HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, February 9, 2000

• 1544

[English]

[Technical difficulties—Editor]

The Chair (Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.)): ...there is a problem with the French and the English, so I'm going to ask for unanimous consent to go back to subclause 10(3). The parliamentary secretary, Mr. Charbonneau, is going to put forward the amendment...

[Technical difficulties—Editor]

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, in subclause (3) of clause 10, there was a problem with the use of the words “may be paid” in English, while the word “reçoivent” was used in French.

I would like to propose the following French wording, which in our opinion seems to be a better equivalent of the English wording:

(3) Le gouverneur en conseil peut fixer les honoraires que les membres ne faisant pas partie du conseil d'administration reçoivent pour leurs services.

• 1545

The words “peut fixer” seem to be the equivalent of “may be paid” in my view, and that's what we are proposing instead of “reçoivent”.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 12—President)

The Chair: Are there any questions on clause 12?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): A question was raised by the Canadian Healthcare Association during the hearings on this bill. I don't believe it was answered, so I'm wondering if we could get it addressed now. The question is why, in this bill, the president of the CIHR and the chairperson of the governing council are one and the same person.

In the brief that the CHA presented to us, the point was made that this “flies in the face of many governance and management models which stress transparency and accountability.” The brief actually said very clearly, “CHA has not been able to ascertain why the government is suggesting this model.” I think, by implication, CHA is suggesting that it's not in full keeping with the principles of transparency and accountability, so I'm wondering if we could get an explanation on that point.

The Chair: Mr. Rivard, could you explain that to us, please?

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I don't believe this is the proper place to raise that particular issue. It's directed toward compensation and benefits. The actual role of the president and the governing council are discussed and defined elsewhere, so I would suggest it is not appropriate at this stage. It wouldn't exclude discussion at some later stage, possibly at the comprehensive review of the bill.

The Chair: Can we hold off, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, until such time?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are there any other questions on clause 12? No?

(Clause 12 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 1)

(On clause 13—Members of the Council)

The Chair: Are there any questions? Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Chairman, this clause of the bill concerns the remuneration that may be paid to members of the Governing Council, that is fixed by the Governor in Council. Could we get an idea of just how much compensation would be involved if this went forward today? Also, I'd like to know the difference between the Government Employees Compensation Act and the regulations of the Aeronautics Act.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard (General Counsel, Health, Department of Justice): The amount of compensation has not been fixed. It would not be. It would be fixed as part of the Order in Council that would appoint the members.

As for the second question,

[Translation]

the Government Employees Compensation Act

[English]

basically creates a workers' compensation regime for public servants. It basically says that if you are a federal public servant and you are injured on the job, you will be paid the compensation that you would be entitled to under the workers' compensation of the province in which you were working.

• 1550

[Translation]

The Aeronautics Act and its regulations

[English]

establish compensation for somebody injured or killed while flying as part of their job.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions?

(Clause 13 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 1)

(On clause 14—Management of the CIHR)

The Chair: Are there any questions? Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Since this is an important clause, Mr. Chairman, we could examine it more closely. In paragraph (a), we read “developing its strategic directions.”. I think that's fairly standard. In (b), we read “evaluating its overall performance”. I'd like you to give us a little more information on what's involved. In paragraph (g), we read “establishing policies respecting consulting... with persons and organizations that have an interest in health research”.

I'd like you to give more details regarding paragraphs (b) and (g).

The Chair: Mr. Richard.

Mr. Pierre Richard (Executive Director, Transition Secretariat, Canadian Institutes of Health Research): Mr. Ménard, we read in paragraph (b):

(b) evaluating its overall performance, including with respect to achievement of its objective;

This is obviously something that the Governing Council will have to do. It will be up to the Council to decide how it wishes to go about this.

At this point, I don't know whether I can give you more details on how it will do this. It could use external, or even international, consultants. It's something that is proper and will be part of the mandate.

Mr. Réal Ménard: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... for the Medical Research Council, and this will be a separate operation. For example, the minister will have to table a report on the evaluation done of the Research Institutes, and there will also be a departmental performance evaluation. We might therefore imagine that the indicators used to evaluate the department's overall performance will perhaps slightly influence the evaluation of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. However, there will be two separate processes for which the minister will continue to be accountable.

If we, parliamentarians, have questions to ask regarding performance, we will have to put them to the Minister of Health, even though, in the legislation, the Minister of Health may not always be the spokesperson for the Research Institutes. Do I have it right?

Mr. Pierre Richard: You are quite right.

With regard to paragraph (g), which reads “establishing policies respecting consulting... with persons and organizations that have an interest in research”, it goes without saying that these institutes really make up a large family of the research community. I would say that, in the last year, this family has already grown as new communities joined. It is very important to keep up the contacts between all these research communities, as you will well understand. It will be up to the Governing Council to ensure that these two-way communications continue.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Martin, you have an amendment.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): I have two, actually. This is for Bill C-14, clause 14, and it's amendment R-11. It states that the bill will be amended by adding the following:

(2) When approving the budget under paragraph 14(1)(c), the Governing Council shall not allocate more than five per cent of the CIHR budget for the year to administrative expenses.

Where this came from was my meetings with Dr. Friesen. When I asked him what percentage of the budget would be utilized for administrative expenses in order to ensure that the maximum amount of money was going to be used for research, he assured me that the absolute maximum would be 5%. That's why I put this amendment forward: to ensure that this is going to be a pattern of practice for the foreseeable future, and to ensure that the maximum amount of money is going to get to the researchers.

• 1555

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are there questions on this? Yes? Well, before we get to you, Monsieur Ménard, we do have a bell that's ringing. It's a half-hour bell, so we'll vote at approximately 4:20. It's for Orders of the Day. We may keep that in mind in light of how we want to progress through these clauses. We'll probably leave here at approximately 4:10, with your agreement.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: The Reform Party's amendment is very timely. At least two witnesses had come to suggest this type of amendment. For our information, could you tell us what are the administrative expenses associated with operating the Medical Research Council? Are they less than 5%?

