HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 14, 1999

• 0922

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, we'll call this meeting of the health committee to order.

There's no one here to move Reform Party amendments R-3, R-4 and R-5, so we'll move on to the final point with respect to the translation from yesterday.

There was a motion stood that I would ask that you consider. You'll recall that it was with respect to “the” as opposed to “some”. So I'll take you to page 5 of the bill, and I'll have Ms. Enman read into the record the translation we had considered yesterday.

Ms. Enman, please.

[Translation]

The clerk of the committee: I am reading the French version of paragraph (i) of Section 4:

(i) l'encouragement à l'innovation et le soutien d'une certaine mise en marché de la recherche canadienne dans le domaine de la santé...

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. That is the translation.

As you will remember, Mr. Martin had “the” versus “some”. He wanted that added. We now understand what that is, so we'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 2)

The Chair: The amendment is defeated. We'll now go to clause 4 as amended and have a recorded vote.

• 0925

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Is there not a clause 4.3?

The Chair: Oh, the fact that they're not here.... I've already dealt with that. We'll move on, as amended.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Excuse me. Where are we? Still on Clause 4? I have a question of Clause 4.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I asked this question yesterday, but we were discussing the amendment. I refer you to the clause of the bill where it says:

(iii) engage the provinces and voluntary organizations, the private sector and others, in or outside Canada, with complementary research interests;

We get the impression, under this bill, and my question, Mr. Chairman, is directed to Mr. Richard or...

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

I understand that the interpreter has not had time to follow my colleague. He will have to start over again.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Excuse me. I will repeat more slowly, Mr. Chairman. I am on paragraph 4(d)(iii), where it says:

(iii) engage the provinces and voluntary organizations, the private sector and others, in or outside Canada, with complementary research interests;

We get the impression under Clause 4 that provinces, as partners, are placed on the same footing as organizations. Would it not be possible to somehow enhance the cooperation with the provinces and recognize them as prime partners?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, that is really not a question we would want staff to answer. That's a political question.

If it's of a technical nature—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: It is not a political issue.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, it is—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No.

[English]

The Chair: —and they're not going to answer that. We are moving on with respect to getting to clause 4 as amended. You're asking them—and putting them in an untenable position—to answer a political question, and I'm not going to allow it.

Do you have another question of a technical nature?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, Mr. Chairman. With all respect, Mr. Chairman, this is not a political matter.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me, I would like a clarification.

[English]

The Chair: Is this a point of order, Mr. de Savoye?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: It's a question of information, if you allow me, Mr. Chair.

What is a question that is political in nature compared to other kinds of questions? Could you define that for me? This is really the first time since I was elected in 1993 that I've heard such an argument, and certainly you can inform me—

The Chair: I'll be happy to enlighten you. These people are sitting here as technical experts to clarify questions related to Bill C-13. They are not here to answer whether or not we should get into questions of autonomy vis-à-vis Quebec or any other part of Canada. So I'm deeming that a political question—

Mr. Réal Ménard: No.

The Chair: —and they're not going to answer.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Could I rephrase the question in another manner, just to make sure I understand you well?

If we were to ask our witnesses what the—

The Chair: These are not witnesses. These are people who are here to clarify the clauses technically.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: So, could we ask our friends over there to provide technical information as to the meaning of the bill and the impact of paragraph 4(d)(iii) on relations between provinces and voluntary organizations? Could they tell us why this language was chosen and what the consequences could be? It is a question on a technical matter. I am listening.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard (General Counsel, Department of Justice): There's no impact. This paragraph has no implications in terms of the status of whether it's the provinces or a voluntary organization or any other party. It simply allows the CIHR to enter into cooperation, if you will, with the provinces, voluntary groups, the private sector, and so on. It has a very limited scope.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes. Okay.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Ménard, this is the final question, and then we'll deal with—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have more questions on Clause 4.

[English]

The Chair: You may ask one more question, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No. You will not start deciding whether we can ask one or two questions.

[English]

The Chair: Take your time. Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We are going to ask all the questions we please. Do not start now. You have no right to start...

