[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 14, 1996
.0903 
[English]
The Chair: Order, and good morning, everyone. We're here for the final analysis of Bill C-222.
We'll have a quick review, probably, of the summary Nancy Miller Chénier has given us, and then we will have some discussion around the table on that and further move on to how we will deal with the bill, if that's okay with everyone.
We've probably all read the review. I know I did, at I think 3 a.m.
Having said that, Nancy, do you want to give us a quick summary on it?
Ms Nancy Miller Chénier (Committee Researcher): Sure.
I organized the testimony the committee heard during the public hearings, under four categories. Part one of the summary outlines the background health considerations raised by the witnesses. Part two talks about the role of labels, their effectiveness or non-effectiveness. Part three looks at some of the policy considerations witnesses raised. Part four highlights recommendations of witnesses and some of their suggested changes to the bill.
I won't go through it in detail, but you'll see that each section... For example, part one, on health considerations, looks at both the risks and the benefits in terms of alcohol. It looks at the health considerations in a general sense and as they apply to both fetal alcohol syndrome and driving.
.0905
Where it talks about labels, I've tried to organize it so that it shows what witnesses who support labelling said and what those who were non-supportive of labelling said, both in a general sense and in relation to pregnancy and driving.
As to policy considerations, I've looked at what people said about public support for or against labelling, some of the legislative or legal issues raised, issues about government obligation and industry obligation. There's a section on economic concerns on page 10, arguments that were heard from various industry groups and from workers, and some issues raised in relation to potential government costs.
The Chair: Thank you, Nancy.
Does anybody have any questions of Nancy that he or she wishes to raise, or points of clarification, before we go further with the bill?
Mr. Szabo (Mississauga South): Madam Chair, do you want us to provide any feedback in regard to the specific contents of this summary? Is that what you asked?
The Chair: Sure, if you wish.
Mr. Szabo: One of the things I noted, as an example, was on page 7. This is probably a good one. It is attributed to Robert Solomon. At the top of the page it says, ``Warning labels will not advance the public interest either by improving consumer knowledge or by reducing alcohol related risk and harms.''
I think there is a contradiction in the sentence itself. I'm not sure how to respond to a statement that I think doesn't make sense. Maybe I can ask other members if they have any...
It's there, and I guess that's what was said, but...
The Chair: Do you have comments on that, Nancy?
Ms Miller Chénier: I hope it's what was said. Of course, I was working from the draft transcripts, the unedited versions in most cases, and after last week's meeting I was working from my own notes. But I believe this is the gist of what Dr. Solomon said.
Mr. Szabo: There's also a reference here to research, but it's just general. The research area appears to be the specific issue that has not been fully addressed or referenced. Maybe we'll get a chance to talk about that later.
The Chair: Dr. Hill has just joined us. Nancy has just summarized the research paper that was put together. Have you any questions on this before we move on to the next stage?
Mr. Hill (Macleod): No, thanks very much.
The Chair: I guess the question I have to ask the committee, then, is it the wish of the committee to proceed now to clause-by-clause?
Mr. Szabo: With discussion.
Mr. Scott (Fredericton - York - Sunbury): Madam Chair, I would prefer it if perhaps we all had a chance to put our feelings on this on the record. Perhaps just go around the table and have everyone -
The Chair: I was hoping that would have happened as a result of this, that it would have come out, Mr. Scott, but it didn't come out.
.0910
An hon. member: Agreed.
The Chair: You would like people to put it on the table?
Mr. Scott: I would say so.
The Chair: All right. Madame Picard.
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard (Drummond): Would you like to have an opinion on this bill as a whole? I will give you the views of the Bloc Quebecois. Obviously, we agree with the basic principle underlying the bill, which is to reduce the incidence of alcohol addiction or to reduce through concrete measures the rate of increase in the number of people who drink too much.
But concerning the use of labels on bottles of alcoholic beverages, we doubt this will be an efficient measure.
What we suggest is using prevention and education programs in the general public. These programs have proven effective, as can be seen in Quebec right now. The number of young people involved in impaired-driving has dropped considerably. It can readily be seen today that prevention programs have reached young people and have had a real impact on the general public.
