HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 20, 1997

• 1114

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney, Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): I call this meeting to order.

This is a working meeting today and rather than be too formal I'm going to call you by your first names, if nobody objects.

The piece of paper I gave you is so that we can have some kind of reference of where we're going between now and our Christmas break. It gives you an idea of how many meetings there are so that we can work with that.

Several meetings ago I mentioned—we discussed it and it was unanimously accepted—that we would work with what we have with the minister now. If we want a steering committee, subcommittees, or you want to break off and do some other studies, etc.—we decided we would do that in the first week of February 1998. We haven't forgotten that and we're still planning. Some of you may have suggestions to do some other studies at the same time, so we'll do that the first meeting in February.

• 1115

If we look at the minister's letter, which he sent to me, he suggests we follow some of the guidelines he's put in there... He suggests we work with this until April 30, when the report would be sent to him. I don't know if you have any discussion about this or if I can have a motion that this...

Elinor.

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): I would like to suggest that we receive the letter from the minister and accept his invitation that this be the first order of business of the committee. I think he establishes a time line of April 30, so I would suggest, pending any other requests from the minister, that we devote our energies to doing the work he's asked us to do.

The Chair: Is there any discussion?

Judy.

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

I don't have a problem with the first part of the motion, which is to receive this letter from the minister and to look at the request. However, I am concerned about making it our first order of business for a number of reasons. First, it seems to me—maybe this will become apparent as we deal with the schedule—that we have some items that will have to fill up our time. We have a commitment that at some point—as early as possible—the minister and departmental staff will be here to deal with estimates. We know that some part of Bill C-14 will be referred to our committee, and probably sooner rather than later. We also know that at some point this committee should be receiving the regulations pertaining to the Tobacco Act.

So we already have three big items that we're obligated to handle as a committee. In addition, it seems that we have a little bit of flexibility in terms of when we begin this whole issue of the herbal medicines review, and perhaps we have time to consider a few pressing matters before we begin that process. I would make a case for—

The Chair:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: No, that is more urgent than the herbal medicine review.

I have no objection to this committee being involved in this process, but as I indicated earlier, I'd like to see it discussed in terms of a number of other issues and how we can time it so that we can also deal with a few other things.

What I consider to be fairly urgent for this committee right now is to hear some representatives pertaining to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. That is before a standing committee right now and is on a fairly fast-track process—excuse the pun—with a deadline, I believe, of April 1998 for Canada to have signed or not to have signed, along with the other OECD countries.

We know there's been a lot of commentary around the MAI and its implications for health care. I think it would be valuable for us to hear from experts on both sides of the issue on the possible ramifications with respect to health care, preservation of medicare and the ability of the government to move forward on a national drug plan, given that some of the questions being raised are around the inability of a government, under MAI, to move forward with a national drug plan that uses generic drugs as a basis for its plan.

To me, that's urgent and pressing. We need to spend at least one or two meetings on just that issue.

Also, given the concerns that were raised recently and the motion by the Conservatives at a previous meeting about the whole issue of drugs and a drug pricing policy, shouldn't we have some discussion on this committee about what we can do to make suggestions for a more balanced drug pricing policy? We heard yesterday from Minister Manley that there is not likely any possibility that this government will revisit the issue of 20-year patent protection, but there are other issues at work, such as the repeal of the notice of compliance regulations, that would make a difference. There are also questions pertaining to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which I think would be useful for this committee to look at. I think it would also be useful to look at some of the recommendations that were in the draft report of the industry committee last spring.

• 1120

Finally I think, at least from my vantage, there's an urgency to studying what is happening in the health protection branch, particularly why the drug research bureau was closed and to see if there's a way for that important investigative research bureau to be reopened.

I would make those suggestions for priority attention.

The Chair: Maurice.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): I share some of my colleague's concerns concerning the sequencing of things. In particular I think fundamental to the British parliamentary tradition is looking at the spending estimates. It appears now we will not have that opportunity, and I'm a little disturbed at that fact. I think it would be fair for all of us around the table to say we at least need a cursory look at them, with the minister and some of his staff here prior to... I think it's a bit of a rebuff of some decent democracy on this whole thing, so I just want to register—

The Chair: Maybe I'll interject here. I possibly should have brought it up before we had this motion. The minister has said he cannot come anytime other than December 8, but is quite willing to come on December 8 for the estimates.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: The spending estimates are tabled next Tuesday, which is after the fact. It is very inappropriate or I think irrelevant at that point. We could still look at it, but it will be after it's already been before the House. I don't know why we're going at it in this backward fashion, and I certainly hope this doesn't become the pattern down the road.

The Chair: I'm just assuring you. You had asked me to check again and he can come December 8.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That's right, but I think it's really not right at all. It's wrong.

The Chair: Mark.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Please pardon my lack of experience here. I'm substituting because Mr. Thompson has had a death in the family.

Are we still speaking on this letter? Can I speak on—

The Chair: We have a motion on the floor to accept this as our working plan.

Mr. Mark Muise: Okay. I think with all the cuts that have taken place in health care we should be very cautious about what restrictions we're going to put on this type of medication or therapy, because people are using this more and more and more. If we are, on one hand, cutting their ability to get health care from one side...a lot of people seem to be going to the natural remedies. I would like to say that it's very important we not impede them in any way by putting on more red tape, increasing costs, or what have you. I'd just like to say that.

The Chair: We're going to have this meeting and probably the next meeting, Mark, to decide what we're going to study.

Mr. Mark Muise: That's correct. I knew that, but since I was here and I heard about this, I thought it would be an opportunity to at least be on the record saying that. Thank you.

