HEAL Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Health
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Tuesday, December 10, 2002
| ¿ | 0925 |
 |
The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)) |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber (Director General, Policy Planning and Priorities Directorate, Department of Health) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard (General Councel, Legal Services Unit, Health Canada, Department of Justice) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 0930 |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
| ¿ | 0935 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 0940 |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| ¿ | 0945 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| ¿ | 0950 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
| ¿ | 0955 |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
| À | 1000 |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| À | 1005 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.) |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| À | 1010 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
| À | 1015 |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| À | 1020 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
| À | 1025 |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
| À | 1030 |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
| À | 1035 |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hélène Scherrer |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
| À | 1040 |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
| À | 1045 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| À | 1050 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| Á | 1110 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| Á | 1115 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1120 |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| Á | 1125 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1130 |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1135 |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1140 |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
| Á | 1145 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Á | 1150 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1155 |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Ms. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| Â | 1225 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
| Â | 1230 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hélène Scherrer |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
| Â | 1235 |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Ms. Francine Manseau (Senior Policy Analyst, Health Policy and Communications Branch, Department of Health) |
|
The Chair |
| Â | 1240 |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
Ms. Francine Manseau |
|
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
|
Ms. Francine Manseau |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| Â | 1245 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
| Â | 1250 |
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
| Â | 1255 |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
| · | 1300 |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
An hon. member |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
| · | 1305 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
| · | 1310 |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
| · | 1315 |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Caroline Weber |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
| · | 1320 |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
| · | 1325 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Glenn Rivard |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| · | 1330 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Joann Garbig (Procedural Clerk) |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Health |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, December 10, 2002
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¿ 
(0925)
[English]
The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I welcome you to this meeting of the committee. We actually did a little bit better yesterday than I thought we had. We got to the end of clause 25.
We're now on--
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): I have a point of order.
The Chair: Right now? Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, could you see if there is unanimous consent to go back to amendment CA-35B, which was not available in French yesterday, and which deals with the disclosing of identity? I believe that several other committee members also had concerns in this regard, and we could deal with them now.
[English]
The Chair: He wants to re-examine amendment CA-35B. Yes, it was defeated, but I want you to see it, and then we'll listen to his point of order.
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): We already dealt with it and we defeated it, so why are we looking at it again?
The Chair: It's a point of order. I can say no, but I think I should listen to it.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, I do not believe that we can vote on an amendment when it is not available in both official languages.
I thought we had a solid consensus to say that, for reasons relating to psychogenesis and the child's well-being, several witnesses had asked us to make disclosure of the donor's identity mandatory. I was wondering if we could go back to that vote, considering that we did not have the amendment in both languages.
As you know, Madam Chair, I had to leave yesterday because of our report on drugs. I am going to have to leave again today, but I think that with the French version, we could have a better understanding of this amendment.
[English]
The Chair: Is CA-35B the one the department was supposed to bring copies of?
Ms. Caroline Weber (Director General, Policy Planning and Priorities Directorate, Department of Health): If you recall, Madam Chair, it was a revision of this. It was a redrafting of this and it never got numbered.
The Chair: Do we have a copy of it yet?
Mr. Glenn Rivard (General Councel, Legal Services Unit, Health Canada, Department of Justice): We provided alternate wording, which was read into the proceedings, and my notes are that it was defeated.
The Chair: Yes, it was. Mr. Ménard is raising the point that there was nothing on paper in the other official language, but I don't think there was anything on paper in English either.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: No, we did not have it on paper in the other language, that is correct.
The Chair: But we didn't have your revision on paper in English either.
Ms. Caroline Weber: No, that's right. There were only three copies, and the vote got called before we could get to the photocopier.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: That is correct.
The Chair: Go ahead with your point of order, Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, I think that we all fully understand the ins and outs of the debate. Since this is a serious matter, I am going to use my prerogative as committee member to ask to go back to the vote. If we could now vote on the amendment that is before us in an informed manner, I think we would be doing serious work as committee members.
I would like a recorded vote.
[English]
The Chair: Well, it's been defeated. I have to have consent to do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: But did we vote on an amendment that was available in both languages?
[English]
The Chair: No, we didn't. It was read in English. We had agreement to proceed reading it in English so the translator in the booth would get it on the public record in French, but it wasn't in front of us.
¿ (0930)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: That is not legal. We cannot vote on an amendment that is not in both languages, no more than we can receive briefs that are not in both languages. If we cannot receive briefs that are not in both languages, I do not understand how we can vote on wording that is not available in both languages, which is much more binding. Respect for Molière is at stake here.
Ms. Scherrer, it is at times like this that your affection is so precious to me.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Castonguay.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Madam Chair, yesterday, when we reached this amendment, there was a consensus among committee members who were present that we could proceed this way, as you had suggested. This amendment dealt with clause 18. We voted on clause 18 and adopted it. I do not think that we should go back to it. Otherwise, we will end up going back over the entire bill.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I do not feel that there is much respect for my position.
A voice: You were not here yesterday.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I was not here because of the report of the committee on the non-medical use of drugs.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Szabo.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.
I know this issue is very difficult, but if the clerk has the blues from yesterday, I think the record will show that there was at least one member, if not two, who kept asking what we were voting on, even to the point where one member actually abstained from the vote for that very reason, and that was put on the record. That is quite an unusual situation.
Unfortunately, the paper was not available in the first instance and it got a little muddled. I understand how it got confused, but I think the uniqueness of how this occurred after a request from the chair to have the officials produce a motion in the proper wording did not exactly flow the way the chair had anticipated. On that basis, I think Mr. Ménard's point is amplified; it lends support to his request to look at this thing and make sure the committee understands what it is voting on.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.
Madame Thibeault.
[Translation]
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): I want to defend the point Mr. Ménard is raising. His comments about official languages are very important. It happens too often, unfortunately... At this committee, Madam Chair is usually very careful about the distribution of documents in both official languages, but for me, not having an amendment available in both official languages is unacceptable.
[English]
The Chair: If we can defer this to this afternoon, the clerk has offered to try to research what happens in other committees at amendment stage around this issue of official languages.
I would just like to say that one of the things that disturbed me about it was the fact that one of the Liberal members abstained and said “I don't know what we're voting on because it's not in front of me.” That worried me afterwards because we didn't have it in English either, as I recall.
In any case, I'll ask the clerk to see if he can ask his colleagues what they think we should do, and I'll report back this afternoon. Okay?
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Could we have them from the department in both languages regardless?
The Chair: Do you think that by 3:30 this afternoon you could produce sufficient copies in English and French?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: I believe we can do that, yes.
The Chair: Good. Thank you very much.
Yes?
Ms. Judy Sgro: Is the intent that we reopen it? If that's the case, there were several votes yesterday. On the issue of the expenses I was tabling, no one was courteous enough to put that down, although it was an issue of big importance to many of us on this committee. The committee knew that I unfortunately had to be in Toronto yesterday morning and was not going to be able to be here. If we are going to start reopening things, then I am going to ask that G-5B--I think that's the number--on the whole issue of the expenses be reopened as well.
We tabled many amendments these last few days when other members wanted to look at them again. We should have had the same courtesy on that issue of expenses, which mattered a lot to all of us.
¿ (0935)
The Chair: Madame Sgro has suggested that if she's going to be asked to give unanimous consent to open one thing, she's going to request the same privilege.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): So will I, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Yes. Be forewarned.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: It is not the same situation.
[English]
The Chair: In any case, we're now on page 69, BQ-1.
(On clause 26--Board of directors)
The Chair: I'd like you to look at the next two pages as well, BQ-1, CA-51, and NDP-11. They all relate to the clause on page 16 at the top left, subclause (2), page 16.
“The membership of the board of directors”.... The first one, as I read it, simply wants to eliminate the words “so far as possible”. The second injects “must be chosen for their wisdom and judgment, so far as possible, and reflect a range of”.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis is eliminating “so far as possible” as well.
Mr. Ménard, would you like to speak to BQ-1, please?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: We believe that by removing the words "so far as possible", we will strengthen the provision, because it creates a more direct and stronger obligation. I have nothing more to say. It is very simple.
[English]
The Chair: Looking at CA-51, Mr. Merrifield, you have this “wisdom and judgment” thing.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I think that comes right out of our language from our majority report last year. I don't have a problem getting rid of the “as far as possible”. That would work fine with me. If we just added the “be chosen for their wisdom and judgment and reflect a range”, that would be fine.
The Chair: Madame Wasylycia-Leis, yours is the same, essentially, as Mr. Ménard's.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Yes.
The Chair: What we could do is get CA-51 on the floor, because it's bigger in change, and have BQ-1 as a subamendment to that amendment. That's how we could handle it procedurally.
The motion would be moved by Mr. Merrifield. Mr. Ménard would move the subamendment, that is, to delete “so far as possible”.
Are there any questions to that subamendment? Otherwise I'll call the question.
Dr. Castonguay.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I would like to ask Mr. Rivard a question. I do not see a problem with removing the words "so far as possible", but I would like to have his opinion on that.
As regards the "wisdom" and "judgment", I wonder who would define that. That does not make sense, and I will certainly not be supporting that part.
So I would like to hear your comments on striking the words "so far as possible".
[English]
Mr. Glenn Rivard: I think Mr. Castonguay is right. There's really no difficulty created by removing “so far as possible”.
I think there is a problem with adding the terms “wisdom and judgment” simply because they are so subjective. There's really no way of determining whether the Governor in Council has lived up to those requirements. It's really quite difficult to put a legal requirement in for which there's no way of determining whether it's been complied with.
Basically I would suggest that part of the amendment not be proceeded with, but dropping the term “so far as possible” should not cause any problems.
The Chair: The problem is if you do that one, BQ-1 is amending CA-51, and if you defeat CA-51 you lose the deletion of “so far as possible”. You lose the whole thing.
¿ (0940)
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: That's why, Madame Chair, we support BQ-1.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Or NDP-11. Mine just deletes the words.
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): You will get a victory this morning. You will share one.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm going to share mine.
The Chair: Can I get a show of hands of who would like to support the idea of “for their wisdom and judgment?” If not a sufficient number want to support that idea, then you're right, we should not start with CA-51 amended by BQ-1; we should start with BQ-1.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: The rationale behind “wisdom and judgment” was hopefully to not allow the agency to be hijacked by any special interest. That's where we're at. But if you get rid of “so far as possible”, we may be accomplishing the same thing.
If it's too subjective...and I would agree that “wisdom and judgment” are subjective, although that gives the intent we wanted, coming out of our report, and I think there were some good reasons for that.
I don't have a problem pulling back “wisdom and judgment” and going with the Bloc's amendment, getting rid of “so far as possible”. That may do it.
The Chair: Okay. I'm going to declare that Mr. Ménard's motion, amendment BQ-1, is on the table.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Sorry, there is one other that occurs in amendment BQ-1--
The Chair: Yes, “shall”.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, “shall” versus “must”.
The Chair: I don't think there's much problem with that. They're pretty similar.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: I don't think there's any legal difference in the two terms. The current bill uses the term “must”. That's not changed in the NDP motion, but in terms of legal effect it's still the same.
The Chair: Mr. Ménard's motion is on the floor. That is to get rid of “so far as possible”. That's all you're voting on, amendment BQ-1, on page 69.
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, if I may, if you look at the French part, it says “doivent”. In English, that should be “must”.
The Chair: Mr. Ménard, do you care if it says “shall” or “must”?
Mr. Réal Ménard: No.
The Chair: Mr. Ménard doesn't care. He's willing to amend his amendment with the word “must”. So write that in.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment CA-51 is withdrawn, and amendment NDP-11 is not relevant now.
We're on amendment CA-52, to lines 3 and 4. We have three together that are about this, amendments CA-52, CA-53, and CA-54.
This is the addition of “that will enable them to best serve the interests of Canadians”. Amendment CA-52 is quite different.
In amendment CA-53 “The membership [of the board] shall always include at least one person nominated by the”. That would be 10 members right there, from the provinces.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: If I may, in statutory drafting, the use of the term “province” also includes territories. So in fact you would have 13 members.
The Chair: Yes, exactly.
Ms. Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have a question for Mr. Merrifield.
What happens if you're a permanent resident?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: A permanent resident?
Ms. Hedy Fry: Not a Canadian.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: You're not serving your....
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Just to clarify, are we talking about amendment CA-52 or amendment CA-53?
The Chair: You're supposed to be talking about all three of them, because if you pass one, the others can't be put forward, in the sense that they're on the same lines.
Oh, didn't we defeat something that said this in the preamble, “the interests of Canadians”?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Let's pull that one back then. I withdraw that one.
The Chair: Amendment CA-52 is withdrawn.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Let's talk about what we mean by the membership always including at least a person nominated by the deputy ministers from the departments responsible for health in the provinces.
I think it's recognizing the importance of a lot of the jurisdiction of this bill being provincial, and not that we'd have one from each of the provinces and territories, but that we'd have one who represents the interests of all the collective provinces and territories. That's where we're going on this.
¿ (0945)
The Chair: Mr. Merrifield, I'm a little bit confused. You have two amendments that amend line 4. You have “Agency's objectives” at the beginning of amendment CA-53, and then you add a sentence. But here you have something that comes between “Agency's” and “objectives”.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: So if you pass amendment CA-53 and then you pass amendment CA-54, you have to wipe out amendment CA-53.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, let's pass amendment CA-53, and then we'll--
The Chair: Mr. Merrifield, do you want to combine them? Do you want to see, in other words, a merge of amendments CA-53 and CA-54 to say “the Agency's technical and ethical objectives”, followed by “The membership shall always”? We could do it as one, if you would agree to that.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, I would agree to that.
The Chair: Does everybody understand? You add the words “technical and ethical”.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Sensing where this group is at, I'd prefer to withdraw CA-54. Complexity seems to be a difficult thing to get through, so let's keep it simple.
The Chair: You are withdrawing CA-54. That makes it easy.
We're now voting on CA-53.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's right.
The Chair: Those in favour of the membership of the board having at least one person nominated by the deputy ministers of the departments responsible for health in the provinces and territories, please indicate. I might point out that 13 members of the board would be automatic.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: No.
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Hedy Fry: The way this reads, it's one person by each.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'd ask for clarification, then, from those at the end of the table. The intent was that we'd have one representing the provinces and territories, not one each.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: My reading of it was that it meant each province and territory would have....
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Could you recommend the wording to change it so that it would follow the intent then?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: We have language of that nature in clause 28. You would add toward the end “from amongst their number”.
The Chair: Do you agree to that, Mr. Merrifield?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes.
The Chair: Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, I wonder if my motion on page 74 would satisfy our Alliance colleagues. We could also deal with it.
[English]
The Chair: That's quite different. That says “Each province shall be represented by a director”. That would be 13 people because it's for each province and territory.
We're dealing with CA-53.
Ms. Judy Sgro: Madam Chair, could I just get a clarification? Clause 28 seems to deal with the agency in a different way.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Clause 28 provides that two government observers--we don't use that term but for the sake of simplicity--can attend and participate in the meetings of the board of directors of the agency. One of those is the federal deputy minister of health or his or her designate, and the other would be chosen by the provincial and territorial deputy ministers of health. It would be one of those deputy ministers or a designate. So there would be a provincial observer participating in the board meetings and also the federal observer.
The Chair: But not voting.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: They are observers. They are not members. They can participate in the discussion, but they do not vote.
The Chair: Mr. Merrifield's motion suggests that one person representing the provincial interests should be able to vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: CA-54 is withdrawn.
