[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 15, 1997
.0915 
[English]
The Chairman (Mr. Roger Simmons (Burin - St. George's, Lib.)): Order, please. We have a quorum.
Before we welcome our witnesses for this morning, I wonder if the committee would indulge the chair. The subcommittee chaired by Bonnie has prepared its first report. Under our procedures the report has to be adopted by this committee. Having said that, I remind you that becomes a pro forma act because we gave a mandate to the subcommittee that essentially precludes our rethinking what they've done. What I need is a motion to adopt the first report of the subcommittee chaired by Bonnie, which then becomes the eighth report of this committee to the House.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants, Lib.): I so move.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Is the report an ongoing status report of which there will be more to follow?
Ms Nancy Miller-Chénier (Committee Researcher): It's on Bill C-47.
Mr. Paul Szabo: It's the one on reproductive technology. It's all finished.
The Chairman: Talk to the chair.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Is the committee going to see the report before we vote on it?
The Chairman: No problem. Can the chair of the subcommittee give us some detail on this?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chair, what has happened -
The Chairman: Just a moment now. What's happening is that I'm getting some advice.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Okay.
The Chairman: Paul.
Mr. Paul Szabo: This is a bill that was referred to committee, and I understand our rule has been to second the full authority, as it were, of the standing committee to the subcommittee and that it basically comes here -
The Chairman: On that point I was in error. That had been our procedure. The clerk has advised me that is not the case for this one, so the committee can have a full debate if it so wishes.
What's before the chair right now is a motion to adopt the report of the subcommittee on Bill C-47.
Mr. Paul Szabo: The chair of the subcommittee has asked me what the problem is. The problem I have right now, Mr. Chair, is that I have not seen the report and I don't even know whether or not this bill has been amended or is proposed to be amended or is being returned. If there was a statement simply saying this bill has come back to this committee and they recommend it be referred back to the House without amendment, that helps me a little bit. But I don't know where we are on the thing other than the committee has done its work, all those in favour. I'd really like to know what I'm voting on before I vote.
The Chairman: Grant.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): I had occasion to speak just hours ago with the member of my party who was sitting on this committee. That person had no indication the report was complete and that we were in fact to this point at all. This was literally at the close of proceedings yesterday. So I'm really in a position where I'm surprised, to say the least.
The Chairman: Bonnie.
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, we did notify the member for the Reform Party, and we did tell him we were going to clause by clause a half hour earlier than anticipated. We did notify his office, and there was ample time for him to make provision to be there or to have somebody there to represent him.
[Translation]
Ms Pauline Picard (Drummond, B.Q.): I was a bit disappointed upon learning last Friday, when we were in our ridings, that the government would be presenting its amendments on Monday. In my opinion Bill C-47 is a very serious piece of legislation and I could not in good conscience approve the report without studying the amendments. I therefore expressed my dissent.
.0920
As for the members of the Reform Party, they were not present. It was the members of the party in power and of the Official Opposition who heard the witnesses over a three-month period. However, we had to wait for this member who was supposed to come and present his amendments at the last minute. He was to arrive at 5 o'clock and when we left, he hadn't even arrived yet. You have to give some semblance of being serious. I therefore support the subcommittee chairwoman on this issue.
[English]
The Chairman: The chair was really in error on this one. I had assumed it was a pro forma issue, and that the initial motion to the committee had taken care of the issue. That is not the case. This is a matter for debate. So let's put it aside and go to the item on the agenda, which is the hearing of witnesses. We'll return to this subsequently. In the meantime, could we have copies circulated, please?
We're back to our review of policies on the misuse and abuse of substances. This morning we welcome three witnesses, from the University of Montreal, the Addiction Research Foundation, and the University of Toronto. With that kind of combination, I'm not sure who would be in charge down there. Have you decided who is going to speak first? No. Okay. First of all, welcome. We had hoped one or all of you would want to give us a brief opening statement.
Some of you have given us documentation. I believe the clerk would have made you aware that documentation that is available in both languages will be circulated to the members of the committee, while that which is not available in both languages will be given to the research staff to be used in the preparation of the report. Be aware that unless your documents are available in both languages, the committee is not seeing what you're referring to.
Go ahead, whoever wishes to speak first.
Ms Denise Tompkins (Addiction Research Foundation): Maybe I should go first. My name is Denise Tompkins. I'm a scientist at the Addiction Research Foundation. I think the way the meeting has been set up is that I'm going to talk about the pharmacology or biology of alcohol, and then the other two are going to address different issues.
First, as a point of clarification, I'd like to say the term ``alcohol'' is generally used by the general public to describe that substance that is found in alcoholic beverages, namely ethanol. But there are a series of alcohols, and those include methanol. Because ethanol is the only one considered non-toxic enough to be used in alcoholic beverages and is the one that has widespread use, that's the one I'm going to limit the conversation to.
The effects of drinking alcohol do not depend on the type of beverage you're consuming. It doesn't matter whether you're drinking beer, wine, or whiskey. It isn't the type of beverage, it's the amount of beverage that's consumed on any one occasion. Factors such as the drinker's physical characteristics, gender, body build, and metabolism, past alcohol use and the manner and circumstances in which the alcohol is consumed will all influence the perceived effects by the person and also the pharmacological consequences of drinking the alcohol.
Just to give a brief example of how situations can alter the pharmacological effects of alcohol, if you drank alcohol in a social setting to a certain blood alcohol level, it may make you more sociable and more talkative, but the same blood alcohol level in another situation, such as sitting at home and watching TV, where there aren't other inputs around you, will lead to sedation or sleepiness. So definitely, the surroundings influence the effects you have from alcohol.
.0925
The acute effects of alcohol differ with alcohol levels. At low blood alcohol levels you get increased sociability and disinhibition. Physical effects include things like skin flushing and maybe a slight increase in heart rate. As the blood alcohol levels rise, you start to see other factors come into play, such as a further increase in heart rate, increased hypothermia or body temperature, an increase in sedation and an increase in motor in-coordination. As you get higher and higher, what happens in the brain is that you get depression of a lot of the central nervous system functions. If you drank enough alcohol, eventually this would lead to coma and death. But the blood alcohol levels you need to achieve those effects are very high.
The blood alcohol level you need to achieve these different levels of effects varies, as I said before, according to the drinker's characteristics, such as body build or gender, and also according to the drug history. Many of you will be aware that when you first started drinking alcohol as a teenager, you started to feel intoxication after one or two drinks, but after increasing use and years of practice, you could probably drink a few more drinks before you started to feel intoxication. This is what we term tolerance.
With long-term use you get two types of tolerance: metabolic tolerance, in which certain enzymes in your liver can start to metabolise the alcohol faster so that you need to consume more to get the same blood alcohol concentrations; and learned tolerance, whereby you actually learn some coping strategies for how to deal with the intoxication levels you're feeling. You learn how to hide the level of intoxication you have.
Long-term use of alcohol leads to a number of problems. One of them is drug dependence. This can lead to a number of effects, not only on your social surroundings but also on your ability to do normal functions. Alcohol loses its position in the hierarchy, and it then becomes a priority for that person. Long-term alcohol use also causes a lot of organ toxicity, so you'll hear about liver sclerosis and some toxicity within the brain. But for the most part, if you stop long-term use of alcohol, this seems to be reversible; the brain has some adaptability to recover.