In the Bloc Quebecois, we are more interested in the measures and concerns health agencies have dealt with during our hearings, and more particularly about the foetal alcohol syndrome, which I find particularly disturbing. Young people is another priority that has been emphasized.
The Bloc Quebecois is quite open to the recommendations on these two concerns expressed by agencies and individuals who have appeared before this committee and have asked us to consider these problems.
I intend to move in the House a motion recommending that the government find ways to inform future mothers about this problem and perhaps implement other programs in partnership with associations of distillers and brewers. That is the position of the Bloc Quebecois.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. That's very helpful.
Dr. Hill.
Mr. Hill: As you probably heard from my individual comments, I personally favour a graphic label rather than a printed written label. I have presented a possible graphic to direct attention to fetal alcohol syndrome itself. Our party handles this quite differently. I will make a presentation to the party, tell them my feelings once I have heard all the witnesses and the data, and the party will be completely free and open to choose or to reject that approach. It will be a completely open and free vote for Reformers on this issue.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants): When I first came here to study this bill, I said to myself that in principle this is a good idea. With a number of interventions heard from witnesses...
I was involved with a group that started years ago an alcohol treatment educational program in the valley where I come from. I've seen a lot of educational interventions at work.
I think you would note that my line of questioning with witnesses was always one of, were the labels effective? Could they tell me if the labels were effective? On the other hand, could they tell me if they weren't effective?
I don't believe I had my questions answered. I wasn't swayed by the industry saying that they were going to try to bribe us by taking away the funding they now put into education. That did not influence me, because if they didn't do it, we may be able to do that somewhere else, through Health Canada and so on.
.0915
I guess my question has been that I have not been convinced there's behaviour change with labelling as an intervention. Obviously, I don't think the door needs to be closed on this, because I still think the premise I came with, that at first blush this, among other interventions, should be tried...
I'm just looking for more evidence. I don't believe I have the evidence at this point in time to say that labels make a behavioural change.
The Chair: Andy.
Mr. Scott: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The first thing I'd like to do is offer my congratulations to my colleague Paul. My office window looks down on his office, and I can advise the committee that he's worked long and hard on this file. I see him wandering through his office carrying his box of bottles and stuff. I've been made aware, personally aware, of a problem that I suppose I, like other Canadians, had been vaguely aware of. So I think a service has been done to the country.
Unlike my colleague from the valley, I don't really have as much problem with the effectiveness of labelling. Perhaps having gone through the tobacco packaging exercise, listening to witnesses and so on and so forth, I really became convinced that in fact labelling can be effective.
The problem I have with this, as we explored the last day we had witnesses, is whether or not in this case this is the best way to get to the people we need to bring this to attention of. I'm not convinced of that. But neither am I so convinced that it's not a good idea, that I would like to see us...
If I were forced to vote on it right now, I would probably have to vote against it, and I don't want to do that. I think it's worthy of building on. So I intend to make a motion when it's appropriate.
Madam Chair, you'll have to give me direction on how to deal with that. I would like to put it on the record that at this point I think... There are people in my constituency who have gratuitously spoken to me about this issue. That says something profound to me in terms of the attention this exercise has brought to this issue. I think particularly Paul should be commended for that.
I'll keep talking, since I'm sure he wants to speak next.
With that, Madam Chair, I would in some fashion like to give notice that I'd like to make a suggestion.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Paul, I'm going to give you last word here.
Mr. Szabo: I want to thank the staff for the summary of the witness material. I read it about four or five times last night. Because I read it and because I saw these issues and because I've heard what my colleagues have said, I think if I were to focus in on their concerns...
John has raised the impact on behaviour, and Andy has raised the question of the targeting. I heard that time and time again. I think those are the fundamental questions.
What this committee has not received are studies and research data from authoritative supports. It hasn't been presented to the committee. Some have made reference to research studies.
Last evening I knew this was going to come up. That's why I had to sit down last evening and document all of the...and I brought here all of these studies, which I felt commented on those issues, particularly the issue of behaviour, and secondly, the issue of targeting. I think those are the critical issues.
