Industry Committee on June 3rd, 2008

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

--but without the claim. The United States has a different regulatory system.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

What made us think we would be more clever than those people in the States and that we needed to pay salaries to people who want to double-check everything?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

When we developed the products for natural health products, which was quite some time ago, and then there was a review done just over a year ago, the majority of stakeholders were very supportive of the current regulatory environment, because they recognize that it gives credibility to the claim.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Merci, monsieur Arthur.

We're going to be going to the motion in about five minutes, so I have time for a few brief questions.

I want to start with Ms. Dodds. In your presentation you said that federal regulatory approval times for new drugs have continued to improve over the last few years. That's certainly what I've heard, that the times have been improved. But I have heard—and this is just anecdotal evidence, so I'm going to ask you about it—that there is quite an approval backlog for natural health products.

Can you give us some figures or facts, either here or later on, that would indicate what the approval times are for natural health products and whether they are getting better or getting slower?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

I don't have the specific numbers here with me today. We can provide them to you.

One of the challenges we've had with natural health products is I think pretty evident: these are products that were marketed long before the regulations came into force in 2004, so there was a backlog before we even started regulating. We have received resources and have been making attempts and have seen the times for review coming down.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. If you can provide some information, we'd appreciate it.

Secondly, Mr. Carey, with respect to Environment Canada, there was an article, I think within the last few months, that said that some scientists at Environment Canada were concerned that somehow there were limits placed on the publication of their research. And yet you stated in your presentation that 80% of your scientific publications have been co-authored with researchers external to the department. I assume that's at research institutions.

Is there an issue with respect to scientific publications or data not being made available through publications or otherwise to the public? Is that an issue we should be concerned about?

[John Carey]

Thank you for your question. It's an important question.

There are two aspects to that issue. One is that our scientists, while they are in universities in the academic community, learn a set of scientific values, which we all learned. But within government, of course, we have a set of democratic values as well, and you have to recognize that you're civil servants and there are certain aspects of behaviour that civil servants have to conform with to respect those values.

First of all, we encourage and expect our research scientists to publish in the scientific literature. That is an expectation, and in fact we judge them and promote them based on those publications in part. So we do not try to stop them or in any way hamper them from doing that.

We do, however, review their publications and the language in them to ensure that there aren't statements such as, “the federal government ought to do this”, or that they inappropriately step out of their role as public servants.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Do you review that before the publication is published?

[John Carey]

Yes, we do; we review it before it's submitted. But that is not the same as a scientific peer review, which the publications do.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

So it would be in terms of avoiding any prescriptive advice to the government, but in terms of the science they are studying and want to publish, the government is not interfering?

[John Carey]

No, sir, we are not.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, I appreciate that.

One of the challenging questions you may all want to think about and get back to us on is how we allocate resources to in-house research that the government does and to research done at institutions.

Some facilities I've seen, such as the NRCan facility in my riding, which seems to marry very well, with the University of Alberta and NRCan and the provincial government all working together.... I know it's a very big question, and you may want to get back to me, but does someone want to challenge it now, as to how you decide where you allocate resources? Do you allocate more to the granting councils, to have more research done through the institutions, or do you allocate more in-house?

Mr. Carey.

[John Carey]

I mentioned an important feature earlier; that is that if you want to influence a decision, it's important that the information be available when the decision is being taken and that the information be actually relevant to the decision. That requires, in our experience, a greater degree of priority-setting and of influencing of scientific priorities than exist external to government currently.

There is a certain type of science that's best done through granting councils, in curiosity-driven research. However, for the type of science that Environment Canada needs for at least part of its business, which is the risk management/risk assessment that we do in partnership with Health Canada, it's a very risky strategy to hope that someone will become curious about an issue and produce the information you require in time for a public decision. We believe that needs to have a strong in-house component, and that's why we do it in-house.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That distinction is helpful for us, I believe.

My time is up, Monsieur Saindon, but I want to ask you a very tough question. Was canola created in Manitoba or Saskatchewan? When we were on our trip, in Manitoba they said it was in Manitoba, and in Saskatchewan they said it was in Saskatchewan.

[Gilles Saindon]

The only thing I can say is it was a beautiful example of partnership.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

That's going to be the title of our report.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you all for being here. Unfortunately, our time is up. If you have anything further to submit to the committee, please do so. We appreciate your time here.

We will deal with item two, but I first want to make a very brief announcement about the services sector report. We have an updated version in which very small changes were made, so we'll pass that out. Then my hope is that we will adopt the services sector report on Thursday at about 12:30 or 12:45. This is essentially the same report you've had for two weeks at least, so go through it one more time with your staff if you want. We will adopt the services sector report on Thursday.

The only thing we have to do with that report is find a title.

Dan, perhaps we can email the list of possible titles.

[Dan Shaw, Committee Researcher]

I made copies.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Now we'll go to the motion by Madame Brunelle.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to know whether the steering committee will be meeting soon? Did I forget a meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We do need to have a meeting. Do you want it on Thursday morning?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

No, I do not necessarily want there to be a meeting, but I would like to know exactly where we are at this point, because since the trip with the Committee, I have been feeling a little lost.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Perhaps the members of the subcommittee can indicate to the clerk what would be a good time for them.