[English]

The Chair: You may ask one more question.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Not “one more”, but “three more”.

[English]

The Chair: One more question.

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, three more.

The Chair: One more question.

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, three more, three more.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I asked—

The Chair: That's what I said. He may ask one more question, and then we're going to call the question.

• 0930

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Okay. If you want to go first, that is fine. No problem.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I really would like to know the procedure.

[English]

The Chair: No. Ask your question, Mr. Ménard, and then we're getting on with life.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do not get mad. Stay calm. Yes, yes, we are going to ask our questions. Do not get mad.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Is this a point of order?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: It is a question of privilege.

[English]

The Chair: Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I am a member of parliament just like all others here. I cannot understand, with all due respect to the Chair, how you can set yourself up as a judge over which questions can be asked and which cannot.

It is your duty to ensure decorum is maintained and that our work proceeds in an orderly fashion, and not to judge the relevance or lack of relevance of our questions.

We are members of parliament, we are trying to do our job as well as we can, in accordance with our duty, and I can not see why you interfere by using the power of your office.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye, I understand what you're saying. I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm telling you that this committee is going to operate in a timely fashion. You weren't here yesterday, but we've already gone through clause 4, and now you're trying to go over it again. Well, I'm not going to allow it. Mr. Ménard has one more question, and then we're going to call the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: On a point of order.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Chairman, I think all the members of this committee have the same rights as any other member. I don't think one member should hijack this committee, drag the issues up. I asked for a vote 10 minutes ago.

The Chair: I'm going to get to that, but I'm trying to be fair here to the process. So Mr. Ménard has one more question, and then we'll go to the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, point of order. It is very important for the continuation of our work, and I am asking you this as Chairman, that you clarify for us the procedure for this committee. In a parliamentary committee, anyone can ask questions on any clause.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, you know as well as I—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have not finished.

[English]

The Chair: You know as well as I—

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm not finished. You are impolite if you interrupt me. I don't interrupt you.

The Chair: I'm telling you now.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm not finished. I want to ask my question.

The Chair: I want that microphone cut off.

I'm telling you now that we have gone through clause 4 repeatedly. You have one more question to ask, and if you're not going to ask it, I am going to call the question.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm going to decide how many questions I ask.

The Chair: No, you're not. I'm the chairman. I'm going to decide. You have one more.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You will respect my... [Inaudible—Editor].

The Chair: You have one more, and if you don't ask it now, we're going to vote.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's going to be your turn after.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, I challenge your decision to forbid my colleague to ask two questions rather than just one. Two questions are not unreasonable. I challenge your decision.

[English]

The Chair: I'm going to call the vote, Ms. Enman. This is now on clause 4, as amended.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: You see, he keeps doing that. He will not let us talk. Mr. Chairman, you have no right to do that.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I challenged your decision, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You have no right to do that. Stop the vote.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: This is against the rules, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to: yeas, 7; nays, 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We'll move on.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, the procedure is faulty and you have not followed the rules of your office. I have appealed your decision and you can ask the committee to uphold your ruling. That would be the proper procedure. I would have respected the committee's decision, but I cannot respect...

[English]

The Chair: Are you challenging the chair?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: This is what I did.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, let's have a vote on that.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: May I ask a question for clarification? What are the procedures to challenge the chair? Do they have to give 24 hours notice, or can they do it just anytime?

The Chair: No, they're challenging the chair.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: They can challenge anytime, by law?

The Chair: Okay, we'll have a recorded vote on challenging the chair.

• 0935

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: What do I challenge? I challenge the decision—

The Chair: We understand what you're doing.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: —to deprive—

The Chair: We understand what you're doing. We're now calling the vote.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Let him finish.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: —my colleague, from two questions—

The Chair: We understand that—

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: —to one question.

The Chair: We understand that.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: And of course you've taken a vote that shouldn't have been taken. So if this committee does not support you, my colleague will have his two questions, and we will retake that vote afterward.

The Chair: We understand, Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: And I will respect that.

The Chair: The question is, do you uphold the chair?

