductive technology. You said you'd respond to the committee by May 10. I assume that means legislation by May 10?

    Okay. But of the smallpox vaccine your predecessor had said he promised to stockpile, it appears from the reports we had in the newspapers this weekend that nothing has been there. I know you put out for tender to see if it actually could be produced, and at what cost, and offers were supposed to come in by January 7. Can you tell us what you found out? Can it be produced? Are you going to stockpile it? What's the progress on smallpox vaccine?

  (1205)  

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Mr. Shugart responded to the details of that, but let me say that we do have a stockpile of vaccine. The thing we're deciding now is how much over and above what we presently have stockpiled is required to deal with a possible risk in this area, and we are looking at that very closely right now. I anticipate going to the public security committee of cabinet in the coming weeks to provide them an overview of the work done to date--experts' advice to us--and I will probably take to them at that time options and a recommendation and the cost of that recommendation in relation to what we believe is a responsible--

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: You can't tell us now.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: No, I cannot tell you now, but Mr. Shugart, you might want to add to that.

    Mr. Ian Shugart (Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Policy and Communications Branch, Department of Health): I'll add, only very briefly, Minister, that we did receive information from a variety of potential suppliers. We've been engaged in some analysis of that information. We've had continuing discussion with international counterparts, particularly our colleagues in the United States. That analysis is contributing to the decision of ministers in the near future on that issue.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

    It's my--

     Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Could you wait until the break so we can let the minister go?

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's a point of privilege, then, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Go ahead, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I just wanted to say I wanted to apologize for having more questions than the time allotted me and I just wondered if we might ask the minister if she had an extra minute to perhaps answer the three questions I had at the end.

    The Chair: Well, it isn't just the minister. It's the fact that we have another delegation already five minutes overdue. So I would like to thank the minister on your behalf. I'm sure she'd be happy to talk to you privately about those questions at another time, but in order to be courteous to everyone, thank you for your very forthright answers.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Well, thank you, and I look forward to working with you all in the months ahead.

    Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We'll suspend for three minutes while the people in the room change, according to their interests.

  (1207)  

---

  (1211)  

    The Chair: We have Doryne Peace, the chair of the Committee on Voluntary Labelling, and Marian Gaucher, secretary to the committee.

    Whichever one of you would like to begin, please proceed.

    Ms. Doryne Peace (Chair of the Committee on Voluntary Labelling of Foods Obtained or Not Obtained Through Genetic Modification, Canadian General Standards Board): Thank you very much.

    Thank you for inviting representation from the Canadian General Standards Board Committee on Voluntary Labelling of Foods Obtained and Not Obtained Through Genetic Modification. That's the name of the committee. It's a big one.

    I am Doryne Peace, chair of this CGSB committee, and I represent Advertising Standards Canada on that committee. I'd like to introduce to you Marian Gaucher, who is the secretary of the CGSB committee and an employee of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

    First, Marian will be presenting information on the CGSB process for standard development. I will then present some information on the development of our draft standard called the “voluntary labelling and advertising of foods that are and are not products of gene technology”.

    I'd like to turn this part of the presentation over to Marian to tell you a little bit about the CGSB process.

    Ms. Marian Gaucher (Secretary to the Committee on Voluntary Labelling of Foods Obtained or Not Obtained Through Genetic Modification, Canadian General Standards Board): Thank you, Doryne.

    Good afternoon. We will be working through a slide package, which you should all have in a folder. I think they were delivered to the front. Please turn first to slide 2.

    The Canadian General Standards Board, or CGSB, is a standards development, certification, and registration body within Public Works and Government Services Canada. CGSB provides these services to meet client needs and to support the Government of Canada's health, safety, economic, regulatory, procurement, and environmental issues.

    CGSB is part of the Canadian national standards system and is accredited by the Standards Council of Canada. The national standards system is designed as the system for voluntary standards development, promotion, and implementation in Canada. The Standards Council of Canada coordinates and oversees the national standards system.

    With respect to standards development activities, CGSB plays a facilitating role by managing the development of voluntary standards through a consensus process. The development of the food labelling standard that we're discussing today is one such standards development activity.

    The Standards Council of Canada defines “standards” as “publications that establish accepted practices, technical requirements and terminologies for products and services.” CGSB has published over 1,300 standards, covering a wide range of products and services.

    If you would now turn to the next slide, please, I'll go through the standards development process.

    The first step, of course, is that a standard is requested. We follow up that step by seeking volunteer committee members through consultation, research, and reference, and then we invite people to participate on the committee.

