Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and
Forestry
Issue 38 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 13, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 9:05 a.m. to study the recombinant bovine growth hormone, rBST, and its effect on the human and animal health safety aspects.
Senator Leonard J. Gustafson (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I call the meeting to order. Today, we will hear witnesses from Health Canada.
Please proceed.
Mr. David A. Dodge, Deputy Minister, Health Canada: Much has happened since I last met with you in October. In the February budget, the Government of Canada signalled its intention of meeting its earlier promise to reinvest in health care and health protection for the benefit of all Canadians.
On March 11, your committee tabled its interim report, entitled rBST and the Drug Approval Process. I found that report to be very useful. I should like to take a couple of minutes to inform the committee about how we have been dealing with that report. I also have a two-page status report to leave with you. I should like to table that report, but I will begin by highlighting some key elements of our actions.
First, at our request, the Science Advisory Board will review the drug approval process in the department, with a view to improving our ability to make use of the best available science.
Second, regarding the rBST file, with our January decision not to approve the drug, the file is currently inactive. A new application by the manufacturer would be necessary to reactivate it. We will continue to monitor developments in the science related to this issue. In addition, we will continue to monitor national and international developments and look at the biologics in foods and other related areas.
Third, with respect to your recommendation regarding the need for ongoing public consultation, we have begun consultations with stakeholders with a view to creating, in the near future, an office of consumer affairs and public involvement.
With respect to the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, since my appearance last October the following events have transpired: After due process, the Public Service Staff Relations Board has dismissed the complaints made by six Health Canada employees; the Information Commissioner investigated and dismissed allegations of document shredding; an independent review of four drug files found no evidence of alleged pressure by managers to approve veterinary drugs; and, on February 18, we tabled with you a copy of our January report and action plan on strengthening the bureau.
The plan is straightforward. Its first objective is to strengthen the scientific and management capacity within the bureau. The second objective is to obtain the equipment that is necessary to help the bureau meet the challenges of the 21st century, as an important resource for the health and safety of Canadians. Many changes are taking place, and we must ensure that we stay on top, if not ahead, of these changes.
We will make major investments in our human resources. We have initiated a new program of scientific recruitment. We have begun to develop training programs and are increasing the learning and scientific opportunities for all bureau personnel.
We are in the process of developing a modern set of standard operating procedures, which will provide clear guidelines for performance expectations for reviewers, researchers, and managers. These procedures are just one mechanism to ensure that the bureau reaches its full potential and that the Canadian public is properly served.
The department has broader initiatives underway to improve management practice. It will adopt the best practice initiatives in the conduct, management and utilization of science in government and implement a dispute resolution mechanism. Mr. Losos has copies of the best practice initiatives guidelines and will leave those with you.
Under Mr. Rock's leadership, Health Canada is turning an important corner to improve its programs for health and safety.
First, we know the public needs information and must be consulted. We are acting on it. We know that HPB is vital and needs strengthening. We are investing in it and are building on the programs. The budget provided additional monies in particular for the foods programs. Between 1997 and 2002, our budget for the whole of HPB, in current dollars, will increase by about 70 per cent.
Second, we know that a well-trained and dedicated staff is the key to providing Canadians with the services they deserve. As the months go by in the department, I continue to be very impressed with the professionalism and dedication to duty of staff at all levels in the Health Protection Branch and throughout the department.
Third, to meet the challenges of a changing world, we will have to provide staff with increased opportunity for professional development. We will do this. We will have to increase our recruitment of young professionals, which we have started. We will have to look for opportunities to partner with scientists and professionals at universities and medical centres, and we are doing that. Next year's implementation of the CIHR will be a major advance.
And finally, we will have to strengthen our capacity in new and emerging specialities.
These actions will ensure that Health Canada will have the capabilities to provide the services that Canadians expect from Health Canada, both now and in the future.
The Chairman: The panel evaluating human safety found that there was no risk to humans. In your opinion, was the study adequate? Was there enough time to come to that conclusion?
Mr. Dodge: Let us be careful, Mr. Chairman. They found, based on the best evidence available to us today, that the expected risk to human safety was extraordinarily low. There is not a person who, at any time, can say there is no risk to anything. However, the panel found the risk to be extraordinarily low.
Did they have adequate time? They felt they had adequate time, and I will not try to second-guess their judgment as to whether they had adequate time.
The Chairman: Regarding animal safety, they found increased risk in a number of areas -- for example, mastitis, infertility, lameness, and so on.
Mr. Dodge: That is correct. They found that, given Canadian dairy herd management practices, this drug would significantly increase the risk to animal health. Therefore, they were quite nervous about it, from an animal health perspective. We took that into account in our decision not to give a notice of compliance to the manufacturer.
The Chairman: I have a general question, not directly related to rBST, but related to trade and the future of agriculture.
Concern seems to be building about genetically modified organisms, and it is difficult for me to imagine how this will not affect trade. Is the department prepared to deal with the volume of work that will be placed in your hands with regard to food and agriculture in general? If you keep abreast of what is happening around the world, considerable concern is being expressed.
Mr. Dodge: You are absolutely correct. I just returned from four days in the U.K., where I was looking at this issue. I spoke about the issue with politicians, officials, and people in general in the U.K. It is of extraordinary concern, coming hard on the heels of the BSE problem.
The confidence of the citizens in the United Kingdom has clearly been shaken. It behooves us all here in Canada to take note of the fragility of the confidence that is out there in the world. We can discuss this issue later, if you so wish.
With respect to our own capabilities, our concern is purely with the health and safety aspects, and not the trade aspects. In respect of that, we must strengthen our capacity in the genetics area. Part of the plan on the human resource side is to strengthen that capacity. We do not, at the moment, have the capacity on board; therefore, we will have to bring it on board, and we will do so.
Senator Spivak: Thank you for returning to the committee, Mr. Dodge. We are rather aggressive in our questioning of your department, but I do not make apologies for it because I think there is great public demand for scrutiny.
I was delighted to learn that the funding for the Health Protection Branch of some $118 million will now rise to $275 million.
I wish to know whether the money will be spent for the investigative laboratory facilities, the food and drug safety research and the surveillance, which were all much reduced.
I am also a little concerned that your new director of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs is someone who managed the largest downsizing of a government organization, with the disbanding of the Canada Centre for Food and Agriculture Research.
I would hope that the capacity of the department to evaluate properly the research carried out by pharmaceutical companies would be restored. Otherwise, we do not have an independent evaluation process.
Before we get into that, I should like to begin my questioning by asking you about something that has concerned me for quite a while -- and I notice there is no mention of it here -- namely, the joint program advisory committee.
The first thing that concerns me is that the minutes of this committee are on Canadian Animal Health Institute letterhead. One meeting was held at Novartis, according to the minutes. The Canadian Animal Health Institute complained at one of the meetings that Health Canada was not honouring its commitments to industry of the cost-recovery consultations. What is the quid pro quo?
I have examples of 11 instances in which there is more policy direction from the Canadian Animal Health Institute than there seems to be from the branch.
To sum up, it seems to me that this lobby group gave the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs discussion documents leading to standard operating procedures or guidelines for drugs for pets, including horses, screening submissions, production drugs, including growth promoters, and on compounding of animal medication. It also prepared the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs draft guidelines on anti-mastitis drugs and production drugs, and worked to develop the guidelines on compounding of animal medicine.
To my mind, it looks as if industry is directing your procedures. If I am wrong, I should like to be corrected.
Mr. Dodge: There are a lot of questions there.
Senator Spivak: The general question is: Is there too much influence by people outside the department? Why is an outside body right in the heart of your work at the department?
Mr. Dodge: Let me begin with your preliminary remarks about the importance of questioning and throwing light on things. Transparency is absolutely the key. The public cannot have trust in us if there is a sense that everything is being hidden under the rug somewhere. We absolutely agree with that, but that has not historically always been the way business has been done. This is a cultural change and something that we are pushing through very hard. As I said, we are creating an information office to ensure that that does take place. Absolutely, your interest is our interest in that.
Second, where will the resources go? The first direction here is to strengthen our human capacity within the branch. That is the key focus. Yes, some of our labs, in particular in the environmental health area, are not in good shape. We will have to find some way -- either by ourselves or by partnering with a university somewhere -- to strengthen that capacity. I cannot tell you precisely at this time the physical arrangements that will be made, but we do want to do it in a way that maximizes the value for money that the taxpayer gets from what we do here.
Third, you asked about our capacity to do evaluative research. This goes to the heart of strengthening our people capacity and to the heart of building the research networks that we talked about in the Canadian Institutes for Health Research proposals. The proposal is that Health Canada would be a node in those research networks, which will give opportunities to our own scientists and provide peer review and expertise from outside people.
Fourth, you asked about personnel. Later today, we will be announcing that Dr. Le Maguer from Guelph will be joining us as the new director general of the foods program. He is an very experienced gentleman. He has a long history of heading up not only research but also evaluative studies at the University of Guelph, and managing a rather large enterprise down there.
Finally, there is your general question about whether outside bodies have too much influence, and the specific question about the joint advisory committee, which I will ask George Paterson to answer.
Going back to your first question, about being transparent, it is important that we listen to all sectors. That includes the producers of pharmaceuticals as well as the citizens who consume them or the farmers who use them and the general public. In that process, we would be derelict if we did not consult with all elements that have a stake in human and animal health.
I make no apology for consulting industry along with consulting others as well.
As to your specific question on the joint advisory committee, perhaps Mr. Paterson could provide an answer to you.