.0920
The first one was the Health Canada workshop on pregnancy and fetal alcohol syndrome effects, dated July 23, 1994. Among other things, they talked about labelling. On page 23 it asks the rhetorical question, have they been effective? The answer was, little research has been conducted for us to know yet.
I agree with that assessment. The last data I found here...and you will see in your hand-outs from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse on addiction research, if you look at the reference dates of the research they've presented, it's late 1992, early 1993. There is nothing since then.
In fact, the most authoritative reference now happens to be Alcohol and Health, from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, September 1993, of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. They have concluded that there is only one piece of research, really only one relevant piece of research, that has been done on this matter. I refer to it in my notes, item four, second paragraph. That is the most definitive research on the subject matter of health warning labels in the United States.
It says in 1990, six months after the labels were implemented in the U.S., 21% of American adults were aware of the label, while in 1991, 18 months after implementation, 27% were aware of the label. The highest rates of seeing the labels were among the groups most targeted, being young men 18 to 29 years. They had a 41% recognition factor. Women from 18 to 39 years had 35%, and heavy drinkers had a 54% recognition.
This is the most definitive piece of research that has been done. It is targeted, based on that research, but it is only 18 months. If you look at the testimony I had given, or the information I had submitted to the committee, there also is a reference to a further study that says the labels did not get fully implemented immediately. Two-thirds of the bottles did not have a label during the first six months because of inventory lags and just generally lags in implementing the laws.
This issue about behaviour, as well...and I think Health Canada has well made the point. They said in this study there isn't enough research done. There is not enough time between the commencement and the point of study to allow you enough observations over time to develop a trend line and to make an assessment.
So we are going to be unable to find any authoritative supports for behaviour changes as a result of health warning labels. It just does not exist at this time, so we shouldn't look for what we can't find.
In the Health Canada study - and I think the Canadian reference is still important - on page 24, it says labels are being seen, and they are being seen by more people who drink more. Women who had seen the label were 1.4 times more likely to report having conversations about drinking during pregnancy.
This, to me, says there is an awareness improvement. It means it's targeted to the people they wanted to get it to, and it means a behaviour is happening, i.e., talking about an issue that...
Quite frankly, when I started working on this, I must admit to all of you, I did not know what FAS was. I have to tell you I'm not alone. Notwithstanding what the industry said, that there is a 95% awareness level, we had witnesses time after time come before us...the Joanisses, the lady who came to the Standing Committee on Health, Claudette Bradshaw. She said, ``Not a lot'', and I've quoted her in this paper as well.
Health Canada concludes in the summary of their workshop proceedings that no single strategy will be effective by itself. There is a need to expose the drinking public to a multiplicity of messages. I believe all possible - and this is important; all possible - direct and indirect means must be used to encircle and control the problem of antenatal alcohol abuse. All possible direct and indirect means: that, to me, is a very powerful conclusion.
.0925
Madam Chair, because this research is absent in our committee, I felt I had to bring this to the committee. I won't read this all. The second one repeats basically the statement of the research study of Greenfield and Kaskatus. It's just reporting on that.
You will find number three very interesting. This is a survey that was done of Americans after the legislation was passed but before it was implemented. This is to get an idea of what people were thinking about labels before it happened. If you look down the list, I think you will find many of the apprehensions we ourselves, and others, have expressed to us in committee. It's this uncertainty.
But there was some in here...and I really gleaned this from other witnesses as well, about this issue of the consumer's right to know, if I had a product that could hurt me. In this survey it says as soon as it was suspected that a product created a health hazard, a warning label should be required. That was the public opinion on labelling, that if we're going to do this, I want you to be consistent, and I want you to let me know even when you suspect, not after you know. I want to be warned when you suspect. I think that's a very important message.
In item four I refer to various studies, which I think we've heard before. The cost to society is so great that even a small positive effect of labelling will be well worth while. This has not been refuted in all of the testimony and all of the research data I've assembled. It's here for you to look at.
The Gallup survey from 1991 states that awareness of the label and specific messages were highest among those consumers for whom the message was most relevant, i.e., younger adults and those drinking more heavily: targeted.