Now we have the other idea by Mr. Ménard that each province and territory would have a representative.
Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, you know why it would be very unfortunate for this amendment to be defeated. First of all, because the provinces would find out, but also because it deals with family law as well as responsibilities that fall under provincial jurisdiction. Having eight, nine, or twelve people is not important. What is important is for the people who are involved to be where the decisions are being made.
Madam Chair, this amendment is dictated by common sense and the desire for more collegial federalism.
¿ (0950)
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is NDP-12.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
The amendment seeks to ensure that there is gender parity on the agency board. I think we heard from a significant number of groups that given that we're dealing with reproductive technologies, we should at least ensure gender parity on the board.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: I'm going to ask you to look at page 75 and page 79 at the same time. They seem to be on the same lines, or there's a conflict anyway.
One says:
| All members of the board of directors shall be subject to the same code of conduct and conflict of interest provisions as the President |
and CA-57 says:
| The members of the board, including the Chairperson and the President, shall be subject to the conflict of interest guidelines applicable to persons appointed by order in council. |
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Merrifield, are you just trigger-happy?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I think it's very important to hear all of this, and--
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Merrifield, please explain “the conflict of interest guidelines applicable to persons appointed by order in council”.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'm not exactly sure on CA-57 where we're at, but I'd like to speak to CA-55. Let's withdraw CA-57, because if we can get CA-55--
The Chair: You're withdrawing CA-57. That's good. I mean, it's one less to deal with. Then speak to CA-55, please.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, if you're just looking at one less to deal with, I don't think that's the appropriate way to look at it.
What we're calling for is more accountability by everybody who is on this board. There should not be a conflict of interest by anyone who sits on the board. If we have certain provisions for the president of the agency as far as conduct and code of conduct and conflict of interest, they should apply equally to the votes around the table. I think that's just appropriate.
The Chair: Apparently the guidelines you were referring to in CA-57 do not usually apply to part-time people, and the members of the board of directors would be part-time. What you're essentially saying is that the part-time directors who make these decisions around the board table should be subject to the same conflict of interest guidelines as the full-time employees, or the president--
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, the president--
The Chair: --who--
Mr. Rob Merrifield: --who is also a member of the board, right?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: We're saying conflict of interest and code of conduct applicable to the president should also apply to everyone else around the table.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: And why should it not?
The Chair: Ms. Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I was just going to ask Mr. Rivard whether the G-7 amendment, which technically isn't required, would in fact be stronger because it achieves what you want without.... It would be “not eligible to be a member of the board”, and I would assume that would mean even a part-time member. It gets to the heart of the matter. The person can't already be involved in the business. It's even stronger than the other suggestion, CA-55.
The Chair: So I can ask this question. Does one preclude the other? If Mr. Merrifield's amendment passed, would it not be okay to also put in G-7 for further clarity?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, because just as mine is--
The Chair: Just a minute. I'm asking Mr. Rivard.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Let me just say that G-7 is in fact a very strong provision to deal with conflict of interest matters. It excludes certain people from membership in the board. That is a somewhat different point, however, than is covered by CA-55, which would apply to those who are members of the board.
I would, however, like to clarify one thing. It is my understanding that in fact all board members, all governor in council appointees, are governed by the applicable code of conduct. They are governed by the first part of it, if you will, which is the statement of principles. And then there is a further elaboration that applies to the full-time members. My point is that even the part-time members are still governed by the principles of the code of conduct.
¿ (0955)
Mr. Rob Merrifield: So you're saying you agree with me.
Ms. Hedy Fry: It's redundant.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: I'm just explaining how it operates.
Ms. Caroline Weber: There's a bit more clarification there.
On the principles, it's conflict of interest guidelines for the part-time members. For the full-time members it's things like disclosing assets, subject to criminal penalties.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: I'm not sure they're subject to--
The Chair: My understanding is there's more applied to the full-time members than to the part-time members, whatever it happens to be.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Dr. Weber is right. For the full-time members the code of conduct requires a very extensive disclosure of financial interests, which is normally not considered appropriate for part-time members of a board. But the part-time members are governed by the principles of the code of conduct.
The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Given that we have this general code of conduct and general provisions to cover all boards, what would be the problem with actually putting them in the legislation as a double protection? Don't we have a number of laws now that include this extra protection and specify conflict of interest provisions right in the act for appointed boards?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: I believe the logic behind the way code of conduct operates now is that the consequences of a conflict for a part-time member are not as significant as for a full-time president, who in this case is the CEO of the agency.
Second, requiring the very extensive disclosure of financial interests may act to discourage people from taking on part-time positions that have very limited remuneration. So you have to balance your concerns about conflict of interest with the potential to discourage good candidates from participating in this agency.
Ms. Caroline Weber: Conflict of interest applies to both, though. I just want to be really precise about the language. It's the expansion, by using the term “code of conduct”, that requires part-time members to disclose their assets, etc., and be subject to all of the other liabilities and potential penalties of the full-time members that makes this different.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Yes.
The Chair: Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm still not satisfied that as a committee--based on our discussions on the draft legislation--we are trying to ensure that when members are appointed to this board there is no possibility that a member will be appointed who has some kind of pecuniary or proprietary interest in a reproductive-technology-related endeavour. I heard Caroline say that, but I didn't hear Mr. Rivard say that.
I want to be sure we've covered that, and I still don't know why we wouldn't want to make the extra provision in this act, given the sensitivity in this area and the possibility of having someone with some vested interest in this field on a board making decisions about future developments that will affect a lot of people. I think it's a pretty important issue, and I just seek clarification.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: I would refer you to motion G-7. It basically says you cannot be a member of the board if you hold a licence--
À (1000)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: For what?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: A licence is a licence granted under this act by the agency. So if you are a holder of a licence and you're running an IVF clinic, for example, you could not be a member of the board. If you are applying for a licence from the agency, you cannot be a member of the board. If the licensee or the applicant happens to be a corporation, then you cannot be a member if you are a director, officer, shareholder, or partner of that licensee.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: But you could have a share in a biotech company that had an indirect benefit.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: I guess the members would have to decide just how broad a net they wanted to cast. At the same time, you have to be able to find members somewhere, so if the net is cast too wide, you may have difficulty finding qualified members.
The Chair: Thank you.
Dr. Lunney.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.
On some of the wording here in amendment CA-55, our advisers have indicated that the code of conduct requires financial disclosures, and so on.
I have a friendly amendment to drop “the same code of conduct and”, and then just pick up with “conflict of interest provisions as the President of the Agency”. This would just narrow it to the conflict of interest.
The Chair: Would the mover be agreeable to this?
There's a suggested subamendment to remove “the same code of conduct and”. In removing it, we remove the need for disclosure.
Is this correct?
Ms. Caroline Weber: [Editor's Note: inaudible]
Mr. James Lunney: It reinforces that we're concerned about conflict of interest.
The Chair: The mover has agreed to remove “the same code of conduct and”, and to just say “the same conflict of interest provisions as the President”.
We have people who aren't ready for the question.
Ms. Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sorry, but I put my name up when Ms. Wasylycia-Leis asked a question. I think it's an important point.
There is already overriding legislation subjecting all of these OIC appointments to conflict of interest guidelines. So as to the point about whether we should also scatter it in every bill that creates an agency, it's a bit messy and unnecessary to do this. If there already is one piece of overriding legislation, should we decide as a parliament that we want to change the provisions of...? It's easier to change that than to have it scattered through multiple pieces of legislation and then have some of them not get caught up.
You can think of certain legislation private members have brought before the House where they were trying to fix things in other bills that didn't catch up. For instance, on the definition of discrimination, we didn't have one bill but had it scattered through others.
So it would be easier to change conflict of interest legislation across all boards, should we wish to do that, than to have this embedded in other pieces of legislation.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: [Inaudible—Editor]
Ms. Paddy Torsney: But there is already legislation that governs all of this. I think it was alluded to.
Perhaps our witnesses should elaborate on this subject.
The Chair: We have discussed at some length the fact that there are provisions in other bills, what I call omnibus bills, covering everything. For example, for greater clarity in this bill, the committee chose yesterday to put something in the bill that is already someplace else. So that discussion has been held.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, one last kick at this cat.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay. I'll try once more.
First of all, while there may be broad legislation or standards applying to all legislation, I think we are dealing with a very significant area—reproductive technologies. I think one would want to take extra precautions to ensure we're not appointing any members to a board who have any indirect or direct interest in this vast field. I think there are many pieces of legislation that do precisely this. They spell it out in very specific terms, for very important reasons. I think this is one of these cases.
I just wanted to suggest, Madam Chair, before we vote on this, that the wording I presented in my amendment NDP-13 is in fact based on the kind of standard wording appearing in other pieces of legislation. It's tied specifically to this bill. I think it would offer the double protection that some of us are anxious to achieve.
The Chair: We have amendment CA-55. I believe the members are ready to vote.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Is it possible for us to get a copy of these guidelines, so that we'll know exactly how tight they will be?
À (1005)
The Chair: I'm sure the officials could provide them, maybe this afternoon.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Is it possible to hold this until we get them?
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: We are now on amendment CA-56.
I don't quite understand the words “one consecutive reappointment”. Shouldn't we say “one reappointment”?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: No, “consecutive reappointment”, because it's one right after the other, right? I think it would be for a six-year term.
What we're saying is there's nothing in here suggesting that there be any limits on that at all. We had talked about this quite a bit in our majority report. We're saying that the board members should not be eligible for reappointment more than once, so that you don't have board members on the board for a decade. That's really what it would amount to. They could come back on the board after they sat off it for a term. I think this just adds to what we're talking about in this bill, that it not be driven by certain individuals or by certain interests.
The Chair: So would it not be adequate then, if you don't care if it's consecutive, one term to the next--
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, I do.
The Chair: —that they could come back in later?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: They could come back in later.
The Chair: Then you should just say one reappointment.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Two terms, one...
Ms. Hedy Fry: Two terms, if you really want.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, maybe the wording would...
Ms. Paddy Torsney: He's not saying that.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: No, I'm saying they could have two, but then they would have to sit out--
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sit out for a term and then come back.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, and come back.
The Chair: Dr. Castonguay.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, I think that would be restrictive. There will be quality people who will serve, and we must not assume that after a second term, they will not be any good anymore. I think it would be very pretentious on our part to do that.
That is why I cannot support this amendment. We could be eliminating people who are highly qualified and of great importance to the agency.
[English]
The Chair: The problem as I see it is that there is no limit on the appointments, so the person could sit there for 15 or 20 years.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Now, the opposite limit is too strict.
[English]
How much is enough?
The Chair: Dr. Lunney.
Mr. James Lunney: Well, I think there's good reason in such a sensitive area to have a turnover. Six years is a long time to serve on a governing body like this. That's ample time for anyone to express their expertise and also share it with other people.
But if you have somebody sitting for 15 or 20 years on the same board, you can have two or three people actually dominate the whole agenda. So I think there's very good reason to consider this. It's a very minor change, and it would allow a person who's a very effective member, having served two terms, to sit one out, and three years later, if they're still actively involved and interested and able, they would be able to come back on that board and contribute again. But it would break that sense of a small number of people dominating the whole board.
The Chair: Ms. Chamberlain is next.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): I just wondered if the officials would comment on that, about the turnover. Is that important? What if somebody did sit there for 20 years? There's nothing to preclude that.
Ms. Caroline Weber: This is really a policy issue rather than a legal one. It's a question about how many people do you think there are in the field who could really deal with the complexity of the issues here. We didn't limit it because we recognized that there are a small number of people here. We're reducing the number of people who are eligible by introducing an amendment that tries to further narrow the conflict of interest issues, so that you don't have any financial stake at all. We were trying to leave some room to rely on the expertise that exists.
The Chair: Mrs. Sgro.
Ms. Judy Sgro: This is just a point. Ministers will also come and go, and I am sure that no minister is going to want to see somebody sit there for 15 or 20 years. We all recognize that there needs to be change and the rest of it. So I would certainly expect that there would be turnover and that the minister would be responsible to see that there was. I don't think we need to get into micro-managing.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Merrifield.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I would be afraid that we would just leave that up to chance. I think we have an opportunity now. It's something we talked about in our majority report. It's a recommendation. I think we said two terms. Whether it's two or one, I think the intent is that there not be a monopoly by specific interest on the agency. I think it's very important that we consider it.
We can put a check and a balance in there. I'm not too wound up on whether it's one or two consecutive terms. I am very concerned about it being a monopoly and that we do have that fresh look at this as it evolves. It's a subject that is evolving very fast and we need to be careful of that. I think it makes very good sense to put something here now. If we don't, they could be there forever.
À (1010)
The Chair: Dr. Lunney, a short comment.
Mr. James Lunney: Yes, the concept that was just mentioned here that there may be a very narrow field and we're going to narrow it further is completely opposite the tenor that this committee discussed when we were looking at the composition of this committee. We were trying to keep it away from having a small group of high-tech experts, the ones in control of this. That's where the concept of having some knowledge and wisdom....
Look at the royal commission--
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Don't talk about high-tech experts.
Mr. James Lunney: Come on.
The Chair: Excuse me, Dr. Castonguay.
Mr. James Lunney: No, the point is--
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: But listen, for the record--
The Chair: He has the floor.
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I know this.
Mr. James Lunney: The point here was simply that if you look at the royal commission, they weren't people who had specific expertise in this one area. They were people who were able to grapple with this who had a good measure of common sense. I think that's a healthy concept that we want to engender.
I would encourage members to remember that.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: We now have the government amendment, G-7, which has already been explained, I believe, by the officials.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Mr. Szabo.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Madam Chair. There was a comment made by Mr. Rivard that the directors who are not the president get paid so little that it would be very difficult to get people to serve on that board. I found that quite alarming, quite frankly, when I looked at the responsibilities we're ascribing to the agency, and I wonder if maybe someone could enlighten the committee as to whether they are really going to meet just two times a year, who exactly is going to make these important decisions about what research is necessary, and what licence provisions, and developing the ethics, and all these other things.
This is absolutely one end of the spectrum versus the other. The bill lays out enormous responsibilities. Mr. Rivard has simplified it right down to part-time people who wouldn't even be prepared to fill out a conflict of interest statement because they get paid a little bit of money. This is outrageous.
The Chair: Mr. Rivard, would you like to respond to that? I think we're pretty generous with part-time board members who work in blocks of time, not full-time all year, and so I was a bit surprised when you said it wouldn't be very much money either. I understand if you mean it wouldn't be an annual salary--
Mr. Glenn Rivard: I'm sorry if my comment was misunderstood. I was simply trying to explain why the government has distinguished in its conflict of interest guidelines between part-time and full-time order in council appointees.
The Chair: Not specific to this agency but in its general legislation.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Not specific to this agency at all, and typically, because they are part-time members they are not drawing a full-time salary and therefore they are subject to, as I said, the principles of the statement.
That is all I said, and I did not make a comment as to what the salaries would be in this case or how often these members would meet. I think their responsibilities are set out in the bill, and that's quite clear.
The Chair: Thank you for that explanation.
We are at CA-57 on page 79.
Ms. Hedy Fry: It's withdrawn.
The Chair: It's withdrawn, right. It's that big “W” looking at me.
NDP-13, Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think we should revisit this issue through this motion to in fact put in a strong conflict of interest statement.
The Chair: The clerk has not ruled this, NDP-13, to be in conflict with any other motion. I'm having an implication that people think we've already dealt with this issue.
À (1015)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It complements G-7.
The Chair: Because G-7 is about who can be appointed, who the minister can appoint. This says what if they get on the board and then...