Senator Spivak: Before you do that, I wish to ask you a further question on the broader question. Transparency and consultation are important, and I do not doubt that. However, the point here is independent, objective evaluation of the proposals of pharmaceutical and other companies. It is very difficult because the evaluators -- for example, Dr. Ritter who was here -- are all funded by industry. Where else will you get the money?
What I think is important, as do many others among the public, is that there be an independent, public -- that is, government -- capacity to evaluate this. That is the key. I did not get that from your answer.
Mr. Dodge: I thought that is what I answered in response to your second question.
Senator Spivak: I misunderstood you, then.
Mr. Dodge: We do have to strengthen our scientific capacity internally.
The first place we are using the additional money is in strengthening that capacity, by providing opportunities for further development of the people who are currently on board and through recruitment of new people.
Mr. Joseph Losos, Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Protection Branch, Department of Health: There has been a lot of misinformation about the capacity of the branch. Allow me to show you this graph. This curve shows the real capacity of the branch. This is the growth projected. This is money in the bank over the next several years. It goes into blood safety and stabilizes the food safety. It will increase the food safety program to unprecedented levels. That will result in new disciplines coming in, and in being able to handle the 200 to 500 per cent increase in biotechnologically engineered products that we will be required, under the edict of Parliament, to evaluate. We need to adjust to that.
The second piece of misinformation is that the transition program is somehow a dismantling or something negative. The transition program is the blueprint that will make that budget work.
The branch is strengthening in many areas, including in its scientific capacity to handle the job that it must do for health and safety.
Mr. George Paterson, Director General, Food Directorate, Department of Health: Your question about the joint program management advisory committee was addressed either in October or last June. I will try again.
The joint program management advisory committee was set up approximately two years ago. It includes membership from the animal drug industry, CAHI, which is the Canadian Animal Health Institute, and also membership from the Canadian Veterinarian Medical Association and the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs.
It plays an advisory role, and I must emphasize that. It has no decision-making capacity. It undertakes work; it does not meet simply for the sake of meeting. Within the bureau, we have identified, as the deputy has indicated, the need to upgrade our standard operating procedures and to look at our policies, whether that is related to active pharmaceutical ingredients or how we deal with aquaculture and the drugs that are coming into aquaculture. The committee deals with many issues, and work is created, but that work involves both the staff of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs and industry people.
The secretariat is provided by CAHI. Pure and simply, the resources within the bureau were stretched to the limit, so CAHI offered to provide the secretariat to arrange meetings and provide the basic administrative details of running an advisory committee. That is why you see minutes on CAHI letterhead.
The meetings alternate. Yes, there have been meetings in the Toronto area, and, as you indicated, at Novartis, but meetings generally alternate between Ottawa and the Toronto-Guelph area. Have I missed anything?
Senator Spivak: Dr. Losos, you seem to think that this is a totally benign situation in which industry representatives are doing an integral part of the bureau's work. I do not happen to agree with that, but that is a difference of opinion.
You mentioned standard operating procedures. I should like to know what the standard data package will be. We want to get into operating procedures, but I do not know if time will permit that. Will the standard data package for new drug approval differ from the package detail in the gaps analysis report, which refers to usually required long-term studies to ascertain human safety, long-term toxicology, teratology, and reproductive fertility studies, which address provincial health concerns?
I went back to my notes. I noted that Dr. Yong, in just three weeks, had issued a notice of compliance for Monsanto for rBST. That is an illustrative and instructive example.
That is a key part of it. Let us set aside for the moment the operations of the joint program advisory committee.
Mr. Losos: As far as dealing with these various stakeholders, I do not feel at all threatened by them being part of the process. The client is the Canadian public. It all stops with me, and that is the bottom line. If these stakeholders include the consumer groups, the advocacy groups, and the industry groups, that is all right. Let them come. They can discuss and lobby me. I am lobbied by dozens of these people a day.
Senator Spivak: I realize that.
Mr. Losos: Their involvement does not necessarily mean that we are being unduly influenced by either side. The bottom line is that we are the backdrop for health and safety. That is the only reason we are there.
On the standard operating procedures, we will demand that those procedures are equal to any in the world. What comes at us in the area of health and safety submissions must reach the best standards anywhere in the world. That is what they will demand.
Senator Spivak: I am talking about the standard data package, not the standard operating procedures.
Mr. Losos: In a submission, there are demands for data from clinical trials, phase I, II and III trials, from animal studies and so on.
Senator Spivak: I am pointing out that you did not demand that of Monsanto. However, you say that the standard will be as outlined in the gaps report.
Mr. Losos: These are being built in as we speak. Touchy or controversial areas will have international think-tanks of the best people to try to sort out the difficult areas that we will need to handle in the future and will demand that the data be there according to advice that we get from groups like that.
Senator Whelan: I have always been curious. Even as a teenager going to farm meetings, I always used three letters, "W - H - Y."
I believe it was you, Mr. Dodge, who said that we would not get our reports from these two committees until June. I do not have the transcript of the proceeding in front of me, but I was amazed and, again, suspicious, that perhaps pressure was put on the committee to bring in the report. They brought it in on January 14, and we were working on our report. We were hoping that their report would be in before we brought in our interim report.
Was there any pressure put on them by you or anyone to bring their report in faster?
Mr. Dodge: Perhaps there is some misunderstanding. We had talked about two things the last time I was here. The first was when the Codex meeting was likely to take place, and I think that was the one referred to as June. Our hope had been that the two committees would report by Christmastime, but we said, "You must take the amount of time that you need to do it." They actually took until after Christmas to bring it in. There was a hope that they would report by Christmastime, but they were given the time needed to do their job.
Senator Whelan: I may have been mixed up. I had the impression that it would not be brought in that soon. Our discussion included that Health Canada until would make no decision after June. I believe that was after the Codex people met. Am I correct?
Mr. Dodge: That is absolutely correct. On the basis of the animal health report, we decided that it was quite clear that there were some problems -- at least, there was not sufficient evidence that there were no problems -- and it was appropriate to tell the company that we would not approve it.
Senator Whelan: I will, perhaps, ask you about Codex Alimentarius later. I have strong reservations about Codex and how it is operated. Other committee members and I have expressed that here previously.
If you were sent as a Health Canada delegate to go to that meeting that will take place the end of June and the first several of days of July of this year, would you be allowed to vote?
Mr. Dodge: I am not sure that I would go as a delegate because I am not scientifically adept at taking part in those meetings. The reason for Codex, both when it was originally established and now, is to pull together the scientific capacity from around the world to look at these things.
Senator Whelan: As deputy minister, you will make many decisions of a scientific nature, and you will make those recommendations to your minister; is that correct?
Mr. Dodge: That is correct. I will make recommendations on the basis of the best science available.
Senator Whelan: However, regarding the Codex Alimentarius, you could not go down there and vote, because you are not a scientist. I was told that I could be an observer, not a delegate, but that I could not vote or give an opinion because to do so would mean that I must be a scientist. In my career, I probably made more scientific decisions than any of those people who will be attending Codex Alimentarius. I find it ridiculous that you and I could go there but that we are not qualified to vote.
Mr. Dodge: That is right. The purpose of the Codex is to provide the best international scientific basis for all of us to make national decisions. That is helpful, and especially helpful in a world where we have some strong trading partners and we are trying to find some way to ensure that no abuse is made of science, that health and safety issues are foremost.
Senator Whelan: If they wanted to check my record, they could determine whether I ever abused my position in making those decisions on behalf of Canadians. It was always stressed that we had the safest food in the world, which was a benefit in terms of exporting our food. We could even get a premium price for our food, because it was the best. The Americans used to complain about our food processing industry, saying that our regulations were too tough, that they were different from theirs. In this era of globalization, however, we seem to be getting away from the idea that we can do things in a different way here.
When Dr. MacLeod appeared before our committee, we asked him how he could bring in a report when there was no chronic health testing on rBST and what happened. I am going by memory now, because I do not have the minutes before me, but he indicated that they had thousands of documents and that he could not possibly have read them all. It might have been better had he waited until June and read more of them.
Other scientists have come forward and testified -- and we do not discount scientists because they are pro or con -- that rBST is dangerous. For instance, we were told that there are no human risks related to milk from treated cows. The 90-day rat study caused an antibiotic response in some animals. The panel recommended further discussion between Health Canada and Monsanto, and the repeat of this study, to clarify the results of hypersensitivity following exposure to oral rBST at low dosage.
Earlier this week, a witness said that we cannot have science and emotion. My past history showed that I did not make very many decisions based on emotion. My decisions were based on the advice that I received from your people and our people. We never once got in trouble with our food processing industry or anyone else. I do not ever remember overruling an official who advised me that something was not safe, or a plant did not come up to our standards.
They had nine years to test this product. In my opinion, Agriculture Canada is guilty of a misdemeanour. We had the largest dairy cow research project in the world. We had approximately 1,200 dairy cattle, 500 at the greenbelt farm in Ottawa. Imagine if we had run tests on those 500 dairy cattle, and then followed up on human testing. Monsanto did not even have that kind of testing system.
It has been suggested to me that no department that is a regulatory body should ever accept grants from a chemical company, or any company, seeking approval of some of their product, even if that company is next door. This person claims to be an expert on conflict of interest. He discussed a situation in Winnipeg, where experimental work is being done on wheat, to make it Roundup resistant. Monsanto has given Agriculture Canada $600,000 to do that.
My suspicious mind is working overtime again here. That is where our scientists are getting their research money. I have always been a strong defender of research, our most important product. I do not think we should shrug it off. You have not said this, however, some others have said that we base our science on emotion. That is not right.