[English]

Ms. Karen Mosher (Executive Director, Medical Research Council of Canada): We have never exceeded a threshold of 5% for administrative costs in the MRC, but I think it's important to keep in mind in this context that the MRC is a very centralized operation. The CIHR do contemplate a more distributed structure, with offices distributed across the country. We have found in recent years, particularly with investments in information technology and information management, that we are pressing the 5% ceiling.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Does that seem realistic to you? Although I realize that we are bound to show some judgment in this respect, could we parliamentarians be certain that, when the provisions contained in this amendment are applied, this proportion would be realistic?

[English]

Ms. Karen Mosher: That's your assessment, but what I can say is that we have committed to minimizing administrative costs as an organization. The 5% has served as a salutary benchmark, but I think we would have some challenges in trying to maintain a strict 5% ceiling as we move forward, particularly in the start-up.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I think we'll vote on the amendment as put.

[Translation]

Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: We are opposed to this amendment for the following reason. A ceiling of 5% on administrative expenses is, in our view, a commendable level. We have seen the experience of the Medical Research Council, which has managed its affairs and kept its administrative expenses below 5%. However, we realize that this organization has a well-established routine that has been in place for years.

With the institutes, we will be turning a new page, we will be entering a new era in medical research. We will be adopting a new way of operating. In the first few years, the transformations will be more comprehensive and it will perhaps be necessary to hold extra meetings or create working committees to set in motion the whole transformation.

We, on the government side, also approve of the scope of the work involved, but we do not want to write it into the bill. It would be a pointless constraint that would prevent us, if it proved to be necessary, from upping this percentage for one or two years and then dropping back to 5% or to 4.5% two years later. We must leave this organization alone and allow it to start up the whole range of its new operations, given the need to review the research strategy from A to Z. In our opinion, it would be a pointless constraint under the circumstances.

The research community would also be sure to bring the institutes back into line if they were to spend too much on what were considered administrative expenses. Scientists want to see whether the financial resources allocated to the institutes are used for research. They, too, are very vigilant. In any event, every year, the Standing Committee will have an opportunity to do any necessary fine-tuning and ask questions.

[English]

The Chair: Very good. Thank you very much. I think that puts it in perspective.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 2)

The Chair: Mr. Martin, you had another amendment.

Mr. Keith Martin: We must try again.

The Chair: We must indeed.

• 1600

Mr. Keith Martin: This is Reform amendment R-12. The important points of it say that no less than 20% of the research portion of the budget be allocated to basic scientific research, and that no less than 20% be allocated to researchers who have no private sector co-funding.

The rationale behind this is that if one of the prime objectives of the CIHR is to develop greater cooperative partnerships in the private sector—which is a laudable endeavour—the problem is that we know the benefits of basic research are very difficult to quantify in the short, intermediate, and even long terms. The concerns I have are that basic research is going to suffer in this institution, and that somehow we have to ensure that basic research is going to get the funding it requires and won't be shovelled under the table because private sector institutions are going to be less inclined to invest in basic research because the payoff is not as evident.

Those are the reasons why I put these two in. They're very important, because I think one of the concerns in this endeavour is that basic research will be shunted under the carpet. People doing basic research from which incredible discoveries can occur in the future will suffer, and as a result our overall research capabilities will be weakened if our basic research capabilities are weakened.

I really implore the government members and my other colleagues to look at this very carefully, and to support it. To not do this will, in my view, have a detrimental effect on basic research and, as a result, on our overall research capabilities in the future of our nation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Charbonneau, would you care to take it from there?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I would like to point out that this amendment, somewhat like the preceding one, would have the committee or the House of Commons do the work that should normally be entrusted to the Governing Council of the institutes.

This bill brings fairly substantial changes in the manner of conducting research: better inter-disciplinary integration, the study of health determinants and the inclusion of a range of factors. We are going beyond the field of traditional research as we know it. We are in the process of rewriting the definitions of “basic scientific research”, “in-depth clinical research” and “health care systems”. The familiar signposts will be called into question in this inter-disciplinary process. You wish to earmark 20% to this and 20% to that. We think that these are artificial divisions and that the decisions on these issues should be entrusted to the very skilled people who will be brought together around the Governing Council's table and in the advisory committees that are supposed to guide this Governing Council. We are creating a body that will bring together experts who will be able to spend much more time than we parliamentarians on allocating funds according to priorities and examining the overall situation. It is not up to us to say that 20% should be spent on this, 18% on that and so on and so forth.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Unless I hear something which convinces me otherwise, I tend to agree with the parliamentary secretary, but I want to be sure I understand our colleague's reasoning, since he is a physician and therefore is probably more familiar with this sector.

Why does he believe it is necessary to insist on pure but not applied research? Second, what are the implications of subsection b) for the private sector? Some areas will probably build alliances, but not others. I want to make sure I understand the reasoning behind this amendment.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you very much for your question. It's a good one.

[English]

The reason behind it is very important. I think there are two competing influences within this new institution. This institution will have a different and innovative way of thinking from previous ways of funding; however, in the new institution there are two inferences. One is an overarching drive to have private sector involvement and private sector co-funding for projects. That's understandable, because it demonstrates to the public, to the taxpayer who is funding this, that there is private sector interest in the research that's going on. However, in basic research, which I've done before, there is often no identifiable reason why this research should take place.

• 1605

In the new organization of CIHR, where you have this very strong drive to ensure that this co-funding in the private sector is going to be there when it doesn't necessarily have the long-term interest that an institution will have in research funding, that basic research is going to suffer. And this is not only a concern that I have, but one that many researchers in this country have at a very high level. For example, Dr. Polanyi, our Nobel laureate, had that concern, as do many others.