Ms. Paddy Torsney: G-7 was voted on, so you can't put NDP-13.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: This should not be confidential. This is a standard conflict of interest provision. It fits the bill. It's adapted to the bill, and it will give us that certainty we need in terms of appointments to the board. I think we're all concerned that whether people are part-time or full-time they're making important decisions pertaining to women and pertaining to so many aspects of our society that we need to be sure there's no involvement by board members in terms of drug companies, biotech companies, and reproductive clinics that could cause decisions to be made in terms of motives other than the health and well-being of all of our citizens.
The Chair: The first one was about who could be appointed to the board, in other words, what their status was before they were on the board.
This one seems to me to suggest that once you're on the board you can't then begin to do any of these things, and it also extends the reach of it by saying “have any pecuniary or proprietary interest in any business which operates in industries whose products or services are used in the reproductive technologies regulated or controlled by this Act”.
The clerk and I both think this is a legitimate motion, so it is now on the table. Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis has addressed it. Are you ready for the question?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm sorry, I have a point of order.
The Chair: Ms. Torsney on a point of order.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm sorry, but in terms of parliamentary procedure, once you've already done this, it negates all further amendments in this area. Unless Ms. Wasylycia-Leis had put a subamendment to G-7, it's not in order.
The Chair: The clerk has suggested to me that this is a new subclause; you'll notice that it's numbered subclause 26(8).
Ms. Paddy Torsney: So was G-7. Once G-7 has gone in, NDP-13 is not in order.
The Chair: You can make different suggestions with different ideas to go in as subclause 26(8) because the person making the amendment doesn't know anybody else is doing it.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Except it is the same matter that's being considered, in which case--
The Chair: Excuse me, Ms. Torsney, but the legislative clerk is assuring me that in her opinion--she has looked at this carefully--it is not the same matter. I appreciate your input, but I'm sorry, I can only have one expert on the process and she's sitting on my left.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: You're right.
The Chair: Dr. Fry.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, I have to speak against this motion. I think it's too broad.
When you say whose services are used in the reproduction technologies, that means that no physician or nurse, general practitioner or community nurse, or any counsellor who counsels people with regard to reproductive technology can sit on the board. At the end of the day you're going to have a board that has nobody with any expertise at all on any of this because you're going to be bringing plumbers and bookkeepers into it.
I think this is too broad and far too restrictive. I understand what you're saying, Judy. We want to make sure we have a board in which people do not have a vested interest in that they can earn money or be able to make decisions that would affect their own pocketbook, etc. But this is so broad that it precludes from sitting almost anyone at all who is a psychologist, a physician, or a nurse or anybody who counsels or discusses this issue with anyone. Then you have removed anybody with any expertise at all. You ask clearly for the board to have expertise, yet now you're removing practically everybody with any expertise.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: The plumber might service the clinic.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Well, we've seen what happens when we have health authorities other than physicians, nurses, and counsellors--
The Chair: Dr. Lunney.
Mr. James Lunney: First of all, I think the wording is clear here. It's talking about “industries whose products”--not professional services, but an industry that's producing a product that's used in reproductive technology. Are we looking at the medical profession as an industry in that sense? There's the doctor--
Ms. Hedy Fry: It says “in any business”, and physicians in private practice run a small business. So do private counsellors. They all run a small business. They're all business people at the end of the day, and they make money out of counselling patients, etc. So I think this is--
Mr. James Lunney: Was that the intent?
Ms. Hedy Fry: No, it's not the intent, but I think it's too broad and it's a catch-all--
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think there's ample expertise out there in the non-profit community for us to draw on, so I don't think it's an issue at all. This is a clarification based on standard conflict-of-interest provisions in legislation generally.
À (1020)
The Chair: Dr. Lunney.
Mr. James Lunney: The point I want to make is simply that licensing boards for professionals--as in the BCMA, as you would be well aware, Dr. Fry, and in our chiropractic one--are all required to have lay people on them. In response to the comment earlier that if one industry doesn't...especially with licensing boards, you have to be very careful, and governments have very wisely made sure that lay representatives are on all provincial licensing boards for all health professionals. I just want to remind you of that.
The Chair: Are you ready for the question? We have a request for a recorded vote on amendment NDP-13 on page 79.1.
It's a tie. When I have to break a tie, it's always tough to know what to do.
Actually, in saying we would not have any experts on this board if this passes, Ms. Fry is absolutely right, but it was the conclusion of this committee that this was what we wanted. In our report we suggested naming people who were somewhat like judges, people who had the capability of being educated about the issues and who would have wise counsel in balancing the scientific matters and the ethical issues. The original intent of this committee was to have that kind of a board, so when Ms. Weber said earlier that you wouldn't get anybody in the field, at that point I thought to myself, good!
We want to make room, for example, for the couples who are experiencing infertility so their feelings can be put forward. I would like to have some people who have a career behind them. They would not be involved in making money from any of these sources, but they would have some expertise. They would not currently be in a business or even a shareholder thereof. So I don't think there's anything wrong with this amendment, and I'm going to vote for it.
The other thing is, if I vote against it, it's lost forever. If I vote for it and the minister wants to amend this at report stage, she still can.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: BQ-3 is on the table, but this is the one we can't do. It's inadmissible because it's an infringement on the royal recommendation, that magical thing I don't really get.
(Clause 26 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 27 as amended agreed to on division)
The Chair: Mr. Merrifield, CA-58 is yours. What is it you want to do here?
À (1025)
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'll withdraw it.
The Chair: Thank you.
(Clause 28 agreed to)
(Clause 29 agreed to on division)
(On clause 30--Management of Agency)
The Chair: We're on CA-59--clause 30, lines 15 to 19 on page 17 of the bill, page 82 of your package.
The purpose of this is to remove the evaluation of performance from the board of directors.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: It removes it from the board of directors. How can you evaluate yourself? That's ridiculous. You have to have a third party to do that if it's ever going to be transparent and gain the confidence of Canadians.
The Chair: That's very straightforward. He wants to remove the evaluation of the agency's performance from the board and make sure an outside agency does it.
Ms. Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would just like to seek clarification from the witnesses, because to my way of thinking, first, any organization has to evaluate, and a board of directors should be doing that on an ongoing basis. Secondly, there's an outside evaluator, but first there has to be somebody evaluating. I think it's an important principle to have evaluation and self-evaluation, as well as outside evaluators. So I'm not sure why this would....
As it's proposed, it doesn't--
The Chair: Preclude.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: --add an external; it just removes an internal. At this point I couldn't be in favour, so I would like to hear from the witnesses what they think the impact of this would be.
Ms. Judy Sgro: Madam Chair, on a point of order, I have to step out for about two minutes. Could I just ask that no vote be taken while I'm out of the room?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Judy Sgro: Thank you.
Ms. Caroline Weber: It is normal practice for a board to be responsible for evaluating the organization's performance, and also, within the federal government, departments do perform their own evaluations on programs, and then the Auditor General checks that information. Rarely does the Auditor General conduct an independent evaluation, but what they do is examine the evaluation that was conducted to make sure that it was done in an objective way. So even though the department does it, yes, they usually contract that out; and yes, there are standards for conducting evaluations so that if the evaluation isn't conducted up to standard, then the Auditor General regularly criticizes that.
The Chair: Mr. Merrifield, one last statement.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: By putting it in here, when I read through the bill, you're talking about “The board of directors is responsible for the overall management of the Agency”, and then if you go down to paragraph 30(d), “the evaluation of the Agency's performance”.
If I were a lay person or a member of the ordinary public reading through this piece of legislation, I'd be saying that they are self-evaluating, evaluating themselves. You're talking about a massive number of dollars here. I think it's a fair statement that this happens internally, but when you put it right here, it certainly appears that this is the evaluation. I would be okay with that if we added maybe a clause saying “as well as a third-party evaluator”.
The Chair: Ms. Weber.
Ms. Caroline Weber: Requirements exist already. They are a schedule II agency, subject to the Financial Administration Act. The representative from the Office of the Auditor General did say this agency would satisfy them entirely.
So my concern would be that if we eliminate this, the information does disappear. They are no longer required to conduct those evaluations, and the Auditor General, in their kind of regular three-year review, wouldn't be doing as thorough a job.
À (1030)
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Just as information, does the Auditor General have to evaluate this every three years?
Ms. Caroline Weber: They set their own schedule on that.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Exactly.
Ms. Caroline Weber: The normal practice is three to five years. They won't let anything go beyond five years. It depends on what their level of concern is. They would expect an early evaluation within three years.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, okay, should there be--
Ms. Caroline Weber: There are different kinds of evaluations. There are early-stage evaluations and late-stage evaluations.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Should we be giving some intent as to how many and how that should happen in this piece of legislation?
Ms. Caroline Weber: Again, I think it's already there under the FAA, and the Auditor General has said they were more than satisfied with this.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: What you're saying is it could happen only every five years.
Ms. Caroline Weber: When it's up and running, that's very likely. But again, the Auditor General is pretty good about going after things that they're concerned about. Anyway....
The Chair: Excuse me, I think you're clear. There are two ways of looking at this. One is that some people don't want the agency evaluating itself; there are other people who think it is part of the directors' responsibilities to do an evaluation, to be constantly evaluating, and maybe with a formal mechanism or two, once a year or once every two years, and that this does not preclude the entrance of the outside evaluator, who is the Auditor General.
But if you remove this, it takes a task away from the board of directors that they should be working on all the time. There should be, in my view, evaluative mechanisms in place that are ongoing, and those mechanisms and the collection of that data sometimes forms the basis for the Auditor General to use when she actually comes. So if you take that function away from them, nobody is collecting that data for evaluative purposes.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay, let's make this simple. Let's withdraw amendment CA-59 and then deal with amendment CA-60, because I think that's where the discussion has moved to.
The Chair: He's withdrawing amendment CA-59. Therefore, he has agreed to let the agency do some of its own evaluation; and amendment CA-60 has another suggestion in another subsection here, new clause 30.1.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Which follows this up by saying exactly what we just talked about, that the Auditor General should table a report that reflects annually to Parliament.
The Chair: That's pretty expensive--annually?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: It's pretty important for the first while.
The Chair: Ms. Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I can see it on the last point. The legislative counsel was right. I looked at my notes again.
But on this one I just have a question as to whether this is an order, whether this act could demand things of the Auditor General when that office is governed by a different piece of legislation, and whether that doesn't need to be amended in that piece of legislation and not this piece of legislation.
The Chair: I think you may be correct.
Mr. Rivard, what do you think? Can the people who form the agency order the Auditor General to do anything? I wouldn't like to be the person assigned that task.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Most certainly the agency cannot, but this is a provision raised by Parliament and put in the bill. Most certainly I would think that it would be preferable, if you wanted to do this, to do it by amending the Auditor General's act, but I think I can say with certainty that there is no other legislation that sets the schedule, if you will, for the Auditor General's work. The Auditor General is governed by the Auditor General's act and reports to Parliament and has independence in determining which departments and agencies she will evaluate or audit at any point in time, and she reports directly to Parliament on those audits. So this would, in effect, constrain her operations. Whatever else she may have to do, she would have to conduct an audit of this particular agency every year. It places a burden on her. I imagine it places a cost burden on her, and there may have to be some consideration of whether it's inappropriate as a result of that.
The Chair: Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'll withdraw it.
(Clauses 30 and 31 agreed to)
(On clause 32--Delegation)
The Chair: The first amendment on clause 32 is CA-60A on page 17, lines 26 and 27.
A voice: There's a typo here--it should be lines 27 and 28.
The Chair: We're on page 83.1 in your small package.
À (1035)
Mr. Rob Merrifield: This is talking about a concern we have over this whole area of clause 32 where it talks about delegating the power of the agency “to any member of the board, a committee of the board or the President, including powers and duties under sections 40 to 44, 46, 52, 54, 55, 58, 59 and 64.”
That is of considerable concern to us when we talk about areas such as what we will allow or how we will define the area of necessary research. That really could be delegated then to one individual from the board, not necessarily the president, but any one of these part-timers, you might say, as that's the way they were talked about. We think that's inappropriate and not the way the board should function.
We want to remove the reference to any member of the board or the president. We think the committee of the board may be fine, but not any one member or individual. It blows me away when I see this in this piece of legislation, and I fail to understand where that's in the best interest of the board for this very delicate area they're going to be dealing with.
The Chair: Madam Scherrer.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Could we simply...
[English]
The Chair: Yes, Ms. Weber.
Ms. Caroline Weber: We recognize this also. G-8 is a proposal to amend the next paragraph so that we would exclude any of the research decisions from being delegated to any one member. You couldn't delegate it at all. Additionally, though, anything that would be delegated would have to be in the bylaws explicitly, and that has to be approved both by the board and by the GIC.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Why would you want this in here for these other areas? You pulled out research. But how about the other areas? Why would you want that in there?
Ms. Caroline Weber: Assuming the board knows how to manage its affairs, there may be some things that are routine and that would be more efficient to delegate to an individual--
Mr. Rob Merrifield: To one individual.
Ms. Caroline Weber: There are also going to be other subcommittee structures they would rely on.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: You're talking to a room full of veterans who have been around political circles for a number of years, and we've all sat on boards that have been dominated by one individual for one reason or another. I find it absolutely amazing that we'd put this here and leave ourselves wide open to that. I think that's a terrible mistake and a flaw in this piece of legislation, which we really should consider, because I don't think that's in the best interest of the delicate area this agency is going to be playing with. We're not talking about light, easy stuff. This is very difficult stuff, and it should be determined on much more than just one individual's will or opinion.
Ms. Caroline Weber: There are many complicated things here, true, but there are also many routine things, such as maintaining information sources and making information available to maintain a website. It's in recognition that there are also a lot of day-to-day operational administrative things that need to be done.
The Chair: That's to the president, though, not to another board member. You wouldn't have one of your....
Ms. Caroline Weber: Some of these things, though, may be at a developmental stage or they may want to delegate to have something investigated. It's in recognition that there may be some routine activity.
The Chair: Perhaps I could get in here, Mr. Merrifield, with your concurrence. The thing that worries me more is the exception subclause you point to that follows. To me it's obvious that the board of directors as a whole has to agree on what their advice to the minister will be. They have to approve their goals and operational policies, their budget, and the making of bylaws. To me it is almost self-evident that the group always does that. What worries me is the situation with some of the other powers of the board, such as the issuance of licences. Because you did not add that to the exceptions, it could mean that the board could agree that the only scientific expert they have is the person who individually can issue licences. That worries me.
À (1040)
Ms. Hedy Fry: They won't be on the board.
The Chair: Yes, they will because they could be retired, Madam Fry. You could be on it.
Ms. Hedy Fry: No, thank you, Madam Chair. I just happen to be a physician. I don't belong on a board like that.
The Chair: It's not that you don't belong. You missed my final point, Dr. Fry. I didn't mean to offend you.
Ms. Hedy Fry: You didn't offend me.
But we voted on something that's going to preclude anybody with any knowledge, such as a nurse or even a chiropractor who has developed some knowledge, from sitting on that board.
Anyway, that's in the past and--
The Chair: What I'm saying is that those people could work in the field for 20 years and retire and then go on the board, as long as they're not making money from the field.
Ms. Weber, what do you think about my concern about the issuance of licences and those kinds of what I call dicey things?
Ms. Caroline Weber: I think you're right that we haven't covered that off. Whether or not we need to amend this further is up to you. I think it's a good point. I'm having a hard time finding it in the bill myself.