The European community brought in a new test on beef hormones, new tests on potatoes, which you must have seen when you were in England. The Colorado beetle will die if it eats the leaves off the vine. Testing on rats now shows that eating the tuber can result in dire consequences. We had been told that those potatoes were perfectly safe, however, there has not been enough testing again.
Mr. Dodge: First, it is undoubtedly true that over the last half century we have moved, not just in Canada but around the world, in a number of areas to strengthen patent protection and intellectual property protection in order to encourage research. We do less ourselves with money commissioned publicly. We have chosen to use the tool of creating intellectual property rights to get the work done, as opposed to having government agencies do it themselves.
Inevitably, that creates tension, because the leading-edge work tends to be done as proprietary research as opposed to public research. We have made that choice collectively. That puts the onus on the regulator, and makes his job more difficult, because we do not have our own people doing the developmental work.
That is a real challenge for us, namely, to somehow ensure that our people are on the leading edge so that they can deal with this. It is also a challenge to find outside experts who have not, at some point and at some time, been involved in leading-edge research that is proprietary. That is a difficult job for us. We must continue to strike that balance. That is why we are moving to strengthen our human resource capacity in the branch.
The second issue of "how much is enough" is extraordinarily difficult. As Dr. Losos can explain, 15 years ago, the Nobel Laureate who was the expert on what we now call preons was absolutely as certain as he could be that that sort of disease could not be transmitted through food. Fifteen years later, while we are not exactly sure of the transmission mechanism, the evidence points in the other direction.
That is the evolution of science and knowledge over time. We are always working with a degree of uncertainty. The difficult job -- such as you had when you were Minister of Agriculture or such as Mr. Rock has as Minister of Health today -- is to weigh the benefits of proceeding even though things are not absolutely certain. Things will never be certain, but we weigh the benefits of proceeding against the potential costs and risks.
That is a very difficult job. In the end, that cannot be delegated. It is a difficult judgment call.
Senator Whelan: I wish to go back to the veterinary report. They clearly pointed out about the mastitis and the actual use of antibiotics. I am sure you are concerned, as are many of us, that so much of our animal food contains antibiotics. Humans are building up immunities to antibiotics.
In Eastern Ontario, milk for cheese or for food must meet the same standards. There is public evidence and knowledge that, about two years ago, a large tanker of milk that was destined for food was diverted to a cheese factory, where it was found that the milk could not be formed into cheese because of high antibiotic levels. The cultures could not develop. The farmer was fined as a result. Even with our testing, sometimes products escape the standards.
Are you not concerned? This is a serious situation according to medical doctors. We are getting too many antibiotics in our food and, as such, our bodies are not responding to antibiotics when we need them.
Mr. Dodge: This is a very serious problem. It is a classic issue where third parties are affected and where, over time, we could have some serious public health risks through overuse of antibiotics both for animals and for humans. We are working hard on this. I would ask Dr. Losos to comment.
Mr. Losos: That is a vital question. We are very aware and concerned about the area. We have a two-pronged program in the Health Protection Branch, one with the foods program looking at feeds. We are working with the European Union and the Americans and with other countries who are equally concerned. We know that the incidence of antibiotic resistance is in intolerable. The second important stream is antibiotic resistance in humans in hospitals, post-surgery, in intensive care and elsewhere. We have intensive surveillance programs across the country with a number of professional associations.
Private industry cannot put enough resources into research for new antibiotics. We know this is an important area and we are giving it priority.
Senator Fairbairn: Returning to the issue of rBST, Mr. Dodge, you said that the file is inactive from your perspective, since the decision made earlier this year, that a new application must be made by a company to reactivate it.
What is the present status vis-à-vis Monsanto? We read in the media that they have not given up. They may be prepared to try again. Your file is closed. Their file, perhaps, is not closed. What is the connection with them now?
Mr. Dodge: I cannot speak for Monsanto. I have had no contact with them since their application was rejected.
We are continuing to monitor the scientific developments both here and abroad to stay on top of the file. I have no idea whether they will reapply in Canada. I would not be totally surprised if they did so. However, in order to do so, they must answer the questions that are now on the public record about the safety of the drug. Those questions are all there. They were not answered satisfactorily before and hence their application for a notice of compliance was turned down.
Senator Fairbairn: I wish to focus for a moment on Senator Whelan's comments on the Codex Alimentarius meeting in June. Presumably, the Canadian government's representative would be very clear in any vote or consensus-taking to reflect our decision not to sanction this substance. Is that correct?
Mr. Dodge: That is right. We look more closely at animal health aspects than most other countries, so we bring our unique contribution to the table. As Senator Whelan and I discussed, I would never be the voting delegate because I do not have a scientific contribution to make. Perhaps Dr. Losos can answer that.
Mr. Losos: Dr. Paterson can tell us about the Codex meeting just recently held in Paris where a whole list of other factors besides the "hard science" on a file was discussed and how it could or could not be included under this global scheme.
Mr. Paterson: Briefly, Senator Fairbairn made a comment about voting or consensus. Basically, Codex tries to operate by consensus. Rarely does it go to a vote, but that has occurred in the past. It tries to make decisions through consensus.
I do not want to contradict my deputy or Senator Whelan. Heads of delegations are generally government employees, but there are countries whose heads of delegations are not necessarily scientists. The Codex Alimentarius is a science-based organization that tries to develop food standards that can be used internationally. The commission has two objectives -- one is public health protection and the other is fair trading.
Dr. Losos referred to a recent meeting in Paris of the Codex Committee on General Principles. The Codex Alimentarius has been wrestling with looking at other related factors, such as animal health and welfare, cultural practices, or socio-economic concerns. Until now, the Codex process or decision making has been exclusively predicated on science and a risk-assessment approach. More and more, the debate has been whether there are other factors to be considered.
BST was used as a case study. Our position was that in terms of national sovereignty and decision making, we had used other related factors such as animal health. Some people would call it "animal welfare," but we call it "animal health and safety" in terms of making a decision with respect to rBST.
There is no consensus. The debate continues -- and will be taken to Rome -- as to whether other related factors should be taken into account in the decision-making framework of Codex, and if so, what the criteria will be. There is certainly no consensus at the Codex Committee on General Principles. I would venture to say that there will be no consensus reached at the Codex Alimentarius Commission in June. It will take time and much more discussion in terms of what other factors are legitimate.
We have a fairly elaborate process of consultation and engagement in terms of any Codex committee with which we are involved, whether it is the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants or whether it is the general Codex Alimentarius Commission. We will be going over that process during the next four to six weeks.
Yes, the Government of Canada's position will be determined. I say "Government of Canada" because it is not just Health Canada, although we are a major player. Other departments, such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, obviously have an interest in what is going on at the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
The position that the head of the delegation -- whoever that person will be -- will take to Rome for the meeting in June will be a Government of Canada position. I would think that position would be discussed and agreed to by the respective ministers.
Senator Fairbairn: I assume that on the rBST issue we have been discussing, the government's position to be taken abroad will be quite clear.
Mr. Losos: Yes.
Senator Fairbairn: Mr. Dodge, you talked about the United Kingdom and the fragility of their confidence. Undoubtedly, mad cow disease and other factors have eroded that confidence. At our last meeting with you, one of our messages was our concern about the fragility of confidence in Canada, not just on that particular issue, but on others.
Today you talked about transparency being the key and also the need, in the field of genetics, to strengthen the capacity of the department and its Health Protection Branch to deal with this area. We see other controversies arising by the week and other issues being put on the table, all of which are undoubtedly cause for anxiety among ordinary citizens, myself included, to whom this is high science beyond their everyday lives.
In terms of strengthening the Health department, does any other branch or department of the government also have an interest in the genetics question? Does human health and safety fall solely within the Department of Health, or do you get assistance from other areas of government on that issue because it is so broad?
Mr. Dodge: We are the lead, senator, but the other aspect, especially when we are talking about plant modification -- and this is a driving concern in the U.K. -- is the potential impact on the ecology and on agriculture. Environmental or ecological concerns are very important here, and it will be important for Environment Canada to partner with us.
As with a number of these issues, it is important to get a critical mass of people together so that we can have a vibrant scientific debate around the table in any particular area. For that reason, our people and our capability will be the key areas to be built up.
Environmental issues are extraordinarily important in this regard, especially in terms of planning. Both Environment and Agriculture will have a real interest.
Senator Fairbairn: In your opening remarks, you referred to concerns that we had indicated in our report, and obviously, our concerns as a Senate committee have been very much fuelled by public reaction to these issues.
You talked about the creation of the Office of Consumer Affairs and Public Involvement, which sounds like a good thing. Could you give us a sketch of exactly what the job of that office will be and how it will be set up to interact with the public? As we have overwhelmingly discovered in going into this issue, citizens want to become involved. I think this is a good move, but I wonder how it will work.
Mr. Dodge: Not all those decisions have been taken. As we speak here this morning, we are in the field, trying to establish from the various interested parties how they think it should be structured to most productively allow for their involvement.
Mr. Shugart has been shepherding this matter, so I will ask him to address your question.
Mr. Ian Shugart, Visiting Assistant Deputy Minister, HPB Transition, Health Canada: In the first line of responsibility, the programs themselves have an obligation to provide consistent and transparent consultation with the public. In the therapeutics area, for example, through a variety of advisory committees that include consumer and public interest groups, many of those consultation processes are already in place. That must continue and must be reinforced.
Our concern has been growing, and it became evident action was needed. We had encouragement from the minister to give consideration to a specific consultation mechanism that would be visible and a focal point for the branch. If consumers and public interest groups were not satisfied with the program that they were interested in, then they would have recourse to a consultation mechanism. We would have the capacity, on a permanent basis and as a routine manner of doing business, to track public concerns in various fields; to undertake specific research with consumers; to tap into their concerns, understand them, and engage in dialogue. This would be done as a general policy in order to provide a window for those groups who want access to the branch in that manner.