The research summary Alcohol Health & Research World, prepared by the U.S. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, said:
- The research findings to date are promising. Bearing in mind the low cost and very high and
sustained level of public acceptance of warning labels, with a majority believing in their
effectiveness, the intervention would need to demonstrate only modest effectiveness for its
benefits to outweigh its costs.
The fifth one again confirms that labelling is reaching at-risk individuals. Another conclusion about targeting: the labels did in fact target. In addition, increases in the perceived risk of drinking and driving are consistent with the notion that warning labels as part of a larger social movement are helping to create an atmosphere in which drinking and driving are less acceptable.
Labels are part of a comprehensive solution. They are not in themselves a single solution for a complex problem. We should not ever assume that a label in itself is going to do anything other than be a reminder and continue to promote and help us to reflect on all of the messages we've learned and our education throughout our lifetimes.
Item six says that while the label law was implemented in December 1989, a significant increase in knowledge of the label did not occur until March 1990. This is just four months into the introduction. As well, the research information shows two-thirds of the bottles didn't have labels during the first six months. But even during the first four months, it says that women who predominately consumed wine coolers and beer, and those under age 30, were more likely to know about the label than were their counterparts. It's interesting that the targeted groups still, even in a bad situation with a very bad label... I'll comment on that in the last part.
.0930
The final reference to a journal study comes from the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, spring of 1993. Again, you'll see that the dates are quite old. It says:
- ...some progress has been made toward achieving awareness. Awareness rates have grown over
time, and awareness appears to be greater among the targeted risk groups.
- Again, targeted. It also says:
- ...not only that support for the warning label policy was high, but also that it grew over the first
18 months after the advent of the label. ... This finding bodes well for the potential effectiveness
of the label...
- Not enough time has passed for the effects to have taken hold.
I've put in here some selected quotes. I'm not going to go through them. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health said they support the bill very strongly at Health Canada. The Canadian Medical Association has said there is no valid reason for not doing this. They said it's been effective for tobacco labelling and they think it'll be effective for alcohol.
The Addiction Research Foundation refers to that Greenfield study again. It says, more importantly, that the labels have proven to be a targeted education method - again that word ``targeted'', which I think is so important to us - because the warning labels represent minimal public expenditure. They can be a cost-effective prevention tool, even if their impact is small.
Again, this is the same theme: a small or a modest progress as a result of adding the label to the already implemented strategy to dealing with alcohol abuse can have, and they expect should have, at least a small or modest impact that will more than offset any of the unfavourable consequences.
But the comment I really liked came from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, when they said the most compelling argument in favour of warning labels comes not from the field of alcohol policy control but from the area of consumer rights. This is the issue we must know. We have the right to know. They said it is unacceptable to claim exclusion from such a requirement by maintaining that everybody knows that alcohol can be harmful if you drink too much. That's not a sufficient reason to do this.
Certainly Simone Joanisse was very articulate, but boy, when she really said... She said:
- ``Modest'' is still a good word, because if you have one less fetal alcohol kid, believe me,
you've saved yourself some bucks, number one
- - and most importantly -
- You have given a life some potential, number two.
- This is from the mother of an adopted FAS child. These people you have to believe.
- They know our daughter and they know she has all those problems. She's kind of cute and we
bring her everywhere, and that's all they know. They don't know about FAS...
- Notwithstanding that the industry would say 95% of people know it's probably harmful during
pregnancy, they do not know about FAS. FAS is more prevalent than Down's syndrome.
I can tell you my personal preference and why I submitted that proposed amendment for a stand-alone label that does not touch or cannot be buried in the existing labelling of any producer now so that it's a consistent message, it's readable, based on a prescribed labelling by the minister. If it has a detrimental effect on any product in terms of its marketability, it will have an equal negative impact on all, so there can be no discrimination between the bottling...a consistent label, obviously, a good and readable label, unlike the ones you see on those products over there. If you believe labelling should work, we should not do labelling unless we're prepared to make it the most effective labelling, based on the research about what kind of labels really do get communicated.
I don't disagree with Dr. Hill. Graphics are a part of our society, and I don't think it should be ignored.