Somewhere along the line, I think I would disagree with my friend Mr. Charbonneau. We have to give some kind of protection within this institution to make sure that basic research is not going to suffer. The Governor in Council—and maybe our friends from the department could clarify this—has an obligation to ensure that there will be co-funding from the private sector. There will be an obligation to show short- and intermediate-term benefits from the research that is going to be funded by the CIHR in combination with the private sector.

So for basic research, in my view there's a very big danger that it's going to fall into a big black hole, and that's going to compromise our ability to engage in cutting-edge research.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Does somebody want to quickly clarify that? Ms. Wasylycia-Leis can then end the debate on this.

Ms. Karen Mosher: I won't speak about the ratios that are suggested in the amendment, but I will clarify things in terms of the current funding pattern. Support for basic science is now in the neighbourhood of 75% to 80% of our expenditures. Our programs that are linked to industry, while they are important, constitute less than 3% of our overall budget. The kinds of ratios that are projected in the amendment are therefore actually quite a significant departure from the distribution that we have today.

Mr. Keith Martin: Under the CIHR?

Ms. Karen Mosher: I can't address that—

Mr. Keith Martin: That's what we're referring to.

Ms. Karen Mosher: —but it would be a very significant departure. I think it would require quite some time, given the long-term nature of our funding commitments, which tend to run for five years. It would be quite some time before you would see a big shift, a dramatic shift with that kind of ratio.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, go ahead quickly, if you would, please, because we are running out of time.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'll just make two quick points. I'm wondering if this amendment is in fact, in any way, shape or form, an attempt to address the witnesses we had before this committee, the individual scientists who were concerned about having part of the funds set aside for individual scientific endeavour, basic research, regardless of where that research was going. It was sort of free-floating, exploratory basic scientific research. If not, is there any other way in which we...? I guess my question is about how this committee responds to those folks who made that appeal to us and who continue to send all kinds of letters and faxes and e-mails.

The second point is to say to my colleague from the Reform Party that, while I appreciate the spirit of this amendment, I have some problems with a specific allocation of resources for basic research. I think we have a problem, because it leads to the question about the other areas identified in this new concept as being really important breakthroughs with respect to health research.

I think the community and the groups that we heard from are far more concerned about whether or not, given the influences of biomedical research and clinical research folks, this new body is going to have the wherewithal to actually pursue cultural, economic and social determinants of ill health, and to do the kind of community-based research that this bill is supposed to be able to do.

So while I recognize what you're saying, I think if we're going to do that, we have to look at all areas and figure out how we'd actually give some direction to the new CIHR.

• 1610

The Chair: Well, we're not going to get into the debate here. We're going to wrap this up. I think we all understand the points on the table. We'll have the clerk call the roll now.

Mr. Keith Martin: I need to ask one quick question. It's really important.

The Chair: Very quickly.

Mr. Keith Martin: How do we protect basic researchers in this situation, in order to ensure that basic research does not get swept under the carpet?

Ms. Karen Mosher: I think the legislation calls for attention to the four themes, to the four disciplines, in terms of making sure there's an appropriate balance and a standing committee, indeed, that is charged with addressing the thematic representation and robustness across the CIHR.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 2)

The Chair: Shall clause 14 carry?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a couple of more amendments that I haven't submitted in writing but was prepared to do orally.

The Chair: We'll have to—

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I could submit them in writing if we're coming back tomorrow.

The Chair: No, we're coming back after the vote.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Is it okay to actually do a couple of amendments even if they're not in written form?

The Chair: Yes, that's fine. We try to be flexible.

This meeting stands adjourned for the vote. We'll come back immediately following the vote.

• 1611

• 1651

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to do something perhaps slightly out of the ordinary here, with your concurrence, and operate as though we have a quorum. We don't really, but we will operate as though we do. We'll hold all votes until we do have the quorum.

In the meantime, it's my understanding, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, that you have at least two amendments you wish to bring forward. If you don't mind, and if Monsieur Ménard does not mind, and the rest of the members don't mind, we'll just proceed. Once we have Mr. Martin come, and Mr. Szabo hopefully, then we'll—

Mr. Réal Ménard: We have to finish at 5:30.

The Chair: Yes, we're going to finish at 5:30, but in the meantime we can hear what Ms. Wasylycia-Leis has to say. We'll go through the discussion and then we'll hold the votes until we have a quorum.

Is everyone in agreement on that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Great. Thanks.

Let's go.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I have two amendments for clause 14. I apologize for not having printed copies and translated versions of these amendments, but I will read them slowly so that you will know exactly what I'm doing here.

The first one would be to amend paragraph 14(e) by adding subparagraph 14(e)(i), which would read:

ensuring that where such funding is in place for the conduct or support of clinical research, women are included as subjects in each project of such research; and members of minority groups are included as subjects in such research;

The Chair: Do you wish to speak to that now?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, maybe I should try to explain this one.

Members will recall that we had some presentations from various groups on the whole issue of women's health. I've spoken of this previously. I've made amendments to try to ensure that this bill and the new institutes of health research integrate the whole notion of gender equality and gender analysis.

As you know, Mr. Chairperson, I haven't been successful to date in terms of getting gender parity on the governing council, which I think is a fairly fundamental issue here. I'm quite disappointed that we haven't been able to at least get something as basic as that in this new council. However, I think there's still room to make improvements to this bill.

I would reference, in making this amendment and describing this amendment, in particular the presentation made to this committee by Linda DuBick from the Prairie Women's Health Centre of Excellence, who appeared before this committee on December 2. She did an excellent job of addressing this committee and describing the work of the communities, supported by this government, around women's health. She talked about the women's health strategy our Minister of Health had described on March 8, 1999, went on to describe the funding from this government for the centres of excellence for women's health programs, and talked about the kind of work they've been doing and how much more needed to be done on that basis.

