HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 9, 1998

• 0907

[English]

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

This is the 45th meeting of the Standing Committee on Health. Today we will be studying the proposed tobacco regulation changes on seizure and restoration and the proposed tobacco regulation changes under access.

We welcome here today two witnesses from Health Canada, Luc Ladouceur and Denis Choinière. Luc, you're the director, so you can start. Just give us a short presentation and then maybe walk us through the papers we have here. Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Luc Ladouceur (Director, Office of Tobacco Control, Health Canada): I had prepared my introductory notes in French and I will be presenting them in French if you don't mind. In any case, I'll be able to answer your questions in English and in French.

As you mentioned, I am Luc Ladouceur and I am the Director of the Office of Tobacco Control at Health Canada. With me is Denis Choinière, the coordinator of the Regulatory and Compliance Division in the same office.

Our office is responsible for three activity sectors: drafting of regulations, enforcement of the Tobacco Act, including regulations, and research, which is the analysis of tobacco products, etc.

[English]

Should I repeat?

The Chair: I'm not hooked up at all. I don't know about anybody else.

[Translation]

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: You have before you two regulatory plans. They're part of a series of plans that the department will be suggesting over the coming years. In those regulations yet to come, there is the one on the reports and information on tobacco products, the one on labelling and the one on publicity. There might be others added on later.

As you may know, we have to write regulations to complete some of the clauses of the Act and define its application more specifically.

I'll now address one of the regulations you have before you, the one on access. I think you were provided with the document this morning.

[English]

Does everyone have the document?

The Chair: Can I ask you to speak a little more slowly for the translators when you're speaking in French, please?

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: Okay.

[Translation]

This regulation on access maintains the provisions of section 5 of the regulation on tobacco sales to minors which came into force in 1994. So we're maintaining the same...

[English]

The Chair: It's okay now. They had the wrong button on.

• 0910

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Choinière (Acting Coordinator, Regulatory and Compliance Program, Office of Tobacco Control, Health Canada): I'd like to make sure that everyone has the same document. It's the one headed: "The House of Commons of Canada, Tobacco Act, proposed tobacco (access) regulations". You were handed another document headed: "Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement".

[English]

The Chair: I have one here. We're trying to get the right documents here.

Is it the Tobacco Act, seizure and restoration?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Choinière: That's not one we're talking about right now. It's the one on access.

[English]

The Chair: It's this one.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Choinière: Then we'll talk about the one on seizure and restoration. At the end of our presentation, we'll address both draft regulatory impact analysis statements. There are two: one for the access regulations and the other one on seizure and restoration.

[English]

The Chair: Are you speaking from one or the other? What are you doing now? Are you just making a general statement?

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: Right now I'm talking about the access rate.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: I'll just give you a quick summary of what's in there, and then maybe we can discuss it in more detail.

[Translation]

As I was saying previously, the access regulations maintain provisions set out in section 5 of the regulation on tobacco sales to minors which came into effect in 1994. This regulation has to do with the shape, the size, the content, the number and the siting of the signs that can be placed by tobacco product retailers.

This regulation still exempts from the provisions those retailers located in a province whose legislation also prohibits the sale of tobacco products to minors and, in the same way, requires the use of signs indicating the prohibition. In other words, if a province requires the use of more detailed signs, that's the legislation that will apply. So we exempt them from this regulation which is for the provinces which do not require the use of signs like these.

The regulation specifies what documents may be used to check the person's age under 8(2) of the Tobacco Act. Shopkeepers or retailers don't always know exactly which documents must be used to verify the age of people who want to buy tobacco products. In the proposed regulations, the documents that can be used to verify the age of the buyer under the Act are listed. The list of documents includes those that are normally required as proof of identity for other activities. They are nothing new. These are not new documents we have to invent. These are documents that exist already.

The proposed regulations also include a new element compared to what we had in 1994. This regulation exempts duty-free operators for their self-service counters because they're not selling directly or are selling only to people leaving the country. However, they are still under the obligation of verifying the age of the people who will be using the tobacco products.

This regulation also exempts wholesalers selling tobacco products to retailers, in other words those who are not selling directly to the public. These are transactions between corporations. So they can have self-serve counters. It's another exemption. That comes about from the delay we had between 1994 and 1997. Some tobacco companies asked us to exclude those two sales levels. These are not direct sales to the public.

Generally speaking, that's what is in the access regulations. They mainly have to do with signage, proof of age documents and the two exemptions for sales between businesses and tobacco companies. At the end of the day, it's status quo except for the two or three little additional nuances at that level.

• 0915

Let's go to the regulations on seizure and restoration. We'll be coming back to that regulation later when we talk about impact analysis.

The regulation on seizure and restoration is rather technical in nature. A procedure is provided for in the Tobacco Act for seized products. If, during an inspection and legal proceedings, products are seized, whether they are tobacco products or any other material, the regulations set out the kind of notice that must be given to the Minister of Health if the person whose goods were seized asks for restoration. It's a procedure indicating how the seized products can be reclaimed.

I'll give you a bit of an historical perspective. These proposed regulations had already been tabled in the House of Commons in March 1997. They were considered by the Standing Committee on Health of the day. I am led to believe that there's hardly anyone left of the original members of that committee there today. These plans did undergo minor changes since. They were not approved then because elections were called. So they were delayed.

I've just listed the changes. You provide the list of documents for proof of age and so on. After consultations that occurred after the draft regulations were published in Part I of the Canada Gazette, the regulations on tobacco were changed. I repeat that the manufacturer and the self-serve wholesaler enjoy an additional exemption.

I covered the summary of those documents. As Denis mentioned, you were also provided with copies of the regulatory impact analysis statements. It's a more detailed analysis of the impact of those regulations on access, seizure and restoration. Denis will give you an overview of the two impact analyses.

Mr. Denis Choinière: I'll address the impacts mentioned in both regulatory impact analysis statements.

Concerning access, we foresee minor impacts as the documents required from potential consumers are generally documents everyone already has, for example a health insurance card with a photo or a driver's licence. Most adults have those cards. We don't foresee any inconvenience for retailers with the signage, either. The signs will be the same as previously.

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: I can send around copies of the sign.

Mr. Denis Choinière: Our inspectors provide these signs to retailers at no cost. So the retailers don't have any excuse because they get them for free.

As for the proposed regulations on seizure, once again there's no additional cost for the tobacco product manufacturers or the distributors because it's simply a procedure that they can trigger before a local court. Unless there are lawyer's fees, there are no unusual costs associated with this plan in the case of a request for restoration of materials seized.

Basically, that's all the impact we foresee in the case of those regulations. We're now ready to answer any questions you might have.