No, no.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: But you must respect the right of members to speak.

[English]

The Chair: Do you uphold the chair?

Ms. Enman.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Are you calling a vote on this? Is this a debatable motion?

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): I didn't hear a motion, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Well, the motion is, do you uphold the decision of the chair?

Can I ask, before you proceed with the vote—this is something that I wish we would do before we jump around—that you ask the clerk to give the committee advice as to what is proper procedure, if there is some suggestion that this isn't. I would like to ask the clerk whether or not a motion to challenge the chair supersedes other things, such as a vote. If that is the case, I'd like to know.

The Chair: It does.

Mr. Paul Szabo: It does. In that case, it appears that Mr. de Savoye was quite correct that calling the vote on clause 4 was not the appropriate step to take, because the member had challenged the chair before the vote was called. He was speaking, if you check the blues. If that's correct, Mr. Chairman, and the question being posed to us now is whether we agree or disagree with the chair, I would have to vote against the chair.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Paul Szabo: So I would ask that as we proceed—I'm going to support the chair—with the rest of this session, before we jump to conclusions or decisions, we be absolutely sure by checking with the clerk about what proper procedure is in a committee. I believe we're heading in a very dangerous direction if we don't get control of this meeting.

The Chair: I'm of the opinion that I have control. You may differ, and that's your prerogative. We're calling the vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2)

The Chair: Now we're going to deal the way we were going to deal. We're moving on.

(On clause 5—Powers and functions)

The Chair: There are no amendments. Motion, question, recorded vote.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Could the witnesses explain the meaning of subsection 5(a)? How should we interpret “promote, assist and undertake”?

[English]

The Chair: No, we have translation.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Are you getting the translation? Okay, can you explain to us the meaning of subsection 5(a)?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: This is the language that exists in the current Medical Research Council Act. It gives the CIHR general powers and functions. All of clause 5 gives it general authorities, if you will. The language is not overly precise; it's not intended to be overly precise. The bill is not intended to micro-manage the operations of the CIHR. It is simply intended to give authority to the CIHR to undertake and achieve its objectives. This can involve education. It can involve financial assistance for research, obviously. It does allow the CIHR to itself undertake research, although I understand in the case of the MRC that's very limited. Does that answer—

• 0940

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: For example, in subsection 5(b), where it says: “Foster the development of the scientific careers of women”, does it mean that specific measures will be taken in cooperation with Human Resources Development Canada? What does it mean concretely to “foster the development of the scientific careers of women and men”?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Again, it's a general enabling provision. It will be up to the governing council of the CIHR to determine exactly how they undertake and carry out this function. It could involve, again, any number of activities—conferences, training programs, support, obviously, for their research projects.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I read in subsection (c): “consult with the provinces and with persons and organizations in or outside Canada...”. What form would this consultation with provinces take?

[English]

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Again, it's simply an enabling provision. It does not specify how the CIHR is to carry out the provision. That's the authority of the governing council. It will have to determine exactly how it will consult.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Is the language of this provision not so broad as to make little sense? For example, in subsection (e), where it says “advise the Minister in respect of any matter relating to health research or health policy”, what should we make of this?

[English]

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Simply that the CIHR has the authority to provide advice to the minister pertaining to health research, or health policy in general.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: However, further down in the bill, an enabling provision says that the Minister may ask for advice on his own initiative. Why provide that the Minister may ask for advice while section 5 already provides that he can be advised?

[English]

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Because of this provision, the CIHR can provide advice to the minister, even if the minister has not asked a specific question or raised a specific issue of the CIHR.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I would like to ask the.... Was Mr. de Savoye first?

The Chair: No. Please, Mr. Szabo, carry on. I called you, so go ahead.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.

In paragraph 5(b), concerning the terminology of “women and men”, was there any reason it was put in that form, as opposed to simply saying “support of scientific careers in health research”?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The intent was to underscore the need to pay attention to, if you will, the development of scientific careers of both women and men. The wording was deliberately chosen to ensure there was attention paid to both genders.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Is that to suggest there is a bias in the system now?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Certainly there is a view, and people have expressed the view, that, as in most aspects of our society, women are not equally represented in the scientific fields as of yet, although I understand they are growing in numbers and influence. This is simply intended to give that a boost, as it were, and to make sure the CIHR is sensitive to that reality.