The Chair: Okay.

Does anybody else have a comment about...?

Grant, just so you know, there's a motion on the floor to accept this as a working plan for the—

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): I've sat on the health committee before and tried to change, if you will, what I consider to be the direction in which the minister wants us to go. I have long since quit doing that, but I am delighted to have this particular study take place. That's fine. Would it have been the first order of business for me in the health committee? It might well have been. This is a topical, significant issue and it is a preventive issue. I think there are some other big ones, but once again I think it's a waste of my breath to start saying let's go in a different direction.

The health protection branch, quite frankly—and Judy referred to this—is implicated in the regulatory mechanism here. It will give us an opportunity to look at HPB, but probably not as in depth as I think we should or could. For those reasons I simply say this is an important issue. Let's get on with it. Let's not pretend we're going to influence the direction of this committee. Even though the committee is supposed to be independent, it's not.

• 1125

The Chair: I don't think you were here when I mentioned that on the first day back in February we will discuss it, if we need to, and have a steering committee. We decided this a couple of meetings ago. We'll have a steering committee and decide if we want subcommittees, or whatever we want to do from that point on in the first meeting in February.

Mr. Grant Hill: I'm really saying let's not kid ourselves. Let's follow the direction the minister has in mind. Let's get on with it. Let's do a good job of it and not tease anyone.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: All right go ahead.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Accepting the majority position of this committee, I would like to make a motion that this committee set aside one of its meetings between now and December 11 to study the issue of the MAI and its impact on health care, and to invite some experts from both sides of that issue to appear before this committee.

The Chair: It's already before the industry committee.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The fact that it's before the industry committee doesn't prevent us as a committee from dealing specifically with the health care implications of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment in terms of the whole health care area, drug pricing and so on.

The Chair: I know it's something I'm certainly interested in, but I don't know whether it's our place to do it in this committee or do it now.

Elinor, do you have a comment?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: First of all, I think the motion is out of order. We've already decided on our work plan and this is the first priority. Second, I'd argue it's a substantive motion requiring 48 hours of delay before this committee can consider it as a procedural matter. Third, I would say the member can have the opportunity at the other committee where that matter is being discussed to attend and raise her issues.

The Chair: Judy, could you bring that as a motion to our next meeting? We haven't thought about the possibility of this ourselves and I don't know if anybody else has. Then maybe some of the others would have some comment.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sure.

Mr. Grant Hill: Surely we're here, Madam Chair, to discuss the future business of the committee. This is a suggestion and if it is to be decided no, let's vote it down. Why stifle the thoughts and suggestions of a member this way? It's a valid suggestion. We are discussing that, are we not?

The Chair: Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you. I'll certainly bring it forward as a motion with the due notice of 48 hours. However, I remind the committee that two meetings ago when we talked about the need to have a working meeting to set the agenda, it was agreed that this would happen today and we wouldn't all have to bring separate motions in order to have anything considered at this meeting.

I said specifically at that meeting I could do what some of the others had done and bring forward motions to try to have the discussion here. But I got the clear indication we wouldn't need to do that. We would have a good discussion here and be able to at least have some say in the agenda over the next short while.

Notwithstanding the fact we have set the herbal medicine issue as a first priority of this committee, we still have a motion to deal with estimates. We have the minister coming in December. Presumably we might even need more than one meeting to deal with the estimates. I would think that indicates there's some flexibility and I would argue there's a need for flexibility to take on a couple of these major issues that are fairly urgent.

On the suggestion that I could take my concerns to the industry committee, I think this is a far more serious issue that is worthy of in-depth consideration by the Standing Committee on Health. I think this is the place for us to hear a couple of experts, deliberate on the findings, and see if there's any will to make any recommendations to the government.

• 1130

The Chair: I was thinking about what you just said about an in-depth study. We've just had a motion that we are going to study what the minister has asked us to study. An in-depth study might take three or four days. I'm just wondering if one is contradicting the other. I personally would like to know more about the MAI and how it's going to affect health. I'm not sure that right now is the time to do it.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My motion is to have at least one of our meetings between now and the end of December devoted to this. It may not be as in-depth as some of us would like, but at least it's a chance to review some of the issues.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Chair, I agree totally with Judy. I think we came here to discuss the agenda. This is a very important meeting, when we lay the groundwork and our plans for the future on what we're going to deal with in this committee. This is a very important issue. It's been an issue right across the country.

Let me suggest to you that the MAI is an issue right across the country too. I went back to my riding last week. At every meeting I attended there were questions asked about the MAI and health care. Will it affect our health care? So I would agree that we need to discuss this and soon.

The Chair: Okay, I thought the agenda we would be discussing would be how we would do the...

Go ahead, Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): I have a comment specifically on that. Procedurally, one rather long item has already been accepted by the committee. Having been a bit of a student on the MAI and, like many of you, very interested in its implications and so on, I would have to say that to have one meeting on the MAI would just really accomplish nothing. It has to be a relatively large block of time if this committee so chooses.

One meeting? If you've gone and sat in—and I'm sure many of you have, as I have—on the committee that's holding hearings on it, it wouldn't begin a process. I think you have to look at it that way in all realistic analyses.

The Chair: I wonder if we could make a suggestion to that committee that we have part of that on health. We could approach them to see if they would give maybe two of their meetings for discussion on health. I'm not sure how they're organizing their meetings.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's a really good idea.

The Chair: I don't know if they would do that, though.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: We can all do it. We can all go there. I think it should be at that committee first.

The Chair: Maurice Dumas.