    Membership on the committee is derived from three main groups of stakeholders: producers; users, such as consumers; and general interest groups, such as research, testing, and government. Membership on a standards committee is open to individuals and organizations who are technically qualified or otherwise knowledgeable in the subject area of the committee.

    The committee comprises two types of members: voting members and information members. Committee voting membership is balanced so that no single category of interest can dominate the committee. The CGSB provides the secretary, and the chair is selected by the membership.

    As indicated on the next slide, a CGSB standards committee meets several times to develop a draft standard. Deliberations by a standards committee begin with the draft outline or draft preliminary standard. Following discussion among committee members, a draft standard is prepared to capture the committee's ideas. The committee members review the draft standard, and CGSB compiles their comments for further discussion at subsequent meetings.

    Whenever possible, CGSB uses recognized international standards as the basis for national standards of Canada. Several meetings may be required to develop a draft standard upon which consensus can be achieved.

    In accordance with the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, the process also includes a period for public review by Canadians and those abroad.

    To obtain committee approval of a draft standard, the draft standard is distributed to committee members in a formal letter ballot. Results of the ballot are tabulated and distributed to the committee. Consensus on the draft standard is required prior to completion of the committee approval stage.

    If you would turn to slide 5 for a minute, it describes what we mean by consensus. Consensus requires the following: substantial agreement by concerned members; an attempt must be made to resolve all objections to the draft standard; and consensus implies much more than a simple majority, but not necessarily unanimity.

  (1215)  

    Once consensus is reached by the committee, the draft standard is advanced to an internal process review and then to the Standards Council of Canada as a candidate for a national standard of Canada. Once approved by the Standards Council, the standard is published by CGSB. The published standard is reviewed every five years, or at any time.

    The process is open and transparent. It includes accessible and effective participation by a balance of concerned interests, and openness to public review and comment. Standards are voluntary. CGSB standards may be made mandatory only by regulation or a procurement scheme.

    I will now turn the presentation over to Doryne Peace.

    Ms. Doryne Peace: I think by now you know the name of the standard.

    As Marian mentioned, it requires partners to develop a voluntary standard through the CGSB process. The two partners involved in establishing this process with the CGSB are the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, which first recognized the need for a standard, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, which supplied the funding to CGSB to undertake this kind of work.

    The way the funding is organized, the funding from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada goes over to the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors and they handle the financial liaison with the CGSB.

    You all know that this is a current topic with Canadians, and therefore it's an important standard to undertake. Hopefully, when this standard is completed it will provide consumers with consistent information about whether or not a food is from what we're referring to--gene technology. It will also provide, for manufacturers and people who import and sell food in Canada, a uniform set of rules and regulations to ensure that any of those kinds of claims made are truthful and not misleading. So all the details will be found in this voluntary standard.

    The standard has a very long numerical name, and I'm not going to refer to it by that name; I'm simply going to call it the labelling standard. The committee, in its approach to the labelling standard, developed a set of general principles for the claims. Any claim that is made on food according to this voluntary standard must be understandable, informative, verifiable, and not false or misleading.

    It's important to note that these are similar to the principles found in section 5.1 of the Food and Drugs Act. The standard will also provide models for these claims--examples of claims, typical claims, descriptive claims--so a user of the standard will understand what's supposed to appear on the label.

    The standard will provide procedures required to verify the claims so they are truthful and not misleading. The standard will also provide definitions. I understand you've talked to several other presenters, and you now probably recognize there are a lot of words involved in this area and they're not all clear. When you and I talked, or any members of the committee initially talked, they were talking with different meanings to the same words. So the standard definitions are a very important part of the standard, and they are still not settled.

    The committee also decided that there were certain areas they were not going to address under this standard. One of those is processing aids. Processing aids are things that industry uses when they make food. They don't normally end up in large quantities in the food, but they're still used. An example might be silicone dioxide in cookies, so they don't stick to the pan.

    Veterinary biologics are things that would be injected into animals.

    The committee decided they would not deal with livestock feeds that are fed to animals that are later fed to humans. It was just too far back. We couldn't go there in this particular standard. That doesn't mean those things can't be labelled, but they couldn't be labelled under this standard.

    We've made a lot of progress. We've also taken time. I think all of us who started this committee process didn't think it would ever go on this long. It has, and it is continuing, but we have made real progress.

    The first meeting was in November 1999, when some of those principles were established. We had eight meetings until March 2001. After 2001, we actually had two further meetings. One was a facilitated online discussion using the Internet, which is a wonderful tool that we may want to continue to try to explore. It was the first time a lot of people had used it. Secondly, we had a large conference call where people could call in to tackle issues.

