Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 30, 1995

.0912

[English]

The Chairman: I call to order the meeting of the committee of the Department of Health dealing with Bill C-95, An Act to establish the Department of Health and to amend and repeal certain Acts.

I'd like to resume consideration of clause 2.

I welcome back before the committee the representatives of the Department of Health. I will be asking them if they have anything to add to their earlier presentation, but before I do that I would like to bring to the attention of the committee a request from Lori Stoltz, who is a lawyer with the firm of Goodman and Carr, who is the counsel to the HIV-T group currently appearing before the Krever commission.

Basically, she had written to request the opportunity to appear. I got this yesterday and tried to get a hold of Ms Stoltz, but I spoke to her only this morning. I explained that we had heard witnesses, that we were going to clause-by-clause consideration at 9 this morning, and that the best I could offer was that if she wished to put the concerns of the organization she's representing on paper, then I would see to it that members of the committee received it.

I understood that procedurally, if something compelling needs to be done to the bill, then amendments can be made at report stage.

That was what I felt would be the likely disposition of the committee, but I thought I should bring it to the committee so it would at least be aware of the request.

Generally, I explained that the debate had been going on - I couldn't recall exactly when it started - and that there was an opportunity to appear, and that this opportunity, for all intents and purposes, has passed and we are moving on, and that we welcomed the interest and would entertain such a written submission.

.0915

Does anyone on the committee want to speak to that?

[Translation]

Ms. Picard (Drummond): I did not want to speak to that issue. I simply wanted to ask you how we will proceed, since it's the first time I sit on a committee studying a bill clause-by-clause.

Also, I have to leave at 10:30.

[English]

The Chairman: Perhaps I could ask...the procedure in terms of clause-by-clause. I missed part of the question. Is the question on how we proceed?

[Translation]

Ms. Picard: Yes, that's right. You have amendments, so do I. What is the most efficient manner of proceeding? I don't quite understand the procedure.

[English]

The Chairman: I will defer to the experience of the clerk.

[Translation]

Ms. Picard: Thank you.

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: The subcommittee will proceed to clause-by-clause. The chairman has already called clause 2. It will be up to the subcommittee to carry it or to not agree to it. There'll be a vote. If there is a general consensus, it carries.

The chairman will then call clause 3 and he will look at you and ask - because we're aware you have amendments - whether or not you have an amendment to clause 3. You will read your amendment, and you can give a brief explanation about your amendment. If members have any other questions, they can debate them. It will then be put to a vote. If the vote on the amendment does not carry, then we go to clause 3, and there could be questions and answers. If there are none, then again the question will be put, ``Shall clause 3 carry?'' If the amendment is carried, the chairman will say, ``Shall the amendment carry? Shall clause 3 as amended carry?'' And this is the process for each and every clause.

This book that I have compiles all the amendments according to clause and according to line. That's the way we proceed with clause-by-clause consideration.

[Translation]

Ms. Picard: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Madame Picard.

Do the officials from the Department of Health have anything to add to their earlier presentation?

Mr. André Juneau (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Consultation Branch, Department of Health): I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, but no, we don't.

The Chairman: Okay, with that, given that the clerk has explained the process, the test is whether or not what we are about to do reflects what she just described.

Clause 2 agreed to

On clause 3 - Deputy head

The Chairman: I understand Madame Picard has an amendment.

[Translation]

Ms. Picard: I move that Bill C-95, in clause 3, be amended by replacing line 14, on page 1, with the following:

Let me give you a brief explanation. I think it's normal that the committee be consulted. The House committee does not only exist to study programs or other matters and prepare reports which are destined to be shelved.

The Minister would not be obliged to do so, but it's normal that the committee question the appointees. Of course, there would always be enough government members on the committee to support the Minister's appointees, but we insist on this amendment for the purpose of greater transparency.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mme Picard.

Dr. Fry.

Ms Fry (Vancouver Centre): I just wanted to make a comment first, Mr. Chair. It is usually traditional for members who are raising amendments to give more notice than this. However, I will move on and comment on the amendments themselves. It's unusual not to give more notice than to send them in this morning. This is the first time most of us have seen them, and we weren't able even to get any research done on them, etc.

