HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 27, 2001

• 1108

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I'll call this meeting to order. I want to welcome everybody here. This is really the first official meeting of the committee. The last one was just the organizational meeting.

As we'll probably be working together for at least three and a half years, maybe longer, I think it might be interesting to find out a little bit about each member, what their interest is in health, or what background they bring to the topic, and let you learn from each other the strengths of the various members.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Could we make a decision regarding the schedules? You may recall that I had asked to change the Tuesday morning meeting to Tuesday afternoon. I know that your colleagues were suppose to discuss this. Have you been able to do so?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, I have, Mr. Ménard. That issue is on my agenda in front of me under the matters of routine. We will get to it. Thank you.

Mr. Bachand, would you like to begin by introducing yourself to the committee. Some of us know you, but there are new members who don't.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): I am André Bachand and I am a member of the Conservative Party. I'm interested in the Health Committee because I am a smoker.

• 1110

[English]

I'm the only one left in the caucus who smokes.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Are you the only smoker in Quebec?

Mr. André Bachand: No, the only Tory in Quebec.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I am the Member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and I have been a member of this committee since 1997.

If you ask me what my interests are for our future proceedings—and in fact I have already discussed this with the parliamentary secretary—I will tell you that I find the issue of reproductive technologies to be very important and most interesting. If we are to have a bill or a policy statement on the subject, I would certainly be prepared to put a lot of effort into it.

I would very much like to see the committee look into the issue of the increase in the cost of prescription drugs. I think we all know people who take some kind of medication, and we ourselves will take some at some time or other in our lives. It might be interesting, should we have the time, to look more thoroughly into the issues that contribute to the increase in the cost of medication, the pharmaceutical companies' responsibilities, and the methods we might recommend to control this.

I did a tour of hospitals a year ago, I was very surprised to hear the hospital CEOs state that the main factor contributing to their deficits was the cost of drugs.

Therefore, it seems to me that it would be a good idea for the committee to study this matter.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I am pleased to be here as a newly elected Alliance member. I have spent 24 years as a chiropractor, so I've been involved in health care all of my working life. I'm interested in human physiology and biology, and I'd like to see that applied to the health issues. I'm concerned about some of the directions and certainly the problems Canadians are concerned about in health care. We hope to be able to contribute something of value to the committee and to the direction of health care in Canada.

The Chair: Thank you. I think you'd probably establish a small practice on the Hill here knowing what I know about my colleagues and their backs.

Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): It's really nice to be able to say I'm sitting beside a doctor. It's always good to have a doctor in the house, and I'm sure it makes us all feel a little bit better.

I come from a background in health care in the sense that I've represented the public on health boards for the last 20 years. I've chaired a number of them and then went on to regional health authorities. So I have a strong feel for what has gone on in health care and some of the repercussions that have happened over that time of transition. I've seen things that have worked and have not worked. I'm looking forward to sharing some of my vision as to what I think would work well in the future and on the role of the federal government in health.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

Mrs. Ablonczy.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CA): I am Diane Ablonczy and I am the Member for Calgary—Nose Hill.

[English]

I have absolutely no background in the health care field. The only virtue I can draw from that is that I am totally unbiased, except that I am a baby boomer and want to make sure our aging population gets looked after, although I'm not that aged yet.

In May I will be going to Sweden, Holland, and France, where I will be talking to some of their health care experts and activists. I can bring back to the committee some of the things that work and don't work there and some of the emerging issues we may be able to apply to our deliberations here. I hope that will be helpful. I only say that because I know you're going to miss me a lot in May, so I want you to know that I'm going to be doing something useful during that time.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Ablonczy.

We'll start with Ms. Sgro on this side.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Good morning. I have to watch the timing in getting to these committee meetings on time. You forget that when you get downstairs, you have to wait for a bus, so you can't be here with one and a half minutes to go.

I was elected in a by-election just over a year ago now. I represent York West, which is in Toronto. I spent 13 years as a municipal politician and sitting on the board of health.

• 1115

I have an interest, as do all of us, in the health of all of our citizens and in maintaining a good health system. So I'm looking forward to having an opportunity to sit on the committee and to work together with everyone to ensure that's where our priorities are, that the health care system is the best it can be within the mandate of what we have to do as the federal government.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Sgro. Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): I was elected in 1993. I can tell you, first of all, that if I had the time, I could visit, every single night of the year, someone from Thunder Bay in an Ottawa hospital who has been operated on or is convalescing. Thunder Bay is an isolated community right in the centre of Canada. Practically every plane I go on has patients going for serious operations to Toronto, or Hamilton, or London, Ontario, or Ottawa. For many years I have been involved in a very active way in fighting for a new regional hospital to serve northwestern and northern Ontario. The conditions at the hospitals, and the health service model up there, are absolutely bizarre. It's more like a Third World country.