Recent studies coming out of Germany suggest, though, there are gender differences as to organ toxicity, that females actually seem to be more susceptible to the effects of alcohol on the CNS and the cardiovascular system.
I think that's it.
[Translation]
Ms Louise Nadeau (Chair, Comité permanent de lutte à la toxicomanie (Standing Committee on Addiction), Government of Quebec; Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Montreal): I will be speaking in French. Thank you for inviting me.
Further to what Dr. Tompkins said, I would like to discuss the negative effects of alcohol consumption, but from the social perspective. Certain data indicate that one or two drinks per day have a beneficial effect on the cardiovascular system. Indeed, we have observed that consumption of these amounts has resulted in very few harmful or negative effects from a social perspective.
As for intoxication, namely consumption, even isolated consumption, of large quantities on an occasional basis, all epidemiological studies, particularly those conducted by Dr. Single and by our Quebec teams, indicate that in Canada, alcohol-related problems are by and large attributable to intoxication, even amongst subjects who are not addicted. Basically, people may become intoxicated three, four or five times a year, and while intoxicated, have violent episodes and impaired driving problems.
Accordingly, one of our concerns for young Canadians is the fact that alcohol can spur them on to carry something out. Dr. Tompkins reminded us about the depressive effect of alcohol on control centres. A young person who has thoughts of suicide and who finds that life has no meaning may be prompted to carry out his ideas when intoxicated. Indeed, this is borne out by the data coming from the Quebec coroner. Data on Canada's aboriginal peoples clearly show that this is so. Accordingly, it is important to understand that alcohol truly acts as a catalyst even among subjects who are not chronic drinkers of alcohol.
.0930
Finally, there is the problem of addiction. In such cases, the family is seriously affected. We know that an alcoholic's life is built around alcohol. We are concerned about alcoholic employees who are part of the labour force. We also have concerns with respect to health problems.
[English]
I will shift to English and then terminate.
One of our concerns is the men from 15 to 25 years old who are responsible for these intoxications I have described. One of your preoccupations also is what are the high-risk groups - certainly men. Also, in our clinical practice we have come to identify that sometimes the second generation of immigrants seem to be at higher risk, probably because the integration for one child in a family didn't go as well as one would have wished. Frequently they can be candidates for over-consumption.
Finally, about prevention, I would like to take you back to the recommendations of the National Forum on Health. The priorities the forum had set up are the same for this field; i.e., children. It is clear that when you look at the sources of addiction, what went on between zero and five years old is a major issue. Second is youth. Youth is a priority, a priority in health and in this field also. Finally, it's clear that work is a major issue, primarily work for youth but also unemployment for Canadians aged 45 and over.
At the forum we documented in our paper on addictions what the success stories were in addiction in Canada. It's clear that certain communities that have organized themselves...we're thinking about Alexandra Park in Toronto, for example, as an important community success in which they eradicated drugs - there was a lot of drug trafficking - but also alcohol abuse. Again, we realize how much community action is an important strategy.
I do refer you to the report on the forum. Look at it from the angle of alcohol.
if I had to make one strong recommendation on the Canadian scene, it would be to maintain the funding of the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. That centre has been a major catalyst in this country. The Government of Quebec has worked closely with the Canadian Centre. The Ministry of Health has invested in the study on the socio-economic costs. The standing committee on addictions was also a joint venture. There are many others. With the Canadian Centre there has been a long-term history of collaboration between Quebec and that federal body. I can only recommend highly that its structure and financing be maintained.
The Chairman: Mr. Single.
Mr. Eric Single (Individual Presentation): Thank you. I should say first of all that I'm here simply as a private individual. I did give the staff copies of a written presentation which is very detailed and would take much more time than I'm allotted, so I'll go through just a couple of the highlights. My presentation concerns the economic costs of substance abuse in Canada. I'll focus on the alcohol issues, given the topic this morning. At the time I did this I was director of policy and research for the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, but since that time that position has been terminated becasue of budget cutbacks.
I'll also be happy if in the question period people would like to address any questions about other things around the Canadian Centre activities or its national statistical profile or clearing house or other work.
Also, I have just come back from Australia, where I evaluated Australia's national drug strategy. I think a number of lessons could be learned from their experience if you would care for me to discuss that during the discussion period.
For now, given our brief time, I'll just follow on the remarks of Denise and Louise, and it follows up very much. I think it corroborates many of the things Louise was saying.
The cost study was a collaborative venture that involved funding from five different provincial governments plus Health Canada, plus a peer-reviewed NHRDP grant, which provided about half the funding.
.0935
First, we ran two international symposium and developed a consensus around the appropriate methodology to use in these studies, because there was a divergence of results that seemed to be because the people were using different methods.
Using these international guidelines, we then estimated the number of deaths and hospitalizations and the economic costs associated with the use of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs. The number of hospital days and deaths that can be attributed to alcohol was estimated by pooling estimates of relative risk according to age, gender and the province; that is, what your risk is of getting a particular disease given your age, gender and where you live. It was quite specific, and it was specific in terms of ICD categories.
The prior estimates on deaths due to alcohol were based on much less precision. They didn't have estimates according to age and gender. They would simply take an expert committee's estimate of the proportion of a major disease category. For example, 10% of cancers were included in the prior estimates. Although lung cancer is not related to alcohol consumption, 10% of lung cancer deaths would nonetheless be included in the estimate, and so forth. So it was much more precise in a number of ways.
Our estimate was that there were 6,701 deaths due to alcohol in Canada in 1992. This was considerably lower than the prior estimates, but I still think it very clearly shows alcohol exacts an enormous toll. About one in thirty deaths in Canada can be attributed to alcohol. It also accounted for a huge number of hospitalizations and hospitalization days.
When we spelled out the ramifications to the health care system and the lost productivity due to premature mortality and morbidity, the total economic cost of alcohol to the Canadian economy in 1992 was estimated to be $7.5 billion.
These costs were compared to prior studies in Canada and to studies overseas. They are somewhat lower than prior studies in Canada because we have lower estimates of morbidity and mortality, but as a portion of GDP they're very much in line with the costs of alcohol in other societies with similar levels of consumption. So they shouldn't be that surprising to people who are knowledgeable in the area.
We also did a sensitivity analysis where we altered methodological assumptions to see how the results would be affected. There was only one significant difference, and that was when you used different discount rates for discounting future income for people who die prematurely due to alcohol.
So our general conclusions are that alcohol exacts an enormous toll in terms of illness and death and economic cost to the economy of Canada. These estimates are nonetheless somewhat lower than prior estimates.
We also looked at provincial variations. The report is about 532 pages long. I didn't include it in my submission. The staff might want to look at it, or people who are interested in the economic cost and the toll in disease and death in their own particular province. There is considerable provincial variation. That was one of the other main conclusions of the report.
One other thing I wanted to mention, to corroborate something Louise said, is that not only were the number of deaths somewhat lower than prior estimates - they're still quite high - but also the whole epidemiological mapping of alcohol problems has changed, I think, because of these new estimates. We found that whereas in the past chronic disease accounted for about 75% to 80% of deaths attributed to alcohol, now that changes rather dramatically. What didn't come down were the estimates of alcohol-related trauma; that is, motor vehicle and other types of accidents and other acute causes attributable to alcohol. Acute causes now account for about one-half of the estimated number of deaths attributable to alcohol.