Mr. Paul Szabo: So the CIHR is now going to be used as an instrument for equity issues.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I think again, as with all these other provisions, it is up to the governing council to determine exactly how it would go about giving effect to these powers and functions. It simply is an admission that attention should be paid to scientists, both female and male.

• 0945

Mr. Paul Szabo: I won't propose any changes, Mr. Chairman, but I would simply like to note that if there is an allegation or a suggestion, it should be stated directly rather than subtly.

This is a subtle way of saying there should be better balance, and the wording could have been “scientific careers, particularly of women, in health research,” if you wanted to say so. That's what you're saying the intent is, but that's not what the words say. It's unfortunate that the wording is not.... You know, if it's there it should be clear in the clearest form that you intended.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am at paragraph (d).

(d) monitor, analyse and evaluate issues, including ethical issues, pertaining to health or health research;

Earlier, Mr. Rivard, you stated that in paragraph (e) the bill grants authority in the area of advice to the Minister. Here, I must suppose that authority is also granted by the bill in the areas of monitoring, analysis and evaluation of issues pertaining to health or health research.

If authority is granted, this authority could be exercised. If this authority can be exercised, then someone must be subject to it. Who will submit to it? I presume that it will be the health and research centres. Certain research centres come under the federal government, and it must be understood that once this act applies to organizations coming under federal authority, these will quite simply and directly have to submit to the authority granted by the bill to these institutes.

However, conversely, health services centres come under provincial jurisdiction. Hospitals come to mind, but there are also certain research centres...

[English]

The Chair: Is there a question here? We're not really here to hear speeches.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Let him finish.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, your impatience surprises me. Your tolerance level is very low. I do not know what your night was like, but try to...

[English]

The Chair: Well, you know, you're a very eloquent speaker and we respect your speaking ability, but really we're here to ask technical questions. If you have one, ask it. If not, we're going to call the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I believe Mr. Rivard well understands the meaning of the question I am formulating and that he sees the premises it rests upon. This will allow him to correctly and fully answer the question I have to ask. I would also invite you to listen closely; you will see what I am getting at.

I was saying, therefore, that the health services centres and research centres that come under provincial jurisdiction will, if this bill is passed, have to submit to the authority of the institutes. I do not foresee for them—and you will agree with me, Mr. Chairman—the possibility, in the case of a hospital, for example, to exclude themselves from this monitoring, this analysis and this evaluation of issues pertaining to health since the bill grants authority.

Are we not here in the midst of a constitutional jurisdiction conflict? This is, you will agree, Mr. Myers, an eminently technical question; not only eminently technical, but also eminently current. I hope that you have understood the question and that you will be able to understand Mr. Rivard's answer.

[English]

The Chair: All right, Mr. Rivard, do you want to briefly answer that?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I would ask the witness to take all the time that is needed to give a full answer to my question, rather than responding briefly.

I am sorry, but you do not have the right to impose limits on our expert.

[English]

The Chair: Well, you know, Mr. de Savoye, you will not lecture me in this committee. I'm asking Mr. Rivard to respond and he'll do it right now.

Monsieur Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I don't see any conflict of jurisdiction. The CIHR is authorized as a research agency. It has no regulatory or law-making authority, so it has no ability to impose its will upon any organization, let alone any provincial organization. It is there to support research.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: If I understand you well, this bill will not confer any authority to the organization to monitor, analyse, or evaluate. It's not an authority that is being conferred to the organization to do so. They have the ability to do it; they don't have the authority to impose it. Is that very clear?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I would say the last statement is correct. They cannot impose cooperation with research.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: They cannot impose?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: No, they have no authority to do so.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Okay, so the will of the legislator here is very clear. There is no interference, constitutionally speaking, between the provincial jurisdiction and the federal jurisdiction?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: That's right. All research would have to be done on a cooperative basis.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your cooperation. This was a very important point and I am very pleased with the answer.