  (1220)  

    At the end of this process we came up with a draft, the first draft document, which was sent out to the public and offshore to other nations around the world in August 2001. We left a comment period of over 60 days, I believe, and got back 88 pages of condensed comments from the committee members. We also received 95 comments from people outside the committee, including other nations, individuals, and organizations within Canada. So this was a well-read draft.

    The committee took all of those comments and came back with a ballot draft that was sent out only to the committee later than we had hoped in December 2001. At the end of January, the votes came back on this standard. I'd like to report to you, if you don't already know, that the standard failed to reach consensus after all that work. But I wanted to point out that 96% of the committee members submitted their ballots. People are still engaged with this process, still committed to this process: 51% voted in favour of the standard, 36% voted against the standard, and 9% abstained--chickens.

    The next slide shows five issues that have remained with the committee. Three of these five currently remain issues on which the committee has yet to reach consensus. I would be pleased to talk with you about any of those, but I would like to go on to the next and last slide--future work--because I know there are time constraints.

    The next meeting of the committee is March 6 through 8. It's a three-day meeting. I've already had complaints, but we're going to have a three-day meeting.

    At the end of this meeting it is likely that we will be able to persuade some of those negative votes to support the standard with changes. Any significant changes to the standard will require a further voting process. You have to allow the stakeholders time to take it back home for their communities to look at and vote on.

    I will expect this next vote to be a consensus-reaching vote. I have looked at the comments. I feel some of them can be changed. Some of them can be addressed. The next vote will likely bring consensus, but I can't be sure of this, as I'm sure you understand.

    If that vote passes, the standard will go through the internal processes at CGSB and then be given to the Standards Council of Canada, where it will be published as a national standard. I hope this will happen as soon as possible because this committee has been in operation, as you know, for over two years.

    Now I'd like to open this to any questions you may have for Marian and me. We would be pleased to address them, if we can, and give you good answers to those questions.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Based upon our challenge as a committee, I'm wondering if we would like to hear about these five controversial areas.

    Ms. Doryne Peace: I thought you might.

    The Chair: Give us the flavour of them as quickly as you can, because they are obviously the source of the conflicts.

    Ms. Doryne Peace: Yes, they are. Two out of the five have reached consensus, I think.

    The first one is “contained” versus “derived from”. Again, we go back to what this means. What are the definitions? The question about “contains” is whether this standard for foods produced using gene technology should be only for foods that actually contain the altered gene or the protein that the gene makes. In other words, it is physically present in the food and is measurable by analytical measures. Or should it also address foods that are derived from those foods, foods that may not contain genetic material, but clearly have come from a food that did contain genetic material? An example would be canola. Nobody eats canola seeds or beans or whatever they are. Nobody eats canola, but everybody eats canola oil. Canola oil is a “derived from” product. Canola is a “contains” product. Should the standard address both?

    The committee took a heroic stand on this. It was heroic. It has many implications because one of those two you can test for. You can test the “contains”, but you can't necessarily test the “derived from”. One of the issues that we always wanted was to have something that was verifiable, that a consumer could trust when they saw the claim.

    But the committee also recognized that there are other ways of getting around this, and one of them is IP--identity preservation--so that there are systems in place where you could be quite confident with a “derived from” standard. The committee decided it would broaden the numbers of food that would be covered by this standard and include both “contains” and “derived from”. That was a big breakthrough. I think it was a heroic breakthrough, because it means then we're going to have to trust this IP system of segregation and keeping paper records, because you may not be able to actually find verifiable DNA in some of these products.

    Second, the narrow, moderate, and broad groupings. By now you're all aware of the novel food regulations in Canada. I can see some heads nodding. Novel foods is a piece of regulation that most Canadian food producers are quite proud of; not all agree with it, but most are quite proud of, and it captures novel foods--foods that have never been used for human consumption--within that piece of legislation. They have to be tested, including foods that are called genetically modified foods.

    The words “genetic modification” are defined in novel foods as being any modification, not RDNA only, not transgenesis, but any modification, bombarding with radiation or chemicals or even traditional breeding. If you make a novel product, you have to apply to novel foods for environmental as well as health and safety issues.

    The committee felt that maybe this standard should address all novel foods. Other parts of the committee thought this standard should only address those foods that are produced using RDNA technology or transgenesis. This still remains with us today--this schism in the committee. It's a legitimate argument. It's one where you can make a valid argument on both sides of that question. It's one we're trying to solve, and believe me, all of our meetings.... I know Madam Brown, as the chair, could appreciate this. Those are tough issues to chair because there isn't really a right or wrong issue on it.

