Publication Search

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Welcome everyone to the committee's last meeting. Madam Minister, thank you for being here. Welcome. I would also like to thank all of your officials who are here with you today.

I want to begin by reading an excerpt from page 165 of the main estimates for 2011-12. It describes the votes for this year. I will read you the two paragraphs that outline the main estimates under the heading of Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada:

The Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada is estimating expenditures of $10.6 million in 2011-12. Of this amount, $9.9 million requires approval by Parliament. The remaining $628.6 thousand represents statutory forecasts that do not require additional approval and are provided for information purposes.

The last paragraph is where it gets interesting:

In total, the department is estimating an increase of $31.2 thousand, or 0.3% from previous Main Estimates.

Madam Minister, could you please explain why the main estimates for the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada have increased for the upcoming year, when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of Quebec on December 23, 2010 with respect to its challenge of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act? The judgment states that the federal government does not have the right to regulate human infertility research or medical practices.

Madam Minister, why did the person who calculated these votes for the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada not take into account the Supreme Court of Canada ruling? Why have the estimates gone up?

Madam Minister, are you telling us that it will nevertheless cost $6 million to perform two functions, in other words, providing the public with general information on assisted human reproduction and obtaining advice on the matter? How much will that cost next year? Will you do $6 million worth of advertising?

How long will that take?

What will the agency do in the next few months?

Madam Minister, as you are aware, there were questions about the relevance of some of the agency's expenditures in previous fiscal years.

Did you ask the agency to hold off on any further spending until you had made a decision regarding its future?

Very well. I understand what you said perfectly, Madam Minister.

But I would like to know specifically how you instructed the agency to behave in terms of its spending in the next year. Did you ask the agency to hold off on all spending until you had made your decision, which will be based on the feedback you are going to receive?

Are you telling me then, Ms. Yeates, that roughly $7 million a year is spent on the following activities: delivering information to the public and advising the minister? That is what the Supreme Court said in its ruling.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

In the main estimates for 2011-12, the contributions in support of the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy have not changed from last year, in other words, they are still $15.7 million.

Madam Minister, you will no doubt recall that the last time you were here, you told us you were going to refocus the strategy to target contraband tobacco activities more directly. You went on to explain that you had changed your mind and had refocused the strategy on new warning labels, moving away from what you had announced last fall and revamping the entire contraband tobacco strategy.

I said to you then that you could do both, and that a true tobacco control strategy should consist of two key activities: encouraging people to quit smoking and keeping contraband tobacco off the black market.

In response to a question from a Liberal colleague, Ms. Yeates seemed to say that the entire contraband strategy would be solely in the hands of the RCMP. Yet you said during a press conference that Health Canada also had a hand in combatting contraband tobacco activities.

I would just like to know whether that $15.7 million will allow for a comprehensive strategy that truly integrates both of the components necessary to ensure that the public stops smoking once and for all.

Please go to my colleagues across the way then, if that is what you want, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank all the witnesses for being with us this afternoon.

Ms. Yeates, last time you were here, I shared my concern about having patients who use marijuana for medical purposes break the law. I was saying that because their possession certificates and production licences could not be renewed on time because the department was not able to process the claims within the given timeframe.

You told me at the time that the situation was going to be resolved any day or any week, and that you were on top of the situation and there was going to be a solution.

But I am still reading in the media that patients are being told by people from your department that their files are fine and in good standing, but that they will have to wait because of a shortage of staff.

So these people are still living illegally. Can you tell us when this situation will actually be resolved?

On the same issue, I must say I was amused this morning to read in the Information Commissioner's report that Health Canada has replaced its approval process for highly sensitive cases with a notification process. The report also said that this change has resulted in improved turnaround times and compliance for access to information requests, of course. But last September 28, I made an access to information request to your department to find out how many individuals were in the illegal situation I was describing to you earlier in terms of accessing marijuana for medical purposes. I have been waiting for an answer for 163 days now, which obviously exceeds the standards. Where is my request? Madam, why don't I have access to this information?

But in terms of my access to information request specifically, why have I still not received an answer after 163 days, when the Information Commissioner says that you have put a process in place to speed things up in very sensitive cases? Does the process work for other people but not for me?

Thank you very much.

Ms. Yeates, going back to our last meeting here, I asked you whether, under the Natural Health Products Regulations, any applications were due in March. You said no and that the 30-month rule would apply. But then I read, again in the media, that Health Canada had sent an email to Radio-Canada on December 22 to say that the March 1 deadline had to be pushed back. What was the March 1 deadline you had not told me about when you appeared before the committee in November?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Butler-Jones, in the supplementary estimates (C), we read that the Public Health Agency is going to make a transfer to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada for developing a national standard for psychological health and safety in the workplace. This seems to be a complete intrusion into the constitutional jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

Can you tell me why we need to establish a Canada-wide standard for psychological health and safety in the workplace? Also, are you able to tell me who is going to participate in developing this standard?

Thank you.

It has been agreed that the increasing use of antibiotics creates resistant pathogens in various species.

My question is for Dr. Beaudet and perhaps also for Dr. Butler-Jones.

I have been asking myself the following question. Have studies been done to see, for example, what happens in animals that have developed resistance, that is to say where pathogens have become resistant to antibiotics? When taken by human beings, are the people affected directly or do the pathogens that affect people become more resistant because the person ate meat from animals that have developed this resistance?

Have studies been done on this issue?

Yes, go ahead, I can understand you.