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): I think that to postpone that decision for 48 hours would be like postponing something which will have to be discussed anyway. Why don't we do it right away. Let's solve that problem now. It will save time.

[English]

The Chair: Do we want to vote now?

Mr. Maurice Dumas: Vote on that.

The Chair: Do we decide now?

Mark, did you have another...?

Mr. Mark Muise: I just want to talk about what was expressed earlier about maybe asking that the MAI committee let the committees attend its meetings, that the industry committee let different committees go. From a heritage point of view, we asked for that specifically because it impacts us as well, but they've been not wanting to do that. The government side has really tried to help us there, but they seem not to want to do that.

The Chair: Mark, I'm not sure about what they don't want to do. Is it that they don't want you to go to their committee, or they won't let you go to the meeting and ask questions?

Mr. Mark Muise: They'll let us go, but they won't let us go as a group to participate. They let us go as individuals, as anyone else can go.

The Chair: And ask questions? I think that's the way the committees work, if you want to participate in somebody else's.

The only reason I ask that you give us a little time, Judy, is that we might decide amongst ourselves that we really do want to spend one day on this, or we might come up with another idea. You might come up with another idea of how we could do this. That's the only reason I was suggesting that.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Well, I'll make the motion and I'll follow the rules.

The Chair: Judy, is yours a motion?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.

The Clerk of the Committee: From my scrawls, you have asked that the committee undertake at least a one-meeting session on a study of the MAI.

The Chair: Could you read it?

• 1135

The Clerk: That the committee have at least one meeting on the study of the MAI between now and the end of December or before the House rises.

The Chair: This doesn't preclude that we might decide to do it later if we don't do it now.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: Mark.

Mr. Mark Muise: I would like to make a motion. I move that as part of this committee's future business we study the government's recommendation on the response to Bill C-91, given the comments that we're hearing from the ministers involved.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mark. It's getting a little confusing.

Mr. Mark Muise: I sense that too.

The Chair: Would you repeat what you are talking about?

Mr. Mark Muise: It's my motion—

The Chair: You don't have to make a motion.

Mr. Mark Muise: —that as part of our future business this committee study the recommendations that the government will make on Bill C-91 based on what has been transpiring between the two ministers involved in this in the last little while. It's basically that we study the government's response.

The Chair: Any comments?

Elinor?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: We can sit here and look at a shopping list of all the things we might want to do if governments make an announcement on some policy decision at some point in the future. I just think it's premature for us at this point to establish a work plan beyond what we have at the present time.

One of the things the chair has said is that in February we'll decide whether we want to have a steering committee. I think it also might be a good idea at that time to discuss how we will decide to order our agenda and at what place we're going to debate the priorities for the committee, but I don't want to spend all the time at this committee debating motions of what we might do at some time in the future. I have no objection to having this committee review all kinds of things that government makes policy statements and announcements on, but I don't want to decide today what our agenda is going to be until I know what all the options are and what is occurring down the road.

The reason I made the motion that we accept the invitation and the request of the minister to deal with this as the first priority...when this is complete, unless we receive another request from the minister in the meantime, we should focus our attention on this, and as other things arise the committee can then order its agenda accordingly.

I don't have any objection to discussing anything here but what I do object to is spending all of our time discussing possible and future agenda items. I think that's a waste of our time.

Mr. Mark Muise: I can appreciate what you're saying. I am bringing this up in light of what the ministers are saying now. This is probably forthcoming in the next couple of weeks.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: We don't know.

Mr. Mark Muise: This is being openly discussed in the papers, so why not have it discussed here?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Because no announcements have been made. Just because you read something in the paper doesn't mean anything is really going to happen. You never know. It is premature. I don't believe everything I read in the newspapers.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank God.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's right.

The Chair: We had a motion that we carry on with this based on the letter from the minister. Can we work on this letter a little bit now?

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Chair, I think it is important to make a couple of comments at this point in the discussion since a very disturbing pattern is happening with respect to this committee. I really want to ask a rhetorical question: whatever happened to any sense of independence that standing committees of Parliament are supposed to have? How is it that we are now saying that whatever the minister says we should do we are doing without discussion and debate?

• 1140

The member just said that because the minister has made this request we will do it, a vote will be forced upon this committee, and the majority will rule. That's what we'll end up doing. Next week the minister will come forward with something else and so on. We'll just keep busy doing whatever the minister suggests when it's contrary to the way other committees have tended to operate, which is to have precisely this kind of meeting early in the process where all of these issues are put on the table and we can all have a say in what this committee will study and work on. It's not unusual to have this opportunity.

The member is saying we shouldn't waste our time today putting these items on the table and having a discussion when this is precisely why we agreed to have this meeting, even though it's at least a month overdue. We're being told we're waiting to get the marching orders from the minister, which I think is in complete violation of the traditions in history pertaining to the standing committee process with Parliament.

I think we should have this opportunity, and I resent the fact we're handed this directive from the minister to vote on right away. Nobody objects to studying this issue, but we all thought we were going to be able to discuss a range of issues, prioritize, and be able to address a number of urgent concerns.

The Chair: Aileen.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I think we have to begin somewhere. This issue of herbal remedies, I can say most honestly, was a very hot one during the election. When I was going door to door and talking to people in my community there was a lot of concern about herbal remedies. It was a surprise to me. Since then I'm learning a lot more.

The minister has reflected exactly what most of us heard during the election. He's put a stop to a process and has asked for all-party input into what is nationally an issue.