It's not that chronic disease associated with alcohol is not a significant and important problem. It is. But the effects of impaired driving and alcohol-related accidents and acute causes arising from intoxication are more significant than we had realized in the past. That can have far-reaching implications for policy and programming.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Pierre de Savoye.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, B.Q.): Ladies, gentlemen, thank you for your presentations. You are confirming what we already more or less already knew. You do so using more accurate data achieved through experimentation and research. Yes, alcohol creates significant problems on a personal, family and economic level and part of the reason we are here today is to try to come up with a solution.
.0940
The witnesses who have appeared before us to give us their points of view often focussed on two aspects. When dealing with prevention, there is, of course, education, but also improvement of the social environment. Some claim that isolated abuses of alcohol, as you were saying Ms Nadeau, which lead to an eruption of violence, which is, of short duration but very serious, do not constitute the problem itself, but are symptomatic of another problem. They say that education is without a doubt one way of reducing the harm done by the abusive use of alcohol, but we must also deal with the initial cause, which may be a stressful social environment prompting the individual to misuse the various drugs including, of course, alcohol.
What experience could you share with us on this issue?
Ms Nadeau: I will answer in two ways. One of the most successful initiatives in Canada is, of course, Project Red Nose. In Quebec, 60,000 volunteers accompanied intoxicated people during the Christmas season. As part of Project Red Nose, we sometimes transport drunk people from one bar to the other. This is an escort program where volunteers remain neutral. All that we want is to keep intoxicated people for getting behind the wheel. We never pass judgment.
This program has been very successful throughout the province of Quebec. This is without doubt one of the best prevention programs that exists. I would remind you that this program was designed in order to reduce negative consequences. We don't ask any questions about whether or not it is good to become intoxicated; we only seek to prevent the harmful consequences of intoxication.
The second model is Quebec's Éduc'alcool. You will perhaps remember that in Quebec, in order for industry to be able to advertise alcohol, it is mandatory that it do some prevention work. Upon applying for an advertising licence, industry must submit a prevention project to the Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux (liquor, racing and game control board). The Édu'alcool program talks about moderation tasting better. Through these preventive actions, often through social marketing, sometimes through more focussed work in Cegeps or sometimes by encouraging young people to be accompanied by designated drivers, we try to ensure that there is no intoxication.
We have taken a very strong position: we encourage people to avoid binge drinking, drinking large quantities of alcohol on occasion. We are therefore trying to establish a code and to exert social pressure such as was done with impaired driving. Getting drunk, getting intoxicated, drinking too much is deemed to be socially unacceptable. This is what we are trying to achieve.
Thank you for your question.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Ms Tompkins, do you wish to add to that?
[English]
Ms Tompkins: With regard to the comments about social status playing an important role, in the past I think people have always thought of alcohol abuse and a lot of drug dependence as being genetically based. I think the evidence to date supports that there is a genetic basis to alcoholism. But just because you may have that genetic predisposition does not by any means mean you will go on to develop alcohol abuse. It seems very much that genetics and environment play a very important interactive role, but many people who go on to develop alcohol abuse do not seem to have any genetic basis.
.0945
There are factors from animal research that seem to be particularly important. The influencing alcohol reinforcement processes seem to be factors, particularly stress and social environment, and we can see that in the human situation. So I think changing the environment, which would then change the perceived properties of alcohol, would certainly go a long way to stopping excessive use of the alcohol.
Mr. Single: I think your question is a good one, which points out what have been called the two worlds of alcohol problems: you have a problem of chronic disease and chronic use of alcohol, which usually becomes manifest among males predominantly, between the ages of 35 and 55; and then you have problems of acute intoxication, which is most common among youth, actually, or young adults, but it is still a problem up until probably age 35 to 40. In the past, there was perhaps an excess emphasis on the chronic disease side. Now we're recognizing more and more that we have to balance that - this isn't an alternative, it's a complementary approach - with more measures such as Nez Rouge and the kinds of things that are trying to deal with problems of acute intoxication.
There are a lot of reasons why there's a movement in this direction in prevention: the levels of consumption are going down; the industry is suffering; there is a loss of jobs; and there is a sort of reluctance to have further controls over availability for those reasons. But also there is new evidence around moderate drinking and it having beneficial effects.
In our study we found, for example, there are actually more lives saved than lives lost due to alcohol. Unfortunately, the number of hospitalizations was far greater due to alcohol than saved.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Excuse me. How's that?
Mr. Single: Because of the preventive effect on heart disease and stroke that alcohol has among low-level consumers. So it actually saved more lives. But they tended to save a couple of years of life for people who were already in old age, whereas it was killing people when they were much younger. So the years of life lost were far greater than the years of life saved. What we have to work towards is minimizing those adverse consequences so that we can get the benefit that occurs from moderate and low-level use.
So you have this movement toward harm reduction approaches, you might call it. A lot of new and innovative things have come out in the last few years. Server training programs have become widespread throughout Canada, for example. There are programs like Nez Rouge, safe transportation strategies.
In Edmonton, the provincial monopoly opened up one of its liquor stores at nine in the morning in a downtown area, with the blessings of the provincial alcohol agency. The reason for that was that it was to prevent skid-row inebriates from drinking shoe polish and non-potable alcohol, which was poisoning them. So here you actually had an expansion of availability as a harm reduction measure, to prevent poisonings. Of course that doesn't deal with the underlying problem. You have to do more than that. But you have to have both strategies - the harm reduction strategies when people do imbibe too much, and the strategies to get at the more underlying problems.
The more underlying problems, as you said, are very deep-rooted. One area that still remains with a lack of research and programming is the area of dual diagnosis. We know that a lot of people with mental disorders also have alcohol disorders, and a lot of people with alcohol problems have mental disorders. There is some programming, but there really hasn't been much attention given to that problem.
The Chairman: Grant.
Mr. Grant Hill: I like to ask experts, when they come to the committee, if there is an international experience that is better than Canada's. So I'd ask each one of you in turn, could you pick out a country and say this is better, and for what reason?
Ms Nadeau: I hope you won't see me as being preposterous, but one of the interesting things in Canada is that Quebec has the most liberal laws about alcohol and has the lowest rate of alcohol-related problems. So it is in fact a very good example.
In order to do publicity, the alcohol industry, through a law, has to have prevention programs. This is something that is admired in the rest of the provinces and most of the western world. So there are interesting success stories in Canada.
.0950
I would add that the Scandinavian countries are doing very well in terms of drunken driving, but the level of intoxication is still a major problem, along with the smuggling of alcohol. Wine-drinking countries have lessons to teach us in terms of prohibiting intoxication, even though there is regular drinking in those countries. So I think there is no one country that is the total global story, but there are certainly lessons to be learned from other parts of the world.
Ms Tompkins: If I were going to do a comparison, I would do it on funding towards basic research. If we're going to understand where we go in terms of education, treatment and prevention, I think you always have to go back to basic research.
