HEAL Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, June 6, 2002

Á

1115

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.))

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

Á

1120

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.)

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Á

1130

Á

1135

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Á

1140

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

Á

1145

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

The Chair

Á

1150

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Á

1155

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Â

1200

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Â

1205

Mr. Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

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

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

Â

1210

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Â

1215

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

An hon. member

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Â

1220

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

---

NUMBER 087

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, June 6, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): [Technical difficulty--Editor]...the future planning, and I really hate it when Mr. Ménard is mad at me.

    But that's not the only purpose. The second purpose is the fact that while we had a discussion, it was not a meeting that was convened and recorded. So essentially there is no record of any kind of planning meeting.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): I would like to ask a question, Madam Chair.

    Do you think that the government wants us to table our report before the end of the session?

[English]

    The Chair: It wouldn't be a report, Mr. Ménard, it would be the bill amended.

    Actually, yes, in a formal way, it is a report, the clerk says--as I did on Monday with the pesticide bill.

    I think the minister feels that even though she was new, she heard many members of this committee, both on the government side and the opposition side, begging her to hurry and get the bill to us. I think we gave her the expectation, in a way, that we wanted it and we could do it before the House rose. So she did it as fast as she could. We couldn't get at it quickly because we were still finishing up pesticides. We actually lost a week there. But I think she would be anxious for us to try, with the realistic appraisal that it may or may not be possible.

    For example, the House is supposed to go to the 21st. There's been some gossip circulating that we might rise a little earlier than that. But I think the minister feels she gave it her best shot to get it here as quickly as she could, and she would like us to give it our best shot.

    That's my feeling.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Assuming, and it is very likely, that next week will be the last sitting week, that means that we will neither be able to hear any witnesses nor pass the bill. I would have liked to see the bill passed before the end of the session, in order that we be able to start up again with pesticides. After that, I was thinking of putting forward a proposal to study drug costs. I don't believe it would be necessary to hear from many witnesses, given that there are not many new developments. The bill is 75 or 80% the same. We could hear from eight or nine witnesses, and I would even agree to hear from them all in the same day.

    If we can, I would be ready to work next week. For example, we could try and hear from witnesses on Tuesday morning, afternoon and evening. Wednesday and Thursday, we could try and adopt the bill. We are in that sort of frame of mind. I don't want to slow the process down. We have been asking for this bill for 10 years. We have the information; I do not need much extra information. Therefore, we are ready to pass it quite quickly. I don't think we will be coming back the following week. Our house leader has told us that we will probably finish next week.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

    As I've said on previous occasions, I have a deep interest, and my colleagues in the NDP share this interest, in having a law on the books as soon as possible, because developments are occurring rapidly and as we speak. I think by the next sitting of the House in the fall many changes will have occurred, and we will not have been able to respond with any kind of legislative or ethical framework to those developments.

    My interest was always in trying to expedite the process, as long as there is an opportunity for fair hearing or vetting of concerns and some movement on the part of the government to some areas that provide opportunity for amendments around which there could be, I think, consensus. That's still my position. However, I see that my questions about what is possible before the House rises have in effect been answered by the passage of time and by the knowledge that even if we sit until June 21, it is not possible realistically to do clause-by-clause of this bill at committee and adequate report stage in the House and third reading. It strikes me that is absolutely impossible. We would have to work around the clock to do our work, get our amendments in here to get the translation done, and to do a proper job.

    So I would say, unless you can tell me otherwise, if I'm right, that it's basically impossible to do a proper job before the House rises. Then I think our second position would be obviously we're going to have to come back to this in the fall. We will at that point have to have some time to hear some key witnesses. I think the proposal before us does that, but even then, it should be done on a limited basis--we get into clause-by-clause and get a bill into the House and passed as quickly as possible.

Á  (1120)  

    The Chair: May I ask you a question? It has to do with process. Supposing we did do what Mr. Ménard said, and we did hear a series of witnesses over the course of one, two, or three days, and we got into clause-by-clause. Do you or your researchers have your amendments ready, say, in English?

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: We're getting there. Keep in mind, Madam Chairperson, I have one research assistant for four critic areas, and we have an immigration report before the committee and of course the pesticides bill. Notwithstanding those difficulties, we have given some thought to some amendments, and they would be near a stage of readiness in English, if in fact the process was expedited.

    The Chair: So you could produce, if we decided to move more quickly. I assume Mr. Ménard could. He said he has very few. I know that Mr. Bachand reported yesterday that they have very few amendments. It's not like the 220 we had on the pesticides bill.

    I mean, it is the number of amendments that tells you how long it takes you to do clause-by-clause. The Liberals may have some amendments, too, from our own members, and the government may have a clarifying or a grammatical amendment. They often introduce those through the Liberal members at this point.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Just before you go on there, I have to apologize, as I do have to leave now. But if you're drawing a consensus from the meeting, you can include me on the side of moving, if time permits and it's within the realm of possibility, to complete the process.

    The Chair: As quickly as possible.

    May I just respond to one other thing you said, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis? You mentioned getting it through the House with report stage and all that kind of thing. I can't worry about that, because that's not our job. Our job is to get it out of committee. What they're able to do with that at House leaders' meetings and those kind of arrangements, we can't be too concerned with. So I can't guarantee any of that.

    On this side, Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I've heard various opinions and I have understood that we will probably be here until the 21st. Given that, I would like to make a proposal. I simply suggest that the committee make every effort to hear from a sufficient number of witnesses on the issues where there seem to be inconsistencies between the bill and the committee's report, while bearing in mind that we want to move on to clause-by-clause study as quickly as possible.

Á  (1125)  

[English]

    The Chair: So that is Dr. Castonguay's opinion. It seems to go along with that of both Mr. Ménard and Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Would anyone else like to comment?

    Mr. Ménard, and then Mr. Szabo.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: I don't think we can get it through third reading by the end of the session, but as far as our work is concerned, could we not try and organize ourselves so that Monday and Tuesday we would hear from witnesses, which means that we must ask the clerk to start summoning witnesses immediately? We could hear from them on Monday and Tuesday from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m., for example; after 8 p.m., having started at 10 in the morning, everyone has had enough. Could we agree that we could hear from witnesses on Monday and Tuesday, and that on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, we would try to get through the clause-by-clause study? We would try and hear from witnesses full time for two days. Today is Thursday, which gives the clerk the opportunity to... We would start with the witnesses who live closer to Ottawa: it would be no problem for the Conference of Catholic Bishops. A lot of the witnesses could come for Monday. We would try and concentrate the witnesses over two days and dedicate three days to the clause-by-clause study. We have four amendments, which is not the end of the world. On the other hand, we want them to be agreed to. That is not a threat, but a strong statement.

