[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, October 1, 1996
.0912 
[English]
The Chairman: Order, please. Good morning, everyone.
I was unable to be here for the organization meeting last Wednesday because of some commitments in my riding. However, I do want to thank the committee for asking me to be the chair for another term. I'll do my best. I'm glad to have Pauline continue as vice-chair, together with Harb Dhaliwal.
There is an agenda in front of you. There are a number of absences this morning, most of which we can't account for. We've not heard from many of the members, have we, Pierre? I welcome our new clerk, Pierre...?
[Translation]
The Clerk of the Committee: Rodrigue.
The Chairman: Rodrigue, that's right.
[English]
As some of you will know, Nancy Hall will begin maternity leave in a month or two, so Pierre is here as the new clerk of the committee. We welcome you. I'm glad to have Claude and Nancy back.
I suppose Odette will be with us in time. Is that the plan or not?
Ms Nancy Miller Chénier (Committee Researcher): She'll be back in January.
The Chairman: So that accounts for most people.
Let's have a look at the agenda. Do you have any items you want to add, first of all? Is there anything you want to add to the agenda, Mr. Dubé?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé (Lévis): I would like to discuss the time when these meetings are to be held.
.0915
[English]
The Chairman: Are you talking about the timeframe in which we're going to meet normally, or are you talking about the schedule we drafted in relation to the drug policy?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Even if several people have not yet arrived, I would like the meetings to still be held on Tuesday mornings, but I would like the time to be pushed back. I have to leave my riding at5 o'clock in the morning and I find that very early. You too, at 5 o'clock? If the meetings were to be held at 10:30, that would make things a lot easier for us. Do you agree?
[English]
Mr. Scott (Fredericton - York - Sunbury): Mr. Chair, I have no expectation that this means anything, but I'm a member of the human rights committee and we meet every Tuesday and Thursday at 11 a.m.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Are any of you available on Tuesday afternoons?
[English]
The Chairman: Are we agreeing on the afternoon? What's the suggestion?
First of all, we're in a time slot right now assigned by the powers that be, the 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. time slot, which we sought last year. We can canvass some other possibilities, but it will be subject to availability.
That's what you will check, obviously.
The Clerk: Right.
The Chairman: I gather the 9 a.m. time slot is not good for most people.
[Translation]
Ms Picard (Drummond): That suits me, but my colleague cannot be here before 9:30 or 10 o'clock.
Mr. Dubé: I can't possibly be here before 9:30. This morning, I took the plane at 6:15 and I had to get up at 5 o'clock. Last night, I finished at midnight. It is possible to do this on occasion, but when you have to do this regularly, it becomes exhausting.
[English]
The Chairman: Grant.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): This time slot has worked well for me and certainly is no problem, but I would be lenient for other members of the committee.
The Chairman: Andy, 11 a.m. is also fixed, isn't it?
Mr. Scott: We had our first meeting. We booked that last week for the fall. I have no problem with anything else. I sympathize with Mr. Dubé, having gone through the social security committee. I know he has great stamina, so if he found it problematic, it's problematic.
The Chairman: What time in the morning could you be here - 9:30, 10, or 11?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: The plane lands in Gatineau at 9:15, so it would be a bit hard for me to be here by 9:30. I do not want you to change the time just because of me, but I have the impression that there are always people missing at 9 o'clock. I have been told that everyone is free after Question Period on Tuesday afternoon. I have no problems with Thursday.
[English]
The Chairman: Paul.
Mr. Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Chairman, I think our experience has been that we tend to have people drifting in a little late. We do have pretty tight meetings, which means that we lose some time. With the workload we anticipate, I'm wondering about moving to Tuesday afternoon after Question Period, say at 3:30. That way we would have more latitude to have meetings that would be extended. I think we are all here on Wednesday morning for our caucus meetings anyway, so we know that members have good reason to be here at least by Tuesday afternoon.
With regard to Thursday, in view of the fact that some may want to go home, maybe we could keep our Thursday time if we were going to use that in the morning and share that with any subcommittee, if that's the wish, or we could just continue to go as the committee. I think this change might be helpful to the productivity of the committee.
.0920
The Chairman: I have a regular commitment on Tuesday afternoon, which I would have to explore changing. I've stayed away from afternoon meetings because you're always at the mercy of the House, to the degree that you're not in at 9 a.m. The worst that can happen here is that you can get a bell at 10 a.m. A Tuesday afternoon meeting gets disrupted very often, because something could run late after Question Period with respect to points of privilege. Statements by ministers can drive the Question Period late. You can have a vote very often right after Question Period.