[English]

The Chair: Maybe we don't have any.

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): I notice on the proposals there is no date specified. I also note on the act itself the date is open to Governor in Council. I've heard it said that these proposals will come into force in two years and then five years, but I don't see those dates anywhere specifically. Can you help me find those dates?

Mr. Denis Choinière: Yes. This is the way the Department of Justice drafts the regulations. They come into force on the day they are made.

• 0920

The Chair: Is it made or passed?

Mr. Denis Choinière: The technical term is made. When they are registered they are made. A few days after registration, they are published in the Canada Gazette, part II. So the technical term is the regulations are made or registered.

Mr. Grant Hill: I'm after some reassurance that there is a date when the law will come into effect. I can't find that as I read the law. I understand these will not come into effect until the date they are published and what not, but I would like reassurance that there is a date on which we can expect this law to come into effect.

Mr. Denis Choinière: My comments were for these regulations. I think your comments also touch upon Bill C-22, which was tabled. I cannot comment on that bill. We are not the spokespersons for the bill and we have not been briefed to talk about the bill. I can only tell you how these regulations will come into force, which is when they are registered or technically made.

The Chair: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Could you be a little more specific as to when you expect these to be made?

Mr. Denis Choinière: They will be made as soon as they go through the House of Commons. After this committee issues a report, the House has to vote on whether or not it agrees with your report, if there is a report. After that we will submit the regulations to be published in the Canada Gazette, part II. We say published, but there is one step involved there, which is the registration of the regulations. When they are registered, that's technically when we say the Governor in Council has made the regulations. A few days after they are registered they are published in part II of the Canada Gazette.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Is it reasonable—

The Chair: Sorry, it's Mr. Hill's time.

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: I guess by the time you look at these regulations, produce a report, and go through the House of Commons, if you're in session, we're looking maybe at early fall for them to come into force.

Mr. Grant Hill: There are two reasons to ask this question. First, we're setting precedent here in this committee. Normally these would not come to the committee at all, so this is a precedent and it's important we make certain we understand that.

The second reason to ask this question is I believe the law will be in effect before these regulations are passed—not the new law, but the law we passed previously. There will be a gap in time when individuals will be breaking the law, according to the law. We have changes coming along that will make the signage no longer illegal, but there will be a span of time. It's very sloppy for the Government of Canada to be bringing in a law October 1 and passing regulations later that will have the status quo maintained for a period of time. I want to be sure I understand this is in fact what will happen.

Mr. Denis Choinière: I'll give you a bit of the background for the access regulations, in answer to your statement. The current regulations on sales to young persons are still in effect. Those regulations were adopted in February 1994 and they govern the signs, the same signs we have now. When these new regulations on access come into force, they will revoke the previous regulations. We'll continue those and add two more things. We'll add the issue of the duty-free shops, and the exemption for manufacturers and retailers for section 11, which is the self-serve displays—

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: And the document for proof of age.

Mr. Denis Choinière: These regulations are not put in place to regulate sponsorship promotion at all. They have no bearing on the October 1 date; they are totally independent.

The seizure regulations are new because the new act, former Bill C-71, has a provision regarding seizure and provides an opportunity for people who have their goods seized to go to court and ask for restoration of those goods in front of a judge of the courts. That's totally new and it's only technical.

• 0925

Right now people are not breaking the law or anything like that because they are not applying to court. There's no such thing. It's fairly technical if you want just to implement the procedure that is provided by the bill. That regulation has no bearing either on sponsorship promotion.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Hill?

Aileen Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a second question, but I initially wanted to ask one on another matter.

My understanding is that we have a federal-provincial component to these regulations. I encountered it shortly after being elected last summer with a lot of very angry purchasers of locations for mom-and-pop stores in Barrie, which is in my riding, where there had been previous convictions of former owners. The convictions run with the land, which nobody knew.

New people purchased the stores—and of course, as you know, the sale of tobacco is a huge part of their incomes—and found out after the sale or the closing date that they had purchased a shop or location wherein they were prohibited from selling tobacco because of numerous other convictions. This just came in the door with a lot of other issues and of course they came to me as a federal MP. As we got into the matter, I determined that it was provincial.

So can you just help me out? Is there a clarification now or does their purview remain the same? And is ours still separate?

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: Basically you're talking about the sign itself?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I guess I'm talking about contravention of the law. So you just want to stay with the sign? This sign was—

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: Basically, that sign you're holding in your hand reflects what is in the text.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Which is the federal text.

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: Yes, and wherever you don't have further provincial restrictions by the prevention act.... For instance, in British Columbia or other places they would have regulations for bigger signs and/or laws to enforce bigger signs that have a health message. Those would prevail. But elsewhere, like other provinces, like Quebec, for now, until they come up with their new act, this would be the requirement.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: And this would be the sole requirement.

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: The sole requirement.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: In Quebec.

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: Exactly.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: But not in Ontario.

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: No. In Ontario they have their own regulation, which is different from this one.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: So which is....

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: A rule of thumb, from what we gather from our legal advice, is that where you have a stricter regulation or law, it prevails.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: That's right. It applies. It prevails.

So then just for my benefit as an Ontario MP, that brings me to the crux of it: do these new regulations bring in an adherence to a law that is stricter than the current Ontario one? Which will prevail now?

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: On the signage, I believe the Ontario law will remain, because as I mentioned before, this is basically the status quo from what was there in 1994, as a matter of fact. We are modifying certain aspects of the regulation, but not the signage.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: And where there is a violation, they'll be prosecuted under federal law?

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: If the sign is more restrictive than the Ontario.... It will be, I guess, the Ontario court system or legal prosecution process.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you.

Madam Chair, thanks for that.

I just wanted to ask one question about duty-free shops. And I apologize—I had an earlier engagement—for not being here when you addressed this.

Mr. Denis Choinière: Do you mind if I add something about the first part?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Please do.

Mr. Denis Choinière: With respect to the new regulations, subclause 4(2) shows where it is written in the access regulations that in a province that has requirements regarding the posting of signs these regulations do not apply. The provincial regulation is the only one that applies in that case.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: So these don't kick in at all.

• 0930

Mr. Denis Choinière: Ontario, British Columbia, and the four Atlantic provinces have provincial requirements to that effect in regard to having signs, so these are not required in those provinces.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Then, consistent with that, any prosecutions that occur will stay in the provincial domain.

Mr. Denis Choinière: Yes.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: That helps, thank you. When they come to my door, I'll send them to my provincial counterpart.

My second question is in regard to duty-free shops. Am I correct in understanding that they must have signage?

Mr. Denis Choinière: Yes.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Indeed? So they're no longer exempted. The same regulations are in force for them.