    An hon. member: How would you say that in English? Strong?

[English]

    The Chair: I think Mr. Szabo wanted to speak.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    First of all, I've had some discussions with the minister with regard to areas that are open to possible changes. These are still ongoing. They have to do with only a couple of areas. I hope to find out soon what they're prepared to consider.

    It would be useful for the committee to know where the minister was somewhat open. We should also remember that the minister said very clearly to a number of people that the committee is the master of its own fate, and that she doesn't direct what the committee does. Notwithstanding this, I think any reasonable person would say, if you're in your last two-and-a-half weeks, before you're going to be gone for three months to four months--who knows?--wouldn't it be nice to tidy off everything you had done? Because I think that's a logical inclination.

    But Ms. Wasylycia-Leis made a statement two meetings ago, or a week ago today, I believe, where she indicated that she was concerned that, if the House were to prorogue, all of our work would be lost and we'd have to start all over again. I made the point at the last meeting that since the bill has passed second reading, under the rules of the House, the bill will be able to be reinstated, albeit with a new bill number, at the same point in the legislative process that it was at when the House prorogued. So the concern about losing work should certainly not be a concern.

    The other point is that a number of questions have been raised. I think the members have all received the package I sent out on June 3, which included some 30 questions. We had a chance to talk to the officials on a couple of them.

    The first one concerned me greatly, because, in her address to the House on second reading, the minister made a statement about the concept of “necessary”, or whether embryonic use or embryonic stem cell research was necessary. She indicated that the independent ethics agencies would be making that determination, and not the agency, whereas the bill itself clearly said that the agency was going to make that determination.

    This is very important. It really is the crux. It's a very fundamental area, what is necessary, because the health committee report of December 2001 had the significant recommendation that no licence should be granted for embryonic stem cell research, unless it could be demonstrated that there was no other non-embryonic source that could achieve the same research objective. That's not a quote, but it's the gist of it.

    This is where this word “necessary” comes in. It's an undefined term in the bill. I think it might be difficult to do, but I would suggest that it should be to more fully reflect... In fact, the minister's speech in the House did in fact use those words, that it was “necessary” to use embryos. And that's not understood in the bill right now. So there is this contradiction between the minister's statement, and what her intent is, and what the bill is.

    The second question that caught me when we were here with the officials at the last meeting had to do with fertility clinics. One of the questions was, “What was the relationship between a fertility clinic, which would presumably be in the possession of surplus embryos, and researchers?” I asked the question specifically, “Do fertility clinics sell the embryos to researchers?” This would be a prohibited activity under the current legislation.

Á  (1130)  

They said they didn't know. The officials said that they did not know. It causes me some concern, because this is the line of research-sourcing...and ultimately out there.

    Now, there is a significant section in the bill on privacy. Privacy issues are relevant, I think, because it has a lot of clauses there. I really feel that the Privacy Commissioner should comment on that and give the committee some idea as to the issue of identity disclosure only with the consent of the donor. I think that is a substantive point that probably has to be pursued.

    Madam Chair, I could go on. You have the list to do with conflict of interest, commercialization, co-modification questions, the free and informed consent.

    We know that free and informed consent refers to a piece of legislation that deals with consent, but not with informed. The fertility clinics have their own documentation, and we're not sure what constitutes informed. I'm not sure whether the committee has received any advice or suggestions or representations as to what would constitute informed, full and free, voluntary--and I'm not sure how we get there--but they're also indicating that we're importing gametes, which effectively is sperm. But from the draft bill, you couldn't do that, unless you could demonstrate that at the first point of contact with the donor you had satisfied all of the preconditions that the CIHR guidelines had proposed, which I assume will somehow either be reflected in the bill or in the regs.

    I probably could come up with a list of a few other items, but I don't want to take up the time, Madam Chair. So that the committee will not lose time, I would humbly suggest that any questions the members have with regard to this bill should be discussed, perhaps as a committee-of-the-whole type of arrangement here, to determine whether it's necessary to get further information from either Health Canada or from any other witnesses to satisfy that informational needs were met. The members will then have an opportunity to consider amendments for the committee to consider, but they will be based on knowledge rather than on for instance, try what you want and we'll discuss the propriety of your amendment.

    I would rather defuse or relieve the process of someone coming back and, say, putting in 50 amendments, because they'll just say, I have a concern with that and I want this deleted or I want conditions put on it. The question resolution process may in fact clarify for the committee what areas should have consideration for a commitment.

    Finally, at the last meeting I referred to Dr. Dianne Nancy Irving, who had done a complete clause-by-clause analysis of the bill, with commentary. Yesterday it was given to the clerk. It is in the process of being translated. There is a substantial number of suggested amendments to the bill.

    I'm not proposing that those amendments be tabled by anybody, but if a doctor who appears to be a biochemist, a biologist, etc., with a PhD suggests that serious consideration should be given to some of these amendments, I think the committee should satisfy itself at least that these issues raised by this qualified person, apparently, this expert, in fact have been properly addressed by the committee.

    Who knows what's going to happen over the coming days? We may all be out of here in a week. My fondest wish is that this committee would come out with a bill that closely reflects the report of December 2002 to the extent that it's relevant to this bill, because this bill is slightly different from the draft legislation that you considered, but the principles are not.

Á  (1135)  

    I also hope that when it goes, we won't get to a point where members are frustrated and we have to resort to report stage motions, which will further take away from the good work of the committee.

    It's basically, let's find the informational needs, let's consider changes, and then let's go forward. Don't do the witnesses first. Find out what the informational needs of members are, and then determine what witnesses are necessary to satisfy those informational needs.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, I would like to caution the committee.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Lunney had his hand up.

    Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    First of all, you made a statement earlier that our job is to get this bill out of committee. I'm sure that's not what you really intended to say.