The hospital is being constructed right now, and with it, of course, we've been working very hard to get telehealth in, so that we can have programs and professionals to cater more to the needs of the people in all these isolated communities throughout the north.

We're making progress. At the same time, I have been heavily involved with the university and the community college in developing programs, through the use of telehealth and other means, and allied health services, tied in with the new hospital to provide a much more effective and sustainable model of health delivery to the people in northwestern Ontario.

We are fighting right now for a free-standing medical school in Thunder Bay. I'm very optimistic. I think it's going to become a reality. Because our big problem is to keep doctors, to have doctors, never mind keep them, to try to get them, in many of the small communities in northwestern Ontario. Many of them have been without a doctor for many years. And then I go to Cuba and I go to all the villages, and every single village in Cuba has a doctor. Not only that; at any given time they have over 2,000 doctors distributed through the entire world.

I've been trying to get a handful of doctors to come from Newfoundland and Labrador, but the National Medical Association, of course, prevents any movement in that direction.

The Chair: Interesting.

Mr. Charbonneau, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister Rock.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I have been the Member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies since 1997. This is a riding in the East End of the Island of Montreal.

During the first years of my first term, I was a member of the Environment Committee. Afterwards, when I was asked to act as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health, I thought it was an excellent follow-up. These are two fields that are clearly related. Health and environment often have common concerns. Moreover, there are many elderly people in my riding.

As members of Parliament, we hear talk about health care daily. Everyone has something to say about the health care system. Therefore, this is an opportunity for me to try and contribute to the discussion on the main issues regarding the system, and to help my minister in managing his files.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau. Mr. Bonin.

[Translation]

Mr. Ray Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): My name is Raymond Bonin and I'm the Member for Nickel Belt, in Northern Ontario. I have a close-up view of the world of health: my son is a doctor, my brother is a doctor, my brother-in-law is a doctor, my other brother-in-law and my two nephews are pharmacists and my other brother is a psychologist. There are many nurses as well.

I'm a former member of the board of directors of Laurentian Hospital, a bilingual hospital in Northern Ontario. I was a member of the municipal committee for social and community services for three years. I am a member of this committee because I like changing committees often, regularly.

I'm a practical man and I like to see my work get results. Judging from the group I see here, I'm convinced that we won't waste time talking through our hats for hours. We will discuss tangible issues and we will find solutions to the problems facing Canadians.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Savoy.

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Thank you. I represent Tobique—Mactaquac in New Brunswick. I'm just a replacement. I'm also on the industry and environment committees.

• 1120

You certainly have a formidable task ahead of you with the baby boomers and the demographic situation in Canada. I look forward to participating today, and good luck in your mandate for the next three and a half years.

The Chair: Thank you, and I hope, Mr. Savoy, that occasionally you'll be able to drop in on us again.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Okay, I'd love to.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think we'll move to the next item of business, which is routine motions. I believe you all have a copy of them before you. The clerk has provided them.

Looking at the first motion, about research assistance, would anybody like to move that?

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I so move.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: The second motion is on witness expenses. Would anybody like to move that?

Ms. Judy Sgro: I so move.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Motion three is on a reduced quorum. Are there any comments on that motion?

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Everyone agrees: no meeting shall be held unless there is at least one member of the opposition present. I stress this because I want to be perfectly clear.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro: I so move.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Next is a good topic, meals. Mr. Ménard wants to move this motion, I know.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I am presently at a very healthy weight, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: I noticed.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: The next motion deals with Orders in Council.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: It is moved.

[English]

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Next is document distribution.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: I so move.

[English]

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Next is transcripts of meetings in camera.

Ms. Judy Sgro: I so move.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Finally, 48 hours' notice. This is the usual notice of motion.

Yes, Mr. Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Are there not certain committees where it is not 24 hours? In any case, if there were ever an emergency, the committee could waive that particular rule with unanimous consent. It is possible that we would have to deal with the situation that demands that the notice not be 48 hours. We must ensure that we have some flexibility in the event of an emergency situation.

[English]

The Chair: Did you notice the first phrase in the motion, “That unless there is unanimous consent”? Should an emergency situation arise, I would, through the clerk, call the committee to meet, and then we could have unanimous consent to adopt motions given that day.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's fine.