    Secondly, naming the technologies. Well, if we can't even define which technologies we're actually talking about, naming them proves to be even more of a problem. We know that Canadians know the words “genetic modification”, but they don't use it in a scientific way. Probably most of them use it to mean RDNA. But science uses it in a much broader way--anything you do to modify the genetic material is genetic modification.

  (1230)  

    As well, you have to realize that we have a piece of legislation that defines genetic modification in that way. Some members of the committee felt it wasn't prudent to define genetic modification in a way that was different from what existed in regulation. In fact, you could say it violates the Food and Drugs Act and regulations. So we put aside the words “genetic modification”.

    We then wanted to use “genetic engineering”. But do you know what? The engineers didn't like it. I don't know if you've heard that, but they didn't like it. So we put those words aside.

    The only term we thought we could use--and we didn't like it as a group, but it was the only thing we had some basis to hang our hat on--was a term used by Codex in its definition, “gene technology”. And that's what we've been using. That's why you'll see the standard referred to, in the labelling of foods, as gene technology.

    We're not happy with it, and we may revert to genetic engineering, but we were nervous about it at the time and were getting conflicting legal opinions on it.

    Do you know what Codex is?

  (1235)  

    The Chair: We haven't heard from them yet, but they're coming.

    Ms. Doryne Peace: You haven't heard from them? The Department of Health, as well as Agriculture, spent a lot of time looking at Codex. Those are the international standards that often are held up for trade issues. Your staff at Agriculture Canada, as well as Health Canada, work on developing and participating in these international standards.

    Codex--there is a name for it, Codex Alimentarius--really deals with the food standards. They are debating the same issues we are. They had a definition, and from that definition we have taken the words “gene technology”, and we've also taken the definition of the technologies that mean gene technology, such as RDNA, cell fusion, and some of those other things you might be starting to hear about.

    Positive and negative claims. I think this issue is settled too. Somewhere in our process we had some groups that decided they perhaps only wanted to have negative claims. They didn't think positive claims were appropriate because they felt consumers might misunderstand a food that said.... A positive claim is one for a food that's labelled as being from gene technology; we call that a positive claim. A negative claim is one that says the food is not from gene technology.

    Some groups only wanted this standard to deal with claims that say, “This food is not from gene technology”. But I think in good faith, and again, in recognition of Canadian consumers and in recognition of what is happening internationally, the committee has agreed, in large part, that it will address both sets of claims: the positive claims that say “I am a food from gene technology” and the negative claims that say “I am not a food from gene technology”.

    The last issue is a difficult one: the word “adventitious”. The word “adventitious” means “accidental inclusion”. It is a word, again, used internationally. Believe me, I never heard it until I got on this committee. But then I heard it, and it is in the spell-check, so it is a real word.

    The issue here is that the food chain, from the farm all the way to when you and I eat it, is a big chain. A lot of people get involved with our food. There are a lot of people who handle it, process it, pack it, store it; there are trucks that move it. There is a whole big process. In Canada, our committee decided, based on our current capabilities, it is likely that we cannot feel comfortable about anything less than 5% adventitious material in a food that makes a claim.

    So if a food made a claim that “I am canola oil from gene technology”, it is likely that 5% or less would be canola oil that is not from gene technology, because of the factories that make the canola oil and the canning facilities that can it. Another example might be corn. If you have a cob of corn, every single one of those kernels is individually fertilized. If you have corn that says “this corn is not from gene technology”, it could be that a bird flew by one day, or the wind carried some pollen and caught on one of those many filaments that come out of the corn. Likely that corn, even though it says “not from gene technology“, out of 100 kernels would have maybe three or four or five kernels that are from gene technology because of that kind of happening.

    The committee recognized that we have to work with what we've got in Canada. Our fields are now planted with something in the neighbourhood of 40%, 50%, 60% product of gene technology compared with the product of non-gene technology. It is there. So given our current abilities to segregate, the 5% inclusion of adventitious materials seemed to be reasonable. The committee generally, except for a very few members, supported that five percent.

    The public, however, does not. That was the major issue from which we received public comments. I think the committee recognizes that. It revisited the issue and understands the public's concern, but at this time, for this particular version of the standard--our very first one, which will be revised, I'm sure, in five years if not before--it felt that level was what they could stand up and be accountable for.

  (1240)  

    The Chair: Can I just ask you one thing? You said 60% of all the fields in Canada. Don't you mean the fields of oilseed crops?