We have to start somewhere. We have a long list of concerns you're bringing forward, which I also have. Hopefully we'll be able to address most of them in a priority sense. The minister himself was very flexible. He showed that kind of response. He is saying “Okay I'm going to ask all of us to meet, talk about it, and come forward with recommendations.” This one has been percolating for quite a while.

Again, I agree that we see things in the paper, but if we're going to set a list, we can't respond again to the media and change the list and move to something else. We have to stay attuned. We are representatives of the people of this country, and they do speak through the papers sometimes. We have to set a list or begin somewhere.

I have to tell you, in my other committee we've covered a heck of a lot of ground, and when I come to this health committee we're still talking about procedure and what we're going to look at. Let's get going.

The Chair: You have to admit we didn't get the letter from the minister until very recently.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: But we did know this was a very serious issue in the country.

The Chair: Elinor.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: My point was very similar and I don't want to belabour it. I really think it's important for this committee to have the opportunity to receive requests and then decide whether or not we want to see to the requests. I think this request from the minister is an important one. As he said here, he announced his intentions in the House of Commons to ask us to look at this. It's an issue of concern to the people of Canada, people in my riding. For us to tell the minister “Stuff it in your ear, we're not going to do this as a priority” would be an insult to all Canadians, not just to the Minister of Health.

For the member to suggest we have to do everything the minister wants us to do because of the independence of the committee tradition I think is absolute and utter nonsense. This committee has to address the issues that are important to Canadians. This one is important to Canadians, and I'm prepared to deal with it as a priority at this committee. I'm also prepared to have this committee consider other issues that come forward and take the time in a logical sequence to decide what we consider to be a priority at that moment.

The Chair: Carolyn.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): As I said at the last meeting, I think all of us have pet projects and our personal shopping lists. I have great difficulty prioritizing anything unless I see everything that's on the table.

On what we have been asked to do, we have already passed this as a priority, and Dr. Hill agrees that we just have to get on with this, because otherwise it will sit doing nothing.

Those of us on this side haven't come to every meeting asking for our pet projects to be dealt with. I would suggest we all write down our pet projects and circulate them. At the first meeting in February, we will actually then be able to have a look at what's on the table, maybe during a longer meeting. We'd actually then be able to set some of our own priorities and create a work plan that's further out. In the meantime, I think we have to get on with the herbal remedies, and then we will actually have to deal with any bill that comes forward, like Bill C-14 or tobacco.

• 1145

So there are some priorities that are set, and I don't think it's unparliamentary to actually be asked to look at something that was actually an election campaign promise made by the people who won the election. Let's just get on with it and do the work. I think this herbal remedies project will be extremely exciting. It will get us into all kinds of interesting areas, and it is what the people of Canada want to do, because not knowing about these things is making crazy all of the stakeholders who care passionately about this issue.

The Chair: Stan.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Being an observer of what's been said, I can just say that it appears there are two questions being asked here. One is one of process and one is one of issues.

On the matter of issues, the NDP, and Judy in particular, should be congratulated. She brought forward an item that she feels is important to her, just as any members of this committee should bring forward any items that are of importance to them. But it should come as no surprise to Judy that, at the end of the day, the discussion is vetted amongst all members from all parties at any committee. Once the decision is made on what the priorities are, then that motion will be voted on and whatever falls from that motion comes.

But I think Judy understands too that there is no breach of any parliamentary privilege. There's no breach of her rights as a member. I think it's important that she understands there is a priority list of items that the government must deal with, that it feels are the priority. As a result, it will carry the day at committee. She has had the opportunity to put her case forward, and we congratulate her for doing so, just as that option is available to any member.

On the matter of process, I think it's usually a time-saver for any committee of the House to have these kinds of discussions away from a committee of the whole, at a steering committee. Steering committees save a lot of time. You're here as a group. You're here to prepare to take on whatever legislative calendar has been put before you, whatever issues have been put before you, but those decisions have to be made in a smaller group, although they still have to be approved by the full committee when the steering committee makes its recommendations.

No one is being left out of a loop, because it's the steering committee that takes the time to vet all these situations. It takes the time to put forward the agenda. It's then just a course of voting for the issues when you sit down at the table as a full committee. It does save a lot of time.

The Chair: I think we've heard from everybody and some people a number of times.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Could I comment on that, Madam Chair?

The Chair: Okay, Judy, but this is your last time. We want to keep going.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a point of order, actually. The record needs to be clarified that at no point did I or anyone else suggest that the study of the herbal medicine issue was not important. At no point did I suggest that dealing with this request and going through the normal process was unparliamentary. What I was raising concerns about was the fact that we had decided earlier, whenever we asked about setting the agenda, that we would have a thorough discussion today about some of the priorities that we all felt were important and would have an open discussion about setting the agenda.

It is baffling for me to arrive and to have this first motion dealt with—I have no problem with that; a vote was followed and I can accept that—and to then encounter the fact that we can't discuss anything else. We can't discuss other items for the agenda. Because we've adopted this first request and it's going to consume all of our time, there is no room to do anything else. That is the concern I'm raising today.

To date, this committee has not yet had a proper opportunity to vet the issues of concern. And these are not pet projects, as they're being described by some members. These are issues of significant importance for many Canadians. They are issues that we should all be concerned about as members of the Standing Committee on Health.

So I just register my concern about the process, and I want to make sure there's no suggestion that anyone feels the issue of herbal medicines is not important and shouldn't be dealt with by this committee. That's just not the case.

• 1150

The Chair: Judy, I think everybody appreciates what you're saying, and I think we all have an interest in every topic that was brought up, but we have a motion on the floor. We'll have to think seriously about whether we need a steering committee before February 1.