[English]

The Chair: Is that okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, would somebody like to move this motion?

Mr. Ray Bonin: I so move.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

• 1125

The Chair: I call your notice to the last sentence in that motion. At another committee, we ran into a couple of situations in which motions were sometimes filed at, let's just say, 11 a.m. on a Friday, which means the 48-hour rule would apply by Tuesday. However, a lot of our members flew in Tuesday morning and had left maybe on Friday morning. They were seeing the motion for the first time as they arrived at their offices, or even as they arrived at the meeting itself.

We're trying to eliminate that possibility in order to give every person who has a vote the right to have at least 24 hours to think about the motion, by trying not to allow motions to be put forward on a Friday. They can be put forward on Friday, but they will be deemed to have arrived on Monday. That should give everybody sufficient time to check with their researchers and to think the thing through before being asked to vote on it. I see that as an improvement.

Thank you.

Under the matter of routine, there is the matter of Mr. Ménard's request that the meeting time be perhaps changed in order to allow him to attend a Tuesday morning course.

Mr. Ménard, there's one thing I wasn't clear on. Is that course on Thursday mornings as well?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No.

[English]

The Chair: Just Tuesdays?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

The clerk has done some research for us. The bad news is that it is difficult to put a meeting into another block. You know how the committees are in group A, group B, and group C, or one, two, and three? We're in group two. If we move into either the group one or group three block, we can't guarantee a meeting room. If we happen to snag one, let's just say for Tuesday at 3:30, which was your request, we could be bumped and could be scrambling at the last minute, trying to find a place.

The good news is that it would be possible, with the committee's concurrence—this is entirely up to you, but I'm just telling you what the options are—to do the meeting from 11:30 to 1:30, or 12 o'clock until 2 p.m. I know, though, that certain people will be preparing questions and statements for question period, so that's why it's totally up to you as to whether or not you want to make these moves.

I would be willing to accept a motion from the floor on meeting times within those parameters. We're booked for 11 o'clock until 1 p.m., and we know that's okay. We could go from 11:15 to 1:15, from 11:30 to 1:30, from 11:45 to 1:45, or from 12 o'clock until 2 p.m. If someone would like to pick something out that they think is suitable there...

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Could I have a clarification, Madam Chair? If we go from 11:30 to 1:30, how does it affect Ménard?

The Chair: He can probably get here by about 12:15, I believe.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: That would not allow me to attend the committee meeting. I do not want all the others to change their schedules just for me, but I had asked the chairman and the clerk to check if it would be possible to have it in the afternoon.

I am not available Tuesday morning. Whether it is at 11:15 or 11:30 doesn't change anything. I would be able to come Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday afternoon. I was told that it would be easier to get a room on Wednesday afternoon.

Now it's not the end of the world if I can't attend, and this will only be the case until April, but I do feel it's unfortunate to have to miss every other meeting. The committee members will find that I'm a relatively likeable person overall.

[English]

The Chair: The clerk did investigate Wednesday afternoon, and he says we are still bumpable out of whatever room we might be assigned on Wednesday afternoon at 3:30. Should we want to strike subcommittees, as many committees do, Wednesday at 3:30 is usually reserved for them, and they need rooms. Those subcommittees are not struck yet... well, a couple of committees have subcommittees, but we haven't even had time to think about whether we want one or not. In my mind's eye, I was saving Wednesday at 3:30 for the meeting of any subcommittee that we might strike.

Ms. Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: This seems to be a temporary problem. Réal's course runs until when, mid-April or...

• 1130

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: It ends in mid-April.

[English]

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: To the end of April?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.

[English]

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: There's a two-week break in April, and then there's a week break in March. So we're talking about probably four weeks of meetings.

What I would suggest we might do, Madam Chairman, is hold our Tuesday meetings for those four weeks from 12 noon to 2 p.m. Mr. Ménard will be able to make most of the meetings, and we will be sure of a room and not be running all over or missing messages about room changes, which could disrupt the work of the committee. That would be a way, I think, for everyone to have the best of all worlds. Then we could go back to our regular schedule at the end of April.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Are you suggesting Wednesdays from 12 noon until 2 o'clock?

[English]

The Chair: Tuesday from 12 noon to 2 p.m.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: That won't solve the problem for me.