    Ms. Doryne Peace: Yes, sorry. It's 60% of the fields that are planted with the four or five products we're talking about, which is corn, canola, soya--

    The Chair: Flax?

    Ms. Doryne Peace: --and flax, yes.

    It varies. I'm not an expert in that, but it will vary with the crop and it varies with the year.

    The Chair: I just didn't want it to go into the public record, because that would make Canadians think that it's all the vegetable fields, etc.

    Ms. Doryne Peace: Oh, no. You're absolutely right. Thank you very much, Ms. Brown, for pointing that out.

    The Chair: Well, thank you very much. You're very good teachers, both of you.

    I have to get on to my committee to ask their questions. We'll start with Mr. Merrifield and then Mr. Speller.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Thank you very much for coming and sharing. It's interesting when you start talking about some of the complexities of the advantitious and the 5% in and not in.

    From a health committee's perspective, we're looking at the health of genetically modified foods. What you're doing, though, is not really examining whether it's healthy or not; you're examining whether it should be labelled or not. Is that right?

    Ms. Doryne Peace: We're not even examining whether or not it should be labelled. First of all, we're not examining whether or not it's healthy. It's not in our mandate. Secondly, we're not even arguing about whether or not it should be labelled. What we're doing is simply coming up with a voluntary labelling standard.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay.

    We're so dependent on international trade, especially with the commodities you're talking about, which are soy and corn and canola. Is this same process going on in the United States at the present time?

    Ms. Doryne Peace: Not that I'm aware of. The United States government has published a document, which is a guidance document.

    Are you aware of anything else other than that?

    A voice: No, that's all.

    Ms. Doryne Peace: It's a guidance document. It does not go into the kind of detail we're looking at. As far as I know, there isn't any further work on their part, but I suspect--and this is a personal comment--that they probably would have to develop some of the details that we're developing in order to enforce their guidance document.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's true, but the players who are on your committee are from a variety of different backgrounds, and they obviously have to discern the repercussions of making it appropriate for our largest trading partners. Is that a part of the dialogue around the table? Is there something there to standardize the two countries?

    Ms. Doryne Peace: One of the objectives of the committee was to look at international standards and to keep those in mind. But this is a standard that is being written for Canadians, and I think it says that fairly clearly in the introduction. Am I not right?

    We are cognizant of the implications of the other regulations that have been put in place around the world, as well as the other policies in the United States. We're keeping those in mind.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Let's take canola, for example. In Canada, it's not being segregated at the present time. It's all in one pool. Is that right?

  (1245)  

    Ms. Doryne Peace: I believe so, but I'm not a canola expert.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay.

    I guess I'm having a little trouble with the 5%, in the sense that when it comes to canola, for one, I believe you would have a very difficult time trying to segregate. When you're talking about segregation or 5% or whatever you're going to allow one way or the other on this one, is it achievable?

    Ms. Doryne Peace: Well, the canola people sit on our committee, and they have agreed to that level. We would assume that they are comfortable with agreeing to it. That's really all I can say without...I think maybe if they come in front of you, you can ask them that question. But the Canola Council of Canada certainly does sit on the committee, and they seem to be accepting of that level.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Then, the other thing, what you're suggesting is that one of the criteria for your labelling is that it be truthful, that it not be misleading.

    Truthful and misleading under what criteria, is where I would go. If you're saying it's genetically modified, what does that really mean? You're going to have to determine what “genetic modification” really means and address it with some of the terms. Then you're going to have to discern whether genetic modification has a positive or a negative overtone, depending on how the public perceive that.

    So when it comes to labelling something, you're trying to communicate a message. To me, this seems to be one of the real difficulties. And we need to enlighten and educate a whole population on their fear of a Frankenstein food and whether genetic modification is a positive or a negative, because I think there are going to be cases, and you'll have people on both sides who argue it.

    Ms. Doryne Peace: It is true that there will have to be continued programs other than this. This is an information standard. Determining whether or not something is misleading has been happening for years; the feds do it all the time. Advertising Standards Canada also has a role to play in that. But I would suggest this particular standard is geared to providing information, and there will have to be other things done to give other groups more information, which they're desirous of.

    The Chair: Mr. Speller has deferred to Dr. Castonguay. So, Dr. Castonguay, you're next.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska--Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I would like to revisit the issue of the 5%. Canadians seem to have a problem with this figure. I would like to know what you think of it and what you read into it. In fact, I would like to know what Canadians want to know. Do Canadians want to know the percentage or simply whether these foods have been genetically modified? This brings us back to the issue of whether food contains GMOs or whether they are the by-product of genetic modification. Can you please address this issue which Canadians seek to understand better?