Dr. John Guilfoyle, the chair of the Council of Chief Medical Officers of Health, was very articulate. He basically said - and I have to quote this - ``Awareness leads to concern, and concern leads to action.'' He said that. That's a principle I believe in. You can't have behaviour changes unless you get the information and the knowledge and the awareness level up. It's cause and effect. It's not one or the other. It has to be both. He also described the label as a symbol, an expression of our shared values and commitment to the health of all.
.0935
He thinks fetal alcohol syndrome is a great area of concern, because our awareness of it, and even our ability to diagnose it and track it, is only in its infancy. Here is another authoritative reference, a medical practitioner representing all the medical officers of health from all of the provinces, saying that notwithstanding what the industry said about 95% awareness, it's in its infancy, to be quite honest.
Dr. Paterson from the foods directorate, commenting on Hollis v. Dow Corning - and I think this is critically important to this, because this means, what are the forces on the federal government to do things when developments occur? - said the decision indicates that manufacturers have a duty of care to warn consumers about potential risks associated with the ordinary use of their products. That is to say, consumers must be informed of any dangers inherent in the use of the product, particularly where the product is ingested or implanted in the body. That is the penultimate statement on the Hollis case.
Madam Chair, I think I could go on. I'll bet I could talk about this subject for hours.
The Chair: I'm sure you could.
Mr. Szabo: I do not want to bore you any longer with some of the details. I can tell you that I appreciate the work done by the staff to prepare the summary. I think the summary is a fair reflection of the testimony we've received.
Having gone through it, I believe each and every substantive or other argument in this document against warning labels can be refuted by the studies on this table and by the testimony of other witnesses. If we were ever going to do this, if we ever needed a motivation, I believe it's because of the FAS issue - undoubtedly.
I believe I am a fairly intelligent person. I spent nine years on the board of trustees of my local hospital, 25 years of community service, working with all kinds of groups and organizations, and before I saw that 1992 study of the Standing Committee on Health, Foetal Alcohol Syndrome: a Preventable Tragedy, I did not know what FAS was. I did not know how risky it was. I felt this hole in my innards, knowing that my wife, who mothered three children, drank with me during her pregnancy, as we normally did. It was never in excess, but we drank. To think that we might have had an FAS child because we didn't know, we just didn't know... We're not ignorant people. We're involved and we're connected in our community. We just did not know.
If that's the case throughout Canada...and I believe the preponderance of people do not know. They may know generally that when you're pregnant you have to be careful of diet and other things, but they do not know that even a modest consumption of alcohol during pregnancy may damage the life of your child for the entire lifespan of that child. It is a tragedy, unquestionably, and I believe labelling is an opportunity and a possibility we could put some focus to.
One way or another, no matter how this works out, I hope we make a very strong recommendation vis-à-vis FAS.
The Chair: I'll cut you off there, Mr. Szabo. You've certainly given us...
If you'll allow me, as the chair I too will congratulate you, Mr. Szabo, on the tremendous amount of work you have done on this issue. I don't wish to prejudge which way the committee is going to go on this, but what is really important is that you have highlighted this issue. We've heard compelling evidence day after day from witnesses who know first-hand the lifelong dangers of drinking, while pregnant in particular.
I have to congratulate you. I'm sure all those witnesses who came before us would congratulate you too on the amount of work you have put into that.
.0940
Having said that, we as a subcommittee of the standing committee have an obligation to report back to the standing committee, but there is no deadline on that. So there are actually three options. We could delay clause-by-clause for further study in subcommittee, we could deal with clause-by-clause, or we could have a special motion on the floor back to the standing committee from this committee requesting certain areas.
Mr. Scott: Madam Chair, as I said earlier, not only am I convinced of the seriousness of the problem, but I am also convinced of the efficacy of labelling as an approach to these kinds of problems. I'm simply not convinced that we've answered the question when Paul was making his report. I don't know who knows. I know that not everybody knows. I don't know who the people are who don't, and I don't know who therefore needs to be told, and I don't know the best way to do it.
