[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, June 22, 1995
.0937 
[English]
The Chairman: Order. We have to approve this report before 10 a.m. so that Mr. Easter can table it in the House. That's our time line this morning.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Are we tabling it in the House at 10 a.m., Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: Colleagues, the motion is that the report entitled Dismantling the Crow: Curbing the Impacts be concurred with.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: The next motion is that the committee authorize the printing of the dissenting opinion submitted by Jean-Guy Chrétien as an appendix to this report immediately after the signature of the chair.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: The third motion is that the chairman present the report to the House as soon as possible.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: The fourth motion is that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report in 150 days.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Is there any other business?
.0938
PAUSE
.0947
The Chairman: Order, please.
Mr. Landry.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry (Lotbinière): I am very pleased to take this opportunity to move that the committee request the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to extend for an undetermined period the moratorium on bovine somatotrophin hormone, and to take the necessary measures to completely ban the use of this product in Canada, until its effects on human health are better known.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment that would read that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food negotiate with the companies involved for an extension of the moratorium that's in place.
The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.
Mr. Benoit (Vegreville): I would like to propose an amendment as well, striking everything after ``committee'' and replacing that with -
The Chairman: We can only deal with one amendment on the floor at a time.
Mr. Benoit: My mistake. Are we having debate on this?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Benoit: Okay. I've made my points on this many times before, Mr. Chairman. I think it's truly folly for this committee to decide that it can judge, better than the regulatory system that's in place, whether a product is safe to go on the market or not. It really is a threat to the credibility of our regulatory system when a bunch of politicians decide they can make the decision - even though we don't have the resources, the know-how, the money, or the time to do it - better than the regulatory system, which has worked pretty well in the past, I'd say, and try to interfere with the approval or lack of approval that the health department will give bST.
.0950
This issue should be left in the hands of the regulatory system that's in place through Health Canada. If there are individuals who have doubts that this regulatory system is working, then by all means, they should say what the doubts and problems are as they perceive them. Then let's try to fix the system. If the system isn't going to be able to handle this product properly, then let's try to fix the system. But let's not disadvantage one particular company that's put a lot of money into this product and a bunch of dairy farmers who would like to use this product just because it has become an emotional issue.
Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): I listened very carefully to Mr. Benoit's comments. Quite frankly, I have a lot of sympathy for what he says.
I'm concerned about the amendment as it's worded because first, it's ambiguous. The last line of the translated version says ``and to take the necessary measures to completely ban the use of this product in Canada, until its effects on human health are better known''. The reality is that the effect on human health is better known now than it was three years ago, and it was better known three years ago than it was the year before that. The ``better known'' thing is very ambiguous and subjective, and it doesn't really accomplish anything.
However, in fairness, I must say to Mr. Benoit that in the long run, the politicians are ultimately responsible for the regulatory system. We are the elected people. We must bear the ultimate responsibility for what happens.
I'm very sympathetic to what you say, really. I must also go on record as saying that the dairy industry itself is split on this issue. This is not a unanimous thing, such that you are on one side or the other.
The other thing is that we've been getting mixed signals in terms of impact. We've been getting two different sets of stories coming to us. We're being lobbied as individuals and also as a committee.
The situation at this point is unclear. It would be in that spirit that I would support an extended period of a moratorium, but I don't think I could support the ambiguity of the end of that motion. If it was for a fixed period of time, then at that time we would be in a position to reassess it.
This is a difficult issue. There is one organization now that is stirring up emotion among consumers, when we all know - I think the evidence is pretty clear - that if a decision is made not to use bST, then it won't be because there's any potential harm to consumers at all. Any potential harm is going to be between the ears, generated by certain organizations that make money by stirring up those fears. It's a very typical and common tactic that's used. Look at some of the ads. I saw one here this morning that's just a little bit shy of being libellous.
I would support a motion that puts in a specific time period for a moratorium recommendation, but I would delete the business of the ambiguity at the end. I would just leave it out until things are better known.
.0955
Mr. Pickard (Essex - Kent): My assumption, since we have an amendment on the floor, is that the debate is on the amendment, not on the motion.
The Chairman: That's correct.
Mr. Pickard: In dealing with the amendment put forward by my colleague, I have to say that I have been neither for one side nor the other on this particular issue. I haven't viewed it as critical either way, because in talking with people in the industry, I've seen both viewpoints. Some are saying we should get on with it, while others are saying it would be very difficult for the industry. There are those consumer groups that are still raising a great number of questions about information.
Certainly the education process for the public has not been one to convince the public at this point in time that it is in its best interest to go ahead with this product on the market. As a result, I think we come to a political decision. It very much is a political decision. With all the academic information, advertising and public feeling in the market itself, we have to weigh all those factors - not just the bureaucratic presentations, not just the pharmaceutical presentations, and not just the consumer associations' presentations. We need a balance.
I don't always agree with Mr. Easter, but in this case I think he has made a very good amendment to the motion. He isn't suggesting that we put this on hold forever. He isn't suggesting that there isn't room to work with all concerned groups. But he is suggesting that we should take all the information we have, negotiate with those who have the power to make the decision, and come up with another reasonable time to delay this from being on the market.