[English]

    Ms. Doryne Peace: We have not done consumer research ourselves. I should make that clear. But we have received feedback from Canadians who have reviewed our standard and commented on the amount of adventitious material that we're permitting when a claim is made.

    These people who have commented, for the most part, really don't want any adventitious material when a food makes a claim. What they seem to be telling us is that they want a food that makes a claim to be absolutely free of any cross-contamination of a product that doesn't comply with the claim.

    That perhaps is what they want, but in a practical sense it's probably not achievable with the Canadian food supply. It probably is not achievable even with other food supplies that don't plant as much genetically modified oilseed crops as we do. That's my opinion. But I think that's what the Canadians who responded to our draft wanted.

    I may also add at this point that we are not permitting a claim that says free of product of gene technology. We're not permitting the word “free” to be used, because there is no way of guaranteeing that it would be free. That word is not permitted in our standard. We honestly are trying the best we can to be fair and not misleading.

  (1250)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I realize that canola oil producers have pulled the magic figure of 5% out of their hat. However, if you listen to discussions or read up on the subject, there is another figure being bandied about, namely 1%. I don't know which is more accurate. Have people other than canola oil producers mentioned the ubiquitous percentage in terms of the content of genetically modified foods?

    I am trying to understand why some people say 5% and others 1%. I am, basically, trying to find an answer.

[English]

    Ms. Doryne Peace: In our understanding and our review of what was happening around the world, one percent was the level that was being regulated in regulations written in Europe and I think Japan, although I'm not sure.

    When regulators in European countries were writing regulations about mandatory labelling of foods from gene technology, they set the level at one percent. How they got their data to set it at one percent is something we don't understand or we're not really aware of. Maybe some members of the committee are, but I'm not.

    There are two things about that one percent. First of all, they were actually dealing with “contains”. They were a narrower regulation. They were only dealing with canola seeds. We, on the other hand, are dealing with canola oil. They don't even in most cases deal with that. So we're trying to be more inclusive.

    The other thing about Europe is that they don't plant as many canola seeds that are from gene technology as we do. I think less than 2% of the seeds they plant are from gene technology. Most of the seeds they plant are produced through metagenesis, but a very small amount of seeds are from gene technology, from our DNA-altered material.

    The chance of them having cross-contamination is very minimal, whereas in Canada, as I indicated earlier, we have a larger percentage of those oilseed crops that are using seeds from gene technology. You would automatically feel there is going to be more potential for mixing. Does that answer your question?

  (1255)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Castonguay.

    Mr. Speller.

    Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thank you very much for coming, and I agree with the chair that you were very clear in your presentation. It was very helpful. I have a couple of questions, though, to follow up on what you were saying.

    I'm wondering, first of all, what is a consensus with your group, how many members were chosen, who chose them, and why were they chosen. Did they follow outside of those four crops that you said in terms of the agricultural side? What about the consumer side or others?

    On the question of advantitious material, who represents these groups of Canadians who are against the 5%? Can you give us an understanding? Is it a cross-section of Canadians, or is it one particular group?

    Finally, you said you looked at the European regulations and the Codex regulations. Where do you see the differences between what you're going to end up with--the Canadian regulations--and the European regulations? I know you've explained a couple of differences, but could you maybe explain a bit more what theirs are like and whether people can be assured, of either regulations, that in fact what they're saying in the regulations is true, and whether they follow the same principles that we have in Canada?

    Ms. Marian Gaucher: I guess I'll deal with the two questions, the one on consensus and the one on the committee composition.

    The consensus, the way we define it, is substantial agreement reached by the concerned interests involved in the preparation. It's more than a simple majority, not necessarily unanimity. We have to have a certain percent ballot return and a certain percent of the voting members vote affirmative, plus we have to have consensus.

    In this case, for instance, we have to have 60% return; we received 96%. We have to have 50% of the voting members vote affirmative; we had 51%. We have 36% negative. We do not have consensus. So that's why the percentages have to go together with the consensus.

    Mr. Bob Speller: Could you give me the numbers, for instance, on what you would need, or are there magic numbers?

    Ms. Marian Gaucher: The thing is, we have no numbers. There are no numbers, and everybody requests numbers. Part of this is consistent with the standards development process in Canada and in many parts of the world, where consensus is defined as substantial agreement or not known sustained opposition. It's defined. Perhaps it's considered vague, but if you have hard and fast numbers, there may be one or two very important negative votes that you would pass a standard through, and they would still be on the books, but they would be very important.