Clearly, there will be a kind of "ombudsperson" flavour to the consultation process and we expect the programs themselves to engage in that kind of openness and accessibility to the public.
We have had some discussions with the Food and Drug Administration, which has had a formal consultation mechanism for many years now. I would not say that we copied it exactly, but we have borrowed heavily from their experience. The FDA is conducting public hearings now -- through the direct involvement of their equivalent office -- on a variety of issues. They move around the country doing that.
There are patterns and models that we will be looking at, and as the deputy minister has indicated, we are consulting with various groups before designing a mechanism. That is the broad coverage provided by this office of consumer affairs.
Mr. Losos: We do not take this lightly. We would like this public consultation to be professionally run and institutionalized so that the public health is a team game. That mechanism would be part of the public health team, just as scientists are. That public outreach and involvement, for which we have spent a fair bit of resources and time so far -- and we know we have to do better -- would become a more professionally run piece of our work.
Senator Fairbairn: It is important that such an office have access to information, and personnel who are strong in the policy area, and that it be professionally run. The search and set-up is not worth anything unless you have some very good communicators who can deal with the public in a sensitive and informative manner. Whenever these offices are set up, they stand or fall on that communications link.
Senator Hays: We have heard about the complexity and difficulty of making scientific decisions, which are the responsibility of the Health Protection Branch. However, this committee has seen how those decisions can go off the rails. Who do you trust when there is a difference and it is made public? Dr. Hansen of Consumer Reports or Senator Whelan's contact in the U.S.?
I would like to hear comments about how to make the Health Protection Branch and the results of its work sufficiently trustworthy that one can accept them beyond question and discussion.
I will read a recommendation from the committee's interim report. It states:
The committee, having heard the suggestion of some witnesses, recommends that the government conduct an evaluation of Health Canada's drug approval process to ensure that it fully safeguards human and animal health and safety. This evaluation should be undertaken by independent experts, either in conjunction with any follow-up activities of the Auditor General of Canada regarding the Health Protection Branch or subject to review by the Auditor General.
Some individuals on this committee are greater admirers of the Auditor General than I. However, I agree that there are organizations, including the Auditor General's, that could be looked to in order to bolster and substantiate the process and do more within the branch or department to augment and reinforce the level of confidence.
Also, the Auditor General has the support of the Canadian Dairy Commission and they are one of the interested parties. We do not talk much about their position, which is, "Approve it or do not approve it. Our only concern is that there be confidence in the decision. If it is approved, we do not want people not using our product because they have no confidence in it."
We are not saying that it should or should not be approved. However, there must be a good reason not to follow what is behind this recommendation, and that is, use outside management of scientific differences and assets to corroborate what you are doing. What you are doing internally will probably achieve a renewal of confidence in the decisions of the Health Protection Branch.
Mr. Dodge: We will follow the spirit of that recommendation. Whether the letter of it is the right way to do it or not is open to debate.
Science -- and it does not matter which discipline -- proceeds by testing, experimenting, questioning, and vigorously debating the results obtained by one person. Indeed, the essence of scientific experimentation is that someone else must be able to replicate the results obtained. If the results are different, then there are questions involved.
The first issue is to ensure that we have the best possible environment for good science to take place. That involves peer review and opening up the scientific process within the department so that there can be debate between scientists on our staff and in universities. Again, that is one of the great opportunities with which we are presented and that is the priority, to get the atmosphere right for the best scientific debate to occur.
However, debate continues, and at some point, as you have said, people want to know whether or not they can use the product. Therein lies the tough part of it because one can always say that more research is needed.
Research could stretch on for years, during which time you deny Canadians the potential benefit of using that product. At some point, the debate must be halted and a decision taken and that is really where the difficulty lies. Government cannot abdicate its responsibility. It would be nice to hand it off somewhere else, but in the end, the buck must stop with the government and, ultimately, with the Parliament of Canada. We must have a transparent system in place before permitting decisions to be made.
The great problem we face is that much of the information is proprietary. Where do we draw the line between what gets released to the general public at the time that decision is being made and what stays proprietary? This is extremely difficult. It goes back to the first issue that I raised, namely, that we have set up intellectual property laws to encourage research for the public good. However, we must carefully determine the amount of information that is truly confidential within that process and that which can be publicly released.
That is a real issue facing government in a number of areas, but it is of greatest concern in the health area. We must remember that intellectual property rights, unlike human rights, were created by governments for the collective good in order to encourage research. It is completely within government's hands to deal with that.
That is not a complete answer to your question, but there is no complete answer. It is a question with which we will all struggle.
Senator Hays: Your comments are helpful, but let me simply ask: Why not have an independent review? Why not have the Auditor General or some credible third party review it in terms of the recommendations in our interim report? You have summarized very well some of the difficult issues with which you must come to grips. They have also been dealt with very well in your answers to other senators.
I can understand the reluctance to let someone look over your shoulder. You are managing a process to ensure that good science occurs as the basis for a decision so that eventually the government can accept responsibility for it. We appreciate it is probably impossible by definition to make a decision that is 100 per cent risk free in these areas. However, we need to worry a bit, and it would help to have an independent review of your process. I understand the Auditor General is conducting a review anyway.
Mr. Dodge: Absolutely.
Senator Hays: Why not an independent review to substantiate the work and give us that additional confidence? You must have a good answer to that.
Mr. Dodge: First, the AG is your agent. It is his responsibility to keep an eye on us, however difficult that may sometimes be. That is an important part of his job. Indeed, it is very important to our people that the AG is doing that. Everyone is trying his or her best, and it is very important that the AG be able to say that because his is an independent opinion.
The question then is, why not bring in another outside body? I am not sure we need more outside bodies. We must get on with the work. We have had good advice from this committee, from the Health Committee of the House, and from a number of outside people. We have an extraordinarily talented and energetic science advisory board that is advising us on the science side, and we are in the process of doing further work on the consumer side.
I have no objection at all, as deputy minister, to having some independent board come and examine us, but quite frankly, we must get on with the job. We have had enough advice to get on with the job and the AG will be keeping an eye on us.
If, in two years, you think that we have not done it well enough, then I am accountable for that and I can be removed with less than 24 hours notice.
Senator Hays: I will not press it further. I take it the answer is that you do not think it is necessary to go beyond what you are doing, and that is all right. I understand that. It is something that either this or another committee could address later.
Mr. Dodge: I do not want to delay moving on with things. We have had a lot of advice and it now tends to be similar to what we have heard before.
Senator Hays: I am not sure that it would necessarily cause delays, since it is happening anyway with the Auditor General. If I have followed these proceedings correctly, there have been some problems in how the decisions were made on rBST, for instance. Certainly those decisions were not timely when we compare the process to that of the U.S. or some other jurisdictions.
It need not delay anything. There should be a willingness on the part of HPB to have an independent body pass judgement. There are independent organizations that would help you with what you are trying hard to do, namely, increase the credibility of HPB decisions.
Mr. Dodge: I do not disagree, it is just that we have been getting good advice from the science advisory board that Mr. Rock established as soon as he became minister. That has proven very useful. It is composed of a wide cross-section of eminent scientific people who also have a lot of common sense.
Our job now is to get on with it and create and implement that vibrant scientific environment. We know that we have to do that, which may not be the whole solution, but it is an integral part of it.
Senator Hays: I did not intend to raise this, but you did. When is the scientific advisory board expected to complete its review?
Mr. Dodge: It will not be completed; it is an ongoing effort. We are adopting their recommendations as they are made. Perhaps Mr. Shugart would like to comment.
Mr. Shugart: A committee of the science advisory board has been struck to undertake a review of the drug approval process. They have already done the survey, and appended to the handout that the deputy is tabling is the list of groups that have been asked for their views and perspectives on the drug approval process.
After reviewing the input they receive in response to that survey, they will decide which particular areas they want to focus on. Therefore, it is likely that they will focus on those areas of greatest public concern because that is what will emerge from that survey.
They intend that that particular project, the review of the process, will be completed this year and they will be making decisions in the coming weeks about where they want to concentrate that review.
They are very clear that they do not see themselves as a commission of inquiry. They are volunteers, but they take this extremely seriously and will be guided by the results of that fairly extensive communication effort.
The Chairman: My question comes from my own experience of what seems to be happening in agriculture, in regard to canola in particular. I am sure you are aware of some of the almost startling questions that are arising. Is the department prepared to deal with the social issues? Of course, those become political issues that affect the livelihood of people in the agricultural sector. If a mistake is made, it affects a lot of people. Over this past winter, genetically modified canola has become a very big issue on the Prairies.
I want to know how Health Canada intends to deal with these issues and the related effects on producers and other Canadians in relation to the whole world trade situation. As a farmer, I can see many, many issues and problems arising in the future.
This is not a health issue, but it is illustrative. When canola was selling at $9 a bushel, everyone was signing up with different companies for genetically modified varieties. When the price dropped to $6.50, farmers were scratching their heads and asking, "What did we do? Why did the price drop?" As our committee knows, one of the first things we were asked about when we were in Europe was genetically modified canola. That was what the Europeans wanted to discuss, and now we have other countries talking about it too.
My question is: How is the department going to deal with this issue? I realize it is a major challenge that will affect agriculture and people regardless of what side of the issue they are on. Certainly the department must be thinking about this issue.