If we could go on now with the motion that's on the floor, we have a letter here to study and a new project to get busy with. I think we should go ahead with that. But we'll certainly take into consideration all the things that have come up, and maybe I could speak to each of you and discuss whether we should have our steering committee formed before February 1. We could discuss that.

But I think we should get on with this now. We have a motion on the floor.

Yes, Maurice?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Just as a point of clarification, are we looking at a timeframe? There's nothing in the motion to say how long we have.

The Chair: There is a timeframe.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: April 24. So we're assuming we will use all of the time until then in respect of this. That's my question.

The Chair: That's the timeframe the minister has given us. That's not stopping us from putting something else in the middle. It's not stopping us from saying that in the third week of February we're going to look at MAI or something.

Now we'd like to study the letter from the minister. Let's look at it and see if you have any comments about it. Are there things that you think shouldn't be in here at all or are there things that should be? You've had this now for at least two days.

Grant.

Mr. Grant Hill: One thing that concerns me, Madam Chair, is the issue of holding public hearings within Canada. I've been a strong proponent of trying to be economical in committee hearings, and I have difficulty imagining a large committee travelling throughout the country, with translators and staff and what not, so I would like to put my oar in the water on this one and say that our hearings should be held here in Ottawa unless there is a cost-effective reason for us to go outside this environment. Teleconferencing and a host of other new technologies will allow us to hold hearings and not travel en masse.

The Chair: We will ask the clerk to give us some kind of indication of what the cost would be, whether it's teleconferencing or something else, in time for Tuesday's meeting.

The Clerk: I'd just like to let members know that there are options within the travel rubric. You don't necessarily have to take the entire committee. You can take a smaller group. Committees have been receiving permission to travel—at least one has—with an equal number of government and opposition members. I believe it's five and five, which is less than the full number. The committee can send as many members as it wants, but you certainly are not bound to have the whole committee travel. That's one thing.

And you're quite right. It is far less expensive to hold video-teleconferencing in Ottawa. The only thing I will mention about it is that if the committee chooses to hear from a lot of people—and I believe that would be within the population of consumers—you may find that you're hearing from maybe 30 in Vancouver or 30 in Toronto, or you may set a number. You probably want to hear from as many people as possible. That's entirely up to the committee. Video-teleconferencing can be difficult for members, because you will have engagements that take you away from the committee table, like Question Period and votes. When committees video-teleconference, sometimes they can be sitting until 11 p.m. or midnight. I just signal that to you as a possibility.

The Chair: We don't follow that completely, because I've sat at meetings that had teleconferencing, and we put them in the time—

The Clerk: If you're hearing from a lot of people, you'll find that it's hard to hear from all of them within a standard meeting time, because members will be called out. You won't be able to meet from 12:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. Also, another problem is that the camera does not pick up a lot of people all at once. It's entirely up to the committee, however, as to how they wish to hold their hearings.

The Chair: Elinor.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Based on my experience, public hearings are extremely important. People like to have the chance to come before the committee and give their views face to face.

I have no objection to trying a videoconference or two as part of our public hearings, but I don't want to preclude the committee dividing up and going and meeting people face to face in different parts of the country. I know it's expensive, and therefore I think we have to be careful about how much we spend as we do that. The only other alternative would be to bring people here if they weren't comfortable with videoconferencing, and that can be equally expensive.

• 1155

I think we should look at what other committees are doing and consider the ideas of breaking up into a smaller unit and taking the show on the road to give people direct access to the parliamentary process.

While democracy is sometimes expensive, it's worth the price to encourage people to participate. Sometimes they're discouraged if they have to come to Ottawa or the only place where anything is happening is Ottawa. I'm very sensitive to the communities and the individuals across this country that would really like it if we made the effort to try to get out of Ottawa to hear their views.

The other point I'd make is it's not a lot of fun for the committee to travel; it's very hard. I say that knowing the difficulties of travel. I still feel it's worth the effort, the time, and the expense, within limits, to encourage people to participate in our democratic process.

The Chair: It will be the first time stakeholders across Canada will have a chance to express publicly and to Parliament their opinions on this topic. We don't have to make a decision today. We can ask the clerk to look into all the costs and then come back to us next week.

Mr. Mark Muise: It's very important to have public input on this topic. I don't think you'll have trouble finding people to express an opinion. They're very interested in making their comments known, so whatever way the committee chooses to interview these people, it's worthwhile.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Speaking from some experience, Madam Chairman, you're fortunate to have a very wise clerk at your side who is very experienced in the field I'm particularly involved in, transportation.

We went across the country six different times over the last two and a half years, so that was a lot of travel. The clerk will probably provide you, Madam Chairman, with a proposal on how this kind of travel is made, given her experience at transport.

We agree, Doctor, that the task of travelling across the country with a full committee and all the bells and whistles is not only onerous on the members but also on the wallet for Parliament.

Mr. Grant Hill: And the people.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes. We found there were benefits from setting certain guidelines, like having a smaller committee. You may be sitting in the committee on the west side of the country and be replaced by another member in central Canada and yet again replaced by someone else in eastern Canada. So the benefit of all members participating in the committee process is there, but there's not the onerous task of going to each community you want to go to across the country.

Couple that with selecting certain capitals you will visit in each province so you're not visiting the same province in six different locations. You ask the witnesses to come much closer to that particular venue, rather than having to come all the way to Ottawa for their presentations. You might decide to meet in Winnipeg for Manitoba, Saskatoon for Saskatchewan or Vancouver for B.C. That kind of fine-tuning of where the committee will visit will play a part in your decision, but also recognize the importance of going out into Canada to hear the witnesses.