    The Chair: No, no. What I meant was that in comparison with what the House leaders decide about when it comes for report stage, how many hours of debate and all that, all those questions are beyond our scope. So this discussion is not about whether we can get royal assent to this bill before the House rises. I have to define the discussion within the parameters of what our legal responsibility is--that is, to deal with this bill as we see fit, and then maybe to report it in the House, which is the last step.

    What happens to it after that, we can't try to figure out or have any control over, really.

    Mr. James Lunney: I accept that. I'm just concerned that we may lose track of our job insofar as some of us understand it, which is to present to the House a bill with amendments that will best serve the needs of Canadians and set the stage for the next ten years of successful regulation.

    The Chair: Oh, no, you're absolutely right. We agree.

    Mr. James Lunney: I just want to make sure that in our rush,under time constraints here, we don't lose track of that, which is our primary objective as far as most of us are concerned.

    There are a number of very serious concerns that still exist in this bill, I think, and one of them, for me, is the import and export of gametes. That is a big concern. We have drugs such as Propulsid being mail-ordered into the country here, and we have the death of Vanessa Young, a young woman. We have restrictions on the sale of Propulsid in Canada, but it's coming in by mail order, through Internet orders, as are a whole host of other drugs we can't regulate.

    I'm wondering, where on earth are we coming from? A question I raised the other day with our officials was, how can we control the import of gametes coming from goodness knows where? Are we going to send a team of Health Canada experts down to Nicaragua, to Slovakia, or somewhere because some clinic is now importing things from goodness knows where with who-knows-what regulations? Then you are going to have to send interpreters. We have enough trouble with interpretation here. If we're looking at documents that are not even in our language in a lab in some country in the third world and trying to determine whether the labelling on a sperm donor is accurate, we're opening a terrible Pandora's box on an issue like this.

    That's just one issue. Of course, there are issues of anonymity. The issues Mr. Szabo has raised here, about a term being defined accurately in legislation, are very important. If something is not defined accurately, then it cannot be considered as covered by the legislation. There are some very serious concerns about loopholes, and we know what lawyers and systems do with loopholes.

    Many reproductive procedures are not mentioned and therefore fall outside the jurisdiction of the bill. If that's true, I really think we really need to take a look at this and make sure we're capturing in the bill what we intend to actually regulate with the bill. We want to make sure we don't do a slipshod job after all the hard work the committee has done.

    To do this in the time constraints with the witnesses we do need to hear... I recall a witness relating something about import and export and the police. Perhaps we should hear from him again, because he did make some recommendations about the control of Internet ordering and things like that.

Á  (1140)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunney.

    Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, I want to caution the committee. I think that we can decide to have an ideological debate and hear from another 75 witnesses. I am well aware that there are people around this table who have ideological concerns and I respect that, as a member of Parliament. This has to do with the concept of the beginning of life, with our ideas about conception and with the issue of stem cells.

    However, even if we were to hear from 50 witnesses, I do not think that Mr. Szabo is going to change his position. I am able to respect that, but I do not think that hearing from witnesses... For example, the concept of informed consent is very clearly defined in Canadian law. There is case law. The bill is inspired from what already exists and from previous court decisions. I do not see what new light the Privacy Commissioner could shed on this, all the more so because this information is protected under the bill. This is not information that is destined for broad public use.

    Secondly, what I understood—and perhaps we could ask for some research to assist us on this—is that importing gametes is forbidden. I never heard it said... It is clearly prohibited under the Criminal Code and it is clearly forbidden under this legislation. If people do it, it is done illegally, and it is up to the appropriate authorities to enforce the law.

    Why do we need further witnesses to tell us that? Therefore, we could do a...

[English]

    Mr. James Lunney: It's not prohibited in the bill.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: All imported biological material is subject to Health Canada's regulatory controls. This is true for all biological material, which includes gametes. That does not mean that there aren't any, but what else will the forces of law and order come and tell us?

[English]

    Mr. James Lunney: It's not banned, though.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Can gametes be imported from the United States without any regulation?

[English]

    Mr. James Lunney: Yes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: What we will find in the clinics will not be subject to federal regulations.

[English]

    Mr. James Lunney: It's regulated; it's not prohibited. I think you need a witness or two on that, Réal.

    The Chair: It's regulated and not prohibited.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: It is regulated; that is what I am saying. I am stating that it is regulated, and that it is Health Canada that is responsible for it.

[English]

    Mr. James Lunney: Obviously you don't understand the bill very well.

    The Chair: Order.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: My fear, Madam Chair, is that we use an ideological debate as a pretext. No matter how many witnesses we hear, they will not change the opinions of people who have opposing views.

    I would like to remind Mr. Szabo that we have been working on this for eight months. The role of the opposition is not to be deaf to witnesses. If we had not worked for eight months... You know just how tiresome I can be, Madam Chair, but we have been working on this over the last eight months.

    We now have 18 potential witnesses. We can hear them over three days at the most, if we had three meetings. Therefore, let's not get into ideological debates. Mr. Szabo has to sit down with the minister, who has to settle a certain number of issues, but he cannot transfer a debate that should be happening in caucus to the committee, because that does not make any sense. If clarifications are needed, I absolutely agree that this should happen, but I do not want the committee to become a hostage to those who want to wage a pro-life crusade and who want speak to defend ideological considerations.

    Canadians, Quebeckers and members of the House expect new legislation as soon as possible. The Canadian Alliance, in its recommendation, Madam Chair, asked us to table a bill as quickly as possible. Well then, that is what we must work towards. If we were to work every day next week, say from 10:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m., we can get a serious amount of work done, but I hope that we can count on all the members around this table not to hijack the committee while they pusue their ideological concerns.

[English]

    The Chair: Madame Scherrer.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I would like to come back to certain statements that you made at the outset and that Mr. Ménard has repeated, Madam Chair. It concerns the mandate that was given to us by the former minister and by the present minister. I feel that, as a committee, we had all agreed that we should move quickly and study this bill. We wanted to study it as quickly as possible and bring it back to the minister. I think we have managed to do that and that we now have a responsibility to ensure that we do not have to call all the witnesses back.