The Chair: No one is worried about the “administrivia” being assigned to the president, who in turn will delegate it to somebody on staff. We're worried about the bigger issues. I don't feel that you've captured them in subclause 32(2).
Could we stand those two aside until you come up with some reasonable assignment of what the board of directors may and may not delegate to others? Do I have the agreement of the committee to assign to Mr. Rivard, Ms. Weber, and Ms. Manseau to rework those paragraphs to make them a little clearer?
An hon. member: Why don't you just call them by agreement among the members?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: They're different issues.
The Chair: They're different issues. One is administrivia that is suitably done by the president through his staff. But what is assigned to an individual member of the board is of great concern to me.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Why don't you stand it down till this afternoon?
The Chair: I'm just asking if everybody...
Mr. Rivard would like to respond as to whether he can do this.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: I'm seeking some clarification. One way to solve this is simply to accept CA-60A. The other is to develop an exclusion for licences, as I gather that is the main interest.
The Chair: That's the only thing I can think of. There might be something equally sensitive.
Ms. Caroline Weber: And just so we get it right, is there something else that comes to mind for people so that we do this properly the first time?
The Chair: Mr. Szabo.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Under the rules guiding directors, I assume that for directors there are the same or similar provisions of directors' liability, etc., and that directors cannot use as an excuse that it's been delegated to others so that they either knew or ought to have known that something happened. I think the separation is if there's any matter that would impinge upon their liability as directors, it should be excluded from being delegated to a member. Because you can't exempt the board from....
Let them think about it, Madam Chair, I would suggest.
The Chair: Mr. Rivard has also said that passing Mr. Merrifield's amendment, which would suggest that you'd at least have to have two people, you couldn't delegate to an individual but you could delegate to a committee, would achieve some of what we seem to want.
Is that correct, Mr. Rivard? Did I understand you correctly?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: I was simply saying there...I'm hearing two different concerns. But on balance it seems to me that the major concern is the licensing decisions because those are really the key decisions. G-8, for example, would have excluded decisions around research licences from being delegated at all. If I follow the gist of the conversation, that motion could be amended so that all licensing decisions would require the full board.
À (1045)
The Chair: That's what we want.
Ms. Caroline Weber: So why don't we take this away and...
The Chair: We're going to stand this aside until this afternoon. If it's possible to solve it... I hope we can get the copies here for this afternoon. Pardon me for sticking the needle in.
(Clause 32 allowed to stand)
Mr. Glenn Rivard: If I can comment, G-8 makes it impossible to delegate a research licensing decision. There may not be quite the same degree of sensitivity around other licences. What I'm asking is--
The Chair: The most sensitive, in my view, is the fertility clinic licence; it's not the research licence--all licences.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Another possibility is to allow that type of decision to be delegated to a committee but to prevent it from being delegated to a single member. You could even put in that.
The Chair: Yes, that's important too.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: So a board committee to deal with IVF licences would be acceptable.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Fine.
The Chair: But then they would bring their recommendation back to the full board and defend it.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: There is a difference between an advisory role--for instance, the board can ask anybody or any committee to provide it with advice--and the decision-making role.
The Chair: I think those things should be the full board, the decision-making role on this licensing business. But anyway, that's my opinion. We really haven't discussed this totally thoroughly in our report.
What are you saying, Ms. Torsney?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: A committee of a board is empowered to do certain things. If you demand a full board to do everything, it's going to be very onerous on the board members. The organization can't really run without a board meeting. We don't even run our own offices that way.
The Chair: But most boards of directors in this country do it that way.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: But not for every minute--
The Chair: Not administrivia. But the issuance of licences, in my view, is the most important thing this board does.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: That's right. I think there are two separate concepts.
One is within the licences. There's a whole bunch of different subsections listed here. So if it's just the licensing, then a committee would probably be preferable to a full board, because you want them to have an oversight function at the board level but you don't necessarily need a whole board to do every licence. You could have a committee that's charged--
The Chair: Well, that's what I mean. The committee would come back and say something like this at the board meeting: “We had 25 applications, which we reviewed, and we recommend to the board that these 10 be approved. These are the criteria we used and these are the 10 licences we think should be approved.” The board would have that material ahead of the meeting, would review it--look at any of the reasons. Anything they want to see, the board members should be able to see, and then they either accept without debate or they might debate for a little while.
I've been on 25 boards in my life and the committees always report back, and hopefully the board is not slowing everything down, but the board has the right to do that. That's democracy in the governance of an agency or a hospital or anything.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: But some boards do delegate to a committee actual decision-making power because they may want to have committees meet more frequently than the board. Board meetings cost money.
The Chair: Well, committee meetings do happen more frequently, which is why the board is inclined to listen to the committee, but if you agree to be a director on a board of directors of an agency of this type, or even of a hospital, one of your privileges is to have the final approval.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Right. So you're standing down subclauses 32(1) and 32(2) and coming back. I think part of the problem was that there's a--
The Chair: There's a mixup of administration and board decision-making in this.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: And the negative that's in subclause 32(2), “may not delegate”--I think it got a bit confusing in the discussions. People thought it was delegating that authority as well.
À (1050)
The Chair: No, no, I knew it was. I call it the exclusions.
Is that acceptable, this process, to people?
Thank you.
Mr. James Lunney: Can we have a break, Madam Chair? We've been at it for two hours.
Stretch, everybody, stretch your arms.
The Chair: Do you want a break or do you want to keep going?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Keep going. Run into the bathroom and come back. It's just a step across the hall.
The Chair: G-8 is also part of that whole thing.
One of the things, if you could, is to separate the assigning things to the president that are of an administrative nature, such as the website.
That was your example, Ms. Weber.
But those are the kinds of things. It seems to me we want to separate what can be delegated to the president and limit that to certain things and then have the board retain most of the rest.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: If I can just comment on that, I believe that's what subclause 36(2) does.
The Chair: Except it's not broad enough.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: The president is given supervision over the direction of the work and staff of the agency and can carry out anything else assigned by the bylaws. I understand that the concern here is the decision-making around the licences, so we can come back with a motion designed to address that.
Ms. Judy Sgro: Could we not use G-8 to do that?
The Chair: Yes, that's what they're going to do.
It seems like we have a break on the opposition side, so we all might as well have it. We'll take ten minutes. We'll start back here at a few minutes after 11. I'm trying to give you 10 minutes.
À (1052)
Á (1108)
The Chair: Can we come to order, ladies and gentlemen, please.
(On clause 33--Advisory panels)
The Chair: We're on amendment BQ-4 from Mr. Ménard. Would anybody like to move it on his behalf? He doesn't seem to be here.
I don't see a mover, so it is not moved, and we're on to amendment CA-61 on page 87, page 18 of the bill.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: This one is really about the advisory panel. We talked a little about it already this morning with regard to the makeup. This isn't about the makeup of the regulatory agency, but it is to give some opportunity and make sure there's some opportunity for those vested interests, people who were born from assisted technologies as well as people with disabilities. We've had a lot of testimony on that from professional ethicists and from people from the scientific community, the medical community, and the faith community, and they're all listed there.
What we're looking for is to make sure that these people are heard when it comes to the licensing of research in this area. This goes along with a lot of what we said in our Building Families document as well, to make sure this whole area is not driven solely by science and scientists.
Á (1110)
The Chair: Ms. Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: As to “taxpayers and their representatives”, well, everybody has to pay GST at some point, so everybody's a taxpayer.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's true, and we didn't want to exclude anyone. It is a broad term, but it is the ordinary person who is actually paying the bills. It's for them to have representation.
The Chair: I had a question too. It says “delegates of the provincial and territorial governments”. That would be a single person they would decide on?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes.
The Chair: I wonder if you could put in “a delegate”.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'd be fine with that, but you have to understand, these people aren't really on the board. This is just a panel that will represent--
The Chair: I know what it is, but I still think that when you use “delegates”, it almost suggests that they will be from each provincial and territorial government, and that's not what you mean.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, no, but I'm suggesting there be a panel from the provinces that would represent their interests before the committee or the agency.
The Chair: Ms. Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I just want to signal that I'll be voting against this because of a couple of other words that are in here that have an interesting meaning. You say “fully represented”. Well, how do you “fully represent” the “users of assisted human reproductive technologies” and all “children born with the assistance of such technologies”? Fully represented? My God, this advisory board's going to include every single individual...maybe I don't think that other child--
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Do you have a better word?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think I'm going to vote to defeat it. Sorry.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Are you arguing against the word or are you arguing against the intent?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think there's a possibility of signalling in another way that you want the advisory panel to be representatives of a whole series of different groups. In terms of anybody who wants this whole organization to succeed, they're going to make sure this happens.
I think embedding it in the legislation is not particularly helpful, and you're creating all kinds of difficulties. If you only list these groups, what if two years from now we decide, you know what, it would be beneficial to have a person of this kind on the advisory panel, but there's no room because you've fully represented all these other groups?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Not really. We have a review of the legislation every three years, so there is opportunity for that to be there. If it's about the intent and you agree with the intent, that's what I'm concerned about, and that's what we should reflect in the legislation. Now, I'm not caught up on the wording and whether you call it “fully”, but I am quite concerned that we should have such representation before this regulatory body. If we don't put it in here, it won't be there.
The Chair: The question before the committee is whether you want this list or whether you want to leave it to the people in the agency. That's essentially it. It's a very comprehensive list.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 33 agreed to on division)
(On clause 34--Appointment of Chairperson)
The Chair: We're on CA-62, line 8 on page 18 of the bill.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'll withdraw it.
The Chair: Then we have a series with no amendments.
(Clauses 34 to 38 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 39--Contracts and arrangements)
The Chair: We're now on page 89 of your package, CA-63.
Mr. Merrifield.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: This goes back to the fact that we want to avoid the whole area of commodification in this area. That's reflected in the will expressed by most of the members who went through the last year and a half with us on this committee. We want to be careful that the agency be adequately funded under a separate appropriation voted on by Parliament. Otherwise, the agency would now be subject to the federal government's cost-recovery policy. In this area we haven't talked a lot about the cost of it, who's going to fund it or how it's going to be funded. We wouldn't want the commodification scenario to enter into the decision-making of the agency.
Á (1115)
The Chair: Is there not another amendment somewhere in this package that says this? Where is that, Madame Thibeault?
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: It's LL-7 on page 96.1, and it deals with clause 40:
| The Agency may not apply a policy of cost recovery to the issuance of licences. |
I think that's appropriate.
The Chair:
There's something on page 99, the clerk tells me, so there are two other places where this idea of cost recovery can be dealt with. The question really before you now is in CA-63:
| The Agency shall be adequately funded under separate appropriations voted by Parliament. |
Ms. Weber, could you explain to me what impact that would have on the usual process?
Ms. Caroline Weber: I presume it would make it more cumbersome. I'm not sure you can do this. As it's a schedule II agency, there will be a separate line item anyway.
The Chair: Where would it be covered? In the Department of Health budget?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: It would be presented as part of the health portfolio, but the agency would not be part of the Department of Health. It would in fact have its own--
The Chair: But it would be a submission from the Minister of Health.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: From the Minister of Health, yes, but the agency would be identified separately.
The Chair: It would identify the agency.
Are you sure you want to do this here, then?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, that explanation may satisfy it here.
The Chair: Yes, and we can get at part two in two other amendments.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay, let's withdraw it, and hopefully we will consider it in those other two when we have other opportunities.
The Chair: Yes, we will, so the amendment is not moved.
We're on CA-64.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'll withdraw that.
The Chair: CA-64 is withdrawn as well.
(Clause 39 agreed to)
(On clause 40--Issuance of licence for controlled activity )
The Chair: We're on CA-65, clause 40, page 19. You want a new subclause under subclause 40(1).
Ms. Judy Sgro: It's all the same thing. We voted on a variety of these issues. They've just been put in a different way.
The Chair: This is a different idea. We know there are these ethics boards out there in health science centres and in hospitals. What he's suggesting is that they have to have gone through their local board first.
Is that covered anywhere else, Ms. Weber?
Ms. Caroline Weber: This probably isn't the right place to do it, again, because this one deals with general licences rather than only research licences. I think you'd want to go to subclause 40(2) if you want to insert something about the ethical conduct of research.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Do you want to put it in subclause (2)?
The Chair: Subclause (2) has the “necessary” word in it.
Ms. Caroline Weber: That's the clause that deals with research. So subclause (1) is dealing with licences in general--
Mr. Rob Merrifield: But why would a licence in general not have to go through an ethics board?
Ms. Caroline Weber: Ethics boards don't approve practice.
The Chair: They wouldn't approve the--
Ms. Caroline Weber: They wouldn't approve the medical practice. So you're asking for clinics to be reviewed by an ethics board. The research ethics boards that exist wouldn't know what to do with that.
The Chair: They wouldn't do that.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I don't know if anyone does because we talked about ethics of clinics.
The Chair: Yes, but the point is there is no mechanism out there. Your amendment implies a local reputable ethics board. There is no such thing out in the communities that would do that for clinics.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: And therein lies the problem. We have the--
The Chair: But the point is that's the reality. We can't establish them. They're not there.
Á (1120)
Ms. Caroline Weber: Madam Chair, it's a medical practice.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: We could if they're going to get a licence.
The Chair: It is a medical practice, yes, exactly. There are bodies that do that.
Ms. Hedy Fry: The ethics boards in hospitals are also made up of...it's peer review, but they're also made up of doctors and nurses.
A voice: Are you withdrawing that, Rob?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: No, I'm not actually. This one I think is fairly important.
The Chair: But, Rob, how are you going to create a reputable ethics board that is going to review a clinic? It doesn't make sense. We can't afford to create boards all over the country to our purposes. That's not part of the act.
Ms. Hedy Fry: There's a licensing body that reviews the practice of medicine--chiropractic, physiotherapy, etc.--and it will actually revoke a licence to practice, period, if the person is unethical.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: We have one on the federal funding of the CIHR, right? They have an ethical board. Anything that's happening right now--
The Chair: But that's research. That's what Ms. Weber is pointing out to you, that these reputable ethics boards have to do with research. We have one centrally, at the CIHR--
Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's right, but not the private.
The Chair: --and we have them at the health science centres as well, but we don't have them to do with practice. You're trying to put this under general issuance of licences. It doesn't fit.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: If that's what you're saying, then we will withdraw and maybe try to apply it there.
The Chair: CA-65 is withdrawn.
(Amendment withdrawn)
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Chair, I have a question.
The Chair: Mr. Szabo.
Mr. Paul Szabo: I wonder if the officials could advise the committee whether non-research licensees, such as a fertility clinic, are subject to ethical guidelines, etc., and whether having someone independent opine on their practices is relevant.
Ms. Caroline Weber: It is one of the objectives of the agency to foster the application of ethical principles, but otherwise they are governed by medical practice guidelines. And certainly there are ethical principles, such as the precautionary principle, involved there as well.
Mr. Paul Szabo: So is it relevant to have someone opine on their ethical practices or principles?
The Chair: That will happen automatically upon the issuance or lack of issuance of a licence.
Ms. Caroline Weber: And not just a licence by this agency, but also licences for medical practice.
The Chair: But he's trying to ask how this agency can get in on the action, and I'm saying it will be in on the action when it either approves or declines to issue a licence.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes. Madam Chair, my only concern was there was some testimony suggesting that within fertility clinics there are different cultures and different relationships, etc., and it's not a regulated industry.
The Chair: But it will be. And my point is that the issuance of the licences to fertility clinics will be the entree into those kinds of things, and I'm hoping this agency will be established with the highest possible standards.