One of the countries that probably is best at this is the United States, where they actually have a lot of federal and public support in the funding of basic research. This has led to some important findings. For instance, we're now becoming aware of the fact that maybe we shouldn't take alcoholics through repeated withdrawals because we might in fact be exacerbating their condition as opposed to helping them. So for an alcoholic for whom you see there will probably be no alternative help, it's best to do a harm reduction and leave them at a basic level than to keep taking them through intoxication and withdrawal.
Another breakthrough that has come through funding in the States is that we now have a new pharmacological agent known as Naltrexone, which seems to be doing pretty well in clinical trials. One of the biggest drop-out times during treatment is in the first two to six weeks following the withdrawal from the alcohol. You have really high relapse rates in that situation. We're now trying to develop drug searches in Naltrexone that in the first two to six weeks will help to strengthen people's resolve, to reduce the craving that is often reported with relapse, to reduce factors such as stress and to teach people coping skills.
So I think lessons are to be learned, but research is important if we are going to develop these strategies to help curb the problem.
Mr. Single: I just returned from Australia, so that's obviously fresh in my mind. What's happened there with regard to alcohol problems over the last five years, which I've looked at in great detail, is that there has been a slight decline in overall consumption, not a great deal, and in keeping with prior trends worldwide since the late 1970s. But one major change is there has been a sharp decline in problematic patterns of consumption - that is, heavy drinking occasions. This is due probably to a number of things. No one could really single out one particular reason. One thing I think the industry deserves some credit for is the introduction of a wide variety of low-alcohol-content products. Most of the standard labels of beer there, for example, will show four different strengths, ranging from 0.9, 2.3, 3.5, all the way up to the full strength of around 4.2 or 4.3. So when people are going out and they know they'll be driving, they have options.
In Canada the industry is also trying to provide more of a variety, but it hasn't really taken off in the market the way it has in Australia. In Australia light beers now account for a very significant share, over 20%, of the beer consumption. One of the problems here is that our tax structure doesn't price the beverages to moderation. Basically, per unit of alcohol it's cheaper to buy the stronger beverage, and it should be the other way around, if anything. That's the kind of policy measure that might be considered to help moderate drinking patterns.
They have a large number of other kinds of programs under way, which are sort of based on the principles of harm reduction. They recognize the fact that people will be drinking. They're not prohibitionist messages. The message is more like take care when you do drink, and so forth. The social mores are changing. Like here, it's becoming more and more unacceptable to drink and drive. I think in the long term we should be investing in those kinds of things.
The Chairman: Mr. Single, could you just run that by me again, this thesis that the stronger the stuff, the cheaper it costs here?
.0955
Mr. Single: Right now the cost per unit of alcohol is greatest for the low-strength products. If you want to buy a 0.9 beer or a 0.5 beer, which you can have ten of and still have the equivalent amount of alcohol as in one regular-strength beer, so if you're drinking and driving you couldn't possibly get even to 0.5 and it would be a nice, safe prevention measure, you have to pay at least as much as for regular-strength beer, and sometimes more, if it's the imported product. On the other hand, the kids who like to drink the over-strength beers actually pay a lot less per unit of alcohol. In a sense they are rewarded. A kid who has only a little money in his pocket is going to buy the higher-strength beer because he'll get a bigger bang for his buck.
The Chairman: Is that a quirk of the taxing system, or is it just the way the pricing is done for those products?
Mr. Single: It's both, but the taxing system clearly contributes to it. There isn't any meaningful difference in the tax according to alcohol content. There are a number of different taxes. Excise taxes do have some differentiation, but the other taxes generally don't. Very often the provinces offset it, so the prices are the same anyway.
The Chairman: Grant.
Mr. Grant Hill: One thing we've been faced with - and this isn't specific to alcohol - is we've been told many times that law enforcement directed towards illicit drugs is a waste of time. I look at your figures and I see a huge cost for law enforcement relating to a legal product, alcohol. Relatively, the costs are high for the illicit drugs as well.
Can you draw a parallel here? We have a legal product with huge law-enforcement problems because it's an intoxicant. We have illegal products that are also expensive for law enforcement to go after. Is there an argument for going after the illicit products with less vigour in law enforcement? Is that a valid argument when we're spending so much on a legal product?
Mr. Single: Opinions vary on that. My personal opinion is that the findings of the cost study are policy neutral. They don't really argue one way or the other for legalization of particular substances.
There are people in favour of drug reform who like to point out, gee, the costs of illicit drugs are so much lower than those of legal drugs; it's a smaller problem and we're wasting this money on law enforcement for what is a smaller problem. On the hand, people on the other side say that when you legalize the product, look at the high costs you have. The study can be used to argue either side of the argument. I think it's really policy neutral.
If you really want to get into the issue of legalization of illicit drugs, you have to look at more than just the economic costs. You have to see what the benefit is from the $400 million being spent on law enforcement. Is there a deterrent effect? What evidence of a deterrent effect is there? That would require a very different kind of study and different kinds of data.
Mr. Grant Hill: Finally, I would like to know from each one of you how cooperative you find the brewers, the manufacturers, the individuals involved in this, when it comes to things such as those you've suggested: a price reduction for a lower-alcohol... I've seen them advertising and saying they are looking for more moderate drinking, and I've seen the warnings. Are they a cooperative industry when it comes to these policy issues?
Once again, perhaps each one of you could give me that information.
[Translation]
Ms Nadeau: In Quebec, we have the Éduc'alcool experience. According to the law, the alcohol industry must offer prevention programs. Our experience shows that after a few years of working with Éduc'alcool, the industry's awareness level increases. This is seen in the annual meetings. We can feel the motivation changing. What was at first an external obligation to comply with regulations has become a much more intrinsic, much more internal motivation to prevent abuse.
Moreover, we cannot hide the fact that the liquor industry is there to sell alcohol, to make money and we must never be blinded by the fact that it wants to both make a great deal of money and do as little damage as possible. Sometimes these objectives are incompatible.
.1000
[English]
Ms Tompkins: From a basic research point of view, there has been considerable effort on the part of industry to now form a foundation that does support research. The research they support is twofold: first, they're interested in basic research, the kind of work I do, which is looking at the properties of alcohol that lead to its abuse, its dependence potential, its organ toxicity and its effect on gender differences. Second, they also spend a lot of money looking at what influences a person to go from moderate to abuse drinking. I think they are showing a willingness to look at moderation as a key. But I think their involvement is limited by the fact that, as you said, they are actually there to make money, and they support research up to a certain point.
Mr. Single: I think the industry record has been somewhat mixed. But there is a growing recognition that it's in their economic self-interest to minimize the problems associated with the use of their product, and they've done a number of things that I think are meaningful in that regard. They have supported research. At times they've helped in efforts to deal with the problem, and they have worked very cooperatively with public health interests. I see a distinct trend in that regard.
I think they should be recognized for having offered consumers a greater variety of products, such as the low-alcohol ones. The responsible use campaigns I think have been excellent, really well done, hard-hitting, and in no way a thinly veiled product advertisement, as some us in the public health area had feared.
Sometimes they have done some things I've disagreed with. I didn't like the introduction of the high-strength beer by one of the major brewers a few years ago. But on balance, you're seeing a distinct trend where they are becoming, I think, not just part of the problem but part of the solution as well.