Mr. Denis Choinière: Yes. The only exemption is for self-service displays. Usually, self-service displays are not allowed except if regulations provide exemptions. These regulations will provide two exemptions, one being for duty-free shops. That's the only exemption, the one for self-service displays.

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: The other exemption is from wholesalers to retailers. Those wholesaler stores sell only to retailers, so therefore they normally have self-service shelves, you see. That's the other exemption.

The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

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

I guess I'm still confused. I realize what we have before us in terms of the regulations pertaining to part of Bill C-71, but my understanding was that there are a number of other regulations required to bring Bill C-71 fully into effect and make it operational, notwithstanding the regulations around sponsorship, because I realize that will now be part of a new bill.

When can we expect—unless I've missed this—regulations regarding the following: first, the minimum package sizes of cigars, chewing tobacco, etc.; second, security devices for dispensing machines; third, displays of tobacco products and accessories; fourth, the size, content number and placement of price signs; fifth, packaging, labelling issues, warning labels and information leaflets; sixth, levels for cigarette and smoke ingredients; seventh, the prohibition of additives; and eighth, emission sales, data product composition, ingredients and hazardous properties, etc.?

These are things that I understand are all part of Bill C-71 and need to be brought—

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: That will keep us busy for quite a while.

As an example, as part of these two regulations we have issued an information letter about the process we go through. It's an information letter that was released on the reporting regulations. That's another set of regulations that we're in the process of articulating, if you like. We go through a consultation phase first and we issue an information letter which basically informs the stakeholders of the intention of the department in terms of making a regulation.

The one we have out right now is on reporting, which will oblige the tobacco companies to give us information on all the contaminants or chemical products that go into a cigarette and on all the recipes they use to make the cigarettes, so we will get more intelligence on what's in the product.

We're also starting to work on the labelling, on the packaging itself, in regard to the regulations. The promotion and the sponsorship, of course, as you mentioned, will come after whenever the amendment to Bill C-71 comes into force, but we do have quite a few regulations on our list.

We know that we need to enforce and to further define a section of the act via regulation. It's a long process because you have to consult, and, I guess, take under consideration both sides of the equation, both the manufacturers and the health groups. It's in the work plans within the next year or two. As well, most of these regulations you have mentioned will be in the process of being finalized.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm still concerned—and I wasn't around last year—that more than a year has passed since Bill C-71 was passed in the House of Commons and that a good part of this act is still not in effect or in force because of the need for regulations. Are you waiting for direction from the political level in order to move on various sections of the act? I just don't understand why some of the very basic issues haven't been moved on and the consultation process begun.

• 0935

Mr. Denis Choinière: Last year, when the regulations were tabled, there was a third set of regulations, the labelling and reporting regulations. It's not in front of you. That's because we've been working since last fall at beefing up, I think the term would be, the reporting regulations and the labelling. We split those two into two different proposals.

The first part is reporting, and that's the information letter that was made public last week for consultation. We're also revising the labelling regulations and working on promotion regulations. So it's part of our agenda; we're working on those.

On the status quo—we call them status quo, because they were just maintaining the labelling requirements of the previous labelling regulations—we decided not to go ahead with the status quo. We decided to revisit and make those requirements up to date, based on research we carried out between 1994 and 1997. We decided to go ahead and use that new information we've collected to make what we hope will be better regulations.

So we are working on the regulations. It just takes time when you revisit those issues. Some of them are more complex than others, but we will be bringing forward those regulations and those proposals in the next few months.

One you have mentioned a bit are the standards regulations, where we will be maybe modifying products. This requires more investigation. We will not have a proposal this year. We hope perhaps to have a proposal next year, when we'll have studied the issue more in depth and we'll have better ground to stand on.

The Chair: Judy, your time is up, so we'll come back and you can have time again.

Lynn Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to go to the issue of sale to minors and the whole issue of compliance. I wondered if you could talk a little bit about enforcement and penalty, and perhaps get into whether or not you think it's at an appropriate level or if it should be beefed up a bit.

Mr. Denis Choinière: Are you talking about sales to minors?

Mr. Lynn Myers: Sales to minors, and when I talk about enforcement and compliance and those kinds of issues, I'm thinking of both those who are buying and those who are selling.

Mr. Denis Choinière: Okay. I'll try to talk about the philosophy behind the approach to sales to minors.

An old act—I think it was passed around 1914 or something like that—made illegal sales but also possession to people 16 years of age or younger. When the issue was revisited, and before the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act was proposed in 1993, it was decided back then—I won't say “we”, because I wasn't there back then, but it was decided—that we would not make possession of tobacco illegal. It was decided that the responsibility should be more on the adults, and that the act we would make illegal would be the sale—not the buying, not the possession, but the sale—of the products.

The responsibility should be on the shoulders of usually the adult, or the business behind the adult, who makes the product available to the kid. So that's the level we're looking at.

Since February 1994 we've had these requirements in place. Since that time, many provinces have also established similar requirements. We have, if you want, a tripartite enforcement system. I'm going to explain that.

In provinces where only the Tobacco Act is in force and there's no provincial, we have federal inspectors. Right now we have three provinces where that's the situation: Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Alberta.

Some provinces.... Actually I think this is the only province where we have a hybrid system: we have federal inspectors working with provincial inspectors. Usually provincial inspectors will do most of the work for sales to minors. Federal inspectors will enforce the other provisions of the act that are not concerned directly with sales to minors.

In the other provinces—the five Atlantic provinces and British Columbia—we have totally passed the program to provinces, and we have a cooperative agreement whereby we give a certain amount of money for them to enforce provisions of the federal Tobacco Act outside of their sales to minors provisions. But in those five provinces, the sales to minors provisions are found in the provincial legislation, and those are the provisions that are enforced.

• 0940

Across Canada, we have about 45 federal inspectors. We don't have any inspectors in those five provinces I just mentioned—the Atlantic provinces and British Columbia—because we have contribution agreements with those provinces.

If you look at the combining of provincial and federal enforcement last year in sales to minors, we had over 15,000 visits of retailers. I don't have the exact number, but it's over 15,000. And we had about 5,200 surveillance activities.

I'm going to explain what surveillance is. If we receive a complaint that a store is selling to minors, a team, usually two persons working together, will go and, if it's in a shopping mall, for example, will watch for three or four hours in a row to see if kids can buy cigarettes—usually cigarettes—from that store. That's roughly what happens.

In terms of prosecution, I believe we had over 1,200 prosecutions in the last fiscal year, of retailers, of clerks a bit, and of third parties.

Mr. Lynn Myers: What are the penalties?

Mr. Denis Choinière: For retailers, the average number we get is that when it's federally prosecuted, it's between $300 and $400 for a first offence. For a second offence, I believe it's around twice that.

