HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 8, 2000

• 1111

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, we'll start this meeting of the health committee. As you know, this is the thirteenth meeting dealing with Bill C-13, and we'll hopefully proceed as expeditiously as possible.

Before we do, though, I want to report that we had a steering committee meeting. It's the second report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, and there are five motions. I'll read those out for the record, and then hopefully as a full committee we can agree to all five.

First, it was agreed that the committee meet on Tuesdays from 3.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. and continue to meet on Wednesdays from 3.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. and Thursdays from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. That's in light of the business at hand, Bill C-13, and meeting three times a week to try to get it through as quickly as we can.

Second, it was agreed that the Minister of Health be invited to appear on the estimates and performance report immediately following the completion of the committee study of Bill C-13.

Third, it was agreed that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure schedule its next meeting on Bill C-13, and hopefully that will be reported back to the House at that time.

Fourth, it was agreed that the budget for the committee for witness expenses in the amount of $22,500 for the fiscal year 1999-2000 be approved.

Finally, it was agreed that the chair present the second report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure to the main committee, which I'm now doing, and hopefully we can all agree to it.

Are there any questions on that? As you know, it was a duly struck subcommittee, and we want to proceed, if we can, with the matters at hand.

Is it agreed, then, that the second report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be concurred in?

(Motion agreed to)

(On clause 7—Governing Council)

The Chair: The business at hand is Bill C-13. This is clause-by-clause review of the bill. If you have the bill in front on you, we're on clause 7, page 6, with respect to the governing council of the CIHR. I'll certainly take any amendments or questions at this time.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask our witnesses three brief questions. First of all, why are 20 members sitting on the Governing Council? Is there a particular reason that explains this number? Secondly, would there not be some process to enable provinces to be more closely associated with the appointment process? For instance, the provinces may want to submit lists and make suggestions, as they do for other types of appointments.

Some witnesses have been concerned about the fact that external people could sit on the Governing Council. Could people from other countries be appointed to the Governing Council?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Rivard, would you like to answer that?

Mr. Glenn Rivard (General Counsel, Department of Justice): With respect to the last question, I don't see any limitation in terms of the question of citizenship. It would appear that the governor in council could appoint non-Canadians to the positions on the governing council.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I was simply asking you whether or not people from other countries could sit on the council.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Yes, it's possible.

The Chair: Mr. Richard.

Mr. Pierre Richard (Executive Director, Transition Secretariat, Canadian Institutes of Health Research): Mr. Ménard, I will answer your second question first, and then I will go back to the first question.

You asked us why the provinces were not included in the appointment process. I can tell you that the process for appointing individuals to this Governing Council was very open. In December, we posted a notice on the website inviting interested people to submit the names of people they would like to see appointed to the Governing Council. We received nearly 400 suggestions for appointments to the Governing Council. Some provinces also decided to submit names. This was an open process and anyone could participate. Indeed, the response to this invitation was very good. We have a very good list of candidates.

• 1115

We discussed this 20-member Governing Council. I believe that the membership of the Medical Research Council's board of directors is slightly lower right now. The interim Governing Council of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research has 34 members. Based on our experience, I can tell you that 34 is a good number because it enables us to draw upon a wide range of people. However, this number is a bit too high when it comes to day-to-day administration.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Did you know that this number is greater than the number of members now in certain political caucuses?

Mr. Pierre Richard: With 20 members, we will be able to recruit people from all communities and this is a reasonable number of members for dealing with the administration of the organization.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are there any other questions?

[Translation]

Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): I would assume that you are establishing a Governing Council because you want to give it some independence, some freedom and a certain amount of discretionary power with respect to the federal government. Am I mistaken is saying that you want to give this Governing Council some flexibility? Is this one of the reasons why you are establishing a Governing Council?

Mr. Pierre Richard: The mission of the Governing Council is to ensure that the objectives set forth in clause 4 of the bill are met. The Governing Council will fulfil its mandate through various mechanisms and through the authority that we will cover here.

Mr. Richard Marceau: And so, the Governing Council should normally have quite a bit of discretionary power within the sandbox defined in clause 4. Could you, therefore, explain why clause 7(3) states that the members of the Governing Council shall hold office during pleasure? Although I am no expert, it seems to me that anyone who doesn't follow the rules of the government, which are at times quite ambiguous, or who does not do as he is told, will lose his position. Do you not think that this constitutes an opportunity for political interference?