Ms Nadeau: I would just like to add that they really are partners. When you're working in this field, the alcohol industry is a partner.
The Chairman: We'll now turn to John Murphy and then to Paul Szabo.
Mr. John Murphy: Thank you for your presentations. They were very succinct.
Louise, you talked about a study with regard to linking youth, unemployment, and alcohol. I'd like you to just tell me a bit about that.
Denise, bring me up to date on the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. My understanding is that $500,000 was put into it. Maybe that funding is just a yearly thing. You're doing a lot of research, but you're not a part of that group. I just want to know a bit more about that.
Finally, Eric, maybe you could give some more information on the lessons you learned from Australia around youth and the connection between unemployment and the abuse of alcohol.
Thank you.
Ms Nadeau: Do we have direct studies about unemployment and an increase in alcohol intake? The answer to that question is there is none to my knowledge. However, when you look at who is admitted to treatment for an alcohol disorder, then you see that the level of unemployment is extremely high and has been for some time. There is that kind of link.
We also know from Canadian data that the level of intoxication is much higher for folks who have less revenue than for those who have a high amount of revenue. That is really clear in all Canadian data. Yes, there is a concern that if the level of social despair increases, there will be more use of alcohol. There is that kind of logic. If you look at countries in eastern Europe where the level of longevity is really going down and the level of alcohol intoxication is going up, I'm not sure you can necessarily make a causality link, because there are probably other things going on, but alcohol certainly is one of the contributing factors.
About the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, yes, the federal government did invest $500,000 in the centre, and certainly that funding has to go on. But we should keep in mind there still has been a substantial reduction of 66%, if my memory serves me well. At one point, before that grant came in, there was a major threat of closing the centre. Eric was one of the people who had to be let go exactly on those grounds. So for members of the board, that threat still remains.
.1005
Ms Tompkins: I asked Louise to address that because I didn't know much about it.
In terms of funding for alcohol research, the research I do is actually funded by the Addiction Research Foundation, which is a provincially run agency. It's unique in its set-up in that it covers a wide variety of specialities. In the basic research, you're looking at neurotransmitters in the brain that need reinforcement to epidemiological studies. It's unique in the fact that we interact. We work with clinicians and see the problems they're seeing so that we can try to model those in animals.
We've just received a 30% hit to our funding. Much of the funding for our research comes from the Medical Research Council of Canada, which is also being hit. In the past we've actually got quite a lot of our funding from the NIH in the States because they often view Canada as a kind of add-on to them, and they haven't really treated us as foreign applicants. But as their funding shrinks, we're also getting less funding from them. In general, funding for any type of research in this area has been dwindling over the last few years.
Mr. Single: With regard to unemployment, Denise is right; there haven't been any individual studies I'm aware of either. But an ecological analysis was done in the States by an economist named Harvey Brenner, which looked at trends generally in the United States between unemployment rates and cirrhosis death rates. The interesting thing was that he found a differential effect. In the short term there was an increase. In the longer term of two years or more there was a decrease. Probably that reflects at the individual level that when people are first unemployed, there is anxiety, stress, and so forth that leads to greater drinking, but in the longer term they don't have as much money to spend on drink. So you get a differential effect from whether it's short term or long term.
Among youth, I know of no studies whatsoever. But of course we know that street kids and so forth have exceptionally high rates of consumption and problem drinking plus illegal drug use and so forth, so that wouldn't be surprising.
In Australia there's a lot of emphasis on education, and like here, they do have evaluation studies that have been pretty equivocal in their results and that don't show much effect of educational programming.
I personally endorse that emphasis on education. I think it's a good investment in the future to put a lot of money into alcohol and drug education for youth, even though the findings have been fairly equivocal. There is generally some change in attitude, but there's very little evidence of changes in behaviour. I think the reason it hasn't shown more is because of various kinds of methodological limits in the study, the main one being they can't follow them through to the long term. I still think it's a wise investment in the future to continue to invest a lot in drug education in the schools.
Ms Nadeau: I'd like to comment on one thing. We had people from Sweden come to visit us in Quebec because of the initiative of Éduc'alcool, and one of the things we learned from working with them is that any education program really has to be linked to the culture. They wanted to import the success of Éduc'alcool, but their country has a long history involving the temperance movement, which has not been the case in Quebec. You may remember that the only area in North America in which there was no prohibition was Quebec. We've always had more liberal laws. In fact our prevention programs follow that tradition of more liberal laws.
It's very important to understand that a prevention program that worked well in one area of Canada cannot necessarily be transplanted and be expected to work as effectively in another area of the country. Certainly the Swedes can't import Éduc'alcool because they have a long tradition of very stringent rules and laws, and becoming liberal will just lead to more abuse. So it's really important to realize that it's not a matter that one size fits all, including from coast to coast here.
The Chairman: We'll now turn to Paul Szabo and then to Herb Dhaliwal.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
.1010
I want to touch on two issues. The first has to do with numbers. I think the bottom line on numbers is that no matter who is doing the analysis, all would agree that the consequences of misuse of alcohol are large enough that we should be concerned and continue to work on it.
Having said that, I, like many, am very curious about the range of numbers that have occurred. To give you an example, we just finished reviewing a bill on tobacco in which Health Canada clearly represented their position as being that some 40,000 people die each year from tobacco consumption. Yet the most recent study from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse insists that it is 33,000. It's a very substantial difference.
Two reports ago, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse reported that 19,000 people died from the misuse of alcohol. The study was about 250 to 300 pages. I purchased it and looked at it, and it was all analysis. Yet in the last study that came out last June, the 19,000 people went down to 6,701. It really does beg the question of how we can go from almost 20,000 down to 6,000. In their study - and I had to buy this one as well - which is quite a bit thicker, it has pages of analysis. The reality is that 6,701 says to me that this is the number. But in fact it is not. It has nothing to do with counting real cases. What it has to do with is arithmetic exercises and statistics.
I really don't want to indicate in our report that the numbers, because of the change, are reflective of any progress. I think this is what I'm concerned about, Mr. Chairman.
In fact, the Ontario Provincial Police, in its recent report - report on numbers to 1994 - said that they are very concerned that the progress that we had made in the last decade with regard to reducing alcohol-related problems and impaired driving charges and deaths from alcohol had been very good, but it had levelled off, and that the old approaches were losing their effectiveness and that we no longer could rely on those same old clichés and same old approaches, that we really needed new initiatives.
This is the message that has to get out. Let's not fall into this trap about numbers.
The real issue I wanted to discuss was one that Ms Nadeau raised. It has to do with the syndrome d'alcoolisme foetal.
[Translation]
Ms Nadeau, last October 16, the Minister of Health and the Chairman of the Canadian Paediatric Society disclosed their position with respect to fetal alcohol syndrome. They announced that the wisest decision for women was to abstain from drinking alcohol during pregnancy. Could you tell us about a few initiatives that have been taken in support of this recommendation?
Ms Nadeau: Several initiatives have been taken in Canada. The Crabtree Corner initiative, in Vancouver, is certainly among the most interesting. At the very start, the aim of the program was to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome, but this program rapidly turned into a mother-child work space. This is what is important.