For the provinces I'm not sure, because you don't get the same penalties in the Atlantic that you get in Ontario. Usually in the province, they don't do prosecution. They issue a ticket, and the fine is lower on the ticket usually than when you go to court.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I just want to make a point. When I sat on Health and Social Services in the region of Waterloo, which has approximately 500,000 people, and as an area mayor and such, we undertook a study precisely on this issue.

Retailers really—and I think I've been sustained—took the penalty as simply a cost of doing business. It's most unfortunate that that's the case. We found, for example, that a lot of retailers were taking enormous chances, and doing so without any penalty that they thought was onerous to them. Really, $300 to $500 is not a great deal in terms of a penalty.

I don't know if there's something we as a committee can do or if we can make the point, but I would certainly like to personally make the point that it's too low and it needs to be increased. The message needs to be sent.

Mr. Denis Choinière: I'd add that the act already, for the first offence, goes up to $3,000. It's the courts that decide the final amount. The judge will decide.

Also, it serves as a first warning, because the second time they're taken to court, if they're convicted, in Ontario they will get an automatic prohibition.

We also have in the Tobacco Act the possibility of asking for prohibition of selling. The prohibition can go from a few weeks to several months. There have been retailers who have lost the right to sell tobacco for six months. Sometimes—not if it's a chain, but if it's a small retailer—they must go out of business when it's six months, because it hurts them really badly.

These have been made public. You read the newspaper and it's there. So retailers are aware of that. Usually we find that the compliance level increases once they get a first conviction.

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: I can add some statistics. In 1995 the compliance for sales to minors was about 48%, pan-Canadian, and in 1997 it was close to 70%. So there is an improvement. Whether it's the inspection or the enforcement, a series of events makes it happen, but the good sign is it's progressively improving.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Chair, that's encouraging to hear. We found in our study that a lot of warnings were being given and people were not in fact getting nailed with this, because they didn't want to put them out of their livelihood, etc. So I don't know where the message has to come from, but it seems to me it's important that if a law is being broken, you have to proceed, not just simply issue warnings and slap them on the wrist.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We can go on to the next one now. Madame Picard, do you still have a question?

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): No. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you very much.

I'm anxious to see these regulations move ahead, so if it would be appropriate, Madam Chair, I'd like to move that the committee approve the proposed tobacco regulations and report to the House.

In speaking to that very briefly, I think we're all anxious to see this move ahead and are looking forward to the other regulations. The fact that this is the first time that these regulations have been before the health committee I think is noteworthy, and I think it is important for us to support the initiatives of improving the regime, which will see to a healthier society through the kinds of regulations under the Tobacco Act.

• 0945

I agree with my colleague Mr. Myers. I would not support a simple warning. I would like to see the act enforced. I think that's why your compliance numbers are getting better.

The Chair: Is the committee agreed that we accept this motion?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The motion is that the committee approve the proposed tobacco regulations and report to the House.

The Chair: Do you accept the motion?

Mr. Grant Hill: I would like to make a comment.

Because this is a precedent-setting issue, I'm not sure all the questions have been asked and responded to. In fact I wonder if this couldn't be held in abeyance for a look by outside authorities to these regulations. I'm a little bit unsure in my mind whether everything here is going the way it should go.

The Chair: We have a motion on the floor right now.

Mr. Lynn Myers: That would be an amendment to the motion.

The Chair: We have an amendment to the motion.

Mr. Grant Hill: I'm expressing a personal feeling here and seeing if my colleagues are perfectly satisfied. At this stage of the game I'm not perfectly satisfied.

The Chair: Are there any other comments on the motion? Joe.

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): First of all, if the motion had required a seconder, I'd have raised my hand to provide support for that.

We are discussing the motion. As my colleague Mr. Myers says, if it is merely a reflection, that's one thing, and if it's a reflection designed to stimulate a little bit more debate, that's fine. If my colleague is proposing an amendment, then perhaps we might have to discuss what that is.

I appreciate the fact that you're saying this is important from the precedent-setting perspective, if for no other reason. I suspect, though, that it's probably important because the debate that led to these was an extremely sensitive and important debate for members of the committee.

I'm wondering what an outside person—whatever that means—could possibly bring to this table by way of questioning that we are not already bringing to the table. I don't mean by that to be negative, but I do think that if one of the main concerns that's been expressed so far is that these regulations have been long in coming before this committee and yet they have merit, how much longer do we want to put them off?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Exactly.

Mr. Grant Hill: One day.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I don't know. If we're having this dialogue, I guess before you answer the question of whether it's one day or two days or one week or two weeks, what kind of outside authority would you have to examine these?

Mr. Grant Hill: Well, I would have loved to have had these regulations in my hands on Monday and run them by Cynthia Callard and Rob Cunningham, individuals who have long experience in this area, just to say “Do you see anything here that a novice like me would completely overlook?” And then I'd be delighted to have them go post-haste. But I have just this nagging feeling in the back of my head that we have missed something that might be significant.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: It's laudable of any member to want to bring any and all people who have concerns to the table any and every time we consider either regulations or legislation; that's part of the process we go through. But there comes a point when I think we are expected to make a decision on the basis of all the expertise and experience we bring to the table. I dare say, Grant, it's probably at least as insightful and as prodigious as what the two individuals you mentioned could bring. You know, I have as much regard for your opinion and anybody else's around this table who's been on this topic for two and half years.

The Chair: Judy, do you want to speak to the motion?

• 0950

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I find it very hard to vote on the motion when we haven't finished the discussion. You had a speakers list, Madam Chair, of people who had questions to ask of our witnesses. I've got a number of questions pertaining specifically to the regulations before us. I'd like to do that before I make a decision on a motion.

The Chair: There's no problem with that. We'll leave it on the table, and anybody else who wants to speak can speak.

Aileen Carroll's next, then Claude, and Carolyn Bennett. Shall we go through the list?

Judy, you weren't on the list before we had the motion, but these other people did before you.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Are we just continuing then with the speakers list, without reference to the motion?

The Chair: Yes. The motion's on the table. You can refer to it or not, whatever you want to do.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I just wanted to ask, following Mr. Myers' question.... Mr. Myers has more experience than I do, but on the municipal level. I come in asking for clarification on the federal-provincial component, just with the experience I had with the responsible vendor of tobacco and the irresponsible and the consequences that were following. I appreciate your clarification.

Mr. Myers, listen to this, because you may know the answer as well.

I thought there was enforcement also at the municipal level. It seemed to me we were dealing with the cost of enforcing vis-à-vis the practicality of enacting bylaws in support of current federal and provincial legislation. Always the test is do you pass a law that you can or cannot enforce, and what is the cost of enforcement.