That gives us two opportunities. One opportunity will allow those who are really positive about keeping it off the market to prove the concerns about health, the industry, and for everyone involved. At the same time, it allows the group that is very positive about getting this going in the market to show its side positively. I have no question that the arguments will go back and forth.
I'm very concerned when I hear people like my wife suggest that we often proceed to pass things, and then five years later we find there's a flaw we weren't aware of. We can hear all kinds of information about the safety of products going on the market, yet lawsuits proceed five, ten or fifteen years later. Breast implants were a good example of this. They were considered very safe. They were put in place in a very positive way many years ago. Today there is a tremendous concern about health and safety because of that issue.
I don't mean to raise health and safety concerns in this case. I'm saying there is enough concern out there that I don't feel satisfied that all concerns have been answered. As a result, I think Mr. Easter has made the very best proposition in saying we should put it on hold for a while. It really follows what Mr. Landry has presented in his bill, outside of the fact that it gives stopgaps, in that it may go to another one after that and another one after that. This will make certain it doesn't go ahead until most of the concerns are answered.
I think Mr. Landry's original motion is very good, but I would like to see the amendment of stopgaps in there with with time periods, so we can jump into it again and keep it out front so it's not an issue that just dies. Under Mr. Landry's motion it would just die; there wouldn't be a possibility of bringing it in.
So with the motion, and the amendment to the motion, I believe we've come up with the best balance for the direction in which we should go. I think it's very important for us to not base all our decisions on bureaucratic, scientific, or administrative answers, because we know they haven't always been error-free. I think we have to make certain that if there is the possibility or potential of an error here, we have to look after it. I think that's what both of these gentlemen have done in their motions.
.1000
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: I would perfectly be prepared to accept a two-year timeframe, and I would also withdraw the last part of the motion that states: ``And to take the necessary measures to completely ban the use of this product in Canada, until its effects on human health are better known.'' So, I am willing to accept Mr. Easter's amendement.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Assad.
[Translation]
Mr. Assad (Gatineau - La Lièvre): I believe the amendment fairly accurately reflects the testimony we have received here. Some witnesses were in favour, while others were against. On the other hand, those who were in favour presented some fairly vague arguments. In the past, we did not realize just how devastating the effects of thalidomide could be. That is just one example, of course. I might also mention breast implants.
I must say I really do not understand my Alberta colleague's position. Does he think the Committee is only here for show? The fact is, we are here to make decisions. We are not trying to impose our own scientific views. We have simply listened to the testimony.
I have met with dairy industry producer groups. They have expressed their concerns and even signed petitions. I can certainly tell you that 80% of Quebec producers have signed a petition against the use of bST. So I really find my Alberta colleague's position rather strange, given the testimony we ourselves have heard and the fact that a five-year moratorium has already been imposed in Europe.
[English]
Really, Mr. Benoit, we're not here to decide whether the regulatory bodies make mistakes or not. But the fact is that there's nobody who can guarantee today that bST is completely safe. We've heard those stories in the past and I think it's only common sense that we give it a little time and take the lead we saw from Europe; they've put it for five years.
The Chairman: Mr. Assad, please remember to comment through the chair.
Mr. Benoit.
Mr. Benoit: First of all, I'd like to say that I think public debate on this issue, this product, any other product, or the safety and regulatory system is healthy. I'm really pleased that there is public debate on this particular product. I would like to see more of the debate focusing on the regulatory system, but I'm really concerned about politicians going off what I consider to be half-cocked here.
We are dealing with an emotional issue. I don't believe there's one of us here who has the time or the resources to make a proper evaluation of this product. That is even very difficult for Health Canada, the regulatory system, to do. I don't believe any of us are qualified to do that, yet that's what we're doing here.
What message do we send on this product if there's a further moratorium put in place? I believe it's the death of the product, and I believe it's going to set back other similar types of biotechnologically produced products for a heck of a long time.
Again, I'm saying we shouldn't be interfering with this particular product. If there are concerns about the regulatory system itself, then that's what we should focus on. The hon. member was absolutely right when he said it is the responsibility of politicians to ensure that the regulatory system is working properly. That is our responsibility. If we're going to debate this issue and get into stopping a product, we should be doing that based on flaws we see in the regulatory system itself.
The Chairman: I think we are doing that.
Colleagues -
Mr. Benoit: No, I'm not finished, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: - we can put the motion forward on the amendment. Let's just see where we are on it.
Mr. Benoit: You're invoking closure in committee, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: No, I'm putting closure on -
Mr. Benoit: You've done it in the House this year, but I don't think it's healthy in a committee. I think this committee has outlived its usefulness, frankly, if that's the way it's going to operate.
The Chairman: Let's see where we stand on the motion first.
We're voting on the amendment, to negotiate with the companies involved to achieve an extension of the moratorium on rbST already in place.
.1005
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: Now we'll have a vote on the full motion, that the committee request the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to negotiate with the companies involved to achieve an extension of the moratorium on rbST already in place.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.