With Ottawa witnesses we found through experience you can invite anyone, within reason on your timetable, to appear before the committee in Ottawa and many will choose to do so. The stipulation put out there is that if you can demonstrate you don't have the ability to pay to come to the committee, fine, but only on request of reimbursement will the committee pay for someone to come to committee. That takes out a lot of the players who can't afford to come to committee, plus the companies, organizations, etc., that do have the resources to pay for an individual or representative to come to committee. That combination of things usually works out very well for your committee.

The Chair: The clerk is just reminding me—I don't remember doing this—that we agreed that if we invite them we pay and if they invite themselves they pay.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Just one more thing, Madam Chair. This issue may have to be dealt with sooner rather than later because your request has to go to the liaison committee and be determined before we break for the recess, if you are going to do any work in January.

• 1200

The Chair: You may find with this particular study that going to Vancouver, Winnipeg—where we're getting the native perspective—Toronto, and Montreal may be enough stops. I'm just putting that out there.

Mr. Mark Muise: And one in Halifax.

The Chair: Is there a large community there using herbal remedies?

Mr. Mark Muise: This is a growing thing.

The Chair: Yes, I know it's growing everywhere, but where the large communities are...

Mr. Mark Muise: I think you'd have to pick a central location not to discriminate against anyone.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Your witness will determine the location you want to be in.

The Chair: Is it all right that we give the clerk the go-ahead to do whatever study she needs to do and to search things out?

The Clerk: I will give you several price systems and proposals.

The Chair: Can we move on from there?

We gave this to the research people when we got it and they've kindly taken the last couple of days and done an outline of what they suggest we might be able to do between now and April. I think if we could look at that and work from that it might make it easier.

If you would just look at this piece of paper, the one that shows from now until Christmas, we can fill in a couple of squares here. The minister will be coming Monday, December 8, and the officials have agreed to come December 4.

Just looking at this, and considering that we are finished on December 12...some committees are forgetting that last meeting. If any of you have looked at your agendas on that last week it gets pretty hectic. I don't know how you feel about that. I'm quite willing to be here, but people are Christmas shopping, there are other activities on the Hill, and committee rooms are not available any more.

It would be my suggestion, if you're feeling all right about that, that we forget December 11, because we will have a meeting on the 8th, and maybe we could have the one on the 9th but forget the 11th. How does that sound? Is that okay?

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam Chair, just so I'm clear, we are having a meeting on the Tuesday or we're not?

The Chair: We haven't decided yet.

Mr. Lynn Myers: When are we deciding?

The Chair: Right now. You've got another list in front of you. We'll decide now, but that's all I know right now. I was just suggesting that we not have the meeting on the 11th and we do have one now on December 4. It's the officials, and that's all that's filled in so far, and the 8th.

Maybe I'll ask Nancy to speak to us about what she has down on this paper and fill it in a little bit.

• 1205

Ms. Nancy Miller Chenier (Committee Researcher): On the basis of the letter and the suggested timeframe of the end of April, Odette and I started counting parliamentary weeks and realized that there aren't a lot. So what we did was to indicate blocks of time between now and the end of April when the members are normally in Ottawa. Again, when we indicate blocks of time it's not intended to preclude other activities the committee decides to undertake during this period. It's on the basis of weeks that we're here and the possibility of two meetings a week.

The suggestion was that starting next week the committee members could start their hearings to obtain information on what currently exists. You could get a big-picture idea about the current regulatory framework and of the participants' and stakeholders' thinking about the current framework and the possibilities for future change.

We had suggested witness groupings. We didn't go much beyond the standard thinking—the fact that there's an industry involved in this. There are practitioners or providers who, on a daily basis, are thinking about the use of these substances, and of course there are the users or consumers. We thought the committee might want to hear some representative witnesses from those general groupings.

The witness list could be prepared of course based on suggestions from members. If you know of people in any of those groupings or other groupings we haven't thought of who would be useful as witnesses for the committee, please submit your lists with their names, phone numbers, and addresses—anything that will help us contact them—to the clerk, Ellen. The sooner that happens, the better for us in terms of organizing.

The suggestion was that we start with officials from Health Canada. This is a grey area that falls between what I'll call the drugs regulatory activities and the foods regulatory activities, so I think it would be useful to hear from both those sections of the department. Both fall within the health protection branch and in the last few years both have had a major role in this area.

I'll refer you to this little document that was sent out earlier. It was prepared not with the committee in mind, but within the parliamentary research branch because of things that members have already discussed today. Over the last Parliament we in the research branch heard repeatedly from members that this was an issue, so over the summer we tried to compile a chronology or listing of the key areas where there has been federal action on just the herbal side. At the time we were preparing this we didn't think about the homeopathic side or the vitamins or minerals.

My other comment is that when you are considering the terms of reference, there are in my mind three distinct groupings of substances. One is the traditional herbal remedies, and there is a suggestion in the letter that this includes Chinese, ayurvedic, and aboriginal. Homeopathic are a slightly different preparation and different practices are associated with them. Then there are vitamins and minerals, which are supplements that appear on a lot of shelves and are in common usage.

This little document points out that there are activities in both the food and the drugs area. The suggestion would be that the department could come and talk to us about things like schedule 705, which was a regulatory change suggested in the late eighties and continued into the nineties, and the Codex Alimentarius, where there was major activity over the last year.