Mr. Dodge: Senator, the points you raised are absolutely bang on. We also have a problem with language when people discuss genetically modified products. We hear terms like "Frankenfoods," and so on. However, through selective plant and animal breeding, we have been effectively modifying the genetic streams for years. Our first effort through normal plant breeding methods was to develop rust-resistant wheat, a great undertaking of the Canadian Department of Agriculture that made an enormous contribution to the Prairies.
The difference now is that science has advanced to the stage where you need not use selective breeding, but you can actually alter the genetic makeup. In that way, you do not have that 10-, 15-, or 20-year period where experimental farms do the work. The rapidity with which change can be brought about now is very unsettling because it seems to happen almost overnight.
As Dr. Losos said, we are anticipating that, over the next 5 to 10 years, we will have literally hundreds of these products coming through our door. Indeed, 10 years from now, you and I will probably be able to pull the hair out of our heads -- if we have any left -- stick it in an envelope and send it off to have our genome examined, and get a document back in the mail that will say, "You are particularly susceptible to X, Y and Z and you should not eat A, B and C." The changes that we will see over the next decade in the field of human health, as well as animal and plant health, will be enormous.
You asked whether we are prepared. My answer: Not as well as we should be by any stretch of the imagination, but we are engaged in trying to become better prepared by building up a genetic capacity within the department. We, like everyone, are very interested in this, and we are all trying to hire from the same limited pool of people with expertise, so it cannot be done speedily.
I was particularly struck that in the U.K., where they have so-called "test" fields of genetically modified rapeseed, the crop was all trampled and beaten down. I asked why that was. Apparently, there is a bunch of activists from London who are so emotionally opposed to this that they are trampling down even the segregated test fields. This is an extraordinarily emotional issue. Those protests tend to be from the ecological as opposed to the human health side, but these are big issues and we have to take them extraordinarily seriously and ensure that consumers know what they are eating.
We do already have genetically modified potatoes and tomatoes for sale, but they are sold with big labels. Indeed, that is a selling point, affording an extra 10 or 20 cents per pound.
Information is absolutely critical, but so is our ability to get on and deal with all of these new products.
The Chairman: I wish to emphasize that the decisions of Health Canada have very serious impacts on the livelihoods of many people. Quite frankly, I for one do not like the fact that someone has control of my farm, if I sign it over, for three or four or five years and can tell me which seed I can use and which I cannot use. All of these areas are of concern and Health Canada needs to take a broad view.
Maybe, as Senator Hays indicates, some independent review body would be helpful on the social and political issues and the survival of agriculture and farmers themselves. We have had "Cinderella" crops, while at the same time, as you are probably very well aware, the ADM has told the United States corn producers that we are not going to buy genetically modified corn. The farmers of Macoun, Saskatchewan, know as much about that as I do sitting at this front table.
I had some concerns about raising the subject, but we cannot put our heads in the sand any more because the world is moving too fast. These broad issues will impact many lives and Senator Hays puts forward a very important question in terms of what should be the future considerations.
Senator Spivak: I agree with you that Senator Hays has raised the essential question. I want to point out, Mr. Dodge, that ecology and human health are the same thing, yet you seem to separate them.
The question is, why should we trust you? When we look at the real world, as Senator Gustafson has, we see that there are five or six companies that have said quite openly that they want to control the world's food production. People who have worked for them are on Codex, JECFA, and your human health external panel. That has happened.
When we talk about science, it is not a question of emotion over science, but of commercialism over science. Look at what they are producing. They are working hard to make sure that their Roundup-ready crops sell because they want to protect their commercial investment and they have said so.
Why should we trust you? Senator Hays has put forward the essential question. The public needs to trust you. You should not be talking about stakeholders and public relations is not the answer. Your job is to ensure that you are protecting human health. There is another branch of government that looks after industry.
As to your joint program advisory committee, which may be innocent of any unworthy motives, it does not look good that the Canadian Animal Health Institute is preparing draft documents on production drug guidelines. That element is not trustworthy.
Your department hired a public relations agency to deal with the rBST issue. The minutes said that you had to have a public relations agency to deal with any of the new drugs that come out.
Why should we trust you? We can only trust you if you begin to look solely at human health and let industry worry about their own welfare. Then you would not have what is looked upon as "undue influence."
There is a section on enhancing standard operating procedures in your document, on strengthening the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs. These are important in terms of how you will deal with matters and you say that they will provide an updated framework to facilitate efficient and timely reviews.
The Canadian public does not care about efficiency and timeliness. They care that what comes out of the end of the pipe is absolutely safe. Whether they know what it means or not, they are interested in the precautionary principle. What will you do about organic drugs? What about the fact that farmers are being forced to sign documents that will prevent them from growing certain seeds? These are issues that people really care about.
Would you tell us in more detail about the standard data packages for new drug approval? That is where the nuts and bolts will be. The consumer office will have to deal with the results of your decisions, since people will not be able to participate in making them.
What are your standard operating procedures going to look like in your new and improved Health Protection Branch? What is the standard data package going to be? What will be the role of the advisory board? What are the concrete results expected of that board? That is how you will build trust.
Mr. Dodge: The proof of any pudding is in the eating, and until we produce the pudding, there is no reason for to you think it will taste good. We are proceeding with that and I will ask Mr. Losos or Mr. Shugart to provide you with an outline.
First, however, I will turn to two issues you raised, senator. We have been trying to build a public consultation and information component into what we are doing. That is extraordinarily important.
Senator Spivak: It is. I was referring to the fact that when we began dealing with rBST, the decision was taken to hire a public relations agency to deal with us and to deal with any new and upcoming drugs, but that is past history. You do not want to get into that.
Mr. Dodge: You say we should not be efficient and effective and the public really does not care about timeliness, but I beg to differ with you on that.
Senator Spivak: Excuse me, the public, I am sure, do care about timeliness, but not ahead of the protection of their health. They would not put it ahead of drugs that are not therapeutic and are simply developed for commercial reasons. That is the point.
Mr. Dodge: Our only job is to protect people's health, but we have to go about that in a very efficient way. There are many things that come forward to be registered, to receive notice of compliance, that are awaited by many sick people. We have a real obligation to not just sit around on these things but to get on with the job.
Senator Spivak: That is exactly what I am asking. How will you get on with the job? What will these standard operating procedures be?
Mr. Losos: We can give you a run-through with one of our scientific staff as to what the standard operating procedures require now. However, to emphasize what the deputy has said, these procedures are being revamped to modernize them and they will acquire other aspects.
Mr. Paterson: If you will permit me, I will invite Doctor Man Sen Yong to come forward. Senator, you are interested in the human safety data package. Any drug that comes in will go through a review of human safety if it is to be used in a food-producing animal, but it also goes through animal safety and efficacy tests.
Senator Spivak: It is the same thing because animal safety will impact on human health.
Mr. Paterson: You are asking what criteria we use?
Senator Spivak: Yes. Let me explain why. When you talk about timeliness and efficiency it raises a red flag. You said that rBST was okay in three weeks. I am talking about the letter from Dr. Man Sen Yong that issued a notice of compliance in a very short while.
Long-term studies are necessary on drugs. There is also the question of how efficient this will be. How will you operate to deal with that problem, in absolutely specific terms?
Mr. Paterson: I should like to introduce Dr. Man Sen Yong, Chief of the Human Safety Division. He will take you through a review of what the human safety data package generally would entail.
Dr. Man Sen Yong, Chief, Human Safety Division, Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, Food Directorate, Health Protection Branch, Health Canada: First, I must correct Senator Spivak's statement that I wrote a letter recommending or issuing a notice of compliance. There is no such thing. There is only clearance from the Human Safety Division.
As a board-certified toxicologist, I can tell you that evaluating human safety, particularly food safety, is a very complex task. It depends on what kind of substance you are looking at. It depends not only on data submitted by the company but also on information in the open literature, which has been there for some time, in order to get the sort of global assessment required.
Animal data is quite useful, but we have to make some reservations. We are not turning humans into rodents. Our decision would be fraudulent and wrong if we did not take notice of species differences. That is a statement I would make.
The standard package of toxicology evaluation varies depending on the substances. Normally, you examine a substance for acute toxicity, chronic toxicity and long-term toxicity. On top of that, it is also very important to look at the gene toxicity data as well as reproductive toxicity. All of that data is synthesized.
Evaluating toxicology data is not like checking off boxes. There are always variations, and we should not impose a very rigid approach to it because science is always uncertain and it is also flexible.
Senator Spivak: Take us through it. Let us say that a proposal comes in and you are reviewing it. Your document here says you must review in a timely and efficient fashion. I have looked at the list of the guidelines for the new standard operating procedure.
Mr. Yong: That is just a guideline.
Senator Spivak: There are guidelines, standard operating procedures and a data package. Perhaps you could take us through it so that we understand how this process works. Explain to us who will be involved, et cetera.
Mr. Yong: I am talking only about human safety, not animal safety.
Senator Spivak: Okay, fine. How independent will that be compared to what the manufacturer gives you?
Mr. Yong: It will be as independent as possible.
Senator Spivak: How long would it take?
Mr. Yong: It depends on the data package. You might have 53 volumes of data submitted, and that would take a longer time. Sometimes, there may be only two or three volumes. It depends. As I said, evaluation is not a checkerboard approach. A failure to recognize that would lead us nowhere.
Senator Spivak: What do you mean by standard operating procedures, if everything is flexible? What are we talking about when we talk about timely and efficient standard operating procedures?
Mr. Yong: We are talking about standard operating procedures such as administration things.
Senator Spivak: That is an administration thing. I see.
Mr. Yong: A data package is different. Do not mix up the two.
Senator Spivak: I am not saying that the data package is standard operating procedures but --
Mr. Yong: I will take you through how toxicologists work.