    Sometimes a negative is more important. You can have one or two very important negatives. So you don't want to go with absolute numbers. What you want to do is try to make sure everyone has a hearing and work through the unanimity as close as you can, but it doesn't always happen.

    So we use this consensus process, and it's really a building, and that's what has happened over the eight meetings. The people around the table are working towards a consensus. If we voted yes and no, there would be winners and losers and there wouldn't be this consensus standard that would have credibility and buy-in, and so on.

    Mr. Bob Speller: So they will understand when there's a consensus.

    Ms. Marian Gaucher: Yes, they understand.

    The committee itself is comprised of 53 voting members, and they're divided into three main stakeholder groups. The producer group has 18 members of the 53, the general interest group has 18, and the user group has 17. That's considered very well-balanced. No one of those groups can outvote the other two.

    The way the committee came about is because there are so many interests in the food industry, we started working with the sponsor of the project and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to come up with some interest groups. We tried to do more of a matrix so that we were sure we had the meat presented, but we didn't have six meat representatives in the producer category. So we tried to get representation of the different commodities. As well, we have a lot of associations on the committee, which represent many more people.

    I did bring the committee list. I can give you a flavour for some of the groups that are in each of the stakeholder groups, if you like. I won't read them all.

·  (1300)  

    Mr. Bob Speller: Sure. Maybe you could file it with the clerk.

    The Chair: We'll distribute it.

    Ms. Doryne Peace: Your last question was probably a little more detailed than what I've prepared for and maybe I shouldn't comment on it. I think you were asking me to compare and contrast the regulated policies around the world in the EU, Japan, New Zealand, and I think now in Australia, versus our voluntary standard. We're not writing regulation here.

    I really can't answer that in detail, but I can comment on a couple of things I've commented on before. Almost all of them are...I'm not comfortable doing this because I haven't really reviewed them. And I think some of them are in flux. In fact another Codex meeting is happening. They are in the middle of the process, and every time there's a meeting things change. Within the EU, some of those regulations actually haven't had much of a history yet. They haven't really been applied. They are just currently being implemented. So I'm not actually comfortable with the details of them.

    Do you know what? We could probably provide the committee with some type of chart that would be helpful. It would take some of the salient points from each of these and compare and contrast them. It would be good for me to do this over again. I did it a couple of years ago.

    The Chair: Perhaps you could commit to alerting us to each time you hear about a change in some of those regulations. I think you're right. A lot of this is in a state of flux, probably because the full concept is in its infancy and people are feeling their way forward with it.

    Ms. Doryne Peace: Yes. We've been noticing a lot of exemptions. As the deadlines for implementation keep getting closer and closer you start getting lists of foods that are now exempted. So there is a really big state of flux.

    The Chair: I understand. Thank you.

    And thank you, Mr. Speller, for those good questions.

    Madam Scherrer.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I know that we don't have much time. I will try to ask a very specific question.

    This issue is of particular concern to me, as is the matter of informing consumers about any potential positive or negative side effects involved with the use of genetically modified products. I go grocery shopping every week and let me tell you, as with most other consumers probably, if I buy canned goods, I don't spend 15 minutes reading the label on each and every can. I don't think any consumer does this. Of course, it's important to ensure that consumers have clear and transparent access to any useful information, which must be easy to read quickly.

    My question is the following. What usually draws my attention when I go grocery shopping are warning labels on products. I won't go through the entire list of ingredients, but if there is a visual label or something else which would draw my attention to the fact that the product may be dangerous, of course I will read it.

    In terms of labelling, is there a difference between labels for information purposes and those for warning purposes? I imagine there must be different types of rules. In my view, “genetically modified” should be a warning. But isn't that type of information usually classified as simple consumer information?

·  (1305)  

[English]

    Ms. Doryne Peace: I think it's fair to say that if the members of the committee--and I'm speaking on their behalf now--seriously felt these foods should have warning labels on them, we wouldn't be sitting as a committee. We're trying to provide information because consumers have told us they want and have the right to know. We're trying to provide information about it.

    There is, of course, the possibility that the government, in its regulatory duties, would require a warning label if the food was a potential allergen to those people who might be allergic to something or--it's not a warning in that case--if it's substantially different; if it has something like more oleic acid than the other canola oil. Those cases would have labels. The allergy one would actually be a warning label, but we're not writing warning labels. We're simply trying to write information labels to answer the consumer's right to know.