    I agree completely with the logic of Mr. Ménard's comment as regards moral debates on the subject and I feel that at our age, in light of our backgrounds, our personal experience, we have made up our minds on this issue a long time ago. I was looking at the list of witnesses and I saw that we wanted to summon the Conference of Bishops to talk to us about the moral debate. I do not think we should go back over that. Personally, my mind is made up and I imagine that most people's minds are made up and that a 10-minute presentation from the bishops is not going to make any difference.

    What we heard yesterday—I think that there is some agreement around the table on this—concerns the difficulty of dividing the process, that is to say to hear from witnesses and to come back in the fall for the clause-by-clause study. It was becoming very complicated and we would probably have to start from scratch. I support what Jeannot and Mr. Ménard have said: Why do we not speed up the process? If we hear from the witnesses, let's take on the clause-by-clause study afterwards, so that the same people who heard from the witnesses, who participated in the discussions of the last eight months be the ones who decide on the bill, rather than hand it over to another team that will have to listen all over again...

    Let's select witnesses from the list that we have been given. We don't have to hear from all of them. I believe that we do not need to hear from those who will bring up the moral debate. In any case, personally speaking, I do not feel the need to review all of that: it will not change my mind.

    I agree with my colleague: we should speed up the process of hearing from the witnesses, if there are still areas we have questions about, and let us move as quickly as possible to clause-by-clause study.

    If that really does not work, we can deal with that and make a decision, but I think that if we can agree on speeding up the process in order to ensure that the same group of people who heard the witnesses will decide on the amendments, it could be quite quick.

Á  (1145)  

[English]

    The Chair: Madam Sgro.

    Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): I don't want to go ahead and redo the bill all over again, after what we've already done. I think we've heard a lot of people. We should focus our witnesses, though, on the areas that, clearly, as listed there by the clerk, differ from what we originally wanted when we sent the draft bill in.

    As well, I think there are a couple of areas about which Mr. Szabo has issues he has raised that we might want to give consideration to here, in fairness, to make sure we understood them fully. Let's make the decision as to who we're going to have as witnesses, and let's try to get them in next week. I'm planning on being here until June 21--regrettably. It would be wonderful not to be, but...

    The Chair: Do you mean you want to get away from us, Madam Sgro?

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Yes, Madam Chair. I love you all, but I'd much rather be home.

    I'd like us to plan and get the information we need. There is an urgency to get this bill into the House after 10 years, as they've been trying to do, and we all feel that. But I also want to make sure that we haven't made any mistakes, that we've done the best we can. I'd like to hear from the witnesses who are listed there pertaining to the issues, and maybe one or two others who particularly have importance here and who possibly Mr. Szabo has mentioned.

    Let's move on. Who knows, miracles may happen and we may get out earlier. If not, let's plan for June 21. If we can get our witnesses lined up and if we can move forward, I think it's nothing short of a miracle. If we can do it, we're here to work. Let's try to at least get as much information in as we can and then prepare to move to clause-by-clause if by chance we had all the information we needed and we were ready to move on that.

    The Chair: There are two pretty clear positions here. Mr. Merrifield is on one side; Mr. Ménard is on the other. I'm not sure where all the Liberals are, but I'll give Mr. Merrifield one more kick at the can, and then I'm going to call the question.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: My name was mentioned often by a couple of members here. I'd really like an opportunity to respond.

    The Chair: You actually took the longest of any speaker, Mr. Szabo, to be fair. You did speak for about eight minutes, but you can defend your position.

    However, I should say that having received Mr. Szabo's questions in English--he courteously gave them to me the other day--I have handed them off to the minister to say I would like answers to these things in writing before we proceed, at least the answers that would come out of Health Canada to those things.

    We may find those are unsatisfactory--or you may, and want to tell us about that--but the fact is I am trying to get answers. You have 30 questions. My feeling is they can probably answer, say, 25 of them pretty well and if there are five left over we may want to hear another witness on those. But I'm trying to get that information processed.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Incidentally, that package was translated and circulated to all members of the health committee.

    The Chair: Yes, that's right, everybody got it. Thank you. But I want to tell you the next step.

    Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I think there are two issues. One is our work and what we do as a committee. We've worked long and hard and quite agreeably as a committee on a difficult issue for a year now. What we have before us in a bill is significantly different in many areas from what we worked on as a group.

    I'm a little alarmed we're so willing to not consider the changes and why those changes were made. And there's only one way to do it. As Mr. Ménard and others have said, we all have opinions. Fair enough. That's one thing. We have to recognize that. But we have to rely on witnesses who are experts in those areas to give us the information so that we can either change our mind or solidify that we have a comfort zone there so we can come together collectively and make a decision.

    To do that in the next two weeks is virtually impossible, from my perspective. I cannot see us getting those witnesses in here. If we want to throw all of that work away that we did last year, that's the way to do it.

    There's the other consideration, which is that the public has only seen this bill since May 9 when it was introduced. It's the first time the public has ever seen it, the first time they've ever had an opportunity to even talk about it. We're talking about very difficult, sensitive issues in this bill and the public is just now starting to consider what is all in there. For us to try to not do our job appropriately, we will be guilty as charged if we make major mistakes in this bill coming out of this committee.

    I'm not prepared to sit here under our watch and say we haven't done the job that we were asked to do and done it to the best of our ability. I'm not prepared to jam this thing through. I want this bill as much as anyone. In fact, I wanted to break this bill up into two pieces so we could get these controversial areas dealt with in another forum and the ones we all agree on to come through. I think that would have been an appropriate way to do it. But that wasn't the wisdom of the day, so we have the whole bill before us. Let's not make the mistake of destroying the work we have done and doing a disservice to Canadians because of an inappropriate bill we jammed through because of somebody else's agenda. I think it's the wrong thing to do.

    In essence, what you're doing is invoking closure to a sensitive issue in a roundabout way. It's a terrible way to do it and I will have no part of it.

    The Chair: I would remind you that we are the guinea pigs for a new methodology. Everything Mr. Merrifield said would be absolutely correct if in fact we had been handed a bill after second reading in the usual manner, which is why the environment committee sometimes takes a year to hear witnesses and do clause-by-clause--in some cases, maybe 18 months for a huge bill like CEPA.

