[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, March 28, 1996
.0935 
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Sub-Committee on Bill C-222. Thank you for coming.
Our agenda is very brief this morning. We have to deal with a routine group of motions that are normally on an agenda for a first meeting. We also have future business to speak about. If anybody has any item they want to add to the agenda, I think they can mention it now.
Bill C-222, as we all know, is an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. It is a private member's bill submitted by our colleague. I understand there is strong support from all parties in the House for this particular bill.
The clerk has given us each a sheet of paper on future business. We'll deal with that when we get to it.
We're quickly going to run through the routine motions. Maybe we can deal with them as a block. I'll let you decide that at the end.
They are:
That each subcommittee member be allowed to have one staff person present at in camera meetings, unless there is a decision for a particular meeting to exclude all staff.
That the subcommittee publish its Minutes of Proceedings as established by the Board of Internal Economy.
That the chair be authorized to hold meetings in order to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that three members of the subcommittee be present and provided that one member of the opposition be present.
That, as established by the Board of Internal Economy and at the discretion of the chair, reasonable travelling and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses invited to appear before the subcommittee, up to a maximum of two representatives.
That one transcript of all subcommittee meetings held in camera be produced to be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation and that all those transcripts be destroyed at the end of the session.
That during questioning of witnesses at any meeting of this subcommittee, there be allocated one ten-minute period per party for the first round of questions and five minutes per member for the subsequent rounds.
I think we need to change that, because the clerk, in the proposed schedule, is allowing thirty minutes for each witness before this committee. I think we need to reduce the ten probably to five for that first round for questioning for each party. Then if there are a few minutes left we can do it. Is that agreeable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Is there any discussion on these motions? Does somebody want to move them?
Mr. Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants): I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Future business. The clerk has put this forward for discussion. For the first meeting, which would be on April 18, after we come back from the House recess, Mr. Szabo, the mover of the bill, would be invited to speak. That's the normal procedure. We would invite somebody from Health Canada, as well as somebody from the B.C. Ministry of Health, because they have been making major inroads in this particular area.
.0940
Nancy, what has the B.C. ministry done?
The Clerk of the Committee: I think they chaired the federal-provincial working group. If we were going to invite somebody from the provinces, the person who chaired the meeting would be the logical person to invite.
I don't know if they would be available on such short notice. Three weeks is short notice for a minister, but I thought that might an appropriate group to start with.
The Chair: He could speak on behalf of all the ministries.
Mr. Szabo (Mississauga South): Just for the information of the members, Madam Chair, the provincial ministers of health met last May in Vancouver and it was unanimously agreed to recommend health warning labels on the containers of alcoholic beverages. That recommendation was sent by the chair, who is the B.C. Minister of Health, to the then federal minister, the Hon. Diane Marleau.
The issue here is that the provinces, who obviously have some jurisdiction with regard to alcoholic beverages and their distribution, have looked into this issue. Someone representing a provincial wing - and we thought possibly the B.C. health minister or at least a representative from the B.C. provincial Ministry of Health - could be helpful to us in understanding how much work they've done and the rationale for their unanimous recommendation.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that explanation. You have the background. That's great.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): I have a quick aside, if I might. The health minister, of course, has changed in B.C. in the last three weeks, so the individual involved would not be the same health minister.
The Chair: Do you have any suggestions on that, Paul?
Mr. Szabo: I think we have to start with the B.C. Ministry of Health and seek their guidance, but we would like provincial input. It might not even be the B.C. minister ultimately. It could be some other provincial minister who is taking a lead role. The B.C. minister may have only been the physical host of the meeting. I think that might be a starting point.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Subsequently, four witnesses have been put on the agenda for three particular days and we have to go through the lists of people who might be available to appear. Then we would deal with the clause-by-clause on May 16, present to the Standing Committee on Health by May 28, and be in the House for May 29.
I guess the whole idea is to get this finished before the House rises in June, and then we're finished with it. It puts us under a tight schedule, but I think we can do it.
Does everyone agree with this overall approach?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Unfortunately, I will be away for the first meeting on April 18. I will need someone to chair.
Mrs. Picard is not here right now. She is a vice-chair of the standing committee. Would someone else wish to chair the meeting on April 18?
Would you like to chair it, John?
Mr. Murphy: No, let her do it.
The Chair: Sure. Do you so move?
Mr. Szabo: I so move.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: Let's go to the report from Nancy on the bill.
There are three different areas: the aspect of the legislation that refers to drinking alcohol while pregnant; drinking while driving an automobile or operating machinery; and drinking as a general health problem. We feel there are three categories that we have to cover in terms of what types of witnesses we are going to invite.
She has listed some obviously from the government, the industry, the research advisory bodies, medical health organizations, community associations, and individuals. In order to keep to this schedule...we're talking about 12 witnesses, apart from Mr. Szabo, Health Canada and the B.C. ministry. We are limited to inviting 12 people and we need to cover those three categories.
Is there any discussion on that?
.0945
Mr. Szabo: Madam Chair, I would yield to the chair and to the staff to pick representative witnesses from those vested interest groups that are relevant to what we're dealing with. I'd be happy to accept your decision on that. You can do the planning and the invitations, etc., within the outline or the proposed schedule, limiting it to that number.
Mr. Hill: I would only ask that we have someone on this list who takes an international viewpoint: what has happened in other jurisdictions; have there been statistical changes in terms of alcohol use in those who are pregnant. I think specifically of the United States. As Paul just told me, the Northwest Territories have legislation of this nature. This is so we don't put ourselves into a narrow frame.
The Chair: The research assistant here, Nancy, is getting information on the U.S. experience through the Surgeon General's office. That will be forthcoming. If someone from that office needs to come, I guess that's a later decision, but maybe the information that's provided will be sufficient.
Is it agreed that it be up to the chair and the clerks...?
Mr. Murphy: Have we had some sign of interest from particular groups already?
The Chair: Yes. There are some individuals here.
The thing we have to be careful of...without inviting too many individuals, if they can be covered by an umbrella organization, that's probably just as well. I think we do want to have at least one private individual in.
Have you had a chance to review this, John?
Mr. Murphy: Yes, it's fine.
The Chair: I think we've all had letters from people across the country in support of Paul's bill. I have.
It's been moved by Mr. Szabo that it's up to the clerk and the chair to make sure the invitations are out in these three categories.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: Next, because there could be witnesses from out of town, the clerk must prepare a budget to submit to the standing committee. As we know, the standing committee has a budget that covers the three subcommittees, but we still must prepare one for this committee. She should bring this back at the next meeting.
You will be so directed?
The Clerk: I'm directed.
The Chair: I think that's everything. Is there any other business?
The meeting is adjourned.