Senator Spivak: We need to know that. That is the heart of the issue. People want to know that this process is not influenced by industry, is carefully researched and will be safe in the end. We need to know that we will not have loose something like mad cow disease or thalidomide.
Mr. Yong: We did get thalidomide in Canada, by the way, but that was a long time ago.
I will take you through the way we look at the data. There are usually two components to the data submitted in support of human safety. There is a toxicology data package. It is a general fact that the toxicology always drives the residues. If the toxicology data were not completed, there would be no talking about residue prospects.
I already mentioned that you must have acute toxicity and sub-chronic toxicity in the toxicology data package. Sub-chronic means a repeating dosage, while acute is just a single dosage. Nowadays, most of the industries are coming up with genotoxicity data. They are the most important data to predict what would be the outcome of that compound. If the genotoxicity showed that there are many positive and different test batteries, industry probably would not go further because there is a link between genotoxicity and the future "carcinogenicity."
Senator Spivak: Is that how you would assess genetically engineered drugs?
Mr. Yong: It is applied to every chemical substance.
Senator Spivak: Will you be looking at hormone mimicking?
Mr. Yong: Yes.
Senator Spivak: Is this a long-term process? The 90-day study on rBST suggested that there ought to have been longer-term studies. By the way, we do have that study. I do not know if it was supposed to be confidential, but we do have it. Even the PMO asked in a memo whether or not the impact on infants, pregnant women and young children had been assessed. Those questions were raised afterwards but were not studied. How is that going to be handled? How long will it take?
Mr. Yong: I will first explain the history of rBST. A Canadian, Sir Frederick Banting, discovered insulin in 1922. From then on there was a great interest to look at all types of hormonal products, including growth hormones.
In the early 1940s and 1950s, scientists thought that they could use the growth hormone from domestic animals and give it to humans to supplement or substitute the human growth hormone. Lo and behold, this experiment was carried out for a number of years, and they found that when they injected those growth hormones from the domestic animal, including bovine and sheep, there was no response. For a long time, they could not explain that. Later on, when they studied the immunology, they discovered that it was because of different proteins. They studied the immunology of the growth hormone comparing different species, including bovine hormones, and another interesting discovery was that they are not immuno cross-reactors. That was already known in the late 1960s.
Then, with the advent of amino acid sequencing, looking at the different residue of amino acids in the protein, they found that there are big differences between the human and the bovine somatotropin. I do not have an exact figure, but I think about 60 per cent of the amino acids are not the same. That somehow explained why the bovine hormone is not active in humans. You need the right amino acid sequences to form the tertiary structure of the protein in order to react with the growth hormone receptors. Eventually, that was confirmed because the human growth hormone receptors are not responsive to the bovine growth hormone. I want to emphasize that point.
Senator Spivak: Yes, but the IGF-1 comes through with that.
Mr. Yong: IGF-1 is another story. We have heard so much about IGF-1, but those are the important polypeptides. It is because of that that we are here in this debate.
Senator Spivak: Dr. Yong, I am interested, and I believe the committee is interested, in a number of very specific questions. What do you mean by efficient and timely? How will the process work so that we can be assured? This is the essence of trust. We want to ensure that it is done independently, that it is done appropriately, that it is done with enough time, and that you look for the right things. For example, with rBST, we want to ensure that you look at how this may affect young children who drink the milk and at hormone-mimicking chemicals. We have now discovered that a minute quantity may impact on a human being later in life. I do not know about these questions, but I want to know how you will treat them so that the public is assured that we are getting the right process. I think that is at the heart of what Senator Hays was talking about. If I am a little more worried about conflict of interest and how international bodies will react and how those companies will influence things, it is because I want to know that the Department of Health and the Health Protection Branch is not worried about those things. I want to know that they are pursuing a straight and narrow line.
Mr. Yong: You are asking a very interesting question, Senator Spivak.
Senator Spivak: That is the essence of it, is it not? If we cannot trust that process, then I am going to discard all your public relations and all your bureaus of whatever, and I am going to say, "Look, where's the beef? And the growth hormone in the beef?"
Mr. Yong: In your first question about IGF-1, were you are asking whether Health Canada has tested IGF-1 in children and pregnant women?
Senator Spivak: No. I am actually just repeating the PMO message to Health Canada. The question is this: How do we know that this is safe? Has Health Canada conducted tests to assess the impact of rBST on infants, pregnant women and young children who consume milk in large quantities? Otherwise, what have you been doing for nine years?
My concern is this: There is a huge amount of stuff going on there and, as Mr. Dodge said, it is largely industry-directed now because no one else has the money. Then there is literature and then there is the capacity to evaluate this. My fear is that we do not have a balance. We are trying to evaluate this huge monolithic force. I should like to get from you how we are doing that so that the public can trust it. That is the question.
Mr. Yong: I already answered about the package that we need to look at the safety.
Senator Spivak: How long might that take? Give me a few examples.
Mr. Yong: It depends on the complexity of the submission. In the bureau, we do have a turn-around time of 180 days to review the data. As I said, the first review would not necessarily give you approval. There is always a question coming from the evaluators and the managers concerning whether or not certain data has been submitted. It is always ongoing. It would take, on average, three or four years to approve.
Senator Spivak: Who will be doing this? Will they be scientists? Do you have enough capacity within the Health Protection Branch? Do you have enough scientists to review the literature and do whatever else is required? Most of the laboratory facilities are not there any more, as I understand. Will they be replaced? Who is doing this?
Mr. Yong: We have scientists in the bureau to evaluate.
Senator Spivak: Will you will have enhanced laboratories?
Mr. Yong: We do not have laboratories to test everything, if that is what you are driving at. We do not test it.
Senator Spivak: There was a reduction in the laboratories, but will you increase them?
Mr. Yong: Yes.
Mr. Losos: It should be clear that the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs never did have laboratories. We are the Bureau of Pharmaceutical Assessment. The Therapeutic Products Program had laboratories for research. The Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, which has about 20 or 25 people, has been an evaluator. The capacity is being increased through investments and the number of scientists will increase, but that does not include setting up laboratories.
The Chairman: I have one comment and one further question. First, the interim report is here for anyone in the room who wishes to pick it up.
It seems that you have some apprehension about the Auditor General monitoring the work of Health Canada. Have you any statement on that, or is that a misconception on my part?
Mr. Dodge: I do not believe there is any organization that does not approach a visit from the Auditor General with some trepidation, senator. That is his job. His job is to be there to raise nasty questions and to make sure that he reports properly to Parliament on what we are doing. I would absolutely be misleading people if I said it is not without trepidation that one always sees the visit of the Auditor General, but it is critical to the health of the government at large that the Auditor General do his job. However, in my view, it is always a little unfortunate that the 95 per cent that he finds that is right and being well done never gets much press, whereas the 5 per cent where there is room for improvement gets a great deal of press.
Senator Whelan: I should like to go back to the GMOs. Yesterday I read a report in the newspaper where the scientists from Montreal who have cloned the goats appeared before the agriculture committee of the House of Commons. They used the same terminology that you did, Mr. Dodge, that we have been eating MacIntosh apples for 50 years and that was a genetically managed apple. However, that is completely different, because with the goats they are using a gene from a spider. The milk you get from that goat can make a rope or a cable that is stronger than anything on earth, as far as those scientists are concerned. At least that is my interpretation of what I read in the paper. You say you can use canola or the lentils that we developed. However, we did not use any foreign genes. We did not put a fish gene into a tomato. We did not put a human gene into a rat or anything. We used plant genes.
I was with Dr. Downey when he was first working on canola. Our chairman, Senator Gustafson, has pointed out what they are doing now with Roundup-resistant canola. We did not have these companies helping us develop canola, which became the Cinderella crop of Western Canada. We hired people to do the work to make us the lentil capital of the world.
We brought in an American and we gave him approximately $1 million and four years to produce a lentil that could be productive in Western Canada. That was independent research. It was not Monsanto or one of these big companies that will come in and make billions of dollars. Monsanto's wealth has gone from $5 billion to $38 billion in four years.
I am saying that this is a misdemeanour. We developed many good plants without using foreign genes, such as fish genes. We know, for instance, that if you put a human gene into a rat, the rat gets bigger and more ferocious and his progeny carries that gene on. Just imagine what would happen if he got loose in society. It has happened before.
I am concerned about what Senator Gustafson brought up about Monsanto being fined <#00A3>15,000 for doing experimental work too close to other fields that can be cross-pollinated by bugs, flies, bees, et cetera. If you were in England you must have read about that. The same thing happens with canola in Western Canada. You will get it in your field, whether you want it or not, because that is a natural thing that takes place. We have known for centuries that if you plant certain varieties they will cross-pollinate by themselves.
These are very dangerous things. I was a strong believer in plant breeders' rights, but I feel that Agriculture Canada, which has done so many things with their scientists and researchers, should have the right to plant breeders' rights. Then they would have all the money in the world to do the research that will protect people. They are not in it for making money but to do good, positive research. No scientist can guarantee, as you have said, the negative.
This is what we found out on rBST. We seem to be just bypassing the scientists who blew the whistle. Dr. Pollak said that we should call them heroes. Dr. Pollak was on the committee with Dr. MacLeod. He said that the Senate committee members should be called heroes for doing the work that they are doing on this same issue.
As Senator Spivak said, we are not here to tear things down, we are here to build things. We are here to build safety. Our chairman has said that we are told that you cannot export this kind of corn, you cannot export this kind of soybean, et cetera. Then we dwell on export as our business. We were big exporters of agricultural product in the world at one time.