Rather than focussing solely on alcohol consumption, we realized that once the baby had arrived, the most important thing was to preserve the mother-child relationship. When we met with 50 experts in this field in Canada, the pediatricians, particularly those from British Colombia, reminded us that the primary problem was the fact that the disabled child was separated from his or her mother because she had been drinking too much. There are a large number of babies there with fetal alcohol syndrome. In Canada, very few women drink during pregnancy. However, among those who do drink during pregnancy, some have two, three or four children. That, in my opinion, is the main problem.
.1015
Moreover, I would remind you that current data indicates that when a woman drinks small quantities, for example, a glass of wine with a meal, there are no known cases of fetal alcohol syndrome.
In addition, during this same meeting, we were told that some women who had consumed alcohol during the first three weeks of pregnancy, without knowing that they were pregnant, panicked and asked for an abortion.
Accordingly, it is very important that we have accurate and specific information in Canada. We do not want responsible women, who have spouses and who are the most likely to produce Canadians who are going to contribute to society, to resort to abortion because they drink and we misinform them.
Moreover, we must recognize that women in distress... and here I'm thinking about this dramatic case that took place in Manitoba last summer. We have to ask ourselves questions about the terrible consequences of separating mothers from their children. Under these circumstances, the women become pregnant again as quickly as possible so that they can give themselves another baby. These women do not stop drinking.
One of the recommendations to come out of the forum was in fact to make home visits to the poorest women. Our language was kept politically correct: as a society, we must support these women in distress who find it so difficult to parent. This clearly applied to fetal alcohol syndrome, but we could not and did not want to say so in those terms, and that was good.
To be honest, I should add that this is a problem faced primarily by the aboriginal communities.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, folks, we've been hearing those witnesses for a little more than an hour, which is what we had allotted, and we have a couple of other items of business. I have two other interveners. Unless they have some burning questions, I suggest we terminate. But failing that, I'm prepared to give each of them just a brief intervention. Harb and then Joe.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.): I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman.
There were comments made by the witnesses that a very small consumption of alcohol doesn't have a negative effect. I'm just wondering what your definition of ``small consumption'' is, if you can define it for the committee. There were also comments earlier that in fact in some cases there is a positive effect from small consumption. I just want you to define what you mean by small consumption.
Ms Nadeau: Can I go on this one, and you can correct me, Eric?
The physicians of the U.K. made a statement a couple of years ago, which many of us agree with. They use the 10-gram drink and convert it into 13 grams, which is the consumption of an average drink in Canada. That meant a maximum of 11 drinks a week for women and 17 for men. What's real important is that intoxication - i.e., taking many drinks per occasion - erases all the beneficial effects of alcohol. So what we're speaking of here is one or two drinks of 13 grams a day distributed evenly in the course of the week, keeping in mind that intoxication erases the beneficial effects.
Now, my colleagues may be in disagreement, and I'm open to any kind of discussion on this.
Ms Tompkins: I have just one comment on drinking to intoxication. One of the reasons you start erasing the beneficial effects of alcohol is that once you start to have high consumptions of alcohol, you switch to different to metabolic pathways, and these different metabolic pathways actually produce by-products that are toxic to the system. It's these by-products that cause the organ toxicities such as liver cirrhosis. The consumption that Louise was talking about is spread over a week, and this is because you don't want to start driving into the metabolic pathways that lead to these toxic by-products.
.1020
Mr. Single: First, one little correction. I didn't say and I didn't hear anyone else say that drinking low-level is not without risk. What we did say is that drinking at low levels is associated with health benefits, but there are risks as well as the benefits. Even two drinks a day can pose a risk say for a low-weight woman or a youth who has very little experience in drinking if they then go out and drive a car or something. So it's not that there aren't risks, that there's a completely safe level.
A number of different authorities, usually medical authorities, have come up with drinking guidelines. The Addiction Research Foundation and the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse did so two years ago. I'll be happy to send those guidelines to you. They're under revision right now. They are likely to be changed very slightly, specifying a little better. They're close to those guidelines that Louise just mentioned. It will be 14 drinks a week for men and 10 for women, with a caveat that that doesn't mean you can have 14 drinks on Saturday night; there's also a limit per day, and so forth.
This is a well-established and researched area, and it is constantly being updated on the basis of evidence. It's trying to get people to think of where their limits should be, where they can get the benefits that can come from low-level, moderate consumption, and minimize the risks - it never eliminates the risks - associated with drinking.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at this alcohol chart, and I find it interesting that under the spirits, if you have maybe a glass of spirits you're getting 8.9 grams of alcohol, whereas with a glass of wine you're getting 13.4 grams of alcohol. That is according to this chart. I'm not clear as to why you get a lower content of alcohol.
The Chairman: Whose chart is that?
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal: I presume they mean one drink of spirits gives you 8.9 grams of alcohol, whereas with one glass of wine you get 13.4 grams of alcohol.
Mr. Single: That's in a small serving: it's only one ounce, as opposed to 1.5 ounces. I guess the message there is for people to try not to be too heavy with their hand when they're pouring their spirits.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal: My conclusion is that a glass of wine a day is not really a negative factor, according to what you're telling me.
Ms Nadeau: If you're not diabetic. And there are other medical conditions for which alcohol intake, even in small quantities, will increase the risk. That's why there's not this one size fits all. And you don't drink alcohol as medicine.
The Chairman: Harb, I realize it must come as shattering news to you, but while you absorb that I'll ask Joe to...
[Translation]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton - Lawrence, Lib.): The witness has just answered the question that I had prepared. I would like to thank her.
[English]
The Chairman: So you don't have any questions?
M. Joseph Volpe: No. I just wanted to speak French because I saw the great reaction Mr. Szabo got from Madame Picard. I wanted to impress her as well, that's all.
The Chairman: If you were surprised, imagine how surprised Szabo was.
[Translation]
Ms Pauline Picard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the member on his good French. This was a good effort.
[English]
The Chairman: He's got hidden talents, that boy.
Thank you very much. I want to say thanks to the witnesses for a very interesting exchange. Thanks for your time. Our researchers may well be in touch with you again as we prepare the report. Thank you.
.1024
.1026
The Chairman: In a moment we're going to return to the issue of Bill C-47. John Murphy moved a motion, and we'll come back to that issue in a moment, but I'm waiting for clarification from my friend Grant Hill.
Are you still waiting for your colleague, or are you staying?
Mr. Grant Hill: My colleague is on his way.
The Chairman: Keith Martin had been the Reform Party's representative on the subcommittee with respect to Bill C-47, so in fairness we're going to wait until he arrives before we deal with the issue of Bill C-47.
In the meantime, could I have the benefit of some advice from the committee...?
[Translation]
Ms Pauline Picard: Mr. Chairman, I do not see why we should wait any longer. We waited for them yesterday. They showed up too late. What is the point of waiting? The subcommittee was quite entitled to proceed with the clause-by-clause study, as had been agreed to previously.
As I said to you, we heard witnesses for three months. The members of the Reform Party were never present. I was the only representative of the Official Opposition. The members from the third party never showed up.
Yesterday, we heard two witnesses. The testimony did not take up nearly as much time as had been scheduled. We did not know when the third party was going to show up. Should we have waited until 5:30, until 6 o'clock?