So the chances of being disrupted on a Tuesday afternoon are infinitely greater than being disrupted on a Tuesday morning.
If the 9 a.m. slot doesn't work, I would suggest we look at the 11 a.m. slot first before we go to the afternoon. That would require that Andy check his flexibility.
I just think Tuesday afternoon is a very crowded time, because it is getting towards the middle of the week. Everybody and his dog has a reception coming up, and there are a lot of demands on members' time. Everybody has their caucus that evening, or a good many people do. Tuesday evening gets pretty crowded and people start trading off.
I'm not saying there's any caucus at 3:30 p.m., but if a guy is going to be sitting in a caucus or has other meetings and receptions from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., he tends to guard the couple of hours before that a bit more if he has something to do in his office. So Tuesday afternoon could get to be very crowded.
I don't know if we can look at 11 a.m.
Antoine, would 11 a.m. be suitable for you?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Yes, but we will lose Andy and I'm not interested in seeing that happen.
[English]
The Chairman: Is it possible in your case? Do you want to explore it, or what?
Mr. Scott: We went through this last week in the committee and decided on the time. I don't think I'd be in a strong position to go back.
The Chairman: I see.
[Translation]
Ms Picard: Mr. Chairman, are we referring to a time period from 11 o'clock to 1 o'clock?
Mr. Dubé: No, the meeting will last an hour and a half.
Ms Picard: From 11 o'clock to 12:30?
The Chairman: Yes.
Ms Picard: Does 9:30 cause a problem? Will this be too early?
Mr. Dubé: I may very well arrive at 10 o'clock, however...
Ms Picard: It could be from 10 o'clock to 11:30.
Mr. Dubé: If it's just for me...
[English]
The Chairman: No, that overlaps....
[Translation]
The Clerk: We might run into a conflict with other committees that may want to use the room at 11 o'clock.
Mr. Dubé: I remember that the Human Resources Development Committee always began its meetings at 9:30. The committee had these two time slots because the rooms in Centre Block and in the West Block were taken. However, now that we are here... At any rate, this morning we are outside of the building.
I made a suggestion and I asked you to determine whether this was possible. If I am the only one concerned and the only one interested in changing the time slot, I will arrive late and that's that. I will be on time on Thursday morning.
[English]
The Chairman: The problem for you is Tuesday morning rather than Thursday morning, is it?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: If you want to hold the meetings on Thursday mornings, that's fine. I'm here on Thursdays, there is no problem with that. The planes, and I have no other choice, leaves Quebec City at a very early hour, at 6 o'clock. This is feasible, but it means that I have to get up at 5 o'clock.
[English]
The Chairman: We've heard the discussion. Let's just take that one under advisement and proceed for this morning.
I'd like to welcome Bonnie, a new member of the committee.
Mrs. Hickey (St. John's East): Thank you.
The Chairman: Bonnie Hickey is from St. John's East in the great province of Newfoundland.
Mrs. Hickey: I'm sorry I'm late.
.0925
The Chairman: I was asking if there were any other items and I think, Grant, you had your hand up.
Mr. Hill: No. I'm okay now, thanks.
The Chairman: Are there any new items?
Paul.
Mr. Szabo: I would like to request that under ``unfinished business'' we carry Bill C-222, which was referred to this committee.
I understand also, Mr. Chairman, that the testimony from the subcommittee dealing with Bill C-222 was referred to the committee, and maybe there is a request for some clarification on what happens with that.
The Chairman: I want to welcome another new member of the committee, and the vice-chair, Harb Dhaliwal from Vancouver South.
Mr. Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): You have a good memory.
The Chairman: We've just started, Harb. We're trying to see if there are new items of business. Under the second item on the agenda, which is unfinished business, we will add 2(b), Bill C-222.
Are there any other items of new business?
Let's go to the agenda and business arising from the last meeting, which was in June. We have been on the child health study for a number of months and you've been given a summary of evidence. I have to presume members, including new members, are familiar with the summary of evidence. There is not time, obviously, to go through it line by line in committee.
The summary was circulated to you. I encourage you, if you haven't already done so, to familiarize yourself with it because we're coming down to the wire on this one. We'd like to give it some more time but we've also got the problem of our commitment on the drug policy review.
Maybe I could just discuss the two together for a moment to put it in perspective in terms of the timeframes. We're all politicians around this table and some time next year there's going to be an election. For the purposes of the committee organizing its agenda, we should look at the possibility of there being an election in the spring.