One of the points they have made over and over again is that women's health is much broader than areas of reproductive health. Often women's concerns in the area of health are set aside in terms of reproductive health issues. Just to paraphrase some of my own feminist colleagues in this regard, we're talking about more than “boobs and babies”, or as some have said, more than “tits and tots”.

• 1655

That's the point of this amendment, to ensure that when we start moving forward on innovative, transformative research proposals, the whole range of women's health concerns are included and specific measures are taken to have the impact of health measures on women addressed very carefully and very specifically.

I wanted, in that context, to reference a recent article that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press and that reflects some of these concerns. Penni Mitchell wrote the article, entitled “Old boys control research”. In it she said:

Women have a long list of grievances with medical research. Here, in no particular order, are some of the top female complaints. We are ignored. A popular example was the all-male study which found that Aspirin prevents heart attacks. The results, it was later discovered, weren't transferable to women.

We are under-represented behind the closed doors where research agendas are set.

We're expected to be grateful for ethically questionable research, such as giving healthy women drugs which increase their risk of endometrial cancer and fatal blood clots in order to postpone the onset of breast cancer for a wee smidgen of them. When will these guys get it right?

I think that's the question we all have to address in this committee, because this is the opportunity to address those concerns and to broaden our whole focus on health research when it comes to integration of gender. The point of this motion is to ensure that women's unique health experiences are recognized and studied by CIHR researchers.

In this regard, the hope is to look beyond referring to reproductive health matters to include such conditions as cardiovascular disease, arthritis, HIV/AIDS, and many other issues. These and other conditions may affect women and men differently. We need the provision in this bill—

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, excuse me for a minute.

You have a point of order, Mr. McWhinney.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Could we have the text of the amendment before debating it? I think we should have it in writing.

The Chair: We allowed some latitude, in fairness. She had indicated that she had two verbal ones.

I think you have the text in front of you. It's just not translated.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: That's correct.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Oh, it's in front of us? Excellent. Where?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: No, it's not in front of you. I have it here, in a document, but I didn't circulate it because it hasn't been translated.

I'll read it into the record again.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I will allow it to be handed out despite the fact that it has not been translated, since it is hard to understand something when you don't have the text in front of you. So even it has not been translated, and if my colleague agrees, you can distribute it.

[English]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I didn't bring a copy.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Oh, you don't have a copy.

[English]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Could I read it once more? Would that be of assistance?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: There's not even an English copy.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... is an issue which has been argued before the Supreme Court of many countries. It is difficult to resolve these issues without anything in writing.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that our colleague is intimately familiar with the intricacies of the law, but since this is a Bolshevik-type amendment, and I mean that in a good way, I think we should let him argue his point.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: The issue can be debated from a political point of view, but it's harder to make the argument as it applies to an amendment to a bill.

An Hon. Member: Bolshevik?

Mr. Réal Ménard: In a good way.

[English]

The Chair: We're going to see if we can get a copy. I think the point's a good one. We'll get a copy. I think we understand it.

What we'll do is quickly ask one of the officials to respond briefly on some of the points made, and then we'll have Mr. Charbonneau comment.

Monsieur Richard.

Mr. Pierre Richard: Mr. Chair, I'd like to point out that in the preamble to Bill C-13, page 1, line 20, there is reference to this:

WHEREAS Parliament believes that health research should

address the respective health issues of children, women and men and of the diverse populations of Canada,

be characterized by a transparent approach that facilitates accountability to Canadians, and

take into consideration ethical issues;

Given that the governing council will be, we know, a very diverse group of Canadians, I think we can feel comfortable that these issues will be addressed appropriately through the mechanisms. With the annual reporting mechanisms, we will see what the results will be.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll take Monsieur Ménard first, and then, Mr. Charbonneau, you'll wind up.

• 1700

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the first part of the amendment refers to women. It alludes to a clearly identified group. But I would need a definition of minority groups. Is it the same definition as the one contained in the Employment Equity Act? For instance, does it include gays, the handicapped and Caucasians? We need to know exactly what you mean when you talk about minority groups. Surely you recognize that this is a potentially exhaustive list.

I realize the amendment is trying to be all-inclusive, but we have to be specific.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: French Canadians.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Not French Canadians, Mr. Charbonneau. It's been a long day and you're tired. You just don't say that anymore. It's not in our main amendment anymore.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: What do you call the people who live in Saint-Boniface?

An Hon. Member: You've already talked about this for an hour and a half.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: What do you call the people who live in Saint-Boniface?

[English]

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Monsieur Charbonneau, do you want to bring us up to speed on this?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: As you can imagine, I will not be the binder boy on this issue—

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: —because it's a new one. Just from my own brain, I would not be inclined to vote for it. Paragraph 14(a) speaks for itself:

[Translation]

a) developing its strategic directions, goals and policies;

c) approving its budget;

The Governing Council will be given the mandate to review the entire situation. The Governing Council will have to closely study every aspect of its mandate as described in sections 4 and 5 and the other ones.

If you start giving different mandates to different groups... And don't forget there's a problem with definitions. Minority groups are mentioned. In Manitoba, French Canadians are a minority group. That's probably not what you were thinking about, but you probably could argue the case. There are also francophones in Alberta and British Columbia. What exactly do you mean?

I think we can solve these issues by keeping the bill fairly general. If these groups are not adequately covered, we can always come back to the matter later. There will also be periodic reviews, and the Standing Committee on Health will be able to decide whether a group has been adequately covered or not, after hearing from such groups or sub-groups, and will be able to resolve any problems if need be.

It's the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies and not the parliamentary secretary who has just spoken.