I feel that the chair was quite entitled to proceed. She did so. Why wait for the grievances of the third party yet again? It is 10:30 and the member still isn't here this morning. I don't understand why this is happening.
[English]
The Chairman: Let me be clear. When I said ``wait'', I had in mind waiting something to the order of three to five minutes to give him time from the House over here. Given that we have one other issue we can deal with very quickly, there's really not much waiting involved. I was doing it simply as a courtesy to the parties involved.
I wanted to put to you a question on the drug study before us, which is our current issue. It's difficult to know how to proceed on this one for a whole category of reasons. Number one, while I don't want to pre-empt the Prime Minister on when the election might be, I think we all know there's at least a likelihood an election could intervene before our report is completed. To put it differently, if you at all believe the pundits, next Tuesday could well be our last meeting before an election, which means there would be no time to complete the report.
.1030
We circulated to you today a confidential draft document, a summary of briefs and testimony so far. I asked you to have a look at it, because we've got two or three options, at least in theory: we can ask the staff to begin looking at recommendations; we can prepare an interim report... My own sentiment is different from either of these. It's that we tread water for another week until we find out where we're going. If the election intervenes, we can just leave the thing in suspended animation and hope our successor committee picks up from the work we've done and completes the report.
Realistically, I don't think there's time to do any kind of report, interim or otherwise, if the election intervenes. If it doesn't intervene - that is to say, if we have the election in the fall - then we've got ample time to do what has to be done. So it seems to me that what we ought to do is just tread water - well, not exactly tread water, because we have witnesses coming next week anyway. By then we'll have a better sense of where this is.
My suggestion to you is that you take the draft document and get your head around it, but just wait for a week or so. That's my suggestion, unless you have some more specific direction to give me.
Joe, do you have any comments on that?
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Chairman, I think you've made a sensible and wise suggestion. I'm wondering if I could just offer something by way of perhaps raising the issue one step further.
It appears to me, at least from what I've glanced over, that what we have is a list of witnesses and a summary of some of the evidence. If it is in order for this committee to perhaps next week direct the chair to offer a summary of an interim report so as to give an indication to the House that the committee was in the course of conducting this study and that at this point it had reached this stage... I don't know whether the orders of the House would permit us to do that. If the Prime Minister then decides to interrupt the proceedings of the committee, we have at least closed off part of the chapter.
Would it be appropriate then to make the recommendation that we take a look at whether that's feasible under the orders of the House? If it is, fine. If it isn't, then I think your suggestion is the one we go with: just keep working, and when we're pre-empted by a call, we're pre-empted by a call.
The Chairman: In response to Joe, what we can do is we can agree next Tuesday to present an interim report without recommendations. Look at the logistics of that, first of all. If we decide next Tuesday to do that, we then have to prepare the interim report and submit it to the House. That will take some time. If the election intervenes, it could well be called three or four days after we make the decision. So there may still not be time even for the interim report.
Secondly, keep in mind that under House procedure, once the House is dissolved the whole issue, including the committee, dies and would have to be reconstituted under a new Parliament. That's why I said just now that we can hope that our successor committee in that context would pick up where we left off and complete the report.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: You're quite right, Mr. Chairman, if I might interrupt. My suggestion is motivated only by the consideration that you put before the committee, and that is that you hope that a subsequent committee might take up the work where it left off. In my own mind, a report is more of a summary of what had transpired to this stage. So if a subsequent committee were to take up the workings where we have left off, then they would have at least some guidance, without any prejudice about where we were.
The Chairman: What Joe is suggesting is that the staff be directed to prepare an interim report that we can consider next Tuesday with a view to putting it before the House and reporting it back to the House by the end of next week. Is it agreed that we should proceed along those lines? This would be a report without any recommendations, an interim report of where we are now.
Mr. Paul Szabo: I've had an opportunity to scan what's here. We certainly do have a summary of testimony of sorts. I think you may agree there are some differences.
.1035
Since the committee proceedings are on the public record and published and all this is there, I hesitate to suggest that a report from this committee is anything more than some further form of summarizing testimony. I think it puts us in an awkward situation, because I do have some recommendations and I do have some concerns about some of the information that was given by at least two witnesses. I would want to be able to add to that.
Mr. Chairman, if we're going into an election at the end of this month, I'm uncomfortable putting my name to anything we haven't had an opportunity to do a good job on. I would prefer not to put anything out with qualifications, saying we've just tried to précis or summarize things that are others' opinions and not the opinions of this committee. That's the risk here: that it would be assumed to be the opinion of the committee.
The Chairman: Anything else on this issue? Grant.
Mr. Grant Hill: Obviously if a new committee is struck they will want to review some of the data. In fact my experience has been we'll recall witnesses so they can give personal information. I think we would be going well too far to try to summarize the information at this point. This type of interim report I think should not be passed by the committee if an election is held.
The Chairman: All right. We have no consensus.
Let's go back to Bill C-47. Let's remind ourselves what has been done here. The committee referred Bill C-47 to a subcommittee, with Bonnie as the chair, a subcommittee that is representative of the parties around the table here. That committee has done its work and is reporting to us today that it has looked at the bill and made some amendments and recommends that we report the amended bill to the House.
We have a couple of options at this point as a committee. One is to adopt the report of the committee, and that's the motion that's before us right now: John Murphy's motion is to adopt the report of the committee, and then it would be presented as our eighth report to the House. The other option is to do the clause-by-clause, which of course was already done in committee. Technically, we have the option of doing that. These are the two options.
I'm going to editorialize, or give you my view. Unless there is some procedural reason - if somebody can demonstrate to me that this thing was botched in committee or was not done properly in committee, that kind of stuff... Let me say it differently. If somebody can show me that it was botched somehow in committee, then I have an obligation to the full committee to see that it's done right before it goes to the House. Unless somebody can demonstrate that to me, I would put it to you that we should be considering adopting the report. We should not be considering doing what has already been done in committee, assuming it was done properly and with the participation of the parties concerned.
I'm going to entertain a couple of brief interventions on the motion to adopt the report. Keith Martin.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Yesterday the bill was going to be done clause by clause starting at five o'clock, according to the orders of proceedings that I received. I got there shortly after five o'clock, and the bill had gone through clause-by-clause within a very few minutes, in fact. I don't think the bill received proper consideration during that time.
There is a lot of concern about the bill and that new amendments need to be put forward to make it more representative of the people who came in front of the committee. Therefore, I think this committee should go through the bill clause by clause.
The Chairman: Pauline, Joe, Bonnie.
[Translation]
Ms Pauline Picard: Ms Hickey can have the floor instead of me. I will make a comment after.
[English]
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey: Thank you, Pauline.
.1040
Mr. Chairman, with respect to my colleague from the Reform Party, I believe that we did everything in our power to try to get him or a representative of the Reform Party to be at the committee yesterday to go clause by clause.
I don't recall seeing a lot of participation during the committee from the Reform Party that would give me any indication that they had a lot of interest in this in the first place. However, we did ask the members who were there yesterday if it was okay to proceed. We had the staff do everything in their power to have a representative from the Reform Party. They didn't show up. Mr. Martin did decide to show up after five o'clock, which was after the work was done. We had passed Bill C-47 with the consent of everybody who was there.