So assume the election is late spring. This gives us just six or seven months to complete the children's study and do the drug study. From what I hear, we're going to need this much time to do the drug study alone, and even then I think we're going to have to hustle to get it all done.
I have a strong commitment to doing a good job on the child health study, but at this point I think we have to choose. We're either going to spend another two or three months on the child health study - this means some more witnesses, with a view to completing the study by Christmas and telling the powers that be we can't do the drug study - or we should cut our losses, complete the child health study reasonably soon and get on with the drug study.
Paul.
Mr. Szabo: I have a suggestion, Mr. Chairman. Many of the committee members were not part of this committee when the study was started. I think it really goes back to the presentation made by Dr. Fraser Mustard to this group. This was the inspiration for it, and in fact Dr. Mustard was not even part of the hearings or one of the witnesses we heard for the specific review.
During the summer there was a health symposium in Ottawa at which Dr. Mustard presented an excellent review of all the material we heard in his brief presentation to us. It really was an excellent presentation.
.0930
I would recommend that we at least, if the committee agrees, get the copy of the CPAC tape on that Mustard presentation, which I think is really the whole reason why we did the study. Members who are new to this will get an idea of the context in which we undertook it. Then we may be in a better position to determine whether the summary of evidence has adequately addressed the issues raised by Dr. Mustard in framing the importance for children of those formative years.
I would think that at this point we would be in a better position to determine whether or not we felt we had sufficient information to bring the question full circle, at least to the point of dealing with the substantive issues raised by Dr. Mustard.
This would, I think, allow us to bring to a close at least the first wave of effort on the child health study and complete it there. Unless it was the will of the committee to go on, we would then finish at that point after having an open discussion about the issues raised by Dr. Mustard and in the summary of evidence. We would then continue with the preliminary plans that have already been in place with the review of the drug strategy.
I raise this as a suggestion to the committee.
The Chairman: How long is this presentation?
Mr. Szabo: It is one hour long.
The Chairman: It is in English, right?
Mr. Szabo: CPAC may have it.
The Chairman: If it's on CPAC, they'd have the translation, wouldn't they? It would be advantageous if we had the simultaneous translation on it.
Mr. Szabo: We can find out. The presentation was in July 1996.
The Chairman: That's a good suggestion, Paul.
Pauline.
[Translation]
Ms Picard: We spent the last session studying children and we had a good committee. We heard several witnesses. At the end, I recall us saying, during the discussion, that we were not getting any further ahead because, from the beginning, the witnesses had merely been repeating what each other had said. We know why children have health problems. This is what we call a holistic problem that is linked to poverty, socioeconomic level, etc. Our researchers did some excellent work in summarizing the testimonies.
I know that we have some newcomers to the committee. However, we have to come up with a solution, draft a report and make our recommendations. To start over would be, I feel, a waste of time. We will soon have to deal with an important study on drug policies. I am prepared to conclude the study on children. I believe that we have all of the information, everything we need to draft a report and make our recommendations.
Should we hear from other witnesses, I feel that we'd be hearing the same thing: when you have a low economic level, children have social and emotional problems, the women are poor, the children are poor and several health problems can result from this. I think that we have all that we need to prepare a good report. Our researchers did a very good job summarizing all of the testimony we heard the last time. Why start over? We would be turning in circles.
[English]
The Chairman: Bonnie.
Mrs. Hickey: As a new member I can suggest that perhaps I can get the tape for myself, if it's just an hour's tape. I could watch this tape on my own and then perhaps sit with some of the researchers, who could take an hour or so for maybe a day or two and bring me up to date.
You're right. You've already gone through it. I think being a mother and having children I know some of the issues. I don't think I need to go into that much detail.
I guess I should just speak for myself. I would be more than happy to view the tape on my own and have some of the research staff, if it's okay with the chairman, bring me up to date on where you are and then we can proceed.
.0935
Mr. Dhaliwal: I share that view. I'm a new member, but I'd be happy to spend some time on my own and not take up the valuable time of the rest of the committee members so that we can get up to speed and move on this important issue. I think that's a good idea. Perhaps the two of us can do it together so that we can save staff time.
Mr. Szabo: East and west.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I look forward to that.
The Chairman: Antoine.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I completely agree with Ms Picard that we have already done a good deal of work. I have read all of the evidence and it has been summarized very well.