• 0950

[English]

The Chair: I'm happy that you're happy.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Could I add something, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. We're moving on now. We have a question called.

Ms. Enman, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I have another question.

[English]

The Chair: No. We've really flogged this to death—“flogged” as in, we've had enough debate on clause 5 so we're going to call the question on it.

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(On clause 6—President)

The Chair: Reform have an amendment here.

Mr. Elley, please.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We feel it's important to recognize that—I'm speaking particularly to the whole concept of the office of president—even though it's important to have continuity, it's also important to not allow someone to have a hold on this office for any great length of time. There's a need to change this position from time to time and it's a good idea to bring in someone fresh and new, perhaps after the end of 10 years. Too often our government agencies tend to get ingrown and people get control, sometimes to the detriment of the whole organization.

We propose the following amendment: that we simply replace lines 23 to 25 on page 6 with the following, “office during pleasure for not more than two consecutive five-year terms.”

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are there any questions on the amendment?

Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: We understand what is meant by “à titre amovible”. I would like someone to explain to me why that term was preferred to “à titre inamovible”. It is obvious that someone who is appointed irremovably to a position will be inclined to conform to the criteria, which will enable him or her, if this is what he or she wishes, to keep the position. However, a person who is removable will retain independence of spirit.

Here, we are in the area of research and science, in which independence of spirit is most desirable. This is why I am a little concerned.

There are perhaps excellent reasons that led to this choice. I would like to be informed about this. Otherwise, I will continue to wonder about the reasons why there is insistence upon having this appointment be during pleasure.

I would ask one of our experts to explain the situation to us.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. I understand.

Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The sorts of organizations that have appointments during good behaviour include courts and quasi-judicial tribunals, such as the Supreme Court, the Federal Court, and the Canadian Human Rights Act. They include the commissioners that report directly to Parliament, like the information commissioner, the privacy commissioner, and that sort of thing. Also, there are a few other organizations that are somewhat unique, if you will, in their mandate, such as the Bank of Canada. Most other federal agencies have appointments during pleasure.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: If I understand correctly, it is more a question of tradition rather than of philosophy. There was not that much thought given to the issue. It was simply said that that is what is usually done and therefore that is the practice that will continue. Is that a good summary of your answer?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I would say that it's more than a question of tradition. The distinction is really based on a perception of the required degree of autonomy of the organization. Clearly a court is in a very different position from a government agency.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Ménard.

• 0955

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am getting attached to you.

In essence, the amendment the Reform Party is proposing aims at ensuring that the person who acts as president not be able to stay in that position for an indeterminate period of time. I believe that it is admissible because we are talking here of a five year renewable term. The term could therefore be renewed three or five times, without any limitation. Is this an acceptable practice in the interest of healthy public management? Is there not a danger that things simply get bogged down over time if, for example, a President...

As a matter of fact, we must ask ourselves another question that a certain number of witnesses brought up, namely that there should be a distinction between the President of CIHR and the President of the Governing Council. I will come back to that when we get to Clause 6.

But why is it so dear to you that the mandate be renewable indefinitely, such that we might find ourselves in a situation where the same president might be around for four or five consecutive terms of office? Is that not incompatible with the will to ensure renewal. You know, there is a danger of things simply being paralysed. When a person is there for four or five terms, as we see in the case of MPs...

[English]

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Ménard. I think we get the gist of it.

Monsieur Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I would only say that it does require the government to consciously take a decision every five years on whether to renew somebody or to appoint someone new. This is not a situation where it's an open-ended appointment. I guess the view would be than any arbitrary limit on the number of appointments would be just that—arbitrary. There may well be instances where the government would wish more latitude. But it does require them to consider the matter every five years.

The Chair: Okay. We've had a thorough discussion of this. We're going to call the question on the amendment.