I don't see any reason to prolong this any further. I think this should go to the House, as we agreed when we left the committee yesterday with respect to everybody who was there.
The Chairman: Maybe the clerk can help me. When was the subcommittee first informed about the clause-by-clause?
The Clerk of the Committee: Friday morning around ten o'clock I called the members to inform them we would be meeting Monday and we would proceed to clause-by-clause.
The Chairman: What time on Monday? When you called on Friday, was it indicated what time the clause-by-clause would begin?
The Clerk: I told them there was a meeting at 3:30, and after we had heard from the witnesses we would go to clause-by-clause.
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey: Immediately following the witnesses.
The Chairman: And is that what happened?
The Clerk: On the notice, we did indicate time for the witnesses and the clause-by-clause.
The Chairman: What time was the clause-by-clause?
The Clerk: Five o'clock.
The Chairman: When did you start the clause-by-clause?
The Clerk: I think it was a quarter to or ten to five.
The Chairman: When did you finish clause-by-clause?
The Clerk: It was 5:10, I believe.
The Chairman: Okay. I have two other speakers, Pauline and Joe.
[Translation]
Ms Pauline Picard: At any rate, I support what Ms Hickey has just said. As for the comments that I was going to make, I made them earlier. Like our subcommittee chair, we felt the interest that the third party, the Reform Party had throughout this study of the bill. I have sympathy for the third party, but when you are interested in a study as serious as this one, you at least show up to hear the witnesses.
The Reform Party did not show up until last week. Up until then, no member from the Reform Party had met the witnesses. Yesterday, things went along more quickly than expected. Indeed, I was the only one who had questions for the two witnesses appearing during the video conference. The Reform Party representative still wasn't there at 5 o'clock. we could not guess that he would be arriving 15 minutes later. It was 5:15, Mr. Martin, when the committee concluded its work.
How were we to know that you were interested in participating in the clause-by-clause study, when, at 5:15, you entered this room? I even noticed the time, because I thought that this was too bad for you. This is what happened. Since the government had tabled amendments and I hadn't read them, we proceeded with the clause-by-clause study and I expressed my dissent, because in all honesty, I could not agree with clauses I had not read.
Since I had the amendments, it wasn't worth reading them out, because I had the French interpretation. I therefore expressed my dissent for each clause. Things went along much more quickly than if we had asked questions. That is what happened.
.1045
[English]
The Chairman: Joe.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of points, if you'll permit.
As to whether the subcommittee did its work thoroughly and properly, as according to the rules of the House, I think there is an unequivocal answer to that, and it's absolutely yes.
The committee and the public had before it the bill from last June. There's been no rush. The hearings began after seven months of the proposed legislation being in the public domain and after seven months when all interested parties and stakeholders in the legislation had been invited to comment. It followed a year of other public consultation that emanated from the prohibitions that preceded the legislation.
The subcommittee went out of its way to hear everyone who wanted to be heard. In fact, there were some witnesses who were not added to the list initially, and the committee then made an amendment to its list of witnesses so that they could be heard, even though they had initially been told they weren't welcome because somebody else was already representing that interest and because some of those parties had gone around to every single member of the committee and seen them already. The committee, both as a whole and individually, went out of its way to listen to all public input.
Some of the committee meetings saw rather vigorous exchanges between witnesses and committee members. My personal observation is that some of the questions from the committee members were - can I put it delicately - aggressive. There was no reticence about making the views understood and some of the issues well explained.
The committee resumed its hearings at a time when the issue of cloning gave a different dimension and colour to Bill C-47. As I said a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, the issue was there in the public domain, both in the bill and the explanatory booklet, since last June. There has been no attempt to rush or dismiss any consideration. And I believe that some of the members of the subcommittee present here today will agree with me.
There are a couple of issues. One, it is a very short bill. Every article was debated. In fact, all of the witnesses came forward and specifically addressed a clause or subclause of the bill. It was a very focused type of debate. As a consequence, you can see that the amendments are very specific. They addressed the issues that were raised. And it's not surprising that the amendments would have been dealt with very quickly.
The larger issues were ones that put public sympathies and interests on one side and research interests on another side. They, too, have been addressed by one specific amendment. The bill set out to ensure that the general public would not have any doubts as to where the government would stand on the commercialization of new reproductive technologies. The bill accomplished that, and I think the committee was satisfied that was the case after it heard all the witnesses who wanted to be heard.
I urge the committee to accept first and foremost the principle that the subcommittee could only do its job correctly and properly, which it did, and secondly, that the bill should be supported on the basis of its substance. There's no need for us as a whole committee to go over it clause by clause again.
.1050
The Chairman: Keith.
Mr. Keith Martin: There are a number of amendments that ought to be put forward.
As to whether or not the bill had gone through clause-by-clause appropriately and fairly, in my view it had not. According to the order of the day, this was supposed to be dealt with shortly after five o'clock, but it was dealt with before that, and it went through extraordinarily quickly. Events in the House precluded me from being able to attend at that time, but that's not the business of this committee.
Amendments need to be put forward by people such as Dr. Baird, the author of the report of the royal commission, and other individuals. These amendments need to be put forward to make the bill representative of the witnesses we heard.
I have no problem with the manner in which the people were heard or the quality of the people who were heard. I think it has been done fairly. However, the representations that have been made by these individuals are not taken into consideration in the bill, and I think we need to go through this clause by clause so that we can put these amendments forward here. If they're not going to be put forward here, they will be put forward in the House.
The Chairman: I've heard enough, and I'm prepared to rule. Just before I do, keep in mind that when the subcommittee - and for that matter, the committee - does its business, its quorum does not require that all parties be present. All parties are aware of what constitutes a quorum.
This brings me to my second point. If you as a member of any committee or subcommittee want to ensure something doesn't get by you because a decision will be made in your absence, you have to keep in mind that once the time of the meeting is set, i.e., 3:30 p.m., assuming there's a quorum present, the events can proceed without you, and they can proceed quite properly without you. So the committee was properly constituted at 3:30, and it proceeded with its business.
Another thing you have to keep in mind around here is that we're all juggling schedules in terms of trying to be in several places at one time. I understand Keith had a commitment in the House. I would assume he knew beforehand he had that commitment and could easily have arranged to speak at another time or have somebody else sit in for him on the committee, because he couldn't be in both places at the same time.
I'm convinced the committee proceedings were done properly and that what we have before us now is a proper report of the committee and a proper motion to adopt that report.
Before putting the question, which is what I intend to do in a moment, just let me say that in saying that the clerk and the chair and others behaved properly, keep in mind there was no rush. Whatever the need for amendments now, there was no rush before the fact. The clerk received no amendments before the fact from either the Reform or the Bloc. There may well be a need for amendment, but the adoption of this report doesn't preclude that, because we still have report stage. So anybody who wants to put forward amendments still has the full option to do so.
So with that, I'm going to put the question on the report. If it doesn't carry, we'll go to clause-by-clause right here. If it does carry, you have an option to put your amendments during report stage.
The motion that has been moved by John is that we adopt the report of the subcommittee on Bill C-47.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: We stand adjourned until next Tuesday.