I was listening very carefully, and I didn't hear reference just to the municipal. Do you know about that? Am I correct in my understanding? Is there a municipal in Ontario? You can just deal with Ontario if you like.

Mr. Denis Choinière: You're talking about the smoking bylaws, I believe.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: No. I thought we had enforcement people sitting observing as you described as well, on perhaps the county.

Mr. Denis Choinière: In Ontario you have the regional—and the name may have changed—health units. You take the city of Toronto and there's one—well, now it's the mega-city, so they've amalgamated too, but before you had one for the city of Toronto. So maybe at that level they will work more with the municipality.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: And in our area as well.

Mr. Denis Choinière: So in Ontario it's at the regional health department level that the inspectors operate. So where geographically they should impose their will, yes, they will.

It's provincial legislation, but the enforcement in a way you could consider perhaps like municipal in those circumstances. The North Bay regional health unit covers a wide area there; it's not just North Bay. So there's a distinction there.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: So they are in effect compelling compliance with the same legislation, just sharing the enforcement procedures to do so?

Mr. Denis Choinière: The enforcement is done by inspectors at the regional health department.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: So that will continue, even with the regulations that are being brought in, to work as a team in that regard?

Mr. Denis Choinière: The Ontario provincial legislation as we speak right now is enforced by those health units. I forget how many there are now—26 or 30. I forget the exact number.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: That's right. And selling to minors is part of it.

Mr. Denis Choinière: Yes.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: It is one of them. So we're not altering in any way that relationship with the new regulations. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That's all I wanted to ask.

Mr. Myers, do you agree with all that?

The Chair: Mr. Volpe.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I have a quick question, a logistical one.

How many inspectors or what kinds of resources do you have for the inspection process?

Mr. Denis Choinière: At the federal level?

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Right.

Mr. Denis Choinière: We have 45 federal inspectors, and most of them are in the three provinces where we operate alone: Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta. We have now about 12, I believe, in Ontario.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: And your inspection personnel cooperate with the provincial counterparts?

Mr. Denis Choinière: We have contribution agreements with those provinces where we don't have any inspectors, so we are in contact with them for the enforcement of our legislation in those provinces. Where there is a hybrid system, like in Ontario, we work with the inspectors from the regional health departments.

• 0955

Mr. Joseph Volpe: So it's not that you go ahead and conduct inspections and then the province goes ahead and conducts inspections. What you actually do is say okay, we'll go in this area, and you go in another area. Is that what you do?

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: We have a detailed work plan that is agreed to by all the partners and the stakeholders. We only go once.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: The number you gave us of 15,000, when you talked about inspections in this last year, relate exclusively to your personnel, not necessarily to the others, or is it a collective?

Mr. Denis Choinière: It's a collective.

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: But no duplication.

Mr. Denis Choinière: Because of those contribution agreements, we get the numbers from the provinces, so the figure I gave you was for that.

The Chair: Thank you. Claude Drouin.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib): You said something about 45 inspectors in Canada. Is this strictly for proof of age? Do they have a lot of other work together with that?

Mr. Denis Choinière: Yes. The basic work of the inspector is to make sure that the prohibition of sales to minors is enforced, but there's also another part concerning investigations flowing from complaints about publicity, for example, and other aspects of the legislation although there are very few others. It's mainly about publicity.

Mr. Claude Drouin: I may be out of order, and you will tell me if that's the case, Madam Chair. Does smuggling come under your purview? Have you done everything possible to avoid smuggling? We're told that it's still a major problem.

In my riding, a lot of retailers call me up to complain about what are called "cigarettes with a feathered headdress". For those retailers who lost a lot of sales because the supermarkets are now open seven days a week, cigarettes were important. They want to respect the law that prohibits sales of tobacco to minors, but there are a lot of people selling cigarettes at a relatively low price. Couldn't some extra steps be taken to help them? If I understand you correctly, this is up to the revenue department, not yours. Has anything else been looked at for this?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Drouin, it might be more under the justice department.

If you want to comment on it, I understand it's probably not your jurisdiction.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Choinière: All that can be said is that the Tobacco Act does not address contraband in any way.

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: It does not address either contraband or illegal tobacco sales.

Mr. Denis Choinière: That's it. The Tobacco Act does not make provision for any offences in the area of contraband. This falls under the purview of the National Revenue Department. We're not experts at all in that area.

Mr. Claude Drouin: Could the comptroller require some sort of marking on tobacco products to make them easier to identify? Might that not come under your purview?

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: That's also Revenue Canada—Customs and Excise. There's the famous stamp that is now the only proof of legitimate sale for a pack of cigarettes. Can they improve that? You'd have to ask them.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you very much.

I'd like to go back to the one set of regulations and talk specifically about signage. What these regulations do is put into place the minimalist approach in terms of possible sign options. We've simply, through these regulations, signage that says “It is prohibited by federal law to provide tobacco products to persons under 18 years of age”.

You have referenced the fact that this won't apply in every jurisdiction because of provincial legislation, and many of the provincial regulations in place go much beyond this very basic approach. In fact, I brought some of the examples. It's really quite interesting to see how far some of the jurisdictions have gone.

There's signage that actually says smoking will kill so many people in, in this case, British Columbia.

In New Brunswick, it says, “Second-hand smoke can cause sickness in children”, and “Smoking causes over one in five deaths in New Brunswick”. There are more examples from that province.

In Nova Scotia I think they have probably the most interesting signage. These make up the small version of what stores will put up. The one in my office is a humongous sign, and very much more explicit, much more detailed, much more pointed.

I think it creates the possibility of putting a scare into young people and at least is one measure toward trying to convince young people not to start smoking. It's complementary to the legal requirements stipulated in the federal government's signage.

• 1000

The legislation, Bill C-71, gives this government the ability to go beyond this minimalist approach. My question is, were you given any direction to pursue a more aggressive signage program, and based on what's happening in some provinces, to set a national standard at the highest level that could then be put in place for every jurisdiction?

That's my general question: Why not? Why are we so far behind federally?

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: What I can say is that initially we were ahead in terms of signage. Just recently those provinces came up with those more detailed signs.

As well, as you're probably aware, the minister has announced the release of new funds, up to $100 million eventually. Most of that new money will go to research for promotional purposes—in other words, influential messages like that.

Within our department we're gearing up to do a lot of work in that area, and we don't want to come up with a sign that would jump-start, if you like, the conclusion we may reach there.

As well, we don't want to duplicate the good stuff happening in the provinces. On the one hand, we want to harmonize as much as possible, especially in the signage front, but I guess we're kind of tailgating the new initiative at the federal level that will address in more detail a message to the youth, a message to the whole population, about tobacco dangers and tobacco restrictions.