• 1210

On the drug side, the most obvious is the discussion around the licensing fees in the last few months. Members who were on the committee during the last Parliament will remember that when Bill C-7 was discussed—that was the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act—there was some representation from the herbal industry, and there were concerns that the regulatory powers under that bill were quite broad. Committee members will therefore want to think about maybe coming at this subject from a number of different angles.

To go back to the work plan, we don't have a lot of time between now and the time when you leave for the Christmas recess. Either today or as soon as possible it would be good to get from members some suggestion on how you'd like to start after you hear departmental officials. Or do you even want to hear departmental officials? These are things that you can decide.

The suggestion here was that Odette and I, and possibly one of our legal colleagues, would work over the Christmas recess, which is a six-week period. We would gather comparative information on international regulatory regimes, because many countries have dealt with this same issue.

I think the issue I'm talking about here is the issue of freedom of choice versus regulations to guarantee safety and efficacy. We could perhaps draft a letter from the committee to ask those other regimes to send us information. We could also perhaps identify some key people in other countries who might want to come to the committee to talk about it, or who might, through teleconferencing, talk about some of the ways they've dealt with these issues.

For February, we took a liberty here, Dr. Hill. We put possible travel down, but this is—

Mr. Grant Hill: As long as it's cost effective, we're fine.

Ms. Nancy Miller Chenier: As you can see, this whole thing's abbreviated, so we didn't have room there. We've suggested that there be more hearings in Ottawa.

If the committee thought of this study as sort of getting the big picture first on what's happening, what these substances are, or what the regulatory frameworks are, we could hopefully then continue that in February. We could also start to get some specific solutions, as suggested by some people, and could start to work towards the report that the committee will have to write about this.

I think it's self-explanatory. There's a recess between February and March, meetings then, and then there's an Easter break. There's preparation of the draft report proposed before the Easter break, and after the Easter break the committee can come back and can talk about the draft report.

We did this working backwards from April, because there's a process of writing the report to get the views of all the members. There's a process of agreeing on the recommendations and then tabling it, and the process of publishing. We tried to work that in.

I think that's all I need to say right now. You'll know from your own experience that the industry is big and small, so any witnesses you get you'd want to make sure represented both big and small.

If you invited practitioners, you might want to talk to some of the established practitioners—and by that I mean primarily medical doctors—and the sorts of complementary practitioners, the herbalists and the homeopaths.

If you're talking to users, it's useful to think about the fact that there are some differences out there in a consuming public. Seniors have particular concerns based on their health needs. Women are known to be slightly bigger users of some of these substances. The aboriginal and other cultural communities have particular needs. Those are all things to maybe think about.

That's it. That's all I'm going to say. I'm sure you have lots of time.

The Chair: It's hard to believe we can do all that between now and the end of April. I think we'll have to work through all our breaks.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is adding a country like Germany something I should talk to you about as a suggestion? You can do this kind of thing?

• 1215

Ms. Nancy Miller Chenier: Absolutely. We just did suggested countries, but Germany, absolutely.

The Chair: Somebody just suggested that if you have different countries that you want to add to the list we'll have to let the researcher know.

Ms. Nancy Miller Chenier: I could just say that the list is here. Most of you know the United States has passed some legislation that allows greater choice, so that would be useful.

The Chair: Just a second. I'm not sure why everybody's packing up. We're still going until 12.30 p.m., aren't we? Okay.

Any comments about what our researcher has suggested to us? I know that Nancy and Odette have worked quite a long time.

It would seem to be an absolute impossibility to get everything studied in that period of time, but we're going to have to do our best.

Don't forget what was said a few minutes ago. I hope you heard that if you have recommendations for people you would like to appear and feel particularly concerned about having, please send them right to the clerk. It doesn't do any good to come to us three days before the report is written and say that we didn't hear from your friend so and so. Make sure we have it well ahead of time.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Will we hear the recommendations of the expert panel that Mr. Dingwall appointed?

The Chair: The panel has so far only met twice. They would like considerable time before they speak to us. They'll let us know when they're ready. They have not met enough times to have developed any consensus among themselves. So right now they're going to let us know when they want to come.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Can they tell us what they did or who they talked to?

The Chair: No, not yet.

Ms. Nancy Miller Chenier: As you know, the advisory panel was set up to report to the person who is head of the therapeutic products division. He would presumably be the person from Health Canada who would come to talk to us right away. So he sits in on all the meetings of the panel and could certainly fill the committee in on the actions at the meetings where he has been present.

The other thing for the committee to think about is the fact that the members of that panel are obviously individuals. In their own right, they represent stakeholders that we have been asked to consult with. So it's quite probable that they would be willing to come representing their organization, even if they felt they couldn't speak about the panel work. So there are a number of options for getting information.

The Chair: Do you want us to try to see whether we can get the first witnesses here for this coming Tuesday? Do you want us to try? We just seem to be so short of days. We want to see if maybe different sections of the department can come on Tuesday. Are you agreed with that? Let's get going on it.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Could you, just for our benefit, circulate the list of the people on the advisory panel? I don't know whether it's presumptuous, but I would assume that they would be a good start in terms of people coming to speak to us.

The Chair: All right. Is there anything else? I'm sorry, Elinor, are you next?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I have a question on advertising. How will the public know that this committee is proceeding to do this work? Will they know they're invited to submit in writing or to request to appear before the committee? Do they know that if there are no slots available for everyone who wants to appear they can submit in writing? That was one.

The second question was, will we actually collate all of the written submissions and have them available for the members in some kind of an orderly booklet or are they just going to be presented to our office as they come in?

The Clerk: As for advertising, committees in the past have advertised across Canada in major dailies. It costs about $55,000 to $60,000.