    However, as you will recall, Minister Rock, on his first visit to us, came to us and said, I want parliamentarians in on the development of policy, but I thought you'd be better to be working with the legal language; so instead of bringing you a white paper to comment on, which is written in prose, I'm bringing you draft legislation.

    In my view, the hearings on the draft legislation and the witnesses we heard would be replicated if we went back to what I call “the old system”, which is getting a bill that has been introduced in the House and looking at it for the first time. We have done something in an unusual way. The public cannot say this subject has not been out there for a year. The number of calls I've had from media alone, the number of times you, Mr. Merrifield, have been on radio and television on this subject... It has been out there. This is not new to the public.

    What is new to the public is the difference between what Bill C-56 says as compared with what the draft bill said and what our report said.

    There are certain people who've been following this issue. They saw a draft bill, and they came to tell us about it. We wrote our report, and we sent copies of the report to pretty well everybody who asked for it. I think all the witnesses got it, plus other people called in.

    So, in my mind, the only issues that are still of some contention are essentially the basic moral issues, around which most people are not going to change their mind after having heard the testimony, and those more subtle areas where the new bill differs from our report, which we have to consider. Are we going to fight for those things in our report; are we going to fight for one or two of them or all of them? That's the kind of thing we have to get clarified in our mind.

    There is a third area--that is, those things that the bill did not include, that the draft bill didn't include either, but our report wanted addressed. One of those was the patenting issue. I have sent a letter to Minister Rock about that and asked for a response immediately. As well, there's this other issue, which goes along with the patenting, which isn't mentioned anywhere, which has to do with privacy. I would be willing to look at that privacy issue in a meeting with the Privacy Commissioner, if people have concerns about it.

    So I don't think you can say the public doesn't know about it or the public isn't discussing it. I have mail from right across the country on this. But I have to admit to you that most of it is not about the subtleties of the bill; it is about the use of embryonic stem cells. That's what 99% of my mail is about, and there comes a moment in time when people have to make a decision, if you have the responsibility of being on the health committee. So I don't think we want to hear witnesses on that subject for any more than a reminder of the issues on both sides.

    In any case, with regard to everyone who has an opinion on going slow, going fast, having more witnesses, having a few witnesses, I think those two positions have been made quite clear here this morning.

    Dr. Castonguay, did I see you writing? I saw you with your pen. Are you writing?

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: It's the motion I had moved earlier on.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Would you like me to read it again?

    The Chair: Yes, would you?

    Mr. Réal Ménard: I have a question.

    The Chair: When the motion is on the floor you can address it. Let's just hear it.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I move that the committee make every effort to hear a sufficient number of witnesses on the subjects identified where there is a difference between the bill and the committee's report, with a view to proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: I agree with Jeannot's motion, but to speak to the facts, I would like to point out that we were all given a comparative analysis of the bill, the draft bill and the new bill, and that according to this study, 75 per cent, if not 80 per cent, of the content of the bill is the same. In truth, it is not a substantially different bill.

    Secondly, could we agree on the list of witnesses? If everyone wants to hear from further witnesses, I would like, before we leave here at one o'clock... Personally, I submitted a list of four witnesses, who are all on the list except for one. The list of witnesses suits me, more or less. If I exclude Health Canada, there are 18 witnesses. At the rate of three meetings per day, it is doable by Wednesday. Can we examine the witness list? Madam Chair, are all the parties around the table in agreement on the list that the researchers have given us? We can go around in circles, but let us talk about concrete issues instead. Is everyone comfortable with this list?

[English]

    The Chair: Just a minute. Before we get to the witness list, which would be part two of this discussion, I think we should decide as a committee what the majority of members want to do. Do you want to try to follow the suggestion in Dr. Castonguay's motion, which is to get as many in as we can and to move as quickly as we can? This does not guarantee we would get to clause-by-clause, but it means at least we have a goal we agree on.

    Mr. Szabo.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Chair, with regard to the motion, the last part is to get to clause-by-clause.

    The Chair: It has the aim of getting to clause-by-clause.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes, it is our aim. It's a truism. I think we need some clarification as to the intent. Should the review of the differences between the draft legislation, the report, and the legislation yield matters, would it not be the intent of the committee to then determine that there might be additional witnesses necessary? Or would it be that we're going to do that, and notwithstanding that we might have concerns with any of that review, we're going to clause-by-clause?

    The Chair: We don't operate that way, Mr. Szabo. If a witness came on one of these articles of dispute between our report and the new bill and everybody was in an uproar about it, we would pursue that problem.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: All right, thank you. I understand it's kind of the beginning and the end. It didn't elaborate too much on what would happen in between.

    You said you had written to Minister Rock about the patent issues.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: So I assume we're not going to clause-by-clause until we at least hear from Mr. Rock.

    The Chair: I don't guarantee that, because witnesses from the departments of health and justice have told us it is beyond the scope of this bill. That may be a point of law that someone else would dispute, but the best advice we've had is that it's beyond the scope of the bill. What we're trying to do, I think, is lobby Minister Rock to get on it.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: With regard to Minister McLellan, she has indicated she is going to try to respond to the 30 questions I had submitted. Could it be a provision that we would have a response to those before we went to clause-by-clause?

    The Chair: I think I could guarantee that.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Okay.

    With regard to Dr. Irving, the committee instructed me to submit an analysis of Bill C-56 for distribution to the committee. I understand the clerk has it and it's being translated for circulation. Could we have an assurance that it will be in the hands of members before we go to clause-by-clause?

    The Chair: I really hesitate to guarantee anything out of translation.

    The Clerk of the Committee: The document you refer to is being divided up. There is a portion of it that our translators can cope with, and we should have that back fairly quickly. There is also a portion that has to be sent out to people with more technical expertise, and that may take a bit longer.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: We may have to try to get a more simple language suggestion for points for consideration.

    And finally, the Privacy Commissioner will be on this list?

    The Chair: If it is the wish of the committee. I don't think it's a bad idea.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Now, Madam Chair, let me assure the committee, because it has been raised and everybody knows my position on the moral and ethical issues, that none of my questions were directed at them. I don't intend to change my view and I know everybody else doesn't. I have no intention whatsoever of asking that anybody be called here to bring up a wholesale discussion on that, but I have some very, very serious concerns that I raised in the 30 questions that have to do with other matters.