[English]

The Chair: Very good.

Thank you very much. I think we've had a good discussion and debate with respect to this amendment. We'll call the question and the clerk will call the roll call.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 2)

The Chair: You had another one, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I appreciate your tolerance with respect to these amendments, which I did not previously submit—

Mr. Réal Ménard: And the tolerance of all the members.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'll apologize to all the members—

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: —and indicate that the next amendment is in front of you, in English only. It adds new paragraph 14(i), reading as follows:

(i) introducing and maintaining gender mainstreaming throughout the CIHR institutes and activities to recognize that health policies, programs and services affect women and men differently.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Richard, perhaps you could comment briefly on whether that's covered elsewhere.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: May I just explain briefly the purpose behind this amendment? I realize, Mr. Chairperson, you may believe I've fully addressed this topic in my previous remarks. However, there are a few additional points to be made.

First of all, some members may wonder what is “gender mainstreaming”. I think we have to put this in the context of the responsibility we have to ensure that the work that was begun, much of it under this government, around women's health research has to be carried on if we are truly going to address some of the very serious problems in our society today in terms of health and well-being.

• 1705

This bill, yes, makes a very good attempt at addressing the need for community-based research to look at economic, social, and environmental determinants of ill health. And it does reference in the preamble the issue of women and men. I think we've all, through the course of this committee, commended the interim governing council and the government for ensuring that there was a very specific reference to women and men in this bill. But it stops at the preamble. There is no further reference to ensure this work is carried on, and I'm afraid, as many are, that without the specific references and integration into the structure of this body, we won't necessarily see that kind of work continue.

The presenters before us made several suggestions. They said there should be gender parity on the governing council, there should be gender mainstreaming in terms of all institutes, and in fact there should be a women's health institute. This bill doesn't get so specific as to make recommendations on specific health institutes. That is up in the air and is a decision that will be made by the governing council. So there are no guarantees that even a women's health institute will be a part of this new configuration. So we have to make darn sure that whatever makeup of health institutes is put in place, gender mainstreaming is part of that whole framework.

And just to remind members of this committee what is meant by the term, I will quote from an article that clearly defines the topic. Whether you say “gender mainstreaming, gender lens, or gender-based analysis”, the tool, although new to Canada and not yet widely used, has been part of this government's discussions when we have raised other issues. It's certainly part of their whole policy framework. It is a way to ensure that every policy issue is looked at from the point of view of impact on women and women's health.

So it's a very straightforward concept. It doesn't threaten or change the nature of this bill. It doesn't upset the balance. It doesn't harm the concept envisaged here in any way. I would suggest to the committee members that, as a bare minimum, we look at this amendment to at least in part address the concerns that were advanced to us in such a serious way.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Some might argue that this should be ruled out of order, because it substantively is similar to what we've already talked about. However, I think it's important to have the discussion, so I'm not going to do that.

I'd like to hear briefly from Monsieur Ménard, I'd like to hear from Mr. McWhinney, and then we'll have Mr. Charbonneau wrap up and we'll call the vote.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Before we wrap up, I have a question of order.

The Chair: Yes?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: We don't have the French version of that.

[English]

The Chair: That's right.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: The translators didn't translate the term.

[English]

“gender mainstreaming”.

[Translation]

In the French version they kept the term

[English]

“gender mainstreaming”.

[Translation]

This has no meaning for me. I don't understand the expression.

[English]

“gender mainstreaming”,

[Translation]

and there doesn't seem to be any easy translation for it because the same term is used in the French version. Could an effort be made to tell us what it means?

[English]

The Chair: Okay. We'll try to see if we can do that. In the meantime we'll have Monsieur Ménard—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I wouldn't want the NDP to get into the bad habit of bringing its texts in English only. I don't want to slow down the process because it's in our interest that Bill C-13 be passed as soon as possible, but please, be a bit bilingual.

[English]

The Chair: I think that's a given. We're having a little latitude here today, but it won't happen again.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I appreciate the comments.

The Chair: It won't happen again.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: There's a problem with understanding this and I want to make sure I do understand the meaning of your proposal.

Mr. Charbonneau is right in saying that the translation does perhaps not do justice to what you're looking for. In the provisions of the bill addressing the process of how the institutes are to be set up, do you want us to write in that a research institute on women's health should be automatically set up? It's not a matter of parity within the structure. It's a matter of the direction of the research if you want an institute dedicated to women's health. Is that the objective you're trying to attain with this amendment?

• 1710

[English]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The purpose of this amendment is not to specifically recommend a specific institute on women's health research, although I may yet propose that amendment later on, depending on what the committee feels based on these amendments. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the issue of gender-based analysis is part of every institute set up under the CIHR, so that in fact, just to use the words of the—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Wait a minute. I want to understand.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Of course, we understand that the fact of being a man or a woman means that there's a difference in the area of health determinants. That's why women, on average, live longer than men. Some say that is because they are more in touch with their emotions, but that's another debate. Through your amendment to clause 14, you would like us to say in the policies that the research carried out is going to be different for men and women. Be specific. What is the effect of that going to be on the implementation of the bill? Sometimes, you're a bit of a theorizer. In concrete terms, what will it mean?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Theorizer?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Theorizer. We have to know what it's going to mean.

[English]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: “Gender mainstreaming”,

[Translation]

what does that mean?

[English]

The Chair: In fairness, we're trying to work that out and see if we can come to a conclusion here.

I'm going to allow the question, very quickly.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Let me try to answer that very quickly.

We're talking about gender-based analysis, so that you look at every policy and every research proposal from the point of view of the impact it will have on women, because in fact policies and research proposals may have a different impact on women from on men. So it is absolutely essential that you....