Yes, we probably will come up with a bigger sign with a health message in there, but following our new initiative, which is to start sometime this summer in the area of promotion, lifestyle, influence and so on and so forth. So it's a kind of see-saw.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I hear what you're saying, but it seems to me we're missing a wonderful opportunity. Instead of going forward with the most basic information, and instead of harmonizing to the lowest common denominator, we should be perhaps showing leadership and putting in place regulations that would actually require every province to have this kind of explicit signage that has a very targeted message to young people.

The Chair: Your time is up.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: One quick comment.

You mentioned the question of money being allocated to actually work at encouraging young people not to start smoking. We would like to see some details of that. I don't know if you have any yet. The $100 million that's referred to is broken down this way: $50 million promised in the 1993 election campaign and $50 million promised in the 1997 election campaign, and no details forthcoming. I've had a question on the Order Paper since last September, asking for a detailed breakdown of this money. Despite the 45-day requirement imposed upon the government to get back to a member putting forward a request for information, I have yet to receive it—

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. You're two minutes overtime now.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: —and in all inquiries from others to get that information, it's not been forthcoming.

The Chair: I think you've gotten your point across.

Carolyn Bennett.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It would be helpful to know how this money is being spent and what we're going to do with it.

The Chair: Carolyn Bennett is the next person.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): In the consultation for both of these, I notice it says that the Non-Smokers' Rights Association and Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada were generally supportive. Can you tell us in detail if they had some concerns?

Mr. Denis Choinière: I'm sorry, I forget. We had so much documentation, and that was awhile ago.

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: The only thing I can add is that I got a call from Rob Cunningham yesterday. He was inquiring about what we were going to deposit. He sounded very supportive of at least making that move and not waiting any more for this to be enforced. Those aren't his exact words, but he was supportive over the phone. He had one question, I answered it, and he was happy. He represents a group, though, not many groups.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Which group?

Mr. Luc Ladouceur: The Canadian Cancer Society.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Seeing that this is precedent-setting, of this coming to committee, I guess I would feel a little bit more comfortable being given 24 hours to make a couple of calls. As a physician on this committee, I feel some discomfort in not having had an opportunity to read this or to have had it pre-circulated.

I would feel better if we voted on this at the beginning of the Thursday meeting.

• 1005

The Chair: I don't have anybody else down for questions. In that case, shall I call the question?

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I have a motion to table until Thursday.

The Chair: Is that a formal amendment to the...?

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: No, it's a motion to table.

The Chair: We already have one motion on the table.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Motion to table takes precedence. It's votable.

The Chair: The clerk said the motion to table doesn't exist.

We have a motion on the floor, and I'm going to call the vote on the original motion.

An hon. member: I'd like a recorded vote.

The Chair: All right, a recorded vote.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Can you tell why we cannot wait until Thursday so we can make a couple of calls?

Mr. Grant Hill: Vote against the motion.

The Chair: Vote against the motion, and you can't—

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Why should we have to vote against the original motion? It's not a matter of voting against what needs to be done; it's a matter of being uncomfortable with the process, where we haven't had this pre-circulated, haven't had an opportunity to talk to the couple of people we usually talk to on things like this. I am—

The Chair: The only way that can happen now, Carolyn, is if somebody withdraws the motion. If the motion is not withdrawn, the motion is on the floor and we'll vote on it.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: On a point of order, could we not put the case to other members of the committee that it's only a matter of waiting 24 hours in order for us to feel comfortable with the process? We probably should be meeting Thursday anyway to carry on some of the discussion on the natural health products. I would implore the members to consider this very productive suggestion.

Mr. Lynn Myers: On a point of order, this is debate; I think we all understand the ramifications of what we're voting on here.

The Chair: So we'll go ahead with the voice count on the motion that the committee approve the proposed tobacco regulations and report to the House. You have to say it verbally.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Greg just came in and I was talking to him. Would you repeat the motion, please?

The Chair: The motion is that the committee approve the proposed tobacco regulations and report to the House.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: What happens to the idea that we—

The Chair: You just vote on it, yes or no.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: —vote on your amendment?

The Chair: That wasn't an amendment. He made a suggestion.

Yes or no, Judy?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'll vote yes, but, Madam Chair, on a point of order, I think it should be noted—

The Chair: There are no points of order on this.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's really unfortunate that this committee has to be so dictatorial.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: You're going to have to clarify. Are we voting on Ms. Caplan's original motion?

The Chair: I'll repeat it for the fourth time: that the committee approve the proposed tobacco regulations and report to the House.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 2; 1 abstention)

• 1010

The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing this morning.

Before anybody leaves, we have a motion that Judy Wasylycia-Leis put on the table quite a while ago. Perhaps we could have the vote now. We have a motion on the floor and another vote.

Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, we have a vote right now. Are you going to stay for the vote? Then we'll move on to the other part of the meeting.

Would you like to read your motion?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.

The Chair: You can speak on it and then we'll have a speakers list.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you very much.

As tabled with this committee on April 2, 1998, I move that the Standing Committee on Health consider the following motion:

That the committee report to the House of Commons that an independent audit inquiry be appointed to assist the committee in investigating the allegations involving the Health Protection Branch brought before this committee.

The Chair: Do you want to speak to it?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, please.

Madam Chairman, members of the committee will recall the origins of this motion and appreciate the fact that throughout the course of our hearings on natural health products we heard testimony from a number of presenters about their perception of problems in the Health Protection Branch. Repeatedly we were informed by presenters that they felt there was a process of unfairness and incompetence in the Department of Health, particularly in the Health Protection Branch.

That testimony was encaptured most succinctly in a presentation by Michèlle Brill-Edwards on March 26, 1998, in which a number of serious allegations were made pertaining to the reliability of the testimony of department officials pertaining to process within the department. That raised serious questions about the safety of drugs and foods and medical devices as approved through the department and according to the Food and Drugs Act.

Since that time, a number of other developments have arisen that I think make it even more imperative for this committee to look seriously at calling for an investigation. I'd like to refer to some of those issues very briefly.

Let me remind members that concerns emerged a little less than a year ago with respect to the announcement that the drug research bureau would be closed. It is my view that answers were sought from both the minister and the departmental officials around how the function and purpose of this bureau would be covered, be picked up in some other way through government and through regulations.

There are deep, longstanding, outstanding concerns with respect to the ability of this government to have in place an independent drug research capacity that will ensure a mechanism for identifying problems once drugs are on the market, having gone through the drug approval process.