We're now on CA-66.
Mr. Merrifield.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: This goes back to the intent of what we will allow in our Building Families. It uses the same terminology:
| no other biological material can be used for the purpose of the proposed research with the promotion of healing therapies as its objective. |
We feel we have to somehow put some parameters around the idea of “necessary”. Even last week, when Dr. Bernstein was here as a witness and was asked what “necessary” meant to him, he couldn't find anything that wouldn't apply under “necessary”.
That gives me a great amount of discomfort, as I'm sure it does everyone around the table, in that we need to somehow define what is necessary. If we don't do that, it will mean everything and anything. I don't believe that's the intent of where we want to go with this piece of legislation. So somehow we have to determine what that's going to be.
If we're not going to go with this language, then perhaps we need to go with some stronger language referring to the regulations and deal with it there. But we have to put some parameters around that somewhere. It's a very crucial part of this piece of legislation.
I'm a little nervous about the regulations, because we don't know what we're going to be able to accomplish there or not. That's why I think this is very important.
Á (1125)
The Chair: Dr. Fry.
Ms. Hedy Fry: I am confused. I would like Mr. Merrifield to explain to me exactly how this clause will read when he amends it. Is he replacing the whole clause?
The Chair: You go as far as “that” in line 3 and take out the last two lines. So it says:
| A licence authorizing the use of an in vitro embryo for the purpose of research may be issued only if the Agency is satisfied that no other biological material can be used for the purpose of the proposed research with the promotion of healing therapies as its object. |
To explain to newcomers, we are concerned mainly about the feelings of those many people in the country who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research. There's a very split opinion out there. The scientific community is saying--as they said again this fall--they want to be able to work on embryos and do stem cell research from them. I think the committee has been convinced that is probably necessary to the forwarding of science.
But in response to the feelings generated by the many letters most of us have received on this subject, we wanted to put some parameters around that research. The mechanism the committee came up with in its report was the idea that you may use an embryo if you've used everything else. In other words, you must prove you've used, say, mouse embryos and human adult stem cells. That's why we put this phrase in our report.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Now I understand. I didn't understand what “with the promotion of healing therapies as its object” meant.
The Chair: It means the researcher applying for a licence has to prove that no other biological material will do, that he's already tried it on these various other things.
Ms. Hedy Fry: I understand that.
I would like to speak against this.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Inherent in everything we have heard from the researchers is the concept that research at the moment on embryonic stem cells, per se, and on adult stem cells is to find out whether or not adult stem cells can differentiate more. They would prefer to use adult stem cells, but they still need to do work on the embryonic stem cells, mainly because they still have not defined some of their properties and they don't know what they can do. Therefore they need to do work on embryonic stem cells as much as they need to do work on adult stem cells. At the end of the day, it is still at such infancy in its research that they need to see where that research is going to lead them, especially in terms of healing therapies--as I've noticed you've put in here--transplantation and replacement of body parts, etc.
The inherent basic context of all research is how it is going to lead to something, at the end of the day, that will benefit humankind. So adding an artificial barrier saying to use anything else you have right now means you are effectively saying don't do any embryonic stem cell research on embryonic stem cells, period, when that is what you're trying to do here.
I think it's really restrictive and will, in effect, ban embryonic stem cell research, so I can't agree with it.
The Chair: Dr. Castonguay.
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I believe we already voted on a similar motion, amendment CA-24oa on page 35.1.1.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Merrifield's amendment read:
| (2.1) A licence authorizing the use of an in vitro embryo for the purpose of research may be issued only if no other biological material can be used for the purpose of the proposed research with the promotion of healing therapies as its object. |
It is true that it was defeated. Therefore, this one is out of order, because we've already dealt with this subject matter.
Thank you, Dr. Castonguay.
Á (1130)
Mr. James Lunney: Perhaps we can get some advice on this. The point here is whether there is a place for some language to be put in here to have this addressed in the regulations. What I'm concerned about here is that scientists sometimes seem to be the ones with a little less concern about the ethics, which are a major concern to a whole other section of society.
The question is that adult cells are already being used in therapy, while cord blood cells, which are not an ethical concern to anybody, are showing tremendous promise. The concern here is just to make sure these things aren't overlooked in the attempt to run by.... Is there an opportunity to have this addressed in regulations or to make a committee recommendation that the regulations put some kind of emphasis this way?
The Chair: Would someone like to respond to Dr. Lunney's concern?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: I just wanted to make the point that this section basically sets out a legal test. It's something that's determined to be either necessary or not necessary by the agencies, so it gives them a test.
Second, the issuance of all research licences is governed by the regulations, so there is scope to spell out in greater detail how these applications are considered and determined.
Mr. James Lunney: Can we then make a motion to add a phrase, for example, “in accordance with the regulations”?
The Chair: This motion is out of order, because it has already been decided. We can't vote on amendment CA-66 again.
Mr. James Lunney: Can Mr. Szabo make a suggestion? He's better able to do it.
Mr. Paul Szabo: No, but...
Mr. James Lunney: Can we then just consider making an amendment to subclause 40(2), adding “in accordance with the regulations” or “as defined by the regulations” after the word “necessary”?
The Chair: I don't know if you're going to be able to define “necessary”, but you could say “according to the regulations”.
Ms. Judy Sgro: We'll deal with those issues then. If we're going to have the regulations come before us dealing with a lot of those issues, we'll deal with the issues then. I don't think...
The Chair: But he thinks by putting that phrase in here, it will make sure there's something in the regulations about this.
Ms. Judy Sgro: Well, I don't think it's necessary to put it in here at this time. We're going to have to be careful not to micromanage everything we do have.
The Chair: Dr. Castonguay.
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: The point was exactly the same question. In my understanding here, it is not necessary because it will go to the agency, and the agency will have to define what is necessary or not. They will have to put a framework around this. This is my understanding, unless you have something else to add.
The Chair: As was pointed out to me by our scientific researcher, the test for “necessary” will change and evolve. You'll remember Dr. Worton said to us that he felt the goal was to end up only using adult stem cells, because it eliminates the problem of rejection. But he said that in order to try to make the adult stem cells do the things they want them to do right now, they have to understand how and why embryonic stem cells are able to do it. So he felt that over a period of time in these early days, it's necessary to use the embryonic stem cells, but it may become unnecessary over time as the advantages of adult stem cells will come to the fore—hopefully.
Á (1135)
Mr. James Lunney: Madam Chair, I have a question.
On that point, may I just remind members that one of the big concerns the committee had was on the very issue you've raised about the gold standard really being the use of adult cells. They come from your own body and they go back into your own body.
Now, since embryonic cells don't have the same genetic makeup as the patient, they clearly have disadvantages for transplant because of rejection. But the big concern is that in the rush for embryonic cells, researchers are going to find instead, when they're teasing embryonic tissue apart and growing lines, that they're going to be able to extract commodities from those cells. They may be able to get neurotransmitters for Alzheimer's patients, dopamine for the Parkinson's patients, insulin, and so forth, and they'll be able to literally create tissue farms out of embryos. That is the concern, that the end result--
Ms. Hedy Fry: That's awful. That's terrible.
Mr. James Lunney: Well, that's what we're concerned about.
The Chair: Excuse me, Dr. Fry, you do not have the floor. Please let the gentleman finish his point.
Mr. James Lunney: That's the slippery slope many people are concerned about, that in fact the great benefit for transplant, as Dr. Worton testified and Dr. Bernstein agreed about, will actually come about if we can get adult cells to work. They said that if we give permission for the wholesale use of embryos, we're going to end up with tissue farms for commodification. That is clearly not where most of us want to go.
Ms. Judy Sgro: None of us want to go there.
Mr. James Lunney: That's why we want to try to define that “necessary”, to try to make sure that we explore every opportunity with cord blood cells, which don't pose the ethical concerns and which have the greatest advantage for transplant, and with autologous cells. We certainly want to try to keep the emphasis in that arena in order to try to make the greatest advantages available to the patient who's going to receive those cells.
The Chair: Mr. Szabo.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Chair, the majority report on the draft legislation brought forward the language “but no other biological material”. I think Dr. Worton outlined that, where it would put the onus on the researchers to prove it. I think the opinion of those who commented on it was that it would be almost impossible for them to prove that there was no other biological material.
However, he also pointed out that if it were acceptable--I think this was his testimony in the question and answer period--and if it had already been shown that other biological material could do what this research wanted to do, then they would say it wouldn't be necessary simply because there was already a way to do that research. It would be redundant to try to get, say, an embryonic stem cell to do what they could already do with, say, bone marrow blood--the Catherine Verfaillie study.
I think it's a compromise, and in view of the fact that the researchers seem to have indicated that the regulations will probably be addressing some framework for the agency to do their job, a reference to “in accordance with the general framework outlined in the regulations” might be a nice compromise, an alternative to a black and white yes or no.
The Chair: Madame Thibeault.
[Translation]
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Madam Chair, I need some clarification. What amendment are we currently discussing? I am very confused. I do not know where we are at anymore.
[English]
The Chair: We have finished CA-66; I have ruled it out of order. Dr. Lunney is trying to figure out, in looking at the bill the way it now stands with this word “necessary”, what might be in the minds of the officials about either the definition of that--my feeling is that it's a movable feast, that what's necessary this year may no longer be necessary next year, etc.--or how that would be approached.
But we don't have an amendment on the table. We're investigating a possibility here at the request of Dr. Lunney.
Ms. Judy Sgro: But there is no amendment, Madam Chair, and we are on clause-by-clause.
The Chair: That's right, but at any moment in clause-by-clause somebody can come forward--apparently--with an amendment.
Ms. Judy Sgro: But what are we speaking to? We're speaking to the intent, which we all are concerned about, but we don't have anything in front of us specifically dealing with Dr. Lunney's concerns.
The Chair: My researcher says that the thing about it being in the regulations is already in subclause 40(1) on the previous page--“The Agency may, in accordance with the regulations, issue a licence”--and then everything else in clause 40 flows from that. Depending on what is in the regulations and on what the applicant asks for, the licence may be issued.
Surely this latter part of subclause 40(2) will be part of what's in the regulations, and if it wasn't going to be so in the first place, I'm sure the officials are listening to us now and to our desire to have something in there.
Á (1140)
Ms. Caroline Weber: It's also covered by subclause 10(2), which is under “Controlled Activities”. Anyone who wants to do anything with this material for research purposes is going to have to obtain a licence, and those are going to have to be dealt with in the regulations.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
So it's actually in two places, in clause 10 and in subclause 40(1).
Mr. James Lunney: Can I just ask the officials, then, is the framework we're talking about to define “necessary” going to be included in the regulations?
Ms. Caroline Weber: Well, at a minimum we have subclause 40(2), and even if it weren't in the regulations, there would be this requirement that the agency would have to use this language and be satisfied that this material is necessary. The importance of the issue is reflected in the fact that it is in the bill rather than just passed off to regulations.
Without being in a position to say exactly what will be in the regulations, I would presume that because there's so much concern about this, there would need to be a lot of work on regulatory development. People would be looking for a lot of structure and guidance here because this hasn't been done before.
The Chair: I'm going to rule that this question is resolved unless some member wishes to bring forward another amendment.
We're moving on now to CA-67, which concerns line 7 on page 20 of the bill, so that means it's in subclause 40(3), which would now read “The number of licences that the Agency considers sufficient,” inserting “according to established research conventions,” and continuing “may be issued in respect of clinical trials of a controlled activity.”
Mr. Merrifield, did you want to tell us why you wanted to put in “according to established research conventions”?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: It just puts some qualifications around “considered sufficient”, and we felt that “in accordance with research conventions” would add some direction to that. I think it would be appropriate.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: We're on to amendment CA-68, line 9 on page 20 of the bill. This is just a different choice of words.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'll withdraw that.
The Chair: It's withdrawn, wo we're on to amendment CA-69, page 95 in your package.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'll withdraw that as well.
The Chair: It's withdrawn, so it's amendment CA-70: after line 25 on page 20 of the bill, it's proposed that a new subclause, 40(7), be added.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: What we're saying is that the documents, the material, the work of the agency should be public, which will add transparency and accountability; that's the intent of the amendment. If you're going to garner the confidence of society under difficult licensing of these kinds of issues, you have to have that. This just ensures that it's going to take place.
The Chair: So it would be for public hearings for licensing and that all documents “shall, on request, be made available”.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on LL-7, Madame Thibeault.
[Translation]
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Yes, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Chair: This is another proposed subclause 40(7).
[Translation]
Ms. Yolande Thibeault:
I move that we add the following subclause to clause 40:
| (7) The Agency may not apply a policy of cost recovery to the issuance of licences. |
People who have been members of this committee for a long time will recall that this topic was raised more than a year ago. Some witnesses had suggested that the cost of the licence be high enough that the agency could recover its costs. In fact, they wanted the licensees to cover the agency's operating costs. At that time, all committee members agreed that that was out of the question.
So I think it would be timely for us to adopt this amendment so that it is very clear to everyone that this is out of the question.
Á (1145)
[English]
The Chair: Dr. Castonguay.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, I would like to hear the comments of the experts who are here to make sure that I fully understand the scope of this amendment, which is written in jargon.
[English]
Ms. Caroline Weber: This is consistent with the policy intent for this bill. We calculated what it would cost to administer a cost-recovery program, and it looked like it would be a break-even of about $1 million. You might get that much in terms of revenue, but it would cost you that much to administer the program. Generally, when there's a break-even we don't bother. However, we were told by our Treasury Board colleagues we couldn't tell them what could be cost-recovered and what couldn't, so we took it out of the bill for that reason. But it's quite consistent with the policy intent here.
The Chair: Why is Treasury Board saying they can tell us what we can put in a bill or not? I don't quite get that.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: The Financial Administration Act contains an authority to charge for the issuance of government licences, but it is completely discretionary. There's no requirement in the FAA; there's simply an authority to do so. It requires a decision by the Governor in Council, or the Governor in Council may authorize the minister to charge for the issuance of a licence. So in terms of the law surrounding this area, it is simply an authority that exists in the FAA, but there is no requirement that it be done. My understanding is that typically it's not--
The Chair: So there is nothing to stop us from stating our preference. If it turns out to be unworkable, it can be changed at report stage. I recall we were warned about this by several witnesses, including the Auditor General, who suggested that when you have a system of cost recovery, the agency's financial viability becomes dependent upon the people who are applying to it for licences. So instead of serving the general public, it begins to serve its own clients.
I think you'll recall that when we did the pesticide bill—they don't really have licences—I felt like the tail was wagging the dog. We don't want that situation to emerge here where the licensees are driving the policy to suit their purposes, as opposed to the more abstract evaluation of the policies by a body that is not dependent on those licensees for the fees to keep the thing operational.
Ms. Sgro.
Ms. Judy Sgro: We could go back to thinking with our hearts in a very sensible way.
The Chair: I never think with my heart. I usually--
Ms. Judy Sgro: I think we all have hearts that get influenced in many decisions, especially something as important as this. That's why there's always that second thought and standing back, which I think is helpful to us.
We can start saying there are many places in our government where we don't want to see cost recovery. I believe it was a policy of our government that we had to look at cost recovery, in trying to administer most programs. This should be no different from the rest, in the sense of trying to keep a handle on the costs of running the government's business.
I will not be supporting the amendment.
The Chair: Mr. Szabo.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Is there no intent to require an application for the licence fee, at least? Cost recovery is one thing to replace the $10-million budget the agency is presumably going to have. That's how much the minister suggested it was going to cost to run the agency, I believe. But I don't know whether frivolous or maybe other ways.... How does an agency protect itself from....?