We have talked about the use of artificial insemination and embryo transplants. Agriculture Canada veterinarians were some of the first who did that and we were one of the most advanced in the world, but we were not using anything foreign. The genes, the embryo and the semen were from the cattle. We did not crossbreed semen from an elephant to a cow. We bred the best cattle in the world. We bred the best chickens in the world. We grew, as you said, the best wheat in the world. Some of that, if you remember, was found by a farmer in Western Canada. He called up the scientists and told them that he had a spot of wheat in his field that was rust resistant and that they should come and have a look. That is the same research that Dr. Downey and other scientists did on canola. For five years we argued with the Americans about the safety of canola, and canola oil just went through another three-year test to prove that there was no stress in it.
I am concerned about those things and about what is happening and who is getting control of all this in the world. When we talk about our rights and our research and how we will protect Canadian society, I go back to MMT. The Parliament of Canada unanimously, which is very rare, passed a law that MMT should be banned in Canada. However, because of NAFTA and the right that the United States had to export the product to Canada, they needed to retract that. Do you think your department or the Government of Canada or the Parliament of Canada have any say? The ban on MMT existed in 14 states in the United States. They cannot even sell it in the state where it is manufactured.
I am using that as an example. Under the new trade laws, and with the World Trade Organization, what rights do we have when there are reservations? As long as their scientists give approval, we are expected to accept that. Am I right?
Mr. Dodge: Here, as you know, senator, and I do not need to give you any lessons on this, the potential to use non-tariff barriers to exclude products from trade is extraordinarily high. Some of that use is absolutely warranted, but some is not. In fact, as we know, given the number of trade disputes over the years, much is not known. Therefore, these international standards bodies develop, in some sense, to attempt, at some sort of minimum level, to protect that. It will be very difficult and we are struggling. We have seen the struggles in the WTO over some of these issues and we will continue to see those struggles. We will have to decide as a society whether, on balance, that really is beneficial to us.
Our position since Havana in 1947 is that, generally speaking, it is beneficial to a small country like Canada because it provides us some way to deal with the Europeans now or with the Americans coming with some crazy pretences of keeping our products out. However, there are two sides to this issue, as we well know.
I will not pretend to give you an answer. I cannot. It is one thing that we will have to continue to work on and to watch. As a general principle, the world standards bodies ought to be of advantage to us.
Senator Whelan: There is now only one superpower in the world. There is a new president of the WTO, but I do not know whether he has yet been confirmed. You say that 132 countries voted against us. I understand there are more countries than that there. However, one superpower will have the say in the WTO. They will vote on things for us, but if they do not vote right they will not get aid from that superpower. I know how things work at world meetings.
We are being pushed into a very dangerous situation with little knowledge of what is going on. I am appalled when we quote Codex Alimentarius, the World Health Organization or the United Nations. As Mr. Diefenbaker used to say, we are superior to them in our deliberations. We are more democratic, open and free. I worry when we keep quoting those world organizations as our guidelines. Do none of you have any reservations about that?
Mr. Dodge: Of course, as a nation, we have reservations about any particular setup because it will not always be in our favour. Since the Second World War, certainly, governments in Canada have essentially agreed that, on balance, we will do much better with standards organizations that are international rather than fighting uphill to enter markets first in the United States and now also in Europe where the players are so big. On the whole, the international bodies are really quite helpful.
I remember working with Senator van Roggen back in the late 1970s as he was worrying away about trade relations. It was certainly the view then. It was certainly the view that we took in Havana in 1947. We have continued to take that view right through the piece, including in the last round.
Senator Whelan: I referred to the scientists as whistle blowers. What are they doing now? I see some of them sitting here. You heard what Dr. Pollak said about them, and I repeated it. He called them heroes. Are they doing the same work they were doing before? Commitments were made by the minister and by yourself when you were here, I believe, regarding what was happening to them.
Mr. Dodge: Senator, I have 6,000 heroes in my department. They work day in and day out quietly to protect the health and safety of Canadians. Do not ever think that all of those people you do not hear and do not see around this table are not real heroes. All of the members of the department, including the people who have appeared here, work in their particular area of expertise, in the areas to which they are assigned, to deal with drug approvals, basic scientific research, protection of health in one way or another, or promotion of good health in one way or another. These individuals are doing that.
You said to me that there must be no unjust retribution. We have followed and continue to follow good practices for every employee. We continue to use the mechanisms that are there for the small fraction of cases where problems arise. By and large, those mechanisms work well, if not overnight. At the beginning of my remarks, I reported on the results of four of those formal mechanisms.
Senator Whelan: If I do not understand this gag order, I am sure the public does not understand it. The scientists are not free to discuss at public meetings why they did what they did. Perhaps this is a rule in the civil service that I am not aware of. We keep hearing stories about changes being made.
Is Dr. Lachance here today?
Mr. Losos: Yes, he is, senator.
Mr. Dodge: I am not quite sure what your question is, but let me try answer it in general. A public servant is a servant of the Crown and owes his or her normal loyalty to the Crown and to the government of the day in his or her work. That is the obligation that rests on us all. Just as I do not have the freedom to speak about whatever I should like to speak about because I am a servant of the Crown, that applies to others. It applies specifically where one's position gives one a particular standing in the community such that one must obey the normal codes of good employment. We all obey those codes.
You have used the words "gag order" because it makes good press. Thus, you like to use those words. However, we are restricted, each and every one of us, to follow the normal codes of employment. That applies to me. It applies to everyone in the department.
Senator Whelan: The director, I believe, is Dr. Alexander. He is the file manager. He was also the animal safety evaluator for the file on rBST. Dr. Haydon was taken off that file. What were his findings on Dr. Haydon's file?
Mr. Dodge: Senator, I cannot answer that. Maybe someone here can.
Let us be clear. We, as a department, have a job to do in research, pursuing evaluations and so on. It is very important that each and every person work at that hard and at some point deliver conclusions, if only preliminary. As I said earlier, all scientific conclusions are subject in some sense to further testing and replication.
At some point a line must to be drawn about how much further we go with things. Any good investigator knows that there is always more to be known. That is a universal truth for good investigators everywhere. It is the senior scientist's responsibility and the manager's responsibility at some point to draw that line and, if there is a real lack of consensus among the investigators, to strike an external committee to resolve the problem. That is the normal way of proceeding. While we have not always performed perfectly by any stretch of the imagination, that is the norm or the ideal to which we ascribe. It means that investigators who would like to pursue the next piece of information at some point will be asked for their conclusions. Usually, senator, we are criticized for being too slow to draw the line, not too fast.
Senator Fairbairn: You made the point that you did not have the full availability of laboratory equipment. There would be an effort to seek that equipment out in universities or medical centres. Nonetheless, the availability of those tools would be for the use of your scientists and not for the necessary participation of those individuals in universities who might be there for a different purpose altogether. This is for your scientists.
Mr. Dodge: If we are going to have them and if, as a nation, we are to get the maximum benefit from them, we would like some of these specialized facilities to be used for our purposes, such as doing the tests that we need to have done. We would like also for the normal type of curiosity-driven research to be able to go on as well. When a facility is expensive, it is makes good sense to see if we can partner to make the best use of it.
We have built an outstanding facility in Winnipeg. It provides an opportunity for some investigator-driven, curiosity-driven science to go on that will enable Canada to begin to leap into the lead in this particular area.
Senator Fairbairn: I should like to add to the direction in which Senator Spivak was moving with some of her questions. I should like a validation of my understanding of what we are trying to do as a country. We have the choice of maintaining our own decisions of quality standards, with a view that the public must be confident that human safety is being affirmed by our Canadian scientists working on a timetable determined by their needs. Canadians must be confident that scientists have the equipment, the facilities and the information to do their utmost.
Mr. Dodge: I agree. We have difficult decisions to make about how best to achieve that.
Senator Fairbairn: Canada is a huge country and has a small population relative to others in the world. That is always a challenge, and in some cases perhaps a struggle. Still, that element of choice is fundamental to almost everything we do as a nation.
Mr. Dodge: Absolutely. Our strategy, in order to deliver the best possible advice and to promote the best possible science, is to be really good in a few areas -- that is, to be the world's best or in the top two or three in a few areas, to have a seat at the table of the very best people in the world. That means we cannot cover everything. Even the United States, in the end, does not cover everything. We have to do some real picking and choosing as to the areas that are of the most interest to us. In having our best people at the table, we get the best science from abroad. We have made some choices, and this is part of critical management. I mean "management" right up to the minister. We must identify those areas. When you are part of the very best in the world, the trade-off for our effort is that we get the gold-plated stuff back from abroad.
Given the huge range of specialties, that is basically how we are trying to operate. However, some fields are so important that they cannot be ignored. The genetics area is one. We have very little capacity in that area at the moment. We must build our capacity to exercise a degree of judgment here in Canada to do exactly what you said -- to ensure that we have a gold standard in the area of health.
Senator Taylor: I am sorry for being late but I was at the Internal Economy meeting, which as you know makes up your budget. I thought it was more important to ensure that you had enough money to keep going.
Perhaps I should address my question to Dr. Losos or Dr. Paterson because it is in food; actually, it builds a little on Mr. Dodge's statement about the gold medal standard. As we progress in looking for food markets around the world, since you mentioned genetic modification and hormone injections and so on, I wonder if there is a third category that may have been covered here? Your department says what is safe or unsafe. We are concerned in Canada and North America that people are holding our product out because it is genetically modified or hormone injected, even if we think the product is safe. Is there an in-between category that we should be looking at where you do not know whether a product is safe or unsafe? Perhaps you do not have enough time to be sure, because sometimes it may take a generation or two before effects show up in people. Maybe you are trying to play God and have underrated the intelligence of the consumer. Have you thought at all of having a third category where the product is labelled and letting the consumer decide?I know that some of the tings you people tell me are safe, I do not want to eat. No matter how nice or how smart I think you are, I just do not want to eat that product and I should like to see that reflected on the label. In North America, it seems that unless you can scientifically prove that something is wrong with a product, you are a dog if you question buying it. You seem to feel bound to say that a product is good or bad. Can you not say, "We do not know and here is a label indicating that"?