We were told that this function would be picked up in other ways, either through the department, through external agencies, through the drug industry itself or through universities. To this point we have received no indication of that function being picked up or of any attempts being made to ensure that this independent process is in place.

• 1015

Real concerns remain among Canadians about the safety of drugs on the market and our ability to assess problems as a result of interactions with other drugs, interaction with foods, interaction with natural health products and so on, Madam Chair. Furthermore, at the time the drug research bureau was shut down, there was a clear enunciation of a move on the part of government to close some of the food research labs as well.

The outcry in Parliament and among the public in fact caused some reconsideration by the government to the point where a moratorium was apparently put in place. It was said that following that announcement, in six months' time, there would be a further announcement, a further decision made based on the advice of a scientific advisory panel. To this date, we have not received any information about that process and are left with many questions about where this government is going with respect to regulations in the area of food and whether or not we have recommissioned the labs fully and are completely in charge in this area and have the ongoing capacity to assess the safety of foods on the market.

Since that time, we've had very deep concerns raised about our capacity within the Health Protection Branch to deal with the safety of our blood supply. Members will know that we have repeatedly asked questions in the House around our ability in the Health Protection Branch, through the Bureau of Biologics, to ascertain and be absolutely certain about the safety of blood products coming into this country.

We raised serious concerns about albumen, a blood product that came in as a result of a shortage in Canada, through the emergency drug release program from a company, Alpha Therapeutics, that is under investigation in the United States and is currently under a consent decree, which is the most punitive measure the FDA in the United States can undertake.

We have been given no assurances, through either the minister's office, departmental officials, the minister himself or the parliamentary secretary, that in fact the huge amount of albumen blood product that was brought into this country in the last short while can actually be determined to be safe. Because this blood product—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That has nothing to do—

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Perhaps I could finish my remarks.

There have been absolutely no assurances that this blood product coming into this country is not unsafe. In fact, the work that was done in terms of tracing lot numbers and investigating this issue in an in-depth way has revealed that we cannot be certain that the blood product that came into the country under EDR was not in fact produced at the time Alpha Therapeutics was under serious investigation in States. There are absolutely no guarantees, and the minister has not been able to provide those guarantees, nor have his officials been able to provide those guarantees, that the product that came into Canada was in fact not part of the recall notice delivered by the FDA in the United States.

Further to that and throughout this process, there has been no evidence that we have put in place, as a result of the Krever report, the proper mechanisms and the additional resources required by the Bureau of Biologics to play that proactive role in guaranteeing Canada's blood supply.

Members on the Liberal side tend to scoff at these concerns and suggest they're not true. I would ask simply that we have an investigation, that part of the investigation include our capabilities with respect to the Bureau of Biologics and the blood supply, in order to be sure. To this point we have been given no absolute indications that blood products coming through the EDR are not unsafe.

That is a simple request that's not unreasonable. It is simply a matter of allocating the resources and putting in place the will to actually be able to make those statements with confidence.

• 1020

This issue relates to a second matter of concern pertaining to breast implants. As members know, we've raised this in the House as well. Again, it's very much related to the Health Protection Branch, the process in place for approving products and whether or not all scientific advice has been taken into account and whether or not procedures have been followed.

I raise this in particular, given the fact that this government has said it is not possible to send the necessary expertise to the United States to investigate Alpha Therapeutics in terms of ascertaining the safety of albumen, when it was able to send, and authorized this to happen, two officials from the Health Protection Branch to testify as defence expert witnesses on behalf of the company producing the breast implants, which is now facing the largest class action suit in the history of our nation and indeed around the world.

Madam Chair, there are ongoing questions that must be answered with respect to the safety of breast implants currently on the market. We know there is an RCMP investigation under way in terms of silicone foam breast implants, the Même breast implant, but we also know that as we speak the saline breast implant is on the market. Concerns have been raised and we have not been able to ascertain from the Health Protection Branch that all scientific expertise was taken into account, that all questions have been answered and that this government can say with certainty that the product on the market is not unsafe.

That's a very basic issue, a very basic request. The fact that it has not been answered, that there has been no assurance for this issue to be pursued in an in-depth way, is another reason why we believe it's absolutely important for this committee to embark upon an independent investigation of the Health Protection Branch.

Let me raise another couple of issues. Members will know we have raised in the House and at this committee concerns about the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs. In addition to the Bureau of Drug Research and the Bureau of Food Research, the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs is in great turmoil and there is an apparent lack of leadership being demonstrated with respect to the issues being raised. Just today we learned that another consultant's report has been released indicating lack of leadership, autocratic decision-making, pressure on scientists to approve drugs, real concerns about the question of rBST—a bovine growth hormone—and our position vis-à-vis the rest of the world in terms of approval or not approval of this particular product.

The scientists from that bureau have gone to the length of risking their jobs and have spoken publicly over the past year. We have heard from scientists, as members will know—especially in terms of reports from the media—that the scientists are concerned about being pressured to approve drugs and products that they do not believe are necessarily safe and around which their scientific advice and expertise has not been fully taken into account.

There is unquestionably low morale in the department, in parts of the Health Protection Branch. There is real concern among scientists generally about the roles they play and whether or not their advice is being fully taken into account before decisions are made. Questions have been raised over and over again about the subtle and indirect pressure that results because of the change in policy toward a cost-recovery process on drugs, and those questions have to be addressed.

There are more questions than there are answers around the influence of the drug industry over the Health Protection Branch. We cannot leave those concerns unanswered. We need to be able to determine with absolute certainly that the drug industry, as would be the case with the food industry or the tobacco industry, has no undue influence over the department. Enough concerns have been raised to suggest that an in-depth investigation taking that into account would be absolutely in order.

There are other concerns that we feel have not been addressed. The matter of toxicity in toys that are used by children is an issue we've raised many times, around which we again are given the usual answer: “Don't worry. Everything's okay. It's safe and we're not going to take any more steps.”

• 1025

It's our feeling that whether we're talking about the question of the safety of our drugs, a proactive response around foods, our blood supply, toys, medical devices—this means breast implants in particular—or of course the ongoing question about how this will impact on our decisions vis-à-vis natural health products, all of this has to be taken into account. I think our work as a committee is restrained until we can get to the bottom of some of these issues to determine with absolute certainty that a strong regulatory capability is still part of this government.

A number of reports are in circulation at the department level indicating a general direction toward deregulation, privatization, third-party investigation, cost recovery, and reducing the liability of government. In my estimation, that's a direction that flies in the face of the history and tradition of the Health Protection Branch and of government generally when it comes to the safety of food and drugs and medical devices.