    Dr. Freda Miller was at that special meeting that was called by Dr. Bennett a couple of days ago--I guess it was Tuesday morning--and Dr. Miller has done this work of getting skin to be heart cells. She has three patents that she wants McGill University to defend. McGill refused and she's now gone to the University of Toronto.

    The Chair: Yes, okay, but you're into an area that is beyond the scope of the bill. It's not an area we're uninterested in. We are interested. It's just that we're now trying to solve the problem of how to get to the bill. Dr. Freda Miller, who is a terrific person and a wonderful researcher, and her patent problems are really beyond the scope of this bill.

  (1205)  

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I understand your predicament. I'm sorry. I want to assure all colleagues that I'm not here to have a moral debate.

    The Chair: Mr. Szabo, we appreciate the fact that somebody other than those of us who sat through hours of testimony is actually interested in the same subject matter, I assure you, but I will have to keep restraining you if you go beyond what is on the table. We have on the table a motion. Dr. Castonguay has explained it. I think it's fairly reflective of Mr. Ménard's position. Mr. Merrifield has put his position out, which is against the motion.

    I'm going to call it.

    By the way, I asked the clerk a few minutes ago, because Dr. Castonguay introduced it as a motion, whether without the 48-hour period we can have a motion of this sort at a meeting called for future planning if the motion is about future planning, and he assures me that we can.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Can you just repeat the motion?

    The Chair: What it really says is, let's hurry, and let's get as many witnesses as we can, with the goal to getting to clause-by-clause. But it doesn't commit us.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: If possible.

    The Chair: Yes, if possible.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: So we should add “if possible”.

    Now, you may be misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm fine with going to clause-by-clause as soon as we can, but not at the expense of doing an appropriate job. That's all I'm saying.

    The Chair: I agree.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's all I'm saying. It's not that I'm necessarily against the motion. And I'm taking offence that the chair is saying that I'm against the motion.

    The Chair: I'm sorry.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'm looking for interpretation of the motion, then, if that's what you're saying.

    The Chair: You had told me privately that you really thought we should do this bill in the fall.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I don't see how we can do an appropriate job between now and next week.

    The Chair: This motion suggests that it might be possible to do it, and we're going to give it our best shot. So I thought you'd be against it.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well...an interpretation of the motion. I just want an intent. We're not saying we're going to give this thing two weeks regardless, and that's all the witnesses we're going to hear and away we go.

    That's not what the motion is saying at all, is it?

    The Chair: No, but it's giving us a set of parameters in a way that says we're not going to hear 45 witnesses. It's suggesting that if we focus in on these seven areas and these witnesses with maybe one or two others...and those we can get, which is another problem. That could shrink the witness list if they can't come.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, but I'm not really comfortable with that language. You're saying, okay, we have some witnesses here, and we have a few more we'd like to add, but if we can't get these, so what? We'll just carry on.

    I'm not really comfortable with that, either. I think we should do our best to get these, and if we can get them here in the next two weeks--

    The Chair: But what if they say they can't come until July 15?

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Then I guess we have to wait until fall to get our work done appropriately.

    The Chair: Okay.

    The motion is on the table. I'm going to call the question on Dr. Castonguay's motion.

    (Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

    The Chair: We'll now go to this list, and if there's somebody on here you don't think we need, or if there's someone you want to add, please put the names forward.

    Madam Sgro.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: I want to make sure that we have the Privacy Commissioner at one of these sessions.

    The Chair: When it came up just a few minutes ago, the researcher whispered to me that we tried to get that person the last time and that person wouldn't come.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: They wouldn't come?

    The Chair: This person is not the most cooperative person on staff.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Don't we have any clout? Can't we order them to come?

    The Chair: I don't know.

    What do you think, Mr. Alcock?

    Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): I think...[Technical difficulty--Editor]

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Can't we order him to come? We have some clout. Let's move a motion that he come.

    The Chair: Well, the problem is--I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Alcock--whether in fact somebody who works for him could come. That's who I'd rather have.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes, a deputy minister or someone like that.

    The Chair: Exactly, because this person is a showboat--I think, if it's the person I'm thinking of.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: It would be better to get an expert on privacy issues with regard to current law.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: May I make a point here? I have tried to work with this yahoo ever since he got appointed. I'm putting it on the record; I've been putting it on the record all over the damn country. This guy is completely irresponsible. He runs around bullying public servants. He has no clue of what he's doing--and this is an exceptionally important area. He devalues the position he holds.

    I think it's a real shame that he will not come before a committee to talk about privacy on a matter of this importance. I think his refusal to come should be noted, and then I think we should invite someone in his stead, a privacy expert, to come and talk to us about it.

    But I think this is a responsibility of his office. He reports to the House of Commons, and the fact that he behaves in this manner should be of concern to all members of the House.

    The Chair: But based upon your experience, Mr. Alcock, would you suggest that we do actually get someone else to talk to this area?

    Mr. Reg Alcock: I think privacy is an important consideration in this area. I think his office has considerable expertise in this area.

    The Chair: Somebody in his office, then, maybe.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: But if he's doing what he's been doing--and this is not new to this committee, it's the way he conducts himself--then I think we should bring in other experts.

    The Chair: Maybe the bar association knows some lawyers.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: I'm sure our researchers could identify an appropriate person to speak to this issue of privacy.

  (1210)  

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Ménard, is this issue settled or is it a new issue?

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: No, it is regarding the witnesses. I would like to suggest that there be someone from the Bar; I feel it is important.

    On the other hand, I would remove the Conference of Catholic Bishops because I do not feel that their point view has changed in any way. You recall the witness from the University of Montreal, Ms. Knoppers, who was very well versed on the issue of ethics and stem cells? She would be a good witness. I believe I had put her on my list.

[English]

    The Chair: Where would you slot her in?

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: She could come and speak to us about stem cells. Personally, I would eliminate the Conference of Catholic Bishops.

[English]

    The Chair: Well, then you would have four witnesses who are all in favour of it. The question is, do you want to even have this debate again or do you know where you stand on it? We don't have to have any witnesses on embryonic stem cell research if in fact--

    An hon. member: Why don't we go around the table and ask that question? It's a good question.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Are you resolved in your own minds on that issue, or do you wish to hear more about it?