The member, Mr. Szabo, missed my opening remarks about the way in which women's health has been treated and considered over the years, and how in fact his own government has begun, through the women's health strategy, to appreciate the differential impact and to know that in many cases you cannot apply the same standards. You have to look through the eyes of a woman in terms of a particular policy. You have to apply a gender-based analysis in order to be able to ensure that a policy, a drug, or a treatment is going to do what it's intended to do. It may have the opposite impact on a woman from on a man, or it may have the same impact.

Consistent with any policy of government—and you've recognized this in other areas—there must be a gender-based analysis in order to reflect those different realities.

The Chair: Okay. We're going to hear from Mr. McWhinney at this point.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: I have a suggestion related more to preserving the integrity, in the sense of wholeness, of the piece of legislation. It's a general rule of prudent drafting to avoid too many amendments or subamendments of individual clauses.

A witness addressed attention to the preamble, the third “whereas” clause. I don't know the history of this bill, but evidently an earlier committee addressed this, because they've taken the second part of the third “whereas” and put it in as paragraph 4(l). I wonder if this wouldn't, in respect for the wholeness—or as I called it, the drafting integrity—of the bill, be better addressed if one took the first part of the “whereas” and interpolated it just ahead of paragraph (l). The policy imperatives that our colleague opposite referred to would be amply guaranteed there.

There is a difference between the preamble and the substantive part. A preamble establishes philosophical parameters, but except in constitutions, as such, it's not controlling, whereas if you put it in the substantive part, it is. So I suspect the large objective you're looking for would be better achieved by what I'll call, for want of a better term, new subparagraph 4(k)(i), just before paragraph (l). Because somebody in an earlier version of this committee clearly lifted the second part of the third “whereas” and put it in as paragraph 4(l).

I think this would help the drafting and avoid the necessity to make amendments to a series of later articles.

• 1715

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Paragraph 4(1) concerns investments. It doesn't make sense.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. McWhinney, I'm going to cut in here, if I might. We can think about those things, but I think we want to deal with this amendment. If we're not comfortable with it here, I think we should defeat it. Having said that, I'm told from the translation people that there is no clear translation for what you asked, so that might make a difference in how you vote as well. Based on the good discussion we've had, I think we understand where everyone's coming from.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: As a very quick point of clarification, here's a 10-word definition of “gender-based analysis”. It describes a process that assesses the different impacts of proposed and existing policies and programs and legislation on women and men.

The Chair: Great, thank you.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: It's “mainstreaming”.

The Chair: Yes, “gender mainstreaming” is what we have to translate.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: It's not “analysis”. “Mainstreaming” is the word.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 2)

(Clause 14 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 2)

The Chair: We'll move on to clause 15, but I will remind you that, based on the discussion, any amendments forthcoming will be translated and they will be in advance.

(On clause 15—Delegation)

Mr. Réal Ménard: Can I ask a quick question?

The Chair: A very short question.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Why can't those powers be delegated?

[English]

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Maybe I can explain what they refer to. I guess ultimately it's a policy choice that these are matters that are of such significance that they should remain, in all cases, in the hands of the governing council. But paragraph 14(a) refers to developing the strategic directions, goals and policies, and paragraph 14(c) pertains to approval of the budget. So those are obviously considered two key issues.

Clause 16 is the obligation to provide advice to the minister. It was felt that this should come from the entire governing council when it's requested.

Clause 19 is the authority to make bylaws.

Clauses 20 and 21 have to do with the creation, oversight, review, and amendment or changes to the health research institutes. Again, it was felt that this was sufficiently important that it should remain the responsibility of the governing council.

Subclause 22(3) is the payment of fees to members of the advisory board.

Subclause 32(1) is the preparation and delivery of the annual report. Again, it was felt that this should obviously come from the entire governing council, not a committee or whatever.

Those are the exceptions.

The Chair: Mr. Rivard, in fairness, that gives us a good overview. I'm very conscious of the time. We want to end at 5:30. I was hoping to get to clause 21 today. I know clause 20 is going to have some more amendments, so I'm going to ask that clauses 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 carry severally, which means they carry all at once. I hope we can have agreement on that.

• 1720

Seeing no disagreement, we're going to call the vote.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question with regard to clause 15.

Is it typical in other legislation to have a delegation clause?

While you're thinking about it, I'm asking that in the context of whether the governing council is delegating and basically relinquishing its responsibilities, or is it seconding the activity but still maintaining the responsibility? What's the intent?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: In all cases, ultimately, the governing council remains responsible, because it is, at the very least, answerable for the decision to delegate to a committee, or to the president, or whatever. This clause is a product of the desire to allow flexibility for the CIHR that it can make use of over the coming years and, conceivably, decades.

Essentially, all the authorities of the CIHR are put into the hands of the governing council, and then it is given an ability to delegate some of those decision-making authorities to, for example, the president. So it may, for example, adopt a budget and then say the president can approve expenditures up to a certain amount. That's the thinking that underlies it.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I was concerned because the advisory board may include people who are not members of the governing council.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The governing council will obviously have to exercise wisdom in deciding what authorities it delegates and to whom.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, it just struck me that the exceptions here are basically the principal responsibilities of the governing council, and probably under no circumstances could you delegate them. So it is almost a moot point.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: To go to the root of sovereignty, it can't be delegated.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion?

If I have general agreement, we don't necessarily have to take a recorded vote of that.

(Clauses 15 to 19 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 20—Establishment)

The Chair: I know Ms. Wasylycia-Leis has at least two and perhaps three amendments. Is that correct?

While you're finding that, Monsieur Ménard has a question.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: This is surely the clause that concerns the Bloc Québécois MPs the most. The first time we heard about this bill, we got the impression the institutes would be independent. Mr. Richard accepted to make a presentation and he did so with an enthusiasm that honours him. Of course, we are favourable to the fact of investing in research and development, but when we read the bill a bit more closely, we can see that there's a single institute only and that the Governing Council has considerable powers. So, despite what's being said, the institutes won't have the independence they're said to have and that is of great concern.