All that remains to be done is perhaps to hold a round table, which would require one or two meetings, preferably one. There is not much divergence in these testimonies. It is more a question of some groups dealing with one aspect and others focusing on another aspect. But when you get right down to it, all of these aspects are part of a whole.
The problem lies in trying to define which avenues are being proposed. Are they contradictory? Are there any other avenues...? That is perhaps where the problem lies. This is why I feel that a panel - this is an idea which I am tossing out to you - made up of people with different points of view could help us see the various options available so that we can make valid recommendations.
This is the only thing that I could see. Otherwise, if we were to go back to hearing individual witnesses... I sat on the Human Resources Development Committee. Andy sat on this committee as well and I am sure that you have enough experience. I have even attended the Finance Committee meetings. I can tell you that I have seen and heard some of the witnesses at least three times when they appeared before different committees. You end up with an idea of how they think.
[English]
The Chairman: First of all, I think we have a consensus that we don't need any more witnesses. We also have a consensus that the staff has done an excellent job.
That's my preamble to telling you what the staff told me. They told me they didn't have enough direction either on the body of the report or the direction the recommendations ought to take. Therefore, I would suggest the following to you. We need a discussion - half an hour or an hour - on what should go into the report and what the recommendations ought to be. That discussion, if you're ready, can take place now or we can schedule a meeting for 9 a.m. Thursday, at which point we will have the Mustard tape, for those who want to see it. I think the Mustard tape would bring the new members up to speed and be a good refresher for those of us who haven't slept with this summary of evidence all summer. I'm in that particular category. I'd like to be refreshed myself on the issue. We'll look at the tape at 9 a.m. and then have a discussion.
So we devote our Thursday meeting strictly to the child health report. Is that a reasonable way to proceed?
If somebody feels they don't need to see the Mustard thing, just come at 10 a.m. Otherwise we'll schedule it for 9 a.m. That deals with number one, if you're comfortable.
.0940
You should come with a fair knowledge of what you'd like us to do, because I would see us dealing with the child health study Thursday and then giving it to the staff to prepare a report and recommendations. So the only time we'll see it after Thursday is in the context of refining the text and the recommendations.
On (b), we have already adopted a work plan and a schedule. Is that available to the new members as well? Do they have it? Let us make sure that everybody has the information before we start talking.
We adopted the work plan in June. I'd like the new members to look at that, particularly the long sheet attached at the end because we're going to be talking about a schedule in a moment.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Chairman, I was there when we adopted this plan. We had talked about travelling. Has this been submitted to the Board of Internal Economy and has it been accepted? How do things stand? Travelling involves expenditures. The plan calls for travelling, which requires the approval of the Board of Internal Economy. Has this happened?
[English]
The Chairman: The committee adopted the work plan but did not make any motions or requests for funding. We haven't decided to travel on any particular date yet.
If you're looking at the schedule, apropos to what Antoine just said, you'll notice that the first scheduled travel is the week of November 18, which is just a month and a half away. We will soon have to make some decisions in relation to that so we can book witnesses, locations, events and that kind of thing.
I had a meeting with staff yesterday and have a suggestion that might help streamline item 1(b) on the agenda, the review of the drug policy. My suggestion is the following. Next Tuesday we begin to get an overview of our assignment here by having witnesses from the Department of Health for the first hour, and then a witness from that umbrella group for the second hour.
Ms Miller Chénier: The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
The Chairman: At the end of the two-hour session next Tuesday we will have some sense of what this study entails. At that time we should also be prepared to make decisions on the travel to eastern Canada. I've asked the staff to have a proposal for the committee by next Tuesday as to what we would see during that trip - the witnesses we would see and so on.
My suggestion is the above - the health witnesses, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse witnesses, and a decision on our first travel. Are you comfortable with that?
Okay, let's move on to item 2.
.0945
Bill C-24 is the labelling one. Is there anybody here from the department? I'd rather have Volpe here to start. Let's just table it until we see where we're going on this, because I'm not sure. There's another bill coming through and I'm not sure whether the administration wants to deal with both together or whether they're waiting on this bill. If you don't mind, let's wait until next week. Agreed?
Paul asked us to put on Bill C-222, and that's appropriate because we haven't finished dealing with it. You'll recall that last spring we said we'd look at it in the context of the review of drug policy. I gather that's still the agreement of the committee. Notwithstanding that we still need to list it here, because at some point we'll have to do the clause-by-clause. So it should continue here as an item of unfinished business, although we won't do much with it until we address it in the context of the drug review.
Pauline.