Mr. Dodge: Senator, you have put your finger on what I think is perhaps the most important aspect of what we are trying to do, and that is to provide effective information for consumers not just about the drugs or foods we approve, but also about the whole range of health concerns. That is absolutely fundamental because, in the end, it is you who decides whether you want to eat a product that contains genetically modified organisms. It is you who decides whether you want to eat something that contains peanut oil. It may be perfectly safe for you but not safe for Senator Fairbairn, for example. It is critical to provide better information for consumers.
Labelling is a really big issue, and we are trying to cast our minds ahead. At the moment, we think of labelling in terms of how much you can cram on the little space on the cardboard box.If we think a little more boldly, we could have a system whereby you swipe the product's bar code and read all the information about it. Perhaps I could press a couple of buttons and if I have a peanut allergy, I will have the information about peanuts in the product and so on. We should be going way farther than we currently do in terms of providing information. You will have noticed that the budget has roughly $300 million allocated for information. Part of it is for this sort of information, and another part is for basic health information of interest to consumers. This is a big issue. We are devoting a great effort to it, however some aspects will take some time to bring about.
Senator Taylor: Do you have in mind any sort of time line? I like the idea of swiping the product's bar code and being able to see the information instead of looking at a label that I cannot read in both languages. Have you any idea of the time it would take to have such a system in place?
Mr. Dodge: I will be able to give you a better answer to that next fall because we have many meetings scheduled for this June. Obviously, we would like to get the provincial side in as well. It does not make any sense to develop several systems. We have working group meetings at the beginning of June, and then the deputies are meeting June 17 or June 18 to try to push this forward. This initiative is getting a very good response, although not from every province; the larger provinces and some of the smaller provinces are quite interested.
Senator Spivak: I am very impressed with a budget of $300 million for information. There is only $375 million for the entire Health Protection Branch.
Mr. Dodge: Sorry, that is over three years.
Senator Spivak: Do I take it that you are not going to label, but will look at some other system? I ask because Canada's position at the international fora is that we do not want to label genetically modified beef. I am sure all consumers in Britain would like to see the three letters "GMO." That is not a big deal. You cannot be opposed to labelling and yet favour information. Sometimes labelling is right there where it hits you.
Before you answer that, since I have only five minutes, I cannot resist asking you this question, although it does not concern the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs. It is about caffeine in drinks other than Pepsi and so forth. No studies have been done. It is a commercial thing. There is no benefit to having caffeine in Mountain Dew, but little kids drink it and the caffeine has been shown to have deleterious effects.
Senator Fairbairn: It has deleterious effects on diabetics, too.
Senator Spivak: Right. I sincerely hope, although it has been gazetted, that you would not damage the public trust, because it you think milk is a big deal, this is also a big deal for little kids playing hockey. I hope you would not approve it. I ask the deputy minister because his responsibility covers everything, not just the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs.
Mr. Dodge: I do not know where we are on that.
Senator Spivak: It is gazetted.
Mr. Paterson: Labelling?
Senator Spivak: I thought you meant caffeine. Go ahead on labelling.
Mr. Paterson: I can deal with labelling and caffeine if that would help. Labelling of GMO is biotechnologically derived foods. At the moment, the position in Canada is that where there is a health and safety concern, labelling will be mandated. Health Canada has that mandate, for instance, where an allergen gets into a food.
Senator Spivak: You do not want to label GMO on the product.
Mr. Paterson: I will tell you our current position. For all other aspects of labelling, there is no mandate. It is not mandatory. It is optional. Our position as a government was articulated at the recent Codex Committee on Food Labelling. Our position is open, and we will continue to consult Canadians.
Senator Spivak: At the international forum, Canada opposed labelling.
Mr. Paterson: I do not think that is so, Senator Spivak. At the most recent Codex Committee on Food Labelling, that was our position.
Senator Spivak: I am glad to hear that.
Mr. Paterson: That is on the record.
Senator Spivak: Canada is changing its position on GMOs, then. We do not know yet if GMOs are nutritionally safe. We do not know.
Mr. Paterson: Our position is evolving, and we will be going through a comprehensive consultative process in the following months.
With respect to caffeine, you are absolutely right. There was a proposal gazetted 12 to 18 months ago to allow caffeine in those drinks, as you have indicated. The purpose of the Canada Gazette is, after all, to elicit comments, and because of those comments we have undertaken a detailed risk assessment.
Senator Spivak: Can you not just say no? Just say no.
Mr. Paterson: I would love to be able to say no.
Senator Spivak: It is not a therapeutic thing. It will not benefit anyone. It is only a commercial thing.
Mr. Paterson: Our review is ongoing, and as yet no decision has been made.
Senator Whelan: You know the evidence that we have heard. People in the Health Protection Branch at Heath Canada are still claiming that BST is safe for humans, although the health panel has been discredited. Do you know of anyone in your department who is saying it is safe?
Mr. Dodge: The latest piece is the MacLeod panel piece, and it confirmed our previous work. You will notice that I am not using the term "perfectly safe" because no one can ever guarantee that anything is absolutely, perfectly safe. For humans, the McLeod panel says BST, given the best scientific knowledge available, poses no significant risks. That is not saying that it is absolutely safe. One should be quite careful in one's use of language.
Senator Whelan: In our committee hearings, we reviewed results with Dr. MacLeod and his colleagues. I thought we had proved to them though the evidence brought by Dr. von Meyer that no real chronic health testing had been done. How then could they say it was safe?
Mr. Dodge: Senator, this is very important. We all have a duty to the Canadian public to ensure that we use language carefully. The panel said that to the best extent of available knowledge, rBST does not pose significant health risks. It may be that in 25 years' time we find, behind the existing uncertainty, more risk. That is absolutely possible, but the best knowledge at this point in time is that rBST poses no significant risk. That was essentially the conclusion of the human-health panel.
The conclusion of the animal-health panel was quite different. It was on the basis of the animal-health panel's findings that we told the company we are not willing to approve the drug.
Senator Whelan: In their last report, the European Community said that before they approve it, there must still be more studies and testing. You must have found that out when you were in Europe.
Mr. Dodge: Senator, I come back to this point. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that after 20 or 25 years of application, some currently unforeseen health risk could well appear. We must take that into account. The panel said that at this point in time, given what we currently know, there are no significant risks. They did not say that it is perfectly safe. Given what we currently know, there are no significant risks.
Senator Whelan: Dr. MacLeod said that they did not have time to read all of the documentation given to them. If they did not read all the evidence, how can they say if is safe or not safe? How can you say guilty or not guilty if you have not weighed all the evidence available to you?
Mr. Dodge: Let us be quite careful. I just read the transcript of Dr. MacLeod's appearance. He said that he did not read everything because some evidence was summarized in such a way that he understood perfectly what was there.
Senator Whelan: Did they not receive their documents from your department? They did not bring in outside evidence, did they?
Mr. Dodge: No. They had everything that was available.
Mr. Losos: They looked at our evidence and also had the world's literature.
Senator Whelan: I will have to go over the minutes of the meeting again. We are hearing stories that in your department you still discredit the gaps analysis. I do not know if that is true or not.
Mr. Losos: The gaps analysis has a life of its own that is really strange. We asked for the gaps analysis. We asked for it because I had a presentation by the scientists and I was not clear that all of the gaps were addressed. I asked for the gaps analysis. I asked Dr. Paterson to convene the scientists in the Health Protection Branch to provide me with what the gaps in the science were, and he did.
Senator Whelan: You removed Dr. Haydon from that file and you put Dr. Alexander on that file under Dr. Lachance. There has been no report on that file here today. We will ask for these reports as a follow-up.
I have 25 more questions. I have strong reservations about some of the things you are doing. Some way, some day, the public will have this information. The public is more informed than in the past, but we have good information and bad information. On the Internet we can find out almost anything that is going in world, in our country, et cetera, but I cannot find out what is going on in my own government.
For instance, I have been trying to find out how many research stations and experimental farms Agriculture Canada had in 1984 and how many we have in 1999. You would think that that is secret information not to be divulged to foreign nations. I only wanted to find out how much we had cut back on research and how much we are depending on company research. I believe it is totally wrong to cut back on research for either Health Canada or the Department of Agriculture, because they are so closely joined. If you have good and healthy food, you will have healthy people. You have a tremendous responsibility.
I briefly read that bill that was presented in the House of Commons the other day. I have strong reservations about some of the things that are being suggested in that legislation.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Whelan.
I want to thank you, Mr. Dodge, and your delegation. You have been very patient and informative. I hope that your department has found the work of this committee to be positive in helping you do a job that is very important for Canada. As Senator Whelan has said many times, our standards are among the highest in the world. When we were in Europe we saw much concern about all of these areas. We are proud Canadians. We do believe that it is most important to have the best possible health regulations so that we can continue to be leaders in the world.
I wish to thank you again for your appearance today. I wish to thank all senators for the tremendous input they have given on this subject. I hope it turns out to be very positive.
Senator Whelan: Mr. Dodge, if we submit a list of questions that we were not able to ask today, can we expect a response?
Mr. Dodge: You can certainly expect a response, senator.
The committee adjourned.