    I find, personally, that this is a difficult area. What is the consumer's right to know? When does it go over to a warning label? I don't know. I don't think there's much research on it. Nevertheless, we're trying to write information labels.

    I agree with you. Do you know what? They're going to increase the size of the label; they're going to make more words on the label; they're going to result in the consumer having much more to look at. But that's the message we've been asked to address, and we're trying to do it in the biggest, best way we can. That's all I can say.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I have a final brief question. Do different regulations apply to consumer warning labels and consumer information labels? Is there a difference? Are there different committees looking into those issues?

[English]

    Ms. Doryne Peace: If there is a warning, it's really the government's responsibility. It would be Health Canada--the Bureau of Food Safety, or whoever--who would do this. They would say, in regulation--in the Food and Drugs Act and regulations--what size that warning has to be and where it has to be on the label, and that would be law. We don't have that power, so the way we write ours is more according to what we know about consumers as a committee, what we know consumers like to read, how they like to read it, where they go to look for things. So our input is different from a warning.

    It's the government's responsibility to make sure consumers see the warning label for real, legitimate health and safety reasons. Ours isn't quite the same.

    Does that answer your question?

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Yes.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Ms. Marian Gaucher: Maybe I'll just add one point to clarify what we are doing. We've been tasked to develop a standard using our process that would be voluntary. We stop there. We have nothing to do with implementation of that standard as well. That may add a little more to the....

    The Chair: Thank you very much to our two presenters. As I pointed out earlier, we may want you to come back simply because you are so clear, and you're examining many of the same issues we're expected to report on.

    I'd like to thank my colleagues and ask them to stay one minute, because we have one quick decision to make.

    Thank you, Ms. Peace and Ms. Gaucher.

    Ms. Doryne Peace: Thank you, too.

    The Chair: Can I have your attention, colleagues.

    You remember that at the last meeting before the break I brought before you the question of a letter from the American embassy and people wanting to come from that embassy to speak to us on the topic. We talked about the possibility of them submitting their briefs on paper vis-à-vis coming to present to us.

    At that time, the person whom I had talked to at Foreign Affairs and International Trade had suggested that their first choice was that the Americans submit on paper and not come. I have since had communication from that body, that is Foreign Affairs and International Trade, to say they think it's a rather good idea if the Americans would come and present in person. I had hoped we would have a quorum and I could get your permission to do that. But I'm now going to suggest that I canvass your opinions and that perhaps you authorize me to phone the others, because Foreign Affairs and International Trade...and we need to write back to the Americans. They sent a letter a long time ago.

    So the bottom line is Foreign Affairs and International Trade would encourage us to do that, but we don't have to. We are autonomous. So it is up to you.

    Mr. Merrifield, what do you think?

·  (1310)  

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I don't know why we're discussing this. We don't do this with any of the other witnesses. If they can come, why would we say no?

    The Chair: Because it's slightly out of the ordinary. There is only one other precedent of Americans coming to us.

    The other possibility is we can go to Washington and canvass people there, which is a lot more expensive.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, but who else can't come before us because of precedents?

    The Chair: Other governments.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: We could ask them if we needed them.

    The Chair: We could ask them, but we didn't ask the Americans. They asked us. That's why it's different--

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I see.

    I think they were asked. They were on my list. So I don't see why there's a problem.

    Mr. Bob Speller: I've been in committees before where we've seen foreign governments. So I think there are more precedents than just once.

    The Chair: Foreign Affairs gave me one, and that was in the Mulroney years.

    Are you thinking back to the Mulroney years or are you thinking of recently?

    Mr. Bob Speller: I was in a committee of trade where we saw the ambassador for the European Community.

    The Chair: They didn't tell me about that one.

    Mr. Bob Speller: So we've done it a number of times.

    I think it would make sense.

    The Chair: You're okay with it?

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes.

    The Chair: You're okay with it?

    Mr. Bob Speller: Yes.

    The Chair: Dr. Castonguay's okay with it.

    Madam Thibeault.

    We may have to have some kind of motion at a subsequent meeting. It seems to be thorny.

    Madam Scherrer.

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I feel a bit uncomfortable with it.

    The Chair: So, one, two, three, four, five.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: We had a commitment last time.

    The Chair: No, we didn't. There were people who said they wouldn't vote on it until they thought about it overnight.

    We said later if they came, but we didn't have consensus or agreement that they should come.

    But right now I have six out of sixteen. So I may have to raise it again at the next meeting, I'm sorry, because I only have six out of sixteen. It should only take a minute.

    Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. This meeting is now adjourned.