Ms. Enman.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7, yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Clause 6, as amended—

Mr. Charbonneau?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Would it be possible, Mr. Chairman, to ask the translators to make an effort so as to give us a French version that corresponds more closely to the meaning of the English text we have just passed? The French text is comprehensible, but only after having read it two or three times. It is not as clear as the English one. We were able to come to an understanding because we discussed this. We have dealt with the issue. We have heard the questions and the answers. But this is not a very acceptable text. Frankly, there is work to do to give it...

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Rivard, you'll take that under advisement and bring back a clear translation.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: For clause 6, en français?

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: The vote has been held and we are in agreement, but we would like a better translation, a better text.

The Chair: Yes. Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I had discussed this with my colleague, the parliamentary secretary. In English, it says:

[English]

“during pleasure for a term of not more than five years”,

[Translation]

and in French, it says “pour un mandat renouvelable maximal de cinq ans”. But in English, the following statement is added:

[English]

“The President is eligible for reappointment.” In French, there's no such thing. That's why, you see...we understand that it can be reappointed. It's perfect in English, but in French there's no such thing. We know it's

[Translation]

for a renewable term of a maximum of five years.

[English]

It could be...just to be sure that both will fit together.

The Chair: Okay. I think that's a reasonable request. We'll carry it now, as amended, and then we'll have a government bring in an amendment—

Mr. Bernard Patry: It's not amended.

The Chair: No, I understand that, but at report stage we'll bring in—

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry: It is simply to clarify things.

[English]

The Chair: —the new clarification.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes.

The Chair: Okay?

(Clause 6 agreed to)

The Chair: Carried unanimously, thank you.

(On clause 7—Governing Council)

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have three short questions, just as you like them. Here, we say:

7.(1) There shall be a Governing Council of the CIHR consisting of not more than 20 members, one of whom shall be the President of the CIHR.

Could you explain to us the reasons why the number is twenty?

Secondly, we would like to table amendments a little later on. Is there not some way of adding on a delegation mechanism ensuring that all partners are well represented?

• 1000

Mr. Chairman, you will remember that some witnesses stated that in their view it would be good to ensure representation of all the partners, i.e. the provinces, the voluntary organizations and the health services sector. Should we not make an additional effort here to ensure that all of these partners are properly represented?

I also see that in paragraph 7(2), we limit to three the number of possible terms for these members, whereas it seems that the term of the President of the Governing Council will be able to be renewed indefinitely. How do you explain this difference?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Rivard, please.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The number of appointments is really an attempt to balance between having sufficient numbers so that the governing council can be broadly representative, but on the other hand not so large that the organization becomes incapable of operating efficiently. So it's simply a matter of striking a balance. It is also very close to the numbers of the boards for the Medical Research Council and the other two granting councils, and they seem to have worked quite well.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you not fear that this might become a breeding ground for patronage, the way it has been for certain traditions in the past?

[English]

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I can't comment.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, we're not going to ask the technical person to answer that.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: It is a very technical point.

[English]

The Chair: Do you have any other questions that you want answered at this point?

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, would you bring forward your amendment, please.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Yes, I would like to move amendment NDP-2, that Bill C-13 in clause 7 be amended to replace the words “during pleasure” with “during good behaviour”.

The Chair: I'm calling the question on the amendment. Did you have a discussion on that, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Just very briefly. We heard from a number of witnesses about the whole way in which appointments will be made to the CIHR. Concerns were expressed about lack of accountability. It was felt I think by a number of groups that the use of the words “during pleasure” does leave members who are appointed open to be removed by virtue of disagreement on a political basis.

Since we are talking about Governor in Council appointments really at the discretion of the Prime Minister, it was felt that a more effective way to ensure continuity of good appointments was changing the words “during pleasure” to “good behaviour”. I heard Mr. Rivard say that “good pleasure ” is used in a number of existing laws. However, from some of the presenters we heard that “during good behaviour” is also used. One of the presenters referenced the Aeronautics Act and the phrasing there that says: “A member of the Tribunal shall be appointed to hold office during good behaviour...and may be removed for cause by the Governor in Council”.