Rather than close the door on this option, I would like to make a motion that we refer the bill back to the committee and that we would specifically - I don't have the wording of this in my mind, but I'm sure we can figure it out - specifically bring attention to our concerns with regard to FAS and FAE as a result of the witnesses and the growth of our own awareness of this. We would ask the committee to give particular attention to this in our review of the drug strategy.
As you know, Mr. Simmons has written to the Minister of Health advising that we are working on a work plan around that. So it would seem to me that there's an appropriate response here, which is that we're very interested in this. I for one - and I would like this on the record - wouldn't like to see it be read as a rejection of any approach, the possibility of including any approach. But I'm not satisfied that we've given it sufficient focus to support it at this time.
With that, I move that the committee refer the bill back to the committee to be considered, with particular emphasis on FAS, inside the framework of the review of the drug strategy.
The Chair: Thank you. Is there any discussion on Mr. Scott's motion?
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard: I am in total agreement with the position of Mr. Scott. I want to congratulateMr. Szabo on the work he has done on this bill. But, as I said earlier, I intend to move a motion to make a recommendation to the government, more particularly about the FAS. But I give my full support to Mr. Scott's suggestion.
[English]
Mr. Murphy: Just for clarification, the motion you're making is that this committee would send it back to the standing committee.
Mr. Scott: Correct.
The Chair: I have a suggestion from the researcher that the wording be altered slightly. I don't know whether this is appropriate, Mr. Scott: that the chair present a report to the standing committee requesting that Bill C-222 be withdrawn from consideration by the subcommittee and recommending that the standing committee consider the bill in the context of its study of Canada's drug policies, with particular attention to effective means of increasing awareness of FAS.
Mr. Scott: That would be consistent with what I was trying to say.
The Chair: Mr. Szabo.
Mr. Szabo: I have two points. Number one, I concur with the sentiment. Having been the chair on Bill C-7 on controlled drugs and substances, which is now reinstated as Bill C-8, and knowing that a change in the proposed legislation is that alcohol and tobacco not be exempt from that piece of legislation... It is now part of our drug bill, and will be once it's dealt with by the Senate. It's in front of the Senate now and has yet to come back to the House to receive royal assent or recommendations for changes. I understand they're dealing with marijuana.
.0945
It is the intent of that legislation to make sure that alcohol is dealt with in our drug strategy. In fact, if you will look at the documents of Canada's national drug strategy, it in fact has a major section on the amount of money we spend and dedicate towards alcohol. It already is there as a subject matter. It does not deal particularly with the different ways in which you can spend and which ones are more or less effective, but certainly it deals with deciding how that money should be spent.
It's good to reinforce that and to give that recommendation.
In addition to doing whatever else a committee would do with a bill, as we did with Bill C-7, we had three specific recommendations that we forwarded. One of them was that Canada conduct a re-evaluation of the national drug strategy; the second had to do with Order in Council appointments; and the third I've forgotten. But specific recommendations can be made separate and apart from the bill.
The second point I believe is the most compelling one. I refer you to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, December 1995, at page 82, paragraph 141(5). It says:
- The committee to which a private bill may have been referred shall report the same to the House
in every case.
On that basis, according to the Standing Orders it's not possible just to say, let's withdraw it and do something else. Under the regulations, it just can't happen.
The Chair: I think, Mr. Szabo, as the clerk has informed me, the bill is being referred back to the standing committee and it must be reported to the House, but there's no deadline on when it should be reported. I'm sorry; I mean withdrawn from the subcommittee and referred back.
Mr. Szabo: I had understood the motion -
Mr. Scott: Essentially the Standing Order to which Paul speaks says that the committee itself has to report back to the House on the bill. All I'm recommending is that the subcommittee, for all intents and purposes, should collapse in the review as the method the committee chooses to deal with the bill, but it stays with the committee. We've referred it back to the committee. So inside the context of the Standing Order that speaks to the committee, we're not doing anything that is inconsistent with that. We're just collapsing the subcommittee.
Am I right?
The Chair: I think so, yes. The clerk again has advised that the standing committee can really refuse our request and can ask us to continue to deal with this issue. This can happen.