How can you reassure us insofar as it's the Governing Council that will be setting up the institutes? If equipment is acquired by those institutes, the Governing Council becomes the owner. The policies, the budgets, the orientation and the strategic choices will have to be passed by the Governing Council. Especially that there's no guarantee that the provinces...

I don't have to be the one to tell you that historically—and this will please Mr. Charbonneau because this is a non-partisan and very generous comment, which is the kind I usually make—Quebec researchers obtain 33% of the funds granted by the Medical Research Council of Canada. We were happy with that. Can we be assured that this scenario will hold in future in view of the definition in clause 20?

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Who wishes to take this one? Monsieur Richard.

• 1725

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Richard: Mr. Ménard, I can say that the enthusiasm I showed at our first meeting is still increasing as we elaborate the concept of the institutes and we get closer to implementation.

The bill gives the authority to the Governing Council. The interim Governing Council, which, as we speak, is going ahead with designing the operational workings of the CIHR, hopes to be granting enormous responsibilities to the 10 or 12 institutes that will be established.

Some examples are well set out in the bill concerning the setting-up of the advisory committees for the institutes that will include people from the community who, in turn, will play a very direct role in the operations of the institute and setting up strategic plans that will be submitted to the Governing Council on an annual basis. So, it's an organization that will be very decentralized on the operational side. Although the bill gives the responsibility to the governing council, the authority, from day to day, can be given to the institutes themselves. We see that as an organization...

Mr. Réal Ménard: Give me an example. The wording of the bill does not support that statement. We may perhaps be able to count on the good will of the decision-makers, but the wording of the bill is clear: the Governing Council decides on the strategic plans, appoints people and sees to the equipment. Give me specific examples.

Mr. Pierre Richard: Here's what's anticipated. To avoid the debate on the nature of the institutes, let's just talk about institute B, for example. Institute B will have a scientific director as well as an advisory board of directors. One person on that board will answer to the Council. So the scientific director of the institute and the head of the advisory board will go before the Governing Council every year to present their long-term strategic plan as well as their business plan for the coming year. They will ask the governing board for such an amount of money for institute B and will present their business plan to support their request. There will be sort of a competition between the institutes to obtain the money. They'll get the money based on their priorities and their ability to attain the objectives set out in clause 4 of the bill. The institutes will be very aggressive. They will be made up of researchers from one end of the country to another who will meet virtually. Some institutes will have up to 500 researchers and others might have up to 2,000.

We very firmly believe that the institutes will be autonomous and have quite an influence on the Governing Council. The Governing Council will not be able to remain mute or not listen to the demands that are expressed.

As for the provincial aspect, Quebec does very well with the Medical Research Council. You mentioned 32%. I think the figure is accurate enough. How well will Quebec succeed within the CHIR as compared to Canada's other regions? That remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: there will be more money available to researchers. The researchers will have to work as a network as far as possible to get that money. We will build on the strength that presently exist all across this country and develop those sectors that are perhaps a bit underdeveloped at this point.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Richard. I think what you're saying is that we heard evidence prior to having the clause-by-clause consideration. I think it's a very good point, but I think we want to make sure we understand it fully, and I'm convinced that we do.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, bring forward your two amendments.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Actually, I have three.

The first one, which is in your package in both official languages, is that Bill C-13 in clause 20 be amended by replacing lines 33 and 34 on page 10 with the following:

(4) The Governing Council shall appoint to the Advisory Boards an equal number of women and men who are

The Chair: Perhaps you could bring forth your amendment number 8 as well, because it's pretty much the same.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Certainly. I move that Bill C-13 in clause 20 be amended by replacing line 38 on page 10 with the following: “appoint women and men who”.

The Chair: I think we need not get into a discussion and debate on this. You're being consistent, and I applaud you for that. But at the same time, I think we've heard the arguments before, so we're going to call the question on the two amendments.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Just so members will understand, the most important point here is the search for some way to ensure equality between women and men. The proposal to have equality on the governing council was defeated earlier by this committee. But we are now dealing with the clause on the advisory boards of the governing council, and it would not be contradictory for us at least to adopt gender equality for the advisory boards of the governing council. I think it would help us at least address many of the concerns we heard from groups who appeared before the committee. It's the fundamental issue of citizenship and equality that's being proposed today.

• 1730

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll take the vote on the first amendment, number 7, and apply it to the second.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 2)

The Chair: The next amendment is number 9. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Did we vote on both of those?

The Chair: Yes, we did. We applied it to the second.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Did we do number 8 or 9?

The Chair: We did numbers 7 and 8. We applied the vote to number 8. You're now on number 9.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I move that Bill C-13 in clause 20 be amended by adding after line 2 on page 11 the following:

(5) The members shall not, directly or indirectly, as owner, shareholder, director, officer, partner or otherwise, have any pecuniary or proprietary interest in any business which operates in the pharmaceutical or medical devices industries.

Mr. Chairperson, members will recall the debate we had on this earlier. My concerns still stand, and I would hope those concerns are shared by others around this table and that there's a willingness to address the possibility of conflict of interest and to ensure that in the final legislation we pass in this House there is in no uncertain terms absolute provision made for avoiding conflict of interest.

Without going over all of the arguments, I think we as a committee need to take steps to deal with the very significant influence of multinational corporate interests in terms of health research and health policy. I don't think we have to look very far to know that every day there's some evidence of that influence being exerted over this whole policy field. I would hope that when it comes to something as innovative as transforming the way in which we approach health research, we would build into that bill provisions around conflict of interest to ensure that the public good is always paramount.