So it was our feeling, based on those representations, that we should try to toughen up this aspect and make it less possible for someone to be removed from the board by virtue of political questions being involved.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I would like to ask a question to the officials who are here to inform us, as well as to my colleague. The English version contains the expression “during good behaviour” which, I believe, means “as long as the individual suitably fulfils his or her duties”. However, in French, we have the term “inamovible”, which means that the individual keeps his or her appointment no matter what happens, whether he or she behaves properly or not, fulfils his or her duties or not or even whether or not he or she is able to fulfil them. It seems to me there is a mistranslation here, or else perhaps I simply do not understand the meaning of “during good behaviour”. I would like someone to explain this to me. Is the translation wrong or is the problem my understanding of the English expression?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The English does not use the term “during good behaviour”. It uses the term “during pleasure”.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Are we not looking at my colleague's amendment?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I am moving that the words “during pleasure” be replaced by “during good behaviour”.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: You see, we are studying the amendment moved by Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, using the term “during good behaviour”.

• 1005

I would ask the following question to the technical staff. Is translating “during good behaviour” by “inamovible” a good translation, or is there some loss of meaning here? I would not want to say I am in agreement with something that does not mean what I believe it to mean.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It is a matter of rigour.

[English]

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

Mr. Glenn Rivard: My understanding is that “inamovible” is the same as “during good behaviour”.

The Chair: That's good.

Mr. Szabo, and then Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Is there a definition of “good behaviour”?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The difference between “during pleasure” and “during good behaviour” is a question of the standard that has to be met, as it were, before the government can remove the individual involved.

Historically, “during good behaviour” implies that the person can only be removed for faulty conduct in their position. It's equivalent to a removal for cause, if you will.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Could someone be removed from this position for so-called not good behaviour outside of the job—for instance, committing a criminal offence?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I can't answer that question reliably, no.

Mr. Paul Szabo: So if we changed this from “pleasure” to “good behaviour” for someone who had committed a criminal offence outside of the work required by this, there would be no grounds for removal?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I didn't say that. I said I'm not clear on that point.

Mr. Paul Szabo: But if there was “at pleasure”, then regardless of whether it was within the job or outside of the job, there would be full latitude to deal with the situation?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I think that is correct.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I'm going to vote against the amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: We just voted clause 6 for the president, and it said: “The President...shall be appointed...during pleasure”. So as to the members, it will be rather bizarre that it will be “during good behaviour”. It's just logical that to be coherent, it should stay “during pleasure”, as is.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Ménard, you have the last point, and then we're calling the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Charbonneau, there is a difference, because the term of the President, that is for a maximum of five years, is renewable, whereas the members are entitled to a maximum of two consecutive terms of office.

From a strictly legal point of view, I do not believe that “during good behaviour” and “inamovible” or “amovible” have the same meaning. “Amovible” means “that can be removed”, whereas “inamovible” means “that cannot be removed”. The expression “during good behaviour” has a completely different meaning, legally.

Are you certain that the information you are providing members of the committee is correct when you say that these two expressions are synonymous?

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I'm confident that it is the terminology used throughout federal legislation when we're—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: You are saying that this is a standard clause. Can it be found in other acts?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I am 36 years old, I am in my second term, I will probably seek a third one and I am quite confident, but this is the first time I am seeing this parallel as starkly. Have you asked for legal opinions?

[English]

Mr. Glenn Rivard: It's my understanding that it is the correct term.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we've had enough on this. We're calling the question. Mrs. Enman.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We are raising a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Pierre de Savoye, on a point of order.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I am unsatisfied with the explanation we received. I would appreciate receiving a second opinion, and I would ask if we could just reserve this amendment until we have a second opinion. I'm bilingual and I'm not satisfied with the opinion we received. If we have a second opinion that does confirm, I'll respect it, but please, with your authority, I ask for a second opinion at the next meeting of this committee.

• 1010

The Chair: What precisely is the second opinion on?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: The translation of “during good behaviour” is not, in my opinion, “inamovible”. Those are contradictory things. We've been told they're synonymous. I would ask for a second opinion. The public deserves that we do this second check.