I think we need to be absolutely clear that the Food and Drugs Act is being followed and that the regulations and regulatory capacity is in place for applying the act. I think we have to be absolutely sure that every step is being taken within the department with the absolute certain direction from the minister that every drug on the market for Canadians to take, foods that are on the market, and the products that are used for medical purposes are absolutely not unsafe.

At this point, too many questions are unanswered for us to be able to say that. Certainly it's not, as members across the way like to suggest, a matter of fearmongering. This is not a question of raising fears unnecessarily. This is a question of responding to evidence that suggests we're going in the opposite direction of the Health Protection Branch and that we've moved so quickly to a “buyer beware” policy that we're missing our obligations under the Food and Drugs Act.

According to the values and traditions of this country, Canadians believed, up until now at least, that everything on the market that falls under the purview of the Food and Drugs Act is safe. With more and more evidence being presented, they are becoming increasingly concerned. I believe they want to see that role restored in government and certainly want to know that there is nothing untoward or any bias and/or chaos or incompetence in the Health Protection Branch.

So I would urge members to consider seriously this motion to move forward with an investigation of the Health Protection Branch in order for this committee to more effectively do its work both with respect to natural health products and indeed on every issue that is of importance to the health and well-being of Canadians.

The Chair: Thank you, Judy.

Grant, then Carolyn.

Mr. Grant Hill: Because this can end up sounding very political, and I don't think it should be, I would ask my colleagues to just look at the record of HPB over the last few years and say whether or not there have been problems.

To my mind, the natural health food issue that we studied shows that there have been some problems. The breast implant issue, which preceded this government, was a problem. Calcium channel blockers I think were a problem. As for tainted blood, we've had ongoing evidence of a problem, and finally, the new veterinary drug approval process, which has just surfaced today, tells me that there is a problem.

It's not a party thing. Is the HPB doing the best job that it could do? I think the problem with the HPB is that in some cases the bureaucrats ignore the scientists. I will pause there and say no more. I think this motion does have non-political ramifications and that the HPB should be looked at.

The Chair: Thank you.

Carolyn Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I think there's no question that there have been things raised at committee that were concerns. I guess I feel that there was a process put in place, which was the scientific advisory committee. I guess in terms of speaking to this motion I'm wondering whether it would be more appropriate for this committee to call Dr. Bondar to see what her committee is doing with respect to providing overarching scientific advice to the workings of the Health Protection Branch.

• 1030

This would pre-empt what was supposedly put in place in order to address this issue in terms of scientific advice, so I think until I knew what was happening in that process that was already in place, I would not want to vote for this motion. I actually want more information in terms of what actually is already happening.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Volpe.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Madam Chair, I think we've dealt with this issue before. We went through a steering committee meeting, an in camera meeting, where we discussed this at great lengths. I'm just going to address the question of the motion, because at the time I guess we thought that anybody who put a motion forward deserves to be heard. We were trying to find out some of the evidence that was going to support the allegations that had been made.

Allegations are made freely, and when they don't have to be substantiated with documentation that can withstand scrutiny, you can say virtually anything you want. I think individuals were smeared by some of those allegations, and of course obviously the department is under some question.

When we started to look at some of that evidence and some of the substantive documentation that was supposed to provide some support for the allegations, we didn't get very far. Not only that, I think the debate in the steering committee at that point began to collapse in part because there wasn't anything there other than the repetition of articles that had appeared in the newspaper. They fell into a couple of categories that can be very easily addressed. I don't want to be malicious, so I won't, but the committee was of the opinion that there wasn't any new evidence.

Second, this committee itself can bring members of HPB here at any time. We've already stressed that over and over and over again. It's up to us, as mature politicians, to do the digging prior to and during their presentations.

Under any circumstances, Madam Chair, I think what most people will recognize is that this type of motion is in fact very political. We listened to our colleagues speak for nigh on 20 minutes, and on only two occasions—I was being very attentive—did I hear her actually address the motion as I saw it.

We've also had the Auditor General examine the way the department operates and how it utilizes funds. The Auditor General hasn't always been glowing in his or her remarks. That's fair. That's part of the process. That's an independent audit that gives us an opportunity to look at how the priorities of our government are dealt with by the people who are there to effect the government policies.

I thought, Madam Chair, that we were developing a consensus on this motion. We did that a little while ago. We also said fine, if the member has some other things that she wants to bring forward, we'll deal with it at another time, so we made the time as convenient as possible for her.

So we can't be accused, and we shouldn't be accused, of playing partisan politics. But through her presentation, she talked about a target that's moving literally by the minute. There are allegations that could potentially flow from virtually everything.

Again, I don't want to be unkind, but I suppose that if I were in a more objective mood than I am right now, I could say there are a lot of statements that she made that verge not only on the allegation side, but they're spurious at the very, very best. If we're going to conduct this sort of conversation and dialogue among us, we'll be wasting our time for the rest of this session and in fact for the rest of this administration.

So I think what we do as responsible individuals, Madam Chair, is recognize the motion for what it is. It's not motivated by a desire to be investigative officers for the way HPB is running or in fact the way we hold our bureaucrats accountable. It is a purely partisan political motion and nothing more. So I urge you, Madam Chair, right now, to put the question.

• 1035

The Chair: Is there anybody else who wants to speak? Everybody has the right to speak.

Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): I'm willing to speak, Madam.

The Chair: Okay. Just a moment. Do you want me to read from Beauchesne's whether everybody can speak or not? Everybody has the right to speak.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Everyone has the right to speak.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Greg Thompson: I fundamentally disagree with the government members, and I support the NDP member and the Reform member in their summation of what we're attempting to do. I believe that in terms of some of what we're hearing, the horror stories are just recurring much too frequently for any of us to be comfortable.

In terms of us bringing witnesses before the committee, the government has control over who those witnesses might be and whether they can appear. They have routinely voted this down on some of the things we wanted to do.

So I support the motion and I'm willing to take it to the vote and to see how the government members respond in terms of vote.

The Chair: Okay. Could we have a show of hands then? Does the committee agree with the motion?

Mr. Joseph Volpe: No.

The Chair: Do you agree with the motion?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: On a point of order, could I ask for a recorded vote please?

The Chair: Sure.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: The vote has already been taken. If you want a recorded vote you have to ask for one before the vote is taken.

The Chair: She asked for a show of hands. You don't have to.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 3)

The Chair: Going on with the other part of our meeting, I have a letter here from the minister in response to our question on the preparedness for the year 2000, so we'll pass this out. There are also some notes from one of his assistants. They just came. I don't know what they....

We had planned to spend an hour of this meeting on our herbal report. I don't know what people feel. There was a suggestion that we use all of Thursday's meeting to do that, rather than have a 20-minute discussion now. How do people feel about that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay. We'll see you Thursday morning at nine.

The meeting is adjourned.