Madam Chair, if that's the case let's keep the status quo. If it's not held in the afternoon, it won't solve my problem. I do not want us to change anything if it doesn't solve my problem. I thought that it would be easier to get a room on Wednesday afternoon. If that's not the case, let's keep the status quo and I will find someone to substitute for me for four weeks. It's not the end of the world.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

If that's the case, I don't believe we need a motion, because we are scheduled from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. anyway.

Thank you for the suggestion.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I'm sorry, I understood Mr. Ménard would be available at 12:15 p.m., so...

The Chair: That's what I thought, too, but he says it doesn't help him.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Okay.

The Chair: It's for a short period, anyway.

Madam Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Just to make your life miserable, I'm on the procedure and House affairs committee from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. every Tuesday and Thursday, and I can't be in two places at once.

The Chair: I'm going to speak to the whip. Perhaps I could do a little survey here to find out the number of people who have assignments that conflict—that is, assignments that start at 11 a.m. or 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday and Thursday. It's going to be ridiculous if so many people can't come.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'm the only one.

The Chair: No, you're not the only one. There are two people on the HRDC committee and one on the environment committee, I believe. They've just changed to 9 a.m., apparently. I don't know how they did that, because we're discouraged...

Madam Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro: I have the justice committee in the afternoons. Are we talking about the afternoons?

The Chair: No, we're talking about 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Ms. Judy Sgro: We go from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., so we'll be okay on that one.

The Chair: You're okay.

Mr. Dromisky, are you okay?

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Bonin is not here.

Mr. Owen.

Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): I'm fine. I'm on the justice committee as well.

The Chair: Okay, good.

Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: Personally, I have always preferred meetings from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00, but if that is not possible I understand. I do not like meetings at noon, because it is too close to Question Period. Having said that, if it's impossible to have 9 o'clock to 11 o'clock meetings because of scheduling conflicts or the availability of rooms... But I prefer early morning meetings.

[English]

The Chair: I understand your feelings, but I'm not really asking how we feel about 11 o'clock. I'm asking if you have a conflict.

Mr. André Bachand: I know.

The Chair: Mr. Lunney, are you clear at 11 a.m.?

Mr. James Lunney: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes.

The Chair: Madam Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yes.

The Chair: Good. So we just have Madam Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Oh, good. We'll just move me to another committee.

The Chair: I'll talk to the whip about that, but I don't think there's anything she can do because attending the procedure and House affairs committee is absolutely mandatory for you.

So we've solved that problem.

Now there's the problem of what to do in the short time we have before the one-week break—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Chairman, I have a question about the business of the committee, and that is about the time to question witnesses. I'm just assuming it will be divided as it is in question period and in speaking in the House, where the official opposition will have half the opposition question time. I just want to confirm that so that we know what to expect.

• 1135

The Chair: I hadn't figured it out from the point of view of half the opposition time, but it would seem to me that with three members... Do you have two members on this committee?

Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We also have to agree on a motion concerning time allocation. It's clear that there is no committee where the Alliance has half the time.

[English]

The Chair: There was a possible routine motion that talked about questioning time. It never did talk about it in that manner, that the official opposition would have half the opposition time. It talked about it more from the point of view of individual questioners having a certain number of minutes.

To tell you the truth, I thought that was awfully long, considering the size of the committee. I think it said seven minutes for the first questioner of each party, in the following order: Reform, Bloc, Liberal, New Democrat, Progressive Conservative. Thereafter, three minutes should be allocated to each questioner.

I figured that out, and I figured we'd never get out of here. I thought maybe we could get to know each other a bit and then, maybe at the third meeting, talk about how we're going to do the questioning. Would that be okay, rather than narrowing it down exactly today?

I think it's important that we have enough time for the answerers to answer, but at some of the committees I've attended, it seems to me, if it's five minutes, I've listened to four and a half minutes of speech and 30 seconds of question, with almost no time left for the witness. That puts the chair in the awkward position of inviting witnesses but then, in accordance with the agreed-upon time schedule, not really having any time to let them answer. I end up cutting off people who have taken time out of their busy lives to fly here—and we're paying for it—and then not listening to them.

So I really haven't had time to sit down with the clerk to try to come up with a system that limits the questioner's time and allows the answer to be at least as long as the question.

If you would give me that latitude, I will try to work that out. I'll try to talk to a few of you about that.

Madam Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yes, I'm quite prepared to do that. I think it's very sensible. I'm just surprised that the chair would think the wisdom of the witnesses would supersede the wisdom of the MPs.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: I think Madam Ablonczy actually agrees with me on that one.

Thank you very much.