.0920

Before we consider this amendment...and I think there is also something coming out on this from the Standing Committee on Health with regard to Governor in Council appointments as they pertain to Bill C-7. That standing committee is the parent committee of this committee. But I would also wonder if the officials could comment on the appropriateness of this kind of referral.

I disagree with it. We will, in effect - and I've spoken to this before - completely emasculate the elected government, which has been elected by a majority, from doing what they consider to be appropriate to carry out their mandate.

The Chairman: Dr. Patry.

[Translation]

Mr. Patry (Pierrefonds - Dollard): Given the wording of the amendment, the Governor-in-Council must consult the House of Commons committee before appointing a deputy minister, because section 3 also mentions the Deputy Minister of Health. This means that should the position of deputy minister be vacant between December 15 and February 7, when the House is not sitting, the Governor-in-Council could not appoint a deputy minister because the committee would not be sitting either.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Patry. Dr. Fry suggested that perhaps the witnesses might speak to this.

[Translation]

Mr. Juneau: I'm in a rather awkward position, first because I only got the amendment this morning, and second because this is not a matter of health, but a matter concerning the prerogatives of the government and of a parliamentary committee respectively. As Mr. Patry pointed out, it seems this amendment would considerably limit the government's flexibility, given the implicit chronology of events contained in the amendment.

Also - again, I'm not qualified to speak on this - I believe there already is a procedure providing parliamentary committees with the opportunity to meet people appointed by Order-in-Council. But since I have not had time to research the matter, I'm not absolutely certain.

But if I could speak on behalf of the government and on the prerogative of the prime minister, who is the one to appoint deputy ministers, I would say that this amendment runs counter to the principles of our system of government, it seems to me.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, could Mr. Simard speak to this?

The Chairman: Mr. Simard.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Simard (Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Health): I don't want to speak on the merits of the amendment, but other acts which call for the creation of departments don't contain provisions for this kind of consultation process. I have with me five or six departmental acts, and none of them contains such a provision.

Ms. Picard: I just want to clarify something. My amendment does not say the Governor-in-Council "must"; it says "may". This means it is preferable, but it's not an obligation. We simply want the process to be more open; we feel it might be desirable.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Are there any further comments? Dr. Fry.

Ms Fry: I just wanted to say that the Governor in Council is not a person. This is a cabinet prerogative, not a person. There's no person called the Governor in Council.

As you heard before, it is traditional with our parliamentary system that the Prime Minister must have the mandate to appoint deputy ministers. This is specifically pertaining to the process of appointing a deputy minister, not a committee or board where we already have as a standing committee the ability to review members of boards and committees. This is a very key person in a department. This is a public servant.

.0925

[Translation]

Ms. Picard: We simply want the committee to have the opportunity to study the appointments. We are not saying that the committee should make decisions instead of the prime minister; we simply want to examine the appointment process so we can raise any concerns we may have. That's all.

[English]

The Chairman: I think we've discussed the issue thoroughly.

Amendment negatived

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to

[Translation]

Section 5 - Inspectors and Analysts

Ms. Picard: I move that Bill C-95, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 42, on page 2, with the following:

As with section 3, we want the process to be more transparent, so we believe that the provinces should know who is being nominated and be given an opportunity to express an opinion. Since the inspectors work on provincial territory, it would be preferable if the provinces could assess the qualifications of the people appointed as inspectors and have their say in the matter.

[English]

Ms Fry: I want to speak against this amendment. I think it's inappropriate.

Amendment negatived

Clauses 5 through 9 inclusive agreed to

On clause 10 - Power to make regulations

[Translation]

Ms. Picard: I move that Bill C-95, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10, on page 4, with the following:

Subsections (2) and (3) are new.

Under proposed subsection (2), the Health Committee would have to approve a regulation for it to come into force.

.0930

Under proposed subsection (3), a provincial legislative assembly would have to approve any measure affecting its jurisdiction.

[English]

Ms Fry: It's my understanding that regulations are subject to review by a joint committee of the House. I'd like to hear the officials speak to this.

[Translation]

Mr. Simard: Indeed, Treasury Board regulations adopted under that provision would be subject to the usual regulatory process. Under this process, the Joint Committee of the Scrutiny of Regulations, a joint House and Senate committee, studies the regulations. This was just a point of clarification.

I would also like to remind you that these regulations deal exclusively with cost recovery at the federal level. So this kind of regulation will probably not overlap with those of another jurisdiction.