Á (1150)
The Chair: Being captured?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes. For instance, if we don't pass it, does that mean the agency could prescribe that there be a $100 fee to accompany a licence application?
Ms. Caroline Weber: Even if you passed this, I'm not sure whether it would be enforceable.
The Chair: But it would state our preference, if we passed it.
Ms. Caroline Weber: It would, otherwise there is no intent to charge a fee or a licence fee.
Our numbers are all based on a very small community. We recognize that the bill imposes many obligations on the clinics, some of which they have already. But there will be extra reporting of information to the agency, so again we're trying to balance this off.
Ultimately, we did the cost-benefit analysis on this to see how much we would expect to receive from reasonable licensing fees, and how much it would cost to administer the program. The program administration alone would be $1 million. We haven't costed it in terms of running the agency either, so on the approval we currently have for the agency, we don't have approval that would cover the cost of collecting fees.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6 ; nays 4 )
(Clause 40 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 41 and 42 agreed to)
(On clause 43--Matters to be considered)
The Chair: Next is amendment G-9.
Would you explain it please, Dr. Castonguay?
[Translation]
| (2) Subject to subsection (3), the Agency shall, on request, disclose the information and observations provided under subsection (1) unless the disclosure would, in the Agency's opinion, pose a risk to the health or safety of any person. |
I would ask Mr. Rivard or Ms. Caroline to explain the rationale for amendment G-9.
[English]
Ms. Caroline Weber: In our technical briefings with other jurisdictions, an issue came up that for some of these activities, licensees might be subject to some kind of physical threat or harm. So they wanted an option that if the agency were requested to disclose the information, but thought it might pose a risk to an individual's health or safety because of the controversial nature of these activities, they could decide to not disclose the identity of an individual.
Institutions or organizations would still have to be identified, but individuals might not be named, in some instances.
The Chair: It's pretty straightforward. It's to protect people.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 43 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 44 agreed to)
The Chair: We're on page 99. I'm so excited, I can hardly believe it.
Á (1155)
Mr. James Lunney: Don't get so excited you forget our lunch is ready.
The Chair: We will pause for ten minutes for lunch.
Á (1156)
 (1220)
The Chair: We come to order, ladies and gentlemen.
I see an opportunity to make some wonderful progress. We're on page 99 of our booklet. This issue was already decided in the previous amendment. Now we have several clauses with no amendments.
(Clauses 45 to 53 inclusive agreed to on division)
The Chair: In clause 54, we have an amendment called CA-72 on page 100. Again, it is changing “donor” to “donors”. That issue has been decided, in that we have all accepted that the singular means the plural, so this one is out of order.
(Clauses 54 to 57 inclusive agreed to on division)
The Chair: Clause 58, we now move to BQ-5 on page 101.
Mr. Ménard, we're on page 101 in the booklet.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madame, don't rush me.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, you know that a clause is more restrictive when the word "shall" is used. I suggest that we continue along with the series of victories that is making us so attached to each other.
[English]
The Chair: We're actually on page 27 of the bill, if you haven't gotten to it, as I hadn't.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: We absolutely want the word "shall" in this provision. It is more imperative.
[English]
The Chair: Any comment, Mr. Rivard?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: This change would absolutely require the agency to enter into these agreements with all of the parties listed in the clause, whether they wish to agree or not, and whether it serves any purpose.
The Chair: “May” allows it to happen, “shall” says they must do it, essentially.
Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I think that Mr. Rivard has gone too far in using legal language with which he is not familiar. “Shall” means that the proposal to have agreements must be made. Clearly, if there are provinces that do not have legislation and that do not want any, and that is another matter. Agreements must be proposed. If the issue is not relevant, it is not relevant.
Ms. Hélène Scherrer: “The Agency shall enter into—”.
Mr. Réal Ménard: “Shall”.
[English]
The Chair: The French doesn't say “doit”. In the French it's “peut”.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Then we have CA-73, still on clause 58.
Mr. Merrifield.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: We feel it should be a public agency, and that the agency not be contracted to a private company when it comes to the enforcement of any violation of the agency. I think this is something that has been missed in the bill. It would just tighten it up.
 (1225)
The Chair: Are there any questions?
Those in favour of amendment CA-73?
Mr. James Lunney: Wait a minute. Can we just consider where this fits into the bill? Most of us aren't even on the page yet.
The Chair: Okay. We're all on page 27 of the bill, clause 58, line 17. It's an addition to the clause that's already there, another sentence.
He doesn't want this going to some private security firm or something.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: My point is that when it comes to enforcement, it should be public agencies doing the enforcement side of the agency.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Madam Chair, may I just comment on the legal interpretation?
The Chair: Yes, please do, Mr. Rivard.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: This agency is a creature of the statute and can therefore only do what the statute authorizes. Therefore, this clause authorizes it to enter into agreements with certain other organizations, if you will, such as government departments and law enforcement agencies. It doesn't do anything more. Therefore, it has no authority to enter into anything other than an agreement of this sort with what is listed in clause 58. If the bill were to start to list all the things the agency cannot do, it would become a very large bill.
The Chair: And we'd be here until New Years.
Ms. Judy Sgro: We may yet be.
Ms. Caroline Weber: The agency does not have the authority to enter into an agreement with a non-governmental organization.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: That explains it.
The Chair: Amendment CA-73 is withdrawn.
(Clause 58 agreed to)
(On clause 59--Assistance to enforcement officers)
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I think this new clause is actually in the wrong spot. I think it should be clause 68.1 rather than clause 59.1. Let's put it in at clause 68.
The Chair: The mover would like us to stand this aside until we get to clause 68.
Would the mover remind me when I get there?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes. I hope the clerk will.
(Clause 59 agreed to)
(On clause 60--Offence and punishment)
The Chair: We're now on clause 60 on page 105 of your package.
Mr. Lunney, you're on page 27 of the bill, line 25.
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, I think it is consequential to amendment CA-30.
The Chair: Oui. We took care of that yesterday.
Mr. James Lunney: This is just an attempt to broaden it to clarify who was guilty of the offence.
The Chair: We already voted down the words “is a party to” in amendment CA-30, did we not? So this is not admissible. It has already been dealt with.
(Clause 60 agreed to on division)
(On clause 61--Offence and punishment)
The Chair: We are now on amendment G-10.
Dr. Castonguay.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, this is in fact the technical amendment. I would like Mr. Rivard to explain the rationale for this amendment.
[English]
Mr. Glenn Rivard: It was pointed out to us that, as drafted, if somebody were to be in breach of clauses 10 to 13 governing controlled activities, then they could effectively be charged twice under this section, one for breach of the clause and one for breach of the licence. This didn't seem appropriate, and it wasn't really the intention in the first place. In one act they should be subject to one charge under the bill.
It's enough to simply state, if a person “contravenes any provisions of this Act, other than sections 5 to 9”, which are covered in the preceding section, then they're guilty of an offence. It's preferable to drop the reference to “the terms and conditions of a licence”.
 (1230)
The Chair: So you're eliminating “or the terms and conditions of a licence”.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: That's right.
The Chair: Because then they could get charged twice for the same thing.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: That's right.
The Chair: And that wouldn't be fair, double jeopardy.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 61 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 62 to 64 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 65--Regulations of Governor in Council)
The Chair: Now we are at page 108 for BQ-6.
Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: This amendment contains an error, and I am withdrawing it.
[English]
The Chair: Amendment G-10a on page 108.1. This was decided yesterday, and so was 10b. So these are already decided.
On CA-76a, consequential to CA-34.... I must have missed a page. Sorry.
Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Why not go through LL-8?
The Chair: I don't have LL-8.
Have you got it in your package, Madame Thibeault?
[Translation]
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Yes.
[English]
The Chair: We're on page 29 of the bill. Dr. Lunney, we're on page 29.
Mr. James Lunney: Thank you.
The Chair: Just teasing you, because I wasn't there anyway. And we're on line 3, replacing line 3.
Go ahead, Madame Thibeault.
[Translation]
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you, Madam Chair.
So everyone understands, I will read all of paragraph (e) as it would be modified by this amendment:
| (e) for the purposes of section 12, respecting the reasonable expenditures that may be reimbursed under a licence and the maximum number of times that either donors of human reproductive material or surrogate mothers may be reimbursed; |
I do not think I need to elaborate on that, since the intent is quite clear.
[English]
Ms. Judy Sgro: Didn't you deal with this yesterday morning, Madame Chair?
The Chair: Did we?
Ms. Judy Sgro: Didn't we deal with the whole issue of expenses and reimbursement?
The Chair: This isn't about that. You'll notice that in this particular section of the bill we already have (a) to (z), so it was pretty difficult for Madame Thibeault to fit in her amendment giving it a new letter at the end because (z) was already taken, unless she wanted to do (z)(ii).
What she is trying to get at here is a limitation on the maximum number of times a donor can donate human reproductive material. But instead of trying to put a limit on that, I think some legal counsel advised her to suggest that you limit the number of times any reimbursement could be made to those people.
 (1235)
Ms. Judy Sgro: Just for clarification, since I was not here yesterday morning, this was not dealt with along with receipts, reimbursements, and all of that?
The Chair: All of that was dealt with.
Ms. Judy Sgro: Then that's why I thought this was part of that.
The Chair: I understand why you thought that. But what has happened is there was no place to let the number of times donors could be reimbursed into any other section, because they'd already taken up (a) to (z), so we stuck it in here.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: If I may clarify, I thought I heard a statement to the effect that I may have recommended this.
The Chair: No.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Okay, I'm sorry.
The Chair: I said some legal counsel, not the one and only.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Okay, fair enough.
The Chair: Madame Sgro.
Ms. Judy Sgro: I guess I could ask two questions. I'll ask the first one to Mr. Rivard.
Do you agree with this, with amendment LL-8?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: I don't believe this is consistent with clause 12. Clause 12 sets down a framework for reimbursement of donors, but nowhere in that does it state that reimbursement has to be limited or should be limited by the number of times of donation.
The Chair: We're trying to introduce that concept.
An hon. member: So it should have been done in clause 12.
The Chair: Oh, I see.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Clause 65 simply reflects, if you will, the authorities granted earlier in the bill and lists them as matters that can be regulated. The authority in clause 12 is with respect to regulating expenditures, and that is all. It doesn't go into this level of detail.
The Chair: How would you suggest the concept be inserted? In other words--
Ms. Judy Sgro: Do we agree that we want it inserted? That has to be the bigger issue, first.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: I'm not sure. What is the objective? Is it to address expenditures?
The Chair: I believe it's to address the number of times a donor gives.
[Translation]
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: May I explain my point of view?
[English]
Mr. Glenn Rivard: But for what purpose? Is it to limit the total number of times you can reimburse for expenditures, or is it out of health and safety concerns?
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: It is out of health and safety concerns.
[Translation]
As was explained, this was put here because we did not know what to do with it. The intent is, for example, to limit sperm donations. If we say that they can no longer be reimbursed for more than X donations, we eliminate that right away. We also want to limit the number of times the surrogate mother can carry a baby. In the case of sperm donations, we want to avoid one man becoming the father of half of all the children in his village, because later on, that could cause serious problems, could it not?
That is the idea. If you can help us and tell us how we could include that concept in the regulations, I would be very grateful.
[English]
Ms. Caroline Weber: Again, for sperm, I think we did deal with this yesterday, but in a different section, in terms of whether or not you could limit the number of donations.
The number of children born from a particular sperm donation is not--
Ms. Francine Manseau (Senior Policy Analyst, Health Policy and Communications Branch, Department of Health): From the same sperm donor is what you want to get at, but to limit the number of sperm donations doesn't... We don't know how many sperm inseminations are required even to create one child. A person can go and be obliged to give three, four, or five times. So I think what you want is to limit the number of children that are born from the same donor.
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Francine Manseau: Then you should go at it from that, more than the number of donations.
The Chair: Yes, but may I ask a question, Ms. Manseau? If you don't limit the number of sperm donations, how can you be sure you're limiting the number of children? It takes a certain period of time to decide how many live births you're going to get.
We had testimony about a donor who donated sperm 200 times. Probably nobody knows to this day how many live births resulted from that particular person.
So my feeling is, you stop it at the source. You don't wait nine months, or even in the lab, to see which embryos are viable, and then nine months later, to see how many children are born. To me, that's trying to get the horse back into the barn after it's released.
Ms. Torsney, you'll be next.
Ms. Manseau.
 (1240)
Ms. Judy Sgro: Madame Chair, I still had the floor from the beginning. I said I had two questions. I went to Mr. Rivard, and I allowed my colleague to jump in, as some of us do.
The Chair: Sorry, Ms. Sgro.
Ms. Judy Sgro: Let's finish this. Let Ms. Manseau first answer the question she was directed to answer.
Ms. Francine Manseau: First of all, when you are using sperm from the donor there will be regulations attached to it. Information will be collected on the sperm donor. The agency should be able to control, and should know, how many facilities the donor went to, because all that information will be collected. It's true that you have to wait until there is a pregnancy and the child is born. But the intention is to inform the parents about the importance of reporting back to the clinic, and then the clinic to the agency, about the birth of a child that was created from a sperm donor. That's the way you would go about trying to limit that. It's very difficult to limit the number of times he is going to be able to give because the number of sperm that you would require even for the birth of one child is difficult to estimate. So I think what you do is make sure that when the sperm is used the donor has not reached that limit, or the number of children born from that donor has not reached that limit.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: What is the limit?
Ms. Francine Manseau: The limit will have to be developed in the regulations. Some countries go with the number of children. It could be children and families. We will have to look at consanguinity, and the risks, and say to the people who can't--
Ms. Caroline Weber: It goes back to the issue we were discussing yesterday in terms of there's so much variation here that if you limit it on that you may be getting very low numbers or nothing at all. We were trying to understand what was the intent. If the intent is to limit the number of children born from a particular donor, then maybe we should be talking about--
The Chair: I have six people lined up over here. Ms. Sgro, you had another question, I believe.
Ms. Judy Sgro: Yes. I'm wondering if we're back to a full-fledged debate on many of these issues again. I'm going to say why I'm voting against this. You can yell if you like, Madam Chair, but I'm going to speak anyway for a minute or two on this issue.
The Chair: I'm certainly not going to stop you from speaking, nor do I intend to yell. I think that's a most unfair snipe, Ms. Sgro.
Ms. Judy Sgro: I think this morning's shot at another member of this health committee was an unfair one as well.
The Chair: Would you like to challenge the chair on that?
Ms. Judy Sgro: You haven't moved a motion. Do you want to waste more time? I said I have two minutes to make a point here, and I'm asking you to be patient for a second.
The Chair: I'm very patient with you, Ms. Sgro.
Ms. Judy Sgro: Yesterday when we tried to deal with an issue that was important to many of us on this committee, on the whole issue of expenses, some of us weren't here, and you knew we weren't going to be here, and we weren't allowed to debate that issue. This ties into the same thing. I think we have done an enormous disservice to the same people we are concerned about, and that is the infertile community out there.
I learned from the business I did over the summer, and in talking to people, how emotional an issue this is. What we're doing is driving that whole community underground. So it's not quite as easy as I thought, this running around donating sperm and ovum, and surrogate mothers, and all the rest of it. It's a much more complicated issue. I think we're doing a disservice to thousands of people out there. This is just one more way to drive them underground. I'm voting against it and that's the reason.
Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would be voting against this amendment because it doesn't limit the donation. It limits the number of times someone could be paid for that donation. So you could have someone who doesn't donate to have their expenses covered, but donates to ensure that the world is populated with their offspring, for altruistic reasons, says Mr. Szabo. I think that is a huge problem.
Secondly, again the issue isn't donation. There's lots of activity, both with the infertile couples and the fertile couples, that doesn't result in a child, and it's the issue of how many children are born. You could donate buckets of sperm and it could be matched up with hundreds of eggs, and not a single child would be born. Why would we want to limit somebody who is a happy donor?
The second issue is that is not what this does. This would limit how many times they could be paid for that, so it doesn't achieve the objective. If you want to set up that objective, fine. I would also point out that it is interesting that when you get to reproductive health that you would be regulating, but certainly there's the possibility of having offspring many times every night with lots of different people in a community. It's curious.
This amendment, the way it is presented, does not achieve what the member may rightfully be trying to achieve.
 (1245)
The Chair: Dr. Lunney is next.
Mr. James Lunney: If it is about trying to limit it to the number of children who are born from a donor, I can foresee great trouble in trying to track them down here and there, because the stuff could be sent just about anywhere. There are millions of sperm in every sample, as has been pointed out here in this very interesting discussion so far. And let's not forget that we are not talking about conventional reproduction here but about assisted, in the lab. Remember the testimony we had from engineers: they have micro-manipulators that can select the one with the best wiggle. The point here is that the object is to limit the number of donations.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: That's how it is now.
Mr. James Lunney: I think that there's a better amendment coming, CA-76, one that doesn't have some of these snags in it, one members will perhaps want to consider.
The Chair: Mr. Merrifield.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'm wondering if Ms. Thibeault would consider this, because it does deal with the number of children. Now the United Kingdom says there's a limit of only ten. The other deals as well with the number of donations to be able to accomplish that. I think that if you encapsulate the discussion around the table, it will address the concerns of Judy Sgro and Paddy Torsney.
The Chair: I think there are two things about the CA amendment that's coming up on a similar topic. It's not quite the same, because, first, it only deals with donations of human reproductive material, I believe, and second, it does not deal with surrogacy. Hers does, you see.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's true. We're not talking about surrogacy, we are talking about the number of children.
The Chair: On this one, I have a feeling she talked about reimbursement. In limiting the number of times one person could be involved in any of this--in order to broaden the gene pool, I think the idea was--we didn't want to criminalize the actions of donors or surrogate mothers. We wanted to put the emphasis on the person paying so the donor or the surrogate mother would not be the person subject to any of this; it would be the payer. That's why it was worded that way.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Wouldn't the surrogate part of it be dealt with under our amendment on the number of children? Is that not our concern about surrogacy, the number of children and that it be limited?
The Chair: You only talk about gamete donors. Surrogacy isn't in there.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: No, it's about the number of children born. It is prescribing limits on the number of children who are born by the means of gamete donors.
The Chair: Surrogacy isn't in there.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: With a gamete donor the only way you're going to do it is through a surrogate, right? The only way a surrogate can get pregnant is through a gamete donor, is that not right?
The Chair: No.
Ms. Caroline Weber: But you have additional expenditures over and above the donation portion of it.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: This has nothing to do with money. This is just limiting the numbers who can be born through gamete donation, which is the only way you can have a surrogate.
The Chair: Madame Thibeault, we're actually on yours. Did you want to do something with it? I'm not hearing a lot of support.
 (1250)
[Translation]
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Since everyone seems to be uneasy with this amendment, I am prepared to withdraw it.
[English]
The Chair: Madame Thibeault has withdrawn LL-8.
There is some concern around the table around having some restrictions of some sort, and we have CA-76.
Mr. Merrifield.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I think the concern was that it doesn't deal with surrogacy, but from my perspective it does in the sense that the only way you can have a surrogate is to have a gamete donor. By limiting the number of gamete donors we are limiting the number of children who are born, so it does deal with the surrogate side as well as the sperm and the ova side. That's the intent. We don't want to have all the village parented by one gamete donor, and that was the concern we had.
The United Kingdom has a limit of ten. The numbers will actually be dealt with in the regulations, that's fair enough, but I think we should have something here with regard to the intent.
The Chair: Dr. Castonguay.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
In light of the discussion, to try to achieve what you want, we could, after paragraph 65(1)(f), have a new paragraph 65(1)(g) that would read: “respecting the number of children that may be created from the gametes of one donor through the application of assisted reproduction procedures”.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Why not put “limiting” rather than “respecting”?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: By virtue of its being put in the regulations, it's implied that it's limiting it because you regulate the number. It means you--
Mr. Rob Merrifield: We're not saying the number. We're just saying “limiting” rather than “respecting”.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, it's regulating the number. You don't have to say “limiting”. The effect of regulating is that it puts on limits. That's what regulating means, you're putting parameters around it, so saying “limiting” would be redundant.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I understand.
The Chair: This might do it.
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I offer it with all my heart.
The Chair: It talks about establishing regulations respecting the number of children. Regulating on the number means putting rules around it.
It still doesn't count for surrogacy, and what about current paragraph 65(1)(g), “respecting the terms and conditions of licences”?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: That would become paragraph 65(1)(h).
The Chair: As I pointed out at the beginning, it already goes all the way to paragraph 65(1)(z).
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Paragraph 65(1)(z) would become 65(1)(aa).
Mr. Glenn Rivard: It is possible to add.
The Chair: Do you have something to add to this that would capture surrogacy? Is that what you wanted to intervene on, Mr. Rivard?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: It would capture a surrogate who is a gamete donor.
Ms. Caroline Weber: No. One surrogate can carry three different children with six donor gametes.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: But as I understand it, the concern is one of consanguinity, so the issue is whether the surrogate is a gamete donor.
Ms. Caroline Weber: That's not it, actually, because assuming that the surrogate is doing this altruistically for a couple or for someone who is known to them, then if they're going to do this multiple times.... Anyway, it would limit the number of children who would be born from that particular couple.
The Chair: Anyway, we have something that is proposed here that seems to capture a bit of the spirit of Madame Thibeault's amendment and some of the spirit of Mr. Merrifield's. Madame Thibeault has withdrawn hers, so Mr. Merrifield, would you be willing to withdraw yours in favour of this one, which seems to be in--
Mr. Rob Merrifield: It's almost the same.
The Chair: Here's one that has just been given out, and we could call it amendment G-10c, says our clerk.
 (1255)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: The next government amendment—
[English]
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'm not so excited about the wording as long as the intent is there and we capture it in the regulations, so I'm fine.
The Chair: Mr. Merrifield is going to withdraw CA-76 and we're going to put in its place this one that is numbered G-10c.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Thank you for solving that, whoever did that.
Madame St-Jacques.
[Translation]
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think everyone agrees.
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Point of order, Madam Chair. Could we suspend the vote for a few moment? I have to leave for a couple of minutes.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Are we suspending the vote?
[English]
The Chair: We have a situation here where we dealt with an NDP amendment yesterday and now have a consequential amendment to it, amendment NDP-14.
We are still on page 29. Amendment NDP-14 calls for adding after line 39 the following: “(p) respecting the providing of information under paragraph 14(2)(d);” and relettering the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
I promised Madame St-Jacques we wouldn't vote.
Would you like to speak to this, Judy?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sure.
This is basically a consequential amendment, because of the fact we added a new paragraph 14(2)(d) to clause 14, which requires the licensee to provide relevant information pursuant to the regulations of the act. So this amendment simply makes that possible through the additional reference in this section.
The Chair: The clerk tells me that because you supported Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis' amendment back in clause 14, this doesn't have to be voted on. It has to be in here, because it is a consequence of what you voted on yesterday. So we don't have to vote on this.
Now I think we're on amendment CA-76a, which is on page 109.1.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I withdraw amendment CA-76a.
The Chair: Amendment CA-76a is withdrawn.
Amendments LL-9 and CA-77 are identical or close to each other. Would you look on pages 110 and 110.1.
· (1300)
Ms. Hedy Fry: We're moving that.
[Translation]
Ms. Paddy Torsney: The intent is to remove paragraph (z).
[English]
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Both have exactly the same intent. This paragraph 65(1)(z) is a kind of “get out of jail free" card, which we could be allowing. This would certainly go against the intent of what we're trying to do here under the agency. So when it comes to controlled activities, I really think it is a matter to be dealt with and not to be exempt. Is this right?
The Chair: It was in response to several witnesses, who said we could pass the whole bill, yet if we passed this clause we would be literally undermining everything we've done.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Everything we do, that's right.
The Chair: I think Madame Thibeault had her hand up.
[Translation]
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I would simply like to say that Mr. Merrifield has expressed my thoughts very well. That is precisely why I would like to remove this paragraph. Madam Chair continued along the same lines.
The Chair: Ms. Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: What will happen if this amendment is adopted?
[English]
Ms. Caroline Weber: I will share with you the policy intent of this. It was put deliberately into the bill in order to keep the bill out of the bedrooms of Canadians. There are some low-technology activities or procedures for artificial insemination, which we don't—
An hon. member: The turkey-baster approach?
Ms. Caroline Weber: The extraordinary approach is what we're talking about here.
We're trying to exempt this explicitly from a requirement for licensing.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Can you specify if that is an exemption you are looking for?
The Chair: Ms. Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: It was to exempt certain activities, because of the fact that people are using low technologies in their homes, and you don't want them to have to be licensed.
Again, to enact this you're talking about regulations that would do this. So there is still a process of approval of anything that would say that no turkey basters are governed by this legislation. There is actually a regulation that can be approved by a parliamentary committee. So there is a check and balance on what is exempted.
The Chair: We're wondering why some of our witnesses read it so broadly, then--
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Because it can be interpreted in that way.
The Chair: Certain of the experts in this field--legal experts, people from law schools, things like that--said that this was a very frightening clause to them.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's right.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Could I just point out, and this will be my last point, that it says “and, in particular, may make regulations”. It's proactive. You have to make regulations exempting certain activities. So an actual regulation has to be written. It's not saying you have a blanket exemption for anything you don't want to deal with. It is that you have to write a regulation that would exempt an activity, such as turkey basters in living rooms across the nation.
Ms. Caroline Weber: In fact, the way the bill is written now, it captures everything.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: We have controlled activities in this piece of legislation for a reason. If you put a clause in here that allows you to exempt those--
Ms. Paddy Torsney: With a regulation.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Regardless of the regulation. We don't know what's going to happen in regulation. You put a clause in here like this and you could exempt.
Mr. James Lunney: Cloning.
The Chair: No, that's prohibited.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: It's prohibited, but any of the controlled ones. That's why so many people came forward saying they were discomforted to see this in here. I don't see the upside of having it in, to be honest.
The Chair: Dr. Fry.
Ms. Hedy Fry: I think one of the most important things about legislation and regulations is that they should be enforceable. I don't know how we're going to enforce what goes on in the bedrooms of the nation. I don't know who is going to be putting in cameras to make sure that somebody doesn't have a friend give them a donation and they turkey-baste it. You're putting in regulations. It is going to be defined how you would exempt these controlled activities and what controlled activities you are talking about.
You don't know what people do in the privacy of their home. But at the end of the day this is not enforceable, in the same way that it's not enforceable to deal with a whole lot of low-tech activities that people can be involved in. Low tech is going on everywhere. We're talking about the high-tech activities of these reproductive technologies as are done in clinics and that are going to be licensed and have clear controls. But before reproductive technologies took off, people found other ways to inseminate themselves in order to have children.
We can't see what's going on, and we can't have any way of enforcing it. There is no way we are going to know what's going on. How do you question somebody who is pregnant? You have to write a regulation to exempt it. It's pretty clear that you are going to put in a regulation that is going to define what you want to say.
· (1305)
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Fry.
Dr. Lunney.
Mr. James Lunney: I was on my own wavelength for a while, and I missed the earlier discussion. What I've picked up from the discussion is that the only reason for putting this clause in here is to address what may be going on in a household setting. I can't imagine that the intent of this bill is in any way to regulate that. We're talking about regulating people and institutions that are helping other people through licensing. I'm very concerned that putting in a clause as wide as this that would allow the exempting of anything we have control under here is a very broad measure to attempt to regulate something there isn't any intent to do anyway.
The Chair: It looks as if anything on the list of controlled activities could be exempted, when in fact your examples are pretty narrow.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: A regulation has to be written.
The Chair: I understand about the writing of the regulation, Ms. Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: And it has to be approved.
The Chair: I understand that it has to be approved.
I'm just saying that to me the wording of this particular amendment does not describe what it is the officials want to achieve here. We want to achieve the same thing.
All kinds of experts read this clause, understood that a regulation had to be written, and still felt that whole classes of controlled activities could be exempted.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's because that's what it says.
The Chair: They could be exempted, for example, from the need for a licence.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: They may have right of approval, but that doesn't mean they're right. There's a process. You write regulations governing a whole bunch of things, and if you want to exempt something where somebody's sister uses the other husband's sperm, you don't want to control that. So you have to write a regulation to say we're not.... Low-tech activities....
Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's not what we're concerned about, nor is that what it's saying here. I understand what you're saying.
The Chair: We're not concerned about those examples.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Right. So that's why you want to write a regulation saying those kinds of activities are permitted.
Mr. James Lunney: Nobody's going to make any attempt to control those, anyway.
The Chair: No.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: That's right.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, may I please read page 7, section 10?
The Chair: Yes, Dr. Fry.
Ms. Hedy Fry: This is under “Controlled Activities”. In subclause 10(1) it says “No person shall, except in accordance with the regulations and a licence”, and I go down to subclause 10(3) where it says “obtain, store, transfer, destroy, import or export...”. But let's take “obtain”, and if you take out all the others you'd have “under licence obtain a sperm or ovum, or any part of one, for the purpose of creating an embryo”.
So if you took a turkey baster and you got some sperm and you inseminated yourself you are actually going to have to have a licence to do that under the regulations.
If you take pieces of clauses of a bill and you just see them on their own and don't read what the whole bill has said before, what you're in effect in this bill suggesting is that every time a person does that, they should require a licence.
What we're suggesting is if they don't require a licence it's subject to criminal sanctions. Is that what we wish to do? I don't think so, but under the regulations, unless you put in that exemption, you will be doing exactly that.
The Chair: For example, nobody would mind if that particular section were given some kind of an exemption and there would have to be a regulation written. This clause allows every single thing about a controlled activity to be exempted if a regulation is written to that effect.
So somebody in the agency could choose to say we can't be bothered with all these things and therefore we'll exempt it via regulations.
· (1310)
Ms. Caroline Weber: It's Health Canada.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's not the agency that writes the regulations.
Ms. Caroline Weber: It's the agency that does the regulations, but regulations development happens within Health Canada, not within the agency.
The Chair: Mr. Szabo.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Chair, I think Dr. Fry has brought the attention of the committee back to clauses 10 through 13 under “Controlled Activities”. Then looking at each one of them, each one has the exception “except in accordance with the regulations” in every clause. By definition, this means that paragraph (z) is a truism. It's repeating what in fact was approved when clause 10 and the subsequent controlled activities were approved “except in accordance with the regulations”, which could include an exemption yes or no or any part thereof.
So if the committee is really concerned about paragraph (z), it would appear to me that the committee would have to reconsider the language under “Controlled Activities” in clauses 10 through 13.
The Chair: You're saying you think that the language in paragraph (z) is necessary because we've already passed clause 10 and you don't have any questions about the way paragraph (z) is worded.
Mr. Paul Szabo: I think it's redundant to what is stated in the “Controlled Activities” section.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's what he's saying. It's redundant.