In a couple of weeks, when we get back from the break, I'll report to you on what we can at least propose. That doesn't mean we couldn't change it, but at least we should have a proposal on the table. I just was not satisfied with the routine motion put in front of me that seems to be the norm around here. I'm trying to make this committee work well for all of us.

Now, we have a lot of members new not only to the committee—I am one—but also to the Hill. From the point of view of federal-provincial jurisdiction, for example, I think it's important that we understand what areas we can legitimately talk about here.

We don't want to spin our wheels by talking about things about which we can do nothing because we do not have the power, as allocated in the constitution, to do something. I think for that reason it's important to have the officials in to tell us what they're doing and also to answer our questions on this very important topic of what is our business and what is not.

I understand that the temptation is to be responsive to the concerns that our own constituents bring to us in our constituency office and send to us in their letters, but the fact is, many of those problems they face are problems of the management of the health care system. That is really not our business, in the truest sense of the word. It doesn't mean we can't comment on the odd thing, or study the issues, or use what I call the federal “bully pulpit” to try to drive some agenda forward. But from the point of view of actually delivering something to our citizens, we don't have a whole lot of room to manoeuvre. I think it would be good if we all got that clear right at the outset.

• 1140

I'm proposing something that is very normal in this situation of having new members—namely, that we invite in the officials to give us an overview. I actually think we'll probably need them twice, first to tell us what they want us to hear and then to take questions, after our giving them some preparatory time for those answers in terms of what we want to learn.

Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Ray Bonin: I move that we invite them next Tuesday. I say next Tuesday because quite often we say the next meeting. I find they don't have the proper time to prepare and they come here and read brochures to us. I can read. So I'd like to give them time so they can prepare something concrete. We can work from that and do our work more efficiently.

I move that we invite them next Tuesday.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I second the motion.

[English]

The Chair: I was thinking of two visits. But if we're going to wait until we come back from the break, I'm wondering if you have some questions now that you would like to submit before the end of this week. They might be able to work the answers in at their first visit. If it's not to our satisfaction, we can ask them to come back a second time.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Are you asking for questions?

The Chair: I'm not going to write questions down. I'm going to ask you if you agree with that proposal, submit them to the clerk before the end of the week.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Oh, all right.

The Chair: Right now we have a motion from Mr. Bonin, seconded by Mr. Ménard, that we invite the officials for the first Tuesday when we're back after the break.

Are there any comments on that motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: That pretty well precludes the need for a meeting on Thursday, if in fact we're having our first overview on the Tuesday we come back.

Is that agreeable to everyone?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I'll just remind you that if you submit some questions to the clerk, we could ask the officials to try to work them into their presentation.

Madam Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro: I have a question. You raise the issue of accountability and our role at the federal level in looking for accountability. Now you've made the appropriate comments. Do I still need to submit it in writing or have the appropriate staff note the point?

The Chair: No, I think we're going to ask the officials to present to us what they think we need to understand to be good committee members. Hopefully they will supplement that with answers to any questions we submit in writing.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Fine.

The Chair: Okay. I don't want to try to read the mind of the committee at this point. I think individuals will have specific things they want to know.

Is there any other business?

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I don't know how far we can go in this committee, but I have a chief concern regarding the relationship of the Department of Indian Affairs with the Ministry of Health. I'm wondering if we should bring somebody in from the Department of Indian Affairs regarding the health services provided for aboriginals.

The Chair: If you could articulate that in a written query, perhaps they would answer it as part of their presentation.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: All right, I'll do that.

The Chair: Yes. I would hope that we won't have six questions per member. I would suggest one or two, if they're really going to manage it, because I have a feeling the interests of the committee members will be rather eclectic. It's only fair that the officials are allowed some time to touch on each topic that each of you might raise.

Mr. Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: There are many issues that come under both the environment and health, particularly the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, legislation that was sponsored by both the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health. It often happens, and I point this out because there are several new members on the committee, that these issues straddle both jurisdictions.

The same thing is true with agriculture. Everyone was able to hear the questions that were asked in the House concerning Brazilian beef, for example. There are lots of issues that concern both agriculture and health. It would be nice to sort this out for all the members of the committee. I could write it down and you could also convey this to the authorities. These are well-known problems. We can see what is happening when there are questions on these issues in the House.

• 1145

[English]

The Chair: Good, thank you.

I thank you for being succinct, everyone. I hope we're setting a pattern here. It's 11:44 a.m., according to the clock up here. That one is not dependable, obviously.

Seeing no further business, I declare this meeting adjourned.