[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, October 25, 1995
.1338 
[English]
The Chairman: We thank you for coming at this hour. We expect this will be short and sweet. We are trying to accommodate the House request to get this moving back to the House. By doing this today rather than tomorrow at our regularly scheduled meeting, we can facilitate it.
Ovid?
Mr. Jackson (Bruce - Grey): I was trying to get a copy. I'm not trying to distract you or anything like that, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: You did that anyway. No problem.
First I'll ask Paul to report the subcommittee work.
Mr. Szabo (Mississauga South): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Health to study Bill C-7 on controlled drugs and substances has now completed its work. This has been with the committee for some time. Our clause-by-clause was completed last evening.
The committee had initiated a number of questions and concerns that generated substantial amendments to the bill as it passed at second reading. The committee worked extremely well. The changes I believe make this legislation a much better piece of legislation.
.1340
The bill passed in subcommittee with the support of all parties.
With that, Mr. Chairman, it's my pleasure to report back to the Standing Committee on Health Bill C-7, on controlled drugs and substances.
The Chairman: Paul, on behalf of the committee, let me thank you and the members of your subcommittee for doing this job. It's been a very protracted assignment; not by design, but it worked out that way. You've had it since April of last year, but through no fault of your own, I say for the record, has it taken that long. Again, thanks very much for your work.
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Chairman, as a result of our work, although it's -
The Chairman: Could you keep that in abeyance? It's your other recommendations, which I'd like to treat separately from the report. Let's just get the paperwork on the report out of the way.
The subcommittee has now indicated it's completed its work. Therefore, pursuant to the order of reference received from the House and dated April 19, 1994, the committee adopted a motion on Tuesday, April 26, 1994, which states that upon presentation of the report of the subcommittee on Bill C-7, the report is deemed adopted, and that the chairman of the committee is to present it to the House on behalf of the committee. Accordingly, I declare the report of the subcommittee to be deemed adopted and it shall be presented as the committee's fifth report to the House. In that context no motion is necessary, because the enabling motion was made in April of last year, at which time we deemed to adopt the report before the fact, in essence.
Paul.
Mr. Szabo: Finally, Mr. Chairman, as a result of our work, although it's beyond the bill itself, the committee did identify three particular matters we would also like to refer to this standing committee for its consideration. They are in the form of recommendations that I believe have been circulated. I will not go through them in any detail.
The scheduling of substances that would be required for Bill C-7 needs work. We are recommending, and we have the concurrence of all relevant parties on this, that a special task force be established to devise rational criteria for the scheduling of substances.
This is something that really flows from the bill. It is going to be necessary. So we certainly would like that recommendation to you, and if it's acceptable from this committee to the minister, to initiate that task force.
The second area has to do with the whole subject of Canada's drug policy. The process we went through generated substantial input from witnesses across Canada and from the public at large, and certainly from the members of the committee. As a result - and we believe there's a consensus for this as well - we recommend the House of Commons standing committee undertake a comprehensive review of our existing drug policy.
Mr. Chairman, the reason we did not recommend that the standing committee recommend it to the minister is that then the minister would then somehow have to deal with it through cabinet. I think this is a matter on which this standing committee, if it deemed it appropriate, would be able to set its own terms of reference and its own game plan to address it, and it could be addressed in a more timely fashion. But that's for this committee to decide.
Finally, the question - and it was stood in the bill and I think we ultimately resolved it by saying we were not going to be able to address the issue in the bill - is the whole question of Governor in Council orders or changes to regulations. There is a very relevant, interesting discussion about the latitude of authority that occurs outside the purview of the committees or of the House of Commons. They're almost accepted or seconded responsibilities.
The committee feels in the interest of reassessing our role as parliamentarians and the roles of committees, etc., we may want to refer the issue of whether or not Governor in Council matters are dealt with outside of committees or the House proper to the appropriate body of Parliament for consideration, as a result of the experience we've had on Bill C-7.
.1345
It's not very fine-tuned, but if we had adopted a suggested approach, for instance, it would have been that any new substances coming on to the schedules under Bill C-7 could be put on by Governor in Council, should they be required to come through the Health committee or a subcommittee of Health, etc.
It's a matter of the legislation as a whole right now, but as changes occur are they going to occur outside the purview and scrutiny of the Commons committees and the House itself? It's an issue we thought we would raise for the interest of this committee for further discussion. There is no question there may be other issues that members of the committee would like to recommend we deal with. These happen to be the three probably more substantive points we wanted to put on the agenda of the Standing Committee on Health.
The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, I would receive the three recommendations right now. They will then show up as business arising at our next meeting. We'll have an opportunity to determine at that time what we're going to do with them.
Again, I thank the committee for taking the time to frame those recommendations.
I don't want to delay you here, so I'll adjourn the meeting in a minute or two. I just want to get an item on the agenda for a future meeting. I do this in my capacity as a member of the committee. It's always your prerogative to add anything you want to a committee agenda, so I want to add the issue of water chlorination and its possible causal relationship with respect to carcinogens.
I'll just speak briefly to it. A study has just become public in Newfoundland that documents that the incidence of Crone's disease in Newfoundland is about 10 times the national average. A researcher has at least alleged - I don't know whether he's documented it - there's a relationship between chlorinated untreated water and the production of carcinogens.
At some point I'd like the committee to canvass this issue, but preparitorily to that, I will ask research to see what information might be available to us.
Does anyone else have other items for our future meetings?
If not, I thank you for coming on short notice and the meeting stands adjourned. By the way, before it does, let me acknowledge the presence of two substitutes from Nunatsiaq, Jack Anawak, and from Mississauga West, Carolyn Parrish.
Thanks for coming. The meeting is adjourned.