[Translation]
Ms Picard: Mr. Chairman, am I mistaken in my belief that we had talked about possibly including Bill C-222 in the review on drug policies? This was the recommendation that the subcommittee had made to the standing committee.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, that's essentially -
[Translation]
Ms Picard: We have to be realistic. Earlier you talked about a general election being held in the spring. We are all members of Parliament. I do not think that it is realistic to overload the committee with new projects. Moreover, we know that the Minister may very well come up with other proposals in addition to Bill C-24.
We already have a study on Canadian drug policies on our plate, which could take six months. In addition, we have Bill C-24. We have to complete the study on children's health. We also have to study the subcommittee report on HIV-AIDS. We are going to have to manage all of this.
The Chairman: Perhaps, Ms Picard, you misunderstood what I said.
Ms Picard: Excuse me.
The Chairman: Because I said exactly the same thing as you.
Ms Picard: All right.
[English]
The Chairman: The one caveat is that there are two elements here. We have to deal with Bill C-222, and we've agreed to do it in the context of the review of drug policy.
Secondly, at some point the committee will have to do the clause-by-clause analysis of it. For that reason we're continuing it here as an item of unfinished business, but we will not do anything about it until such time as we've studied it in the context of the drug policy review. Okay?
[Translation]
Ms Picard: All right.
[English]
The Chairman: We're now at new business, the report of the HIV-AIDS subcommittee.Mr. Szabo is a member of that committee.
Mr. Szabo: On behalf of the committee, Mr. Chairman, at our last meeting we dealt with the report on compassionate access to investigational therapies -
The Chairman: On matter of procedure, we're not in camera. Say nothing about the substance of the report. If you want to do that, we will go in camera.
Mr. Szabo: Just for the edification of the committee members, this is the issue we dealt with. A report has been prepared and I have a motion here that the first report of the Subcommittee on HIV-AIDS reviewing compassionate access to investigational therapies be adopted as the committee's second report to the House, and that the chair be instructed to present it to the House when it is printed.
The Chairman: The chair or the chair of the subcommittee...?
.0950
Mr. Szabo: My apologies - the chair or the chair of the subcommittee be instructed to present it to the House when it is printed.
The Chairman: As you know, it's been my practice to have the chair of the subcommittee present the report in the House. They do the work on it and they should get whatever recognition is involved there.
In talking about recognition, during much of this committee's work the chair was one of our colleagues - first Bernard Patry and then John O'Reilly. I believe the membership should acknowledge the participation of both. I discussed that with the clerk yesterday as well.
We have a motion. Unless committee members feel we have them in a straitjacket here, let me remind you of the committee procedures to which we have agreed. We have given this subcommittee the authority to formulate recommendations, which we will then look at - but in just a pro forma way - and then pass on to the House without further debate. Is that a fair statement of what we've done?
We're not in camera. There's no need to go in camera unless somebody around the table wants to do so. Because of our prior motion we've agreed not to rehash the work of the subcommittee. Do you understand what I'm saying?
All we need to do right now is have the motion that Paul has presented, which basically says that the second report of this subcommittee be received by this committee and presented to the House.... If everybody is comfortable with the wording, I'll put the question. If you're not comfortable, we'll go in camera and have a fight.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: The session is underway and we have not yet had time to talk to the members of our subcommittee. Would it not be wiser to wait...? No doubt this holds true for the other side. Of course, Mr. Szabo was a member of the committee, but could we postpone a meeting, in order to check whether or not...?
[English]
The Chairman: Is that a problem?
Mr. Szabo: I don't believe so because there would be a second motion, which is that the committee requests that the government prepare a response within 150 days. It's not that this is urgent to trigger something else....
The Chairman: That's fair. Let's leave it until -
[Translation]
Ms Picard: We cannot vote on something without first receiving some information about it.
[English]
The Chairman: Sure. Let's deal with this on Thursday.
Mr. Szabo: I will withdraw the motion.
The Chairman: So we will deal with that on Thursday.
I like this committee better than the last one.
Is there any new business?
Mr. Dhaliwal: Perhaps it's already done, but if the staff could get a binder of any past information that would help us get up to speed.... I don't feel I can be really constructive in this committee on some of these issues unless I have the opportunity to read all of the background papers and all that. I would ask the staff to create a binder for new members so that we can read and be as knowledgeable as possible. I know it's not possible in not being here, but it's possible that we can be constructive in the committee. I don't feel comfortable right now that I know the issues and can be constructive. If that could be done I would appreciate it.
The Chairman: Okay. This meeting is adjourned.