Mr. Murphy: The standing committee can throw it back on us.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Szabo: I would also bring to your attention or remind you that when the subcommittee was formed the Standing Order adopted the position that the bill be deemed to be dealt with by the full standing committee. They seconded to us the full authority of the standing committee, and at this point, based on the resolution of the committee to form the subcommittee, they do not have even the right to take this bill and start doing anything in that committee. Otherwise, we'd have to start all over again so that all members would have the opportunity to hear all of the testimony on a direct basis and would have an opportunity to question.
The subcommittee is the full committee. It has been deemed to be, and the report of this committee is deemed adopted so that it can go straight to the House. It doesn't even have to touch the standing committee in terms of a meeting. It doesn't even have to go there.
The predicament is that if this committee is desirous of doing something, it can't give it to somebody else. It has either to report it or to do something else.
.0950
Mr. Charles Bellemare (Procedural Clerk): Madam Chair, it would be my understanding that in effect that motion would simply mean the subcommittee is making a request to the committee to rescind its prior decision. The committee must consider that request, and until the committee has agreed to it the bill is still before the subcommittee.
The subcommittee cannot unilaterally send the bill back to the committee; it can only request that the committee consider doing that. The committee would have the authority to take the bill back from the subcommittee, as the House would have to take the bill back from the committee on resolution.
The Chair: By the way, this is Charles Bellemare, our legislative clerk. I'm sorry I didn't introduce him.
Mr. Szabo: If that's your legal opinion, then that means in fact the motion on the table is out of order, because it's saying to send the bill back or withdraw it somehow. What you've said, as I understand it, is a communication should go from this committee to that one saying we have a problem or concerns and we want to refer that communication to the committee to determine what options might be available or if the committee as a whole would give us some direction or some authority to do something other than what they've ordered us to do so far.
Mr. Bellemare: Yes, with the specific recommendation from the committee being that the committee take the bill back and study it in the full committee instead of in the subcommittee.
Mr. Szabo: Would that mean the testimony has to be resubmitted by the witnesses? If others are going to get involved in the process, I can only assume we're back at square one on the bill.
Mr. Bellemare: It would be up to the committee to decide. If they felt further testimony was required, they could hear it, but if they felt the testimony presented to the subcommittee, which could be made available to them, was sufficient, they could go on from there.
Mr. Scott: Let's pull back a little bit from the very narrow discussion we're having and think about exactly what conclusion many of us have drawn.
We were asked as a subcommittee to look at a particular bill, and we've recognized what it's intended to do and we have some question about the method that has been proposed. So essentially the conclusion I've drawn is it's a broader issue. We have to pull back from specifically what is being requested in this bill and say yes, the problem is there, but we're not sure this very narrow approach to dealing with that problem is appropriate.
It doesn't seem illogical, then, to me that a subcommittee of the committee would be struck to look at the bill and would conclude that it requires broader attention outside the scope or the limitation of this particular bill. It then seems to me an appropriate thing to report back to the committee that we have in fact reviewed this bill and don't wish to reject it, but simply wish to have it considered in a broader context, and the drug strategy seems to be that context.
All we're doing is simply asking, in language I'm familiar with, to be let off the hook in the context of having to make a decision on something we really don't want to be making a decision on. At least that's my personal view, and that seems appropriate. We would go back to the main committee and say, we've been asked to do this, we've done it, we've not reached a conclusion, and we would like it to be considered in a broader context; please embrace our request to allow us to give it back. I think that's completely in order.
The Chair: We have a motion on the floor, and you've all heard the motion. The other options we have, as I mentioned earlier, are to still deal with the clause-by-clause today, if that's the wish of the committee, or to delay clause-by-clause for a further study by this committee.
We have a motion that we have to vote on, and I'm going to call the motion. I think we've all had the opportunity to discuss it.
Madam.
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard: Madam Chair, I said earlier that I support Mr. Scott's proposal. If the bill is sent back to committee... Maybe I did not quite understand the suggestion, but I thought we had decided one aspect in the bill which this subcommittee is very interested in is the foetal alcoholism syndrome.