The Chair: You're saying you don't need it or you do need it?
Mr. Paul Szabo: I don't think you need it. Therefore I would suggest that maybe it be deleted because it's already covered in the clauses under “Controlled Activities”.
The Chair: Ms. Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have a question, then. If this amendment LL-9 or CA-77 were to pass, and we removed the item number (z), what happens if I decide I want to have a child and my sister's husband is the sperm donor? What happens if I ask Paul Szabo? No, don't even go there. Would that be a controlled activity without this clause? Is this something that would have to be governed, and am I subject to those rules if I choose to use somebody else's sperm and a turkey baster?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Whether it's a controlled activity or not does not depend on this clause, it depends on clause 10. Without a doubt, that is a controlled activity.
This would be the most straightforward method of exempting that controlled activity from the licensing requirements of the act. It could also be done simply by relying on paragraphs (c) and (f) by in effect defining that type of donation as a controlled activity and putting very minimal regulations around it, such as a permissive reporting of outcomes. In other words, you may report the outcome of that activity to the agency, and it wouldn't require people to, so there'd be no infringement of their privacy.
That is another way of addressing the same issue, but (z) is simply a more straightforward way of doing it.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: On paragraph (z), let's assume that it goes through, what do you anticipate? You obviously wrote this for a reason. What else do you anticipate, or how would a regulation look under paragraph 65(1)(z)?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: There is a very similar provision in the Food and Drugs Act. It's very rarely used. It takes notice of the fact that this is a complicated regulatory regime and a fairly demanding one, far more demanding actually than the Food and Drugs Act, because it requires licensing. It introduces an element of flexibility to deal with unforeseeable circumstances down the road, maybe ten years from now. I don't know.
The check on it, of course, is that it must be done by regulation and therefore must be reviewed by Parliament. It's really a question of maintaining an element of flexibility in the bill, acknowledging the complexity of the subject matter and the stringency of the regulatory regime.
Ms. Caroline Weber: Actually Mr. Rivard tells me--he's been telling me all along--that there was another way to do this and that we really wanted something more explicit in terms of exempting the bedrooms of the nation. I think this was more from a policy push on legal counsel.
· (1315)
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Just picking up on what you said there, were you suggesting that we do it in a different way?
Ms. Caroline Weber: I think that the answer to the question has been that this could be done with the existing provisions, as Mr. Szabo has pointed out, and that this probably isn't necessary.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's our point. It's not that we're against what you're saying. It's just that this allows more than that. That's why I would concur with what Ms. Weber is saying.
The Chair: Mr. Rivard.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: I simply want to re-emphasize the point that reliance on paragraph (z) would make this more transparent. That is why it is there.
Ms. Judy Sgro: Exactly.
The Chair: Okay, I think you've heard enough on paragraph (z). We have two amendments. We'll vote on CA-77.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: That means that LL-9 fails to carry, because it's already decided.
Now CA-78, clause 65, after line 25 on page 30.
You're going to do paragraph (x.1) and paragraph (x.2). Okay, Mr. Merrifield, go ahead.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: A number of witnesses came forward suggesting discomfort over the number of ova that are harvested. We've heard numbers as high as 25 to 30 per hyperovulation. This is something that I think all of us were quite amazed and surprised at. I believe we have to take a look at putting some limits on those numbers. This is an attempt to put some parameters around that, so that we don't have abuse as far as the intent of reproduction being the ultimate goal of why these embryos are created. When you get up in numbers of 25 and 30 and beyond, it is hard to justify that it's about reproduction. So that's where this is coming from. This is an attempt to do that. I think there have been lots of members of the committee who have voiced this over the last year and a half as a concern. This may be what we saw happen in some of the fertility clinics.
The Chair: So this is a whole other set of angles from which the regulators may come at the situation.
Dr. Fry.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, I believe that paragraphs (x.1), (x.2), (x.3), (x.4), and (x.5) have been dealt with under G-9 that we passed. It really dealt with that issue.
Now, paragraphs (x.6) and (x.7) have not been dealt with. So if we want to remove those and deal with paragraphs (x.6) and (x.7), I would like to respectfully suggest that we have already voted on these.
The Chair: I'm not sure we dealt with this in G-9.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I can't remember everything that was--
Ms. Hedy Fry: Respecting the maximum number of children that may be produced from a single gamete donor...
Mr. Rob Merrifield: These are ova that are taken from hyperstimulated women.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Respecting the number of children that may be created from the gametes of one donor...
Mr. Rob Merrifield: No, we're not talking about children.
The Chair: We're concerned about some of the drug dosages we heard about that were going on in fertility clinics to produce all these ova, produced and harvested.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Those are side effects of a drug that you cannot necessarily....
The Chair: We had some evidence, Dr. Fry, that suggested to us that some of these fertility clinics were more responsible than others, and that some people were using huge dosages of these drugs. I think that is what the mover is trying to get at here.
I'm only trying to guess, but I did hear the same evidence. We were concerned about that.
Then you'll notice in paragraph 65(1)(x.3), that is to protect the woman, because we had evidence of one woman undergoing reproductive technology who said--I'm trying to think now how many times it was--she had been through something like 15 or 16 cycles of the drugs, the harvesting of eggs, the this and the that, and most people in the room gasped.
I don't pretend to be an expert in this, Dr. Fry, but it was the reaction of other experts to that kind of testimony that led us to believe all was not well out there.
· (1320)
Ms. Hedy Fry: Except, Madam Chair, if the woman willingly did this, then we are intervening between the decision-making of how many times a woman wants to subject herself to this. We cannot intervene between informed decisions made by a patient with a physician. What we can do is to set very clear ethical and regulatory guidelines and legal guidelines around how the clinician behaves and how other people behave, but that a patient would subject herself to this... I have seen patients subject themselves to all kinds of things, and they choose to do so. So are we going to suggest that we will limit this woman's choice as to how many times she wishes to participate in the procedure or not?
The Chair: In your opinion as a family doctor, who might be part of such a scenario...
What we questioned was not the woman's choice, because we know she's desperate; what we questioned was the professional who was allowing that to go on, knowing that it has failed fifteen times and allowing her to have it a sixteenth time.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, you asked me a question as a family physician, and I will tell you.
The Chair: I'm sure you wouldn't do that.
Ms. Hedy Fry: No, but when a patient comes into my office, as a family physician, I do not make the decisions for the patient. I give the patient as much information as I can about what I think is wrong, about what we could offer, what the side effects are going to be. I may often suggest that I think they may not want to do this more than x times, and tell them why I think it may be harmful and detrimental to them. But at the end of the day, the patient will make the decision, not me. I am not God. I don't play with patients. I give them choices.
If at the end of the day, fully knowing all of the side effects, and so on, the patient decides to undergo that particular thing over and over.... Sometimes I sit there and think, my God, I would never subject myself to this--and I'm not speaking about reproductive technologies; I'm speaking about all kinds of things that patients subject themselves to, having made the choice that it is preferable to whatever the options are.
I just give the information. I counsel them. I may tell them I don't think they should, but at the end of the day, the patient makes the choice. So what I'm suggesting here is, you want to be very careful that we do not interfere with that. I may sit there holding my breath, but I won't interfere with the choice of the patient.
The Chair: Dr. Castonguay.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Thank you, Madam Chair.
When I carefully read proposed paragraph x(1) on the number of ova that can be collected, I think somewhat like Dr Fry. When a patient takes medication, no one knows ahead of time how many ova there will be, and I think we need to face that reality. Now, I am not sure it is up to us to go into the kitchen and tell people how to practice these techniques. The regulations should include a framework for different practices, but I think we would go a little too far by stipulating in the act how many ova can be collected and how that can be done. I have a lot of trouble with that, because it requires a certain expertise. I do not think that this expertise can be determined through this bill.
I also agree with what you were saying a little earlier, that at some point, we must respect these people and recognize that they have expertise in this field. I am looking at amendment CA-76, on page 109, and I see that these are to some extent the difficulties we are facing. That is why we did not support the amendment. With this amendment, we would probably end up being in the kitchen doing micromanagement.
As a result, I will not support this amendment, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Rivard, then Dr. Lunney, then Ms. Torsney.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: I want to make a point about new paragraphs 65(1)(x.4) and 65(1)(x.5). Paragraph 65(1)(o) of the bill already addresses new paragraph 65(1)(x.4). New paragraph 65(1)(x.5) has now been addressed by a motion to amend G-10c.
· (1325)
The Chair: So you think those two pieces of the puzzle are taken care of.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: That's right.
Mr. James Lunney: All kinds of things that were in earlier are now being addressed in the regulations. This is sort of embodying the enactment of what's envisaged in the legislation. Is that not right?
Physicians have more knowledge, and one of the first rules for a physician is to do no harm. Doctor, with all due respect, the physician clearly holds a higher responsibility. A patient who doesn't understand the full consequences but is desperate for an objective may not be dealing with things realistically.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Mr. Lunney--
The Chair: Excuse me, you may comment when he's finished.
Mr. James Lunney: You've expressed a view, and I'm just responding to that. I think you're a little out of touch with reality on that one.
Coming back to Dr. Castonguay--
Ms. Hedy Fry: You've been really rude to me.
Mr. James Lunney: Excuse me, but coming back to another remark that we need a framework to deal with this, so we can't put limits, the intent of this is to ask the regulatory agency to create such a framework. With all due respect, the intent of the motion is to ask the agency responsible for governing this to create a framework of what is acceptable and what is not. These are all objectives that are envisaged within the act.
I do apologize, Dr. Fry, if I offended you. I didn't mean to.
Ms. Hedy Fry: It's not accepted.
The Chair: Dr. Fry, you're next.
Ms. Hedy Fry: I would like to have the opportunity to respond. That was an insult to my integrity as a physician. You asked me a personal question as a physician and I answered it. Mr. Lunney misinterpreted it, and I want to respond.
The Chair: You have the floor, Dr. Fry.
Ms. Hedy Fry: If Mr. Lunney had listened, he would have heard me say that as a physician, you give the patient all of the information. You even sometimes tell them you wouldn't do it if it were you, because of the side effects. At the end of the day, Mr. Lunney, I do not believe it is up to me to make decisions for my patients, if I'm an ethical physician.
I understand what it is to be an ethical physician. I am one and I have always been one. I have never been sued once in my 23 years of practice. Don't misinterpret what I say. Listen to what I say, believe what I say, and please do not ever insult my professional integrity again.
The Chair: Ms. Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: The challenge with this amendment is that you're setting a process--and many of you have talked about it--where you want to say 25 treatments or 10 treatments--
The Chair: Excuse me. Instead of “you”, could you say “the mover”?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I meant “you” as the committee.
The Chair: If it had been passed it would be the committee, but at the current moment this has not been passed, so the mover is suggesting something, not “you”.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Right.
People expressed concern about 25 treatments of this and the other, but the challenge is that each of us is different. I might have one child, and that could put such a toll on my body they would recommend I don't have another one. But the next person might be able to have five or six children, and that would be fine for them.
You can't regulate. You have to enable the agency to have its role, and through the provisions the doctors have already, you have to count on them to advise and do the right thing. There are lots of women who, without any help, go on to have 19 pregnancies, and that's their choice.
Within the framework you have to provide guidance and a process, but you still have to count on individuals to make appropriate decisions for their health, and on doctors not to endanger somebody. But you can't regulate that it's five for everybody or two for everybody, because each of us is different. Are you going to say that if the patient is 25 years old they can have six turns, but if they're 30 they can only have one, and if they're 40 they can only have half a turn? That doesn't work. You can't regulate that kind of thing. The doctor and the patient have to make the decision, based on that person's health and experience.
The Chair: Are you ready for the question?
What are you saying, Mr. Merrifield?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Can I...
· (1330)
The Chair: If you do it briefly, then we'll call the question.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, when you look at some of the discussion we've heard round the table with regard to this piece of legislation, we say we can't regulate in this area. I would challenge that, since we do regulate every day in health care in the best interests of the patient and we do it in many areas. Even Ms. Fry, I'm sure, prescribes medications the patient may not be totally aware of, and she certainly wouldn't be prescribing medications as a family practitioner for a patient coming in requesting whatever it would be. She would make the decision that is in the best interest of the patient. We do it in this area as well when it comes to the number of embryos that you actually would implant into an individual in a fertility clinic. But that's not regulated yet. Whether we put in two embryos, three embryos, four embryos, it's all part of a regulation in the best interest of that patient. When it comes to the number of harvested eggs, the number you would be able to harvest and create an embryo for the purpose of pregnancy, that also should be regulated.
Now, we're not saying we should make that decision. What we're saying in this is that it should go to the regulations where we have professional people who would make the call on how many there would actually be to accomplish the intended goal. I think it's inappropriate for us to not have this into this piece of legislation, in that we would deal with it in regulation because I think that's where it should be.
We're just saying there should be some maximums. We're not saying the numbers here. We're not saying how many. I think that's for the scientists and the medical people to deal with. I think it's very appropriate that we put this in here. We've heard a lot of witnesses through the last year and a half who have indicated that it's very important to them and it should be something we consider in this legislation.
In fact, these recommendations don't come from me. They come from this committee. This committee in its draft report put all of these in place, every one of them. That's where these come from, because very thoughtful individuals and very important witnesses came forward to recommend that we consider this very seriously. That's why they're here, and I think we should consider it.
The Chair: Do you want to comment? I was going to call the question.
Ms. Sgro.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: It's the last one here, and that's as far as we should be going, at any rate.
The Chair: Well, we can vote on this. Ms. Sgro has a short comment.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, or we can hold it off.
Ms. Judy Sgro: Or continue to talk.
The issue here for me is really simple. We have a charter of rights and freedoms. We're looking at trying to tell a woman, whether we like it or don't like it, what she can do with her body. I think at some point we have to figure out that we are not the big brothers we'd all like to be with our hearts guarding everybody's souls. We're getting far too restrictive here and we're denying a woman the right to carry and make her own decisions. I thought we'd passed that many years ago--that we had established we had rights. Frankly, I don't think we should be sitting here taking them away. That's what I feel.
The Chair: Are you ready for the question on CA-78?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Do you want a recorded vote?
The Chair: Oh, please.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: A recorded vote and the time.
Well, this session goes to 1:30.
The Chair: All of a sudden you're getting very prickly about the time.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I am about this because I think it's inappropriate the way we're going about this as well as some of the discussion.
The Chair: The mover does not want the vote taken. Shall we take it when we come back?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Take it when we come back.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: We're in the middle of a vote. You already called the question.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: No, we'll take it when we come back. We did it yesterday. We took it when we came back.
Ms. Judy Sgro: Call the question already.
Mr. James Lunney: Recorded vote, Madam Chair. I call for a recorded vote.
The Chair: I'm sorry, it's already taken. It fails to carry.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 65 as amended agreed to on division)
The Chair: We still have the room, do we, Mr. Clerk?
Okay, I've asked the legislative clerk to give us a quick summary on those issues that have been set aside, that we have yet to deal with, and that are coming back to us.
Do you have those numbers for us? Just read them out. Shout.
Ms. Joann Garbig (Procedural Clerk): Thank you, Madam Chair.
The following amendments and clauses have been stood by the committee: amendment CA-18 in clause 5, amendments CA-32 and G-5 in clause 15, amendment NDP-9 in clause 22, and amendments CA-60a and G-8 in clause 32.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Do we have the same room? Will it be locked?
We're aiming to come back at 3:30, but it depends on how quickly that vote takes place.
The meeting is adjourned.