Also, section 12 of the Act stipulates that nothing in the Act may be interpreted as allowing the federal government to impinge on a provincial jurisdiction.

[English]

Amendment negatived

Clause 10 agreed to

On clause 11

[Translation]

Ms. Picard: The proposed amendment to section 10 was similar. Since the amendment to section 10 was defeated, the same will happen to the proposed amendment to section 11.

[English]

Amendment negatived

Clauses 11 to 22 inclusive agreed to

The Chairman: Dr. Fry, you have an amendment.

Ms Fry: You have the amendment before you.

The Chairman: Did you want to speak to this, Dr. Fry?

Ms Fry: No. I think that the legal component of the officials could speak to it.

The Chairman: I've been advised by the clerk that there are some concerns about whether or not the amendment is going beyond the scope of the bill, so please speak to that.

Mr. Simard: Are we talking about the amendments to sections 2 and 27?

The Chairman: No.

Ms Fry: No. It is new clauses 23.1 and 23.2.

Mr. Simard: Let me give you the background of these amendments.

When the Department of Industry Act was adopted, the food retail program was administered by the Department of Industry, so sections 2 and 27 of the Food and Drugs Act were amended in order to allow the Department of Industry to appoint inspectors for the administration of this program. The food retail program has now been transferred to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, so that provision is no longer relevant. We felt that in order to sanitize, if you will, the Food and Drugs Act, the reference to the Minister of Industry should be taken away.

.0935

There is already a reference in Bill C-95 to those sections, so we're not referring to new sections. If you look at clause 5, there's already a reference to those sections. So this is the sense of the amendment. It's purely technical.

The Chairman: There's no difficulty. Was this moved by Dr. Fry?

Ms Fry: I so move.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clauses 23 to 31 inclusive agreed to

On clause 32

The Chairman: Do we have an amendment?

Ms Fry: Yes.

The Chairman: To clause 32.

Ms Fry: It is G-2.

The Chairman: Would you like to read it, Dr. Fry?

Ms Fry: I move that clause 32 of Bill C-95 be amended (a) by striking out lines 21 to 22 on page 11 and substituting the following:

That's part (a). There is a second part, which is (b).

The Chairman: Do you wish to entertain these one at a time, or do we want to take them as one amendment?

Mr. Patry: Both together.

.0940

The Chairman: Okay.

Ms Fry: For (b), by striking out lines 27 to 29 on page 11, and substituting the following:

This is just simple definition. It's defining.

Amendment agreed to

The Chairman: I am advised I need a second vote on part (b) of the amendment.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 32 as amended agreed to

Clause 33 agreed to

On clause 34

Ms Fry: I move an amendment to clause 34, page 12 - it's G-3 in your documents - that clause 34 of Bill C-95 be amended by striking out lines 11 to 13 on page 12, and substituting the following:

Mr. Chair, this is very similar to the last amendment and again is just a clarification definition.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 34 as amended carried

On clause 35 - Bill C-7

Ms Fry: There's an amendment. I move the amendment, clause 35, page 12 - it's G-4 in your document - that clause 35 of Bill C-95 be amended by striking out lines 20 to 24 on page 12, and substituting the following:

Amendment agreed to

The Chairman: We've carried (a). We're now moving to (b).

Ms Fry: And (b) reads that clause 35 of Bill C-95 be amended again as read, adding:

Amendment agreed to

Clause 35 as amended agreed to

Clauses 36 to 39 inclusive agreed to

Clause 1 agreed to

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the bill carry as amended?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall I report the bill as amended to the committee?

.0945

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Should the subcommittee order a reprint for use of the House at report stage, I would advise the committee that the reprint will cost about $400. So we will decide whether we wish to have the bill reprinted -

The Clerk: It could be done at a later stage by the House.

The Chairman: - or it could be at a later stage. I'm at the discretion of the committee.

You have nothing to say, Dr. Hill.

Shall the subcommittee order a reprint for use of the House at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: So that is the end of the formal part of this.

I would like to thank the officials for their kind cooperation under short timeframes. I'd like to thank members of the committee, and our special guest, Mr. Valeri.

I would also remind everyone that we'll be receiving a representation from Ms Stoltz, as I mentioned earlier. I would suggest that you look at that, and if you have any concerns, there is a process by which you could bring it to Parliament.

Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.

;