The Chair: Thank you very much. You've made a very good plea, and we've hear the arguments before. We'll call the question.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: If I'm not mistaken, these people will be deemed to be employees. Is that correct?

The Chair: Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The members of the advisory boards are deemed to be employees for very limited purposes, essentially for purposes of workers' compensation.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I'm asking whether or not they would therefore be subject to conflict of interest guidelines for employees. If that's the case, then....

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I believe they would be, but it's not a product of the legislation. It's a product of the terms of the conflict of interest guidelines.

Mr. Paul Szabo: It says in subclause 22(2):

The members of an Advisory Board are deemed to be employed in the public service of Canada

Mr. Glenn Rivard: It says “for the purposes of the”—

Mr. Paul Szabo: It says “for the purposes of the Government Employees Compensation Act”.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: This is the workers' compensation provision.

Mr. Paul Szabo: That is the workers' compensation.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Yes.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Okay. So is the answer to the question that they're subject to the federal conflict of interest guidelines for public service employees?

Mr. Ted McWhinney: It's very specific, and therefore it would exclude what's not included.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes, that's why I'm....

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Basically what this means is that if they are injured in carrying out their job as an advisory board member, they can recover workers' compensation according to the scheme set out in the Government Employees Compensation Act. That's all it goes to.

Mr. Paul Szabo: The members raised an issue of conflict of interest. The real question is: how does this legislation provide protection with regard to conflict of interest situations?

• 1735

Ms. Karen Mosher: I could speak to that just from the context of the MRC practice in this matter. There's no direct counterpart in the MRC structure for what is proposed in the institute advisory boards, because we don't have that arrangement of institutes, with scientific directors and IABs. This will be a new institution or a new creation that will require the development of policies within the CIHR construct.

If we extrapolate from the MRC experience, the only committees that have decisions on funding of particular cases within their purview are our peer review committees and our science and research committee. The other advisory committees are providing advice on programs, priorities, and partnerships, but they are not actually in the loop for making decisions on the assignment of resources.

We do have conflict of interest policies and practices with respect to our peer review committees and our science and research committee.

The Chair: Are there additional questions?

Mr. Paul Szabo: Clause 14 outlines the responsibilities of the governing council and gets into some fairly specific items, among which conflict of interest or development of policy with regard to conflict of interest is not included.

I raise it because I know that the Canadian Nurses Association and the Canadian Medical Association—and, I suspect, if I checked the transcripts, other groups—did raise basic questions about transparency, about that neighbourhood of discussion. I think it's important to listen to the concerns they raised in order to provide every opportunity to ensure that there are not going to be difficulties.

Just as we raised the issue about highlighting paragraphs 14(d) and 14(e)—specific emphasis here—I think that was point that came out in the testimony and is, I guess, being referred to by the amendment. More specifically, those are fairly specific, but I think the broader question of conflict of interest does not seem to be addressed here. I guess I'm asking if we have other legislation that is the same or similar in nature in establishing agencies. For instance, there is the Revenue Canada revenue collection agency; that addresses the responsibility of that new board to establish conflict of interest guidelines if they're not specifically covered under the public service contracts or something.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Does the natural remedies council have that too?

The Chair: Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: First, the governing council members are OIC appointees, so they are covered by the conflict of interest provisions. Not all of the authorities of the governing council are in clause 14. They pop up, as it were, throughout the bill. In preparing this, a specific decision was taken that all of the authorities pertaining to health research institutes would be put together, as it were, in clauses 20, 21 and 22.

I draw your attention particularly to subclause 20(3). It says:

The Governing Council shall develop policies respecting the role and functioning of Health Research Institutes and their Advisory Boards and Scientific Directors.

That could certainly include the development of conflict of interest guidelines for the appointments of members to the advisory board.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I'm not satisfied that we've addressed conflict of interest generally, never mind the specifics that the member raised in the amendment. I think we should seek some counsel on whether or not this would be appropriate.

I think there might be consensus among the committee members to ensure that there is some foundation or some specific directive, because the concern about the transparency issue about potential conflicts of interest seems to have been raised by witnesses in the testimony. Without having the umbrella of the public service conflict of interest provisions and with the fact that all of these advisory boards can have people who are not on the governing council, we have a whole host of people out there who can be involved in many of these groups and organizations.

• 1740

What is our reasonable expectation when we are recruiting these people? Can we realize simply that the board should carry on good business practice, as it were, and that obviously they're going to do this? Or should we respond to the specific concern that was raised about the need to exercise due care in an area where concern has been expressed by major groups and organizations?

The Chair: Mr. Charbonneau, can you help us out here?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: On a point of order. With all due respect for the question raised by our colleague, I will ask you to look at the clock. I don't know if this could go on for another 10 minutes or an hour, but it is past 5:30 p.m. and I would ask you to adjourn this meeting immediately. We will resume the debate raised by my colleague Szabo at the point where he put his question and we will hear the answers. We will give him enough time.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, the government wishes to pass clause 21 on the periodic review. I know that you want this. If this is your wish, we could pass it because there's no amendment being put forth. We could stand clause 20, pass clause 21 and leave.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. I'm going to ask that we stand clause 20 and that we adopt, because they really are straightforward, clauses 21 through 25. We can carry severally—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, Mr. Chairman. Let's just go to clause 21 because other matters have to be thought out. I think we had agreed to go as far as clause 21. So we could adjourn now and come back tomorrow. If everything goes well tomorrow, we could deal with the rest of the amendments. I know that you trust me for that.

[English]

The Chair: We agreed on clause 10, so I think we'll support clauses 21 and 22. On the vote on clause 21, I'll apply it to clause 22.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Okay.

The Chair: All right. So we'll stand clause 20, agree to clause 21 and apply the vote to clause 22.

(Clause 20 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to)

The Chair: This meeting is adjourned.