.0955
Personally, if this bill is sent back to the full committee, I have no intention of starting all over again. The bill has been examined, and positions have been taken. I explained mine a couple of minutes ago. I am willing to consider anew some priorities that have been set out by health agencies and members of the committee, like Dr. Hill did about the foetal alcoholism syndrome, but I really would not want to start consideration of this bill all over again.
Either we discuss this motion, or...
[English]
Mr. Scott: Madam Chair, that's not inconsistent with my intent. I think we have advanced the discussion. I hope it wasn't construed that we hadn't. I simply think we've come to the conclusion that it should be seen in a broader context. The motion should speak specifically to fetal alcohol syndrome and the conclusions we've drawn about that.
The Chair: Mr. Szabo, you have the last word before I call the motion.
Mr. Szabo: I will ask for some clarification or a comment from the legal adviser. I believe the Standing Committee on Health adopted its current study and has adopted a study plan that will carry us through to next November.
In terms of the review and study of Canada's drug strategy, Bill C-7, a bill that had nothing to do with strategy but was on drugs, took a year to deal with. If we do this, effectively what we're doing is the same thing that was done to the report of the Standing Committee on Health of 1992; we'll produce a report that sits on the shelf and collects dust.
If you pass this motion, what you're basically saying is that we don't want to deal with it and we will never have a chance to deal with it. I don't know how you could possibly do that.
I would like to ask the legal adviser something. If we are saying we want to dissolve this committee and go back, do we have to comply with the standing regulations? They say, in Standing Order 141(6), that when a committee on any private member's bill reports:
- ...if they report that the preamble of a bill has not been proven to their satisfaction, they must
also state the grounds upon which they have arrived at such a decision...
- It basically says that the grounds for the decision and the specific reasons for rejecting or not
reporting or not passing the bill have to be articulated.
Mr. Bellemare: Madam Chair, the particular Standing Order that Mr. Szabo was looking at in fact applies to private bills. Of course this would be a public bill, a private member's public bill, but he's perfectly right; the House having referred the bill to the committee, the committee is obliged to report it with any amendments the committee may have made to it.
Correspondingly, the subcommittee is obliged to report the bill, with or without amendments, to the standing committee, unless the standing committee relieves it of that obligation, which I understand is the request that Mr. Scott's motion would be making to the committee. The committee itself is still under an obligation to report the bill unless the House relieves it of that obligation or, I suppose, if the session came to an end.
Mr. Scott: If you want to bring in closure, that's okay, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Did you have any comments?
Mr. Scott: I just want the record to show that I don't concur with Mr. Szabo's impression that this reflects that the committee wants to bring death to this bill.
.1000
I'll take the committee back to Bill C-7. I recall the same arguments being made with regard to that bill. I think members who were involved will recall that when Bill C-7 first came to the committee, it was moving quite quickly along, and there were many of us who had great difficulty with it and so on. Essentially there was an enormous amount of discussion around the possibility that if we didn't deal with it right away, we wouldn't deal with it, and so on.
Ultimately it was slowed down and the discussion was broadened, and in fact it was significantly amended. In my mind it's a better bill for having gone through that exercise, and that's really the intention I'm bringing to this.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Would you mind giving us your motion again, please?
Mr. Scott: I move that the chair present a report to the standing committee requesting that Bill C-222 be withdrawn from consideration by the subcommittee and recommending that the committee consider the bill in the context of its study of Canada's drug policies, with particular attention to effective means of increasing awareness of FAS.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I think we've had sufficient discussion on that, so I'm going to call the motion.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: This has to be reported to the House next, I think.
The Clerk of the Committee: No. You present the motion to the standing committee at its next meeting, and it will be up to the standing committee to make the decision on whether to withdraw the bill.
The Chair: Thank you.
We've had a long discussion on Bill C-222, and again I think it's something we need to move ahead on. I sense a general agreement around the table that we agree that we have to move ahead on fetal alcohol syndrome. We can't just let this lie any longer; it's a very important issue.
I want to thank you all for your input, and I also want to thank the many witnesses who appeared in front of us and brought their concerns to our attention.
Again, thanks to Paul Szabo.
The meeting is adjourned.