    Mr. Merrifield, yes or no.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes.

    The Chair: You'd like to hear more.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, do you want an explanation?

    The Chair: No.

    Yes from Ms. Skelton.

    Dr. Lunney.

    Mr. James Lunney: Yes.

    The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

    Mr. Réal Ménard: No.

    The Chair: Mrs. Chamberlain.

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph--Wellington, Lib.): No.

    The Chair: No from Ms. Scherrer.

    Ms. Thibeault.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): No.

    The Chair: Mr. Castonguay.

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: No.

    The Chair: Ms. Sgro.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: I guess I know enough about it.

    The Chair: Well, say what you feel. We don't always vote the same way.

    Okay. You don't need to hear more.

    Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes.

    The Chair: I think you know where you stand.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: But this came out of--

    The Chair: These witnesses are not going to convince anybody to change their minds.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: No, but Mr. Ménard has recommended Dr. Bartha Knoppers, who is the--

    The Chair: No, no, he's suggested adding her to panel two, which is on embryonic stem cell research.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: But that's not her expertise.

    The Chair: Hold on just a minute. It doesn't matter. My question is, do we even need to hear panel two? If we've already made up our minds, why would we waste two hours?

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Is your answer yes?

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Oh, of course, because certainly even the juvenile diabetes group put together a real--

    The Chair: Don't talk about the details. You still would like to hear debate on embryonic stem cell research; it might change your mind. Is that what you're saying? That's the question.

    An hon. member: Just say yes, Paul.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes. There have been changes here.

     The issue we're dealing with isn't embryonic stem cell research. It's the wording that is different from our majority report compared with what's in the bill. It's the wording there that we need some clarification on.

    But the fundamental question you asked is, all right, what's our view on embryonic stem cell research, and do we need to hear more witnesses?

    The Chair: That's what this panel would bring us. If you want some detail about it, such as the necessity of proving that there's nothing else to use, we can discuss that among ourselves, if we want to fight for that.

    Now, seven people do not want to hear witnesses doing that particular debate, pro and against embryonic stem cell research, because they've already decided based upon all the testimony they have heard.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Madam Chair, I still wanted to hear from staff of Health Canada to go through why there are differences from what we sent on this. I don't want to get into the debate, but I want to know why they've chosen these areas to make changes, rather than going with what we had submitted.

    The Chair: All right, so that's what you want to hear.

    Mr. Réal Ménard: We had two sessions with Health Canada.

    The Chair: We had two sessions in which we should have asked that, actually.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: I thought we were going to have a session with them. They went through them in two seconds. They just read them through and said those were the areas.

    The Chair: But the point is, at this point, if we consider ourselves a team, we are the government, and Health Canada, which wrote the bill, is the opposition on those areas. They are not here to help us. They are here to defend their decisions. They looked at what we said, and they said--in that area--it's no good. They're doing it their way.

    So why do we have to have them explain, because all they'll do is defend what they did?

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Well, it's better than what I have now, because now I have no defence, period. I don't know why they made the changes they did. I'll speak to them on my own and find out. I thought that was part of what we were doing, wasn't it--finding out why they changed it?

    The Chair: Well, it's to get opinions from people on our report, vis-à-vis the new bill.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Right.

    The Chair: But I don't think they're very helpful. We had them for two sessions, and we asked them several questions. Some of them they defended quite well, and I'm resigned to their defence. In other places they didn't. And in my own head I'm thinking these are the points I'll fight, because I don't think they did defend themselves.

    Do you see what I mean? Those are the times when it is strictly us making the decision between and among ourselves.

  (1215)  

    Ms. Judy Sgro: If that's what that session was about, I didn't get anything out of them to make me feel particularly comfortable about why they made changes.

    An hon. member: They didn't answer the questions.

    The Chair: That's why I think Mr. Ménard, who is among the most experienced members around this table and actually has more experience than I do, because I've always been on--

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Wow, look at that.

    The Chair: --one or two committees... Mr. Ménard has been here on two and three committees for nine years. So his collective experience in committee work and bills is actually greater than ours, than the Liberals'.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: That's a very good point.

    The Chair: As he pointed out, there comes a moment in time when you have to decide. Now, if something comes up such as Mr. Szabo or Mr. Merrifield pointed out, where we really are at sea in our minds about it, we will slow down and put another witness on to explain it to us, as we are doing with privacy.

    Does that make you more comfortable?

    Mr. James Lunney: It sounds like closure.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: No, that's reasonable. Come on, Jim.

    The Chair: We were given four tasks this year: a report on AHR; a study on genetically modified organisms in food; Bill C-53; and Bill C-56. We did get our study in, but that was in the first half of the year.

    Of the three tasks we've been given in the second half, all we've done is one of them. There are still two hanging over.

    An hon. member: The year's not out.

    The Chair: Well, I'm a teacher--to me, June is the end. We started in September; we end in June. That's the year to me. Anyway, that's the work year.

    I would like to at least give it our best shot, and the committee has supported that position in its vote. The committee has also supported perhaps not hearing further debate on embryonic stem cell research, from the point of view of for it or against it, because most people have made up their minds, seven to three.

    An hon. member: That wasn't the answer I was giving you.

    The Chair: No, I knew you didn't understand--

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I don't want to do that. I don't want to debate whether you're for or against embryonic stem cell research. I didn't think that was what it was.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's why I asked for an explanation, and you said, no.

    The Chair: Yes, that was the question.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I misunderstood. You can put me down as a “no”. I do not want to do that.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: No, there's no point in debating that. That's why I asked initially for an explanation of what you're doing, and that's why I think you were out of order in asking--

    The Chair: I was going to take that panel out. However, Ms. Sgro has suggested to me there are details within that issue--

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's right. Now we're talking.

    The Chair: --such as whether researchers should have to prove there is no other biological material they can use, because that's where it differs.

    An hon. member: How do we do that?

    The Chair: We still need some kind of meeting on that, but it's not a debate on the merits of it.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: So you see, it's unanimous.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, my mind is made up, but to ensure that everyone feels they are respected members of the committee, why do we not leave it to Mr. Szabo and to Mr. Merrifield to suggest four witnesses for this panel? As far as I am concerned, I will go along with their choice.

[English]

    The Chair: Suggest witnesses.