The Chair: In fairness, Mr. de Savoye, as I understand it, as a party you will be bringing all kinds of amendments into the House in any event, so you could do that at that time. In the meantime you can get your second opinion.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Hold on. I'm asking the chair of this committee that a second opinion be requested from the civil servants who are dedicated to this committee. It's not as a Bloc Québécois member I'm asking this but as a member of this committee for the purpose of enlightening this committee.

The Chair: I understand, but you also have all kinds of researchers who could do precisely that.

Mr. Martin, on the point.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): I just want to ask Mr. Charbonneau a question. Mr. Charbonneau, do you understand the translation of Judy's motion? Dr. Patry, do you understand that in French?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Perhaps I could answer that. In French “amovible” is one sense and “inamovible” is totally the opposite. That's what it is in French. It's totally the opposite.

[Translation]

They fully understand that “amovible” and “inamovible” are completely opposite one from the other, but in English,

[English]

“during pleasure” and “during good behaviour” are anglophone expressions, and they are acceptable. But it's very clear what it is in French. It's totally the opposite. We're voting on an amendment, but the text is done well with “during pleasure”, and “amovible” is okay.

The Chair: So having said that, I'm confident we can proceed with the vote.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have a point of order.

The Chair: No, we've had enough points of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask you something in a spirit of friendship. We are working on improving the bill. This is the third time that you have interrupted us and called a vote before we had finished with our questions. This behaviour is not worthy of someone in your position. You have always directed the committee. You have always had the support of our colleagues. We want to work with you. I am asking you to let us finish all of our questions.

[English]

The Chair: What's the point here, Mr. Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I would like you to stop calling votes on clauses before we have finished asking our questions. I am asking you this respectfully, in a spirit of friendship. I will accept your decision on the vote, but we will have questions regarding subsequent clauses. I believe that the questions we are asking are relevant and that you are moving along too quickly, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: What's your question?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I am asking you to not call votes on clauses until you are sure that we have asked all of our questions. This is the third time that you have cut us off in this way and this is not acceptable. I am asking you this most respectfully.

[English]

The Chair: We've had enough discussion on this. We have an amendment. Ms. Enman, call a recorded vote, please.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Mr. Martin, you have a Reform motion to bring forward.

Mr. Keith Martin: No, I just wanted to ask Monsieur Rivard a question about clause 7. In our previous amendment we were trying to limit the number of terms the president can serve, and you mentioned that the reason it was not advisable was that you couldn't attribute an arbitrary number of terms to serve. However, in subclause 7(3) you have actually restricted to two the number of terms a member can serve on the council. Now, that's arbitrary, is it not? If it is arbitrary and if you have limited to two the number of terms a person can spend on the governing council, why did you say it was not really acceptable for the president to serve only two terms?

The Chair: Mr. Rivard, before you answer that, there is a vote on Bill C-20, the referendum bill. It's a half-hour bell. We'll leave in about eight minutes, if that's agreeable, in order to be there in time to vote.

Monsieur Rivard.

• 1015

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I think you have to consider the very different functions of the president and the governing council. The president is the chair of the governing council, but he or she is also the chief executive officer of the organization. So they will bring and be developing expertise in the operation of the organization. Hence, the sense was that whether or not that person should be renewed every five years should be left to the government.

The governing council members bring their own expertise, but as a whole they are intended to reflect the range of interests in Canada pertaining to health research. As I indicated, there is also a limit of only 20 members. For reasons of efficiency, if you will, we're trying to strike a balance there, so the thought is that by providing for a regular rotation through the governing council, over the years you can better assure that degree of broad representation you want the governing council to have.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Rivard, I understand completely what you're saying. The purpose of it was to ensure that you would have your institutional memory there with the president and that you would give that person sufficient time to exercise authority and mould the organization, but you would not have a situation where you lacked the institutional dynamism the CIHR strives for. For the same reasons you want to have a turnover of the governing council members, we would like to do the same thing at the president level, only less so.

Thank you for your explanation.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

In light of the time and the fact that we have extra travel time, I think we should suspend the meeting.