It hasn't necessarily been cost-effective. That hasn't been done since about 1993, but I want it noted that it has been done in the past, and to my way of thinking it's not a practical option.

What I've done in the past is give a press release in both official languages to a wire service company in town who will send it to hundreds of newspapers across Canada, and trade papers as well. The cost for that should be around $1,600. Whether they pick that up or not is entirely up to the newspaper, but certainly we can't be said not to have tried.

• 1220

Also, with a study like this, I notice the bush telegraph seems to be feeding a lot of information, judging from the material I am getting.

That was the first point you brought up, Ms. Caplan. The second point was the circulation of briefs. We get two kinds of briefs. We get information from stakeholders who have validity and merit. We also get a lot of correspondence that in my opinion is not necessarily something that needs to be translated and circulated to all members' offices. Could you allow us to use our judgment in the circulation of briefs and material and any correspondence that is more than simply a complaint about the way Health Canada operates?

The Chair: Could you tell us who puts the information on CPAC? That is where I find out what is going on.

The Clerk: I do.

The Chair: Is that at our request or on your own?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The only request I would have is that we ensure the press releases are sent to the multicultural press, since in this particular issue there is a lot of multicultural sensitivity...and that the other trade papers that might have an interest at least receive the press release: the naturopaths, the professional associations, and that kind of thing.

The Chair: If you people have any suggestions, there is no reason why you can't phone the clerk. Do you all have her number?

The Clerk: Yes, they do.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Chair, could we circulate the information on those people who will be writing in; where they write from, the addresses, and such? People who are coming in as witnesses have to write to the clerk. Can we have that circulated, and precisely who they write to?

The Clerk: Yes. I ask that you don't put in my name, just “the clerk of the standing committee”.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Could you get that out to us by e-mail?

The Clerk: Yes.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I want to know the process in terms of how people... I suspect we will get a lot of witnesses wanting to come. How is it decided who comes?

The Chair: Good question. Usually we give guidelines to the clerk and we leave it to the clerk's discretion. That is why I want you people to make sure that if you have preferences and you feel very strongly about something, we know that. Between the clerk and the researchers, they make a balanced decision that this is who comes as witnesses.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Based on what?

The Chair: Based on a balance between the pros and the cons; who wins, who loses on this.

Ms. Nancy Miller Chenier: I could speak to that. It's a great question, and one such that members should constantly come back to staff with suggestions.

To start, as in September, we would try to find out who the key people are, those who already have something prepared to say. Don't forget, for this first month we're not giving people a lot of time to think about this.

In some ways a lot of staff judgment goes into thinking about who is going to present slightly different views to the committee, so you are getting the range of views. But if at any time you feel something is being missed, that is for you to do.

What I'm saying here is if you could give staff permission at least to start to fill that first meeting with some witnesses, because of the timeframe, that would be much appreciated at this point. Then we would really rely on all the members to send us suggestions, again with some understanding and indication from you where they might be on the issue or what you think they would contribute to the study. We make an attempt to call most of the witnesses and get from them some information about their organizations and their perspectives.

The Clerk: There are two things. We can ask each party to submit a list of witnesses they want called before the committee. Can I also ask that if you wish to hear from consumers of these drugs, you think of a cut-off number. It could be 10, 20, 500.

Unfortunately, when that happens...and the way it is done in committees or has been done in the past, you take the first number who get in touch and after that... You can't let everybody appear. We don't have all the time in the world.

• 1225

The Chair: Maurice.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You might ask about the ratios, almost a grid—I'm not sure if it was established at this committee. Frankly, I don't think it should be done on a party basis. I think there should be other determinants.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I'm not sure about first come, first served, either.

The Chair: They will make sure the manufacturers are represented. They will make sure—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Can you lay that out for us?

The Chair: —that all the different groups are represented.

Ms. Nancy Miller Chenier: May I make another suggestion? If Health Canada can appear next week, then we would possibly have two slots for Health Canada next week, or we could try to get both divisions at the same meeting.

Odette and I can undertake to work on the first string of witnesses, if you like, and present you with a list for next Tuesday. We can group the witnesses. We can tell you who might fall under different categories. We can't indicate who can come and at what time because we won't have invited them. We'll give you a suggested list.

The Chair: Maybe that's something we could do. He was asking for the grid. Maybe we need an indication of how many different categories need to be represented. We don't need the names indicated, but we need somebody under manufacturing, somebody under this and somebody under that, etc.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Madam Chair, our research staff should perhaps bear in mind that this is not the first study of herbal remedies. I think we're all quite aware of that. Certainly the manufacturers that I chat with are well aware of it, having been involved in the process before. Let's keep in mind who appeared before, although there were not parliamentary standing committees. The opportunity for new people might have to be considered. That's not to say somebody is not valid just because they will have been here twice, but I think it's an ingredient to throw in the pot, just to keep your jobs from getting easy.

The Chair: If any of you need information from the clerk on the address that people write to—

The Clerk: I'll you send all the material.

The Chair: —she'll send that. They'll get some witnesses for next Tuesday and Thursday and maybe a grid for us so we can get some idea of the witnesses and make sure every category is being represented.

Anything else?

Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Chair, just in light of some of the conversation that took place earlier, I think it's really important that a steering committee get up and running sooner rather than later.

An hon. member: Agreed.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I have real difficulty with some of the things that have happened, and I think there are issues that need to be addressed. I'd like to see that happen.

The Chair: Maybe at the end of either Tuesday's or Thursday's meeting we'll have five minutes to talk about a steering committee. It shouldn't take us very long to form one.

We're adjourned until next Tuesday.