  (1220)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: If each of them wants to suggest two witnesses, we will go along with it. It is part of the bill, and in that way, everyone will feel that their point of view has been respected. As far as I am concerned, my request was to hear from witnesses on Monday and Tuesday.

[English]

    The Chair: The clerk has been trying for a couple of days, since last Tuesday's meeting, to get people to come. People are resisting because they say they haven't had time to do a thorough review of the new bill, and they have other obligations. They're pretty important people, and they need time to prepare. The clerk just picked two areas and phoned the people on this list in those two areas.

    I'm now going to free the clerk to start with this list plus additions you may want to make and just keep phoning until we get some of these people to come. If they can't come, there are other people who came in the first round to talk on that subject who might be able to. In other words, this was the first shot of the researchers to pick the very best people, the people who were the best communicators on the subject. In that vein we do have Abby Lippman and Madeline Boscoe, scheduled for next Thursday. They were both very good as the overview people.

    Do you want to add some witnesses? Let's hear about any additional witnesses you would like to hear from you didn't see on this list.

    Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I agree with Mr. Ménard about Dr. Bartha Knoppers. She is with the University of Montreal, and she is also the head of the international bioethics committee of the International Human Genome Project. The area there is substantively how this research is important, but the commercialization and patentability issues also fall within her stuff. She knows the whole bill, and she knows it as well as anybody.

    The Chair: We are not going to hear from her on everything she knows. All we want her to do is comment on the bill as to where she thinks there is a problem that could be amended.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: She is prepared to do that.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I suggest Suzanne Scorsone.

    The Chair: Suzanne Scorsone. Isn't that funny; I just gave that name to the clerk about five minutes ago as my suggestion.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Dr. David Prentice would be one.

    The Chair: He's just going to come and talk against embryonic stem cell research.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: No, he'll give us information so hopefully we'll be able to understand about essential biological material and the wording in that clause.

    The Chair: Can he talk to stuff such as importation?

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I don't know. He's from the States.

    The Chair: We had him. He talked against embryonic stem cell research with a whole bunch of moral and religious reasons as to why not.

    An hon. member: And biological reasons.

    The Chair: And biological reasons, yes, but the point is, the committee members have already decided they don't want to hear that adult-versus-embryonic debate again.

    Mr. James Lunney: But you can't totally exclude the rationale for deciding what biological material is appropriate.

    The Chair: If you want to have him, I guess it's your choice. So that's a name.

    Is there another name?

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: We have some other names that we want on the regulatory body, and I think that's the most important piece of this piece of legislation.

    The Chair: It would probably be helpful--or do we have somebody?

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: We'll work on some witnesses.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Dr. Lunney, did you have anybody?

    Mr. James Lunney: Yes. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has done a comparative analysis of the bill and the changes from our report. I think it would be constructive to hear from them.

    The Chair: Okay, as long as he's not going to spend his whole time talking against embryonic stem cell research.

    An hon. member: He's very thorough. He did a very good job.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Anybody over here? One more. Mr. Szabo, the non-member of the committee.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I don't want to use it as mine, but I think on behalf of the whole committee, it would be probably useful, since the CIHR did in fact come up with the guidelines they were proposing for Health Canada, if they participated with regard to the regulations and whether or not the areas in which the bill does not allow them or would require changes in what they were proposing to this committee and therefore would have to be proposed in the regulations.

    It's interesting to me that we've talked about the draft, the report, and the legislation, but one of the most significant areas that was included in the CIHR guidelines they were going forward with--now they've deferred funding until April 2003--was the commercialization issues. It prohibits any commercial transaction between the donor and the other person, but once it gets to that other person, whoever it is, it's free ball.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: No, it isn't. In their guidelines it is, but in our guidelines it isn't.

    I don't want to have them come and complain. We advised that. It is this committee's authorship of that, so we're not going to wobble on that.

    What we're trying to do is come to conclusions, Paul. We're not trying to open up arguments and let people have a second kick at the can.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I understand that, but I just thought that since they have been a key player...

    The Chair: No. They didn't give us any courtesy about putting their guidelines out.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I understand that. Then I would recommend Dr. Timothy Caulfield on the commercialization question. He's written a book called The Commercialization of Genetic Research.

    The Chair: Okay, Tim Caulfield. We accept it.

    What we want to do is end this meeting. People are getting really edgy.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Oh, I'm sorry.

    The Chair: Yes, Dr. Lunney.

    Mr. James Lunney: Madam Chair, the issues I've raised about the import of gametes...

    The Chair: Yes, I wonder if we can find somebody on that.

    Mr. James Lunney: There was a police officer who testified. I don't know if there's somebody else who can help us on that.

    The Chair: Can I ask the research staff to write the wording down--import, export, commercialization--and try to find somebody who could address it?

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: There was another question on equivalency that the witnesses last time couldn't answer on the Quebec...

    The Chair: Well, we have that. The Pembina Institute has done a lot of work on that with the environment, on equivalency agreements. We'll have Health Canada come and defend what they're saying and the Pembina Institute come and challenge them on equivalency.

    What we'll try to do is have a for and against on these issues that were kind of not solved.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'm just not sure the Pembina Institute will...

    An hon. member: What do you mean by equivalency, Madam Chair?

    An hon. member: Provincial equivalency.

    The Chair: Can I end the meeting and we'll talk it about it after?

    The thing that I'm most worried about... I'm glad to have this feeling that we know what we're doing, but I'm still concerned about the clerk and his staff trying to get these witnesses. It will take quite a bit of focus, but if he can get somebody, even if it's at a weird time, I'm going to tell him to get them and quickly get the notice.

    So I'm going to ask you to keep your staff very alert when you come back next week because if we can get some of these witnesses, even if it's at a weird time of day, these notices are going to go out. They have to be alert to them and I'm going to expect perfect attendance. It will only require about five or six meetings, maybe seven, maybe eight, but no more than that. The goal is to try to get it done next week.

    I don't think we can get anybody for Monday, even though I appreciate you suggesting that, Mr. Ménard. The thing is that these people are resisting, from the point of view of needing time. But now if we can get to them, they'd have the weekend to prepare.

    Thank you very much for your attention, people. I think you worked hard.

    This meeting is adjourned.