Mr. Pierre Richard: I would ask Mr. Rivard to explain how this type of appointment process works and the rationale behind it.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Permanent appointments are usually reserved for members of quasi-judicial tribunals and commissioners who report to Parliament, such as the Auditor General and the presidents of certain Crown corporations, such as the CBC. In the case of an organization such as the CIHR, it is much more usual to appoint the members of the council to hold office during pleasure. Moreover, this is the situation at the Medical Research Council.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): On the issue with the phrasing in subclause 7(3), “to hold office during pleasure”, first of all, I want clarification, Mr. Chairperson. We had moved an amendment, in the last session, I think, to change it to “during good behaviour”. Was that amendment voted on and defeated?

The Chair: Let me check.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: While you're checking—I tried to pursue this in December and I would like further clarification since a number of presenters actually felt it would be a superior level of protection for council members to change the words “during pleasure” to “during good behaviour”—I still want to get a legal clarification on the difference between the two terms and ask, if that is the case, if “during good behaviour” is a better model and ensures more protection for council members from political interference, why wouldn't we want to go with the superior method?

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, I'm going to have to interrupt you there. We in fact did debate this, we did discuss it, and we did defeat it. So I think we'll leave it at that. I don't want to open up this debate again, because it has effectively been dealt with.

• 1120

Do you have another question?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Is it possible to get just a further clarification on that point?

The Chair: No, we've already done that, so if you could, move on to another question.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I do have other amendments for this clause. I don't know if we're at that point.

The Chair: Proceed. Go ahead.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: That brings us to subclause 7(4). You have this before you in our package, so I would like to move that Bill C-13, in clause 7, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 7 with the following:

as members of the Governing Council an equal number of women

The Chair: Thank you. We'll call the question on that...or did you want to speak on it?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Could I, please?

We have heard from a number of presenters on the whole issue of gender-based analysis and ensuring that women's concerns with respect to the broad issues of health care were an integrated and intrinsic part of this new transformative approach to research in the health care field in Canada. A number of the presenters made a very important point to us. If we are looking at truly transforming the way in which we do research, and if we are looking at the broadly based ways in which many organizations—particularly women's organizations—have addressed this matter, then we have to deal with it at a structural level as well as at the policy level. We heard very clearly from some groups that they just expected that, as a given, in a piece of legislation at the start of the new millennium we would ensure gender parity was built into any kind of legislation that was looking at research and involved an appointed individual.

I would make a strong pitch and appeal to committee members to give serious consideration to this amendment. It's basically calling for equal numbers of men and women to be appointed to the council. It's a very basic, sensible request in keeping with our approach on many fronts. I think the issue of gender parity is accepted broadly in the House of Commons by all parties, and I would hope there would be a willingness to accept this as a friendly amendment, and to see if there's a consensus to make this possible.

The Chair: Thank you.

On that point, Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I agree with this amendment. I'd like to ask our witnesses if they know whether or not this has happened in any other cases and how the appointing body will deal with it. You know that there will be a process whereby the members of the Governing Council will be gradually replaced. I'm going to be voting against the amendment and I would congratulate the NDP for moving it.

A voice: Against it?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Excuse me, in favour of the amendment. You know that sometimes we vote for something and sometimes we vote against something. This time, we'll be voting in favour of it.

[English]

The Chair: Who wants to address that? Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I'm not aware of precedents. What I would say is that the clause as currently written actually provides more guidance to the government in appointment than is normally the case for governor in council appointments. Normally it's left to, if you will, unfettered discretion on the part of the government.

The Chair: I think that's an important point, because Dr. Henry Friesen made the very same one.

Mr. Szabo, and then Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I understand the member's point, but I think it would probably be inappropriate to establish an equality provision because it would be discriminatory against women in that it would not allow more women to be on the board than men. If they're qualified to be there, they should be there. I think the integrity of the entire institutes would be brought into question if somehow their decisions have to be restricted by some arbitrary criterion that in fact could be counterproductive to the member's point.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): I would like to point out that the wording is very sensitive with respect to the membership of women and men.

• 1125

The principle is clear. It states:

(4) The Governing Council shall appoint to the Advisory Board men and women who are able to...

The bill already denotes some concern with respect to this issue. We do not think that it would be appropriate to further restrict the government in its appointment procedure once this principle has been clearly established. There's also the point raised by my colleague, Mr. Szabo.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Charbonneau.

[English]

We have the amendment before us. The reference number is 4679, and I'm going to call the question on the amendment at this point.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I think that this reminds us...

The Chair: Yes.

[English]

Is it on this point, Mr. Grewal?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Yes, I just want to point out amendment R-6 from Reform.

The Chair: No, we'll come to that.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Grewal, we can't go back to that if we vote on this. What's your point?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Are we on subclause (3) now?

The Chair: Yes, we are.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: On subclause (3), the last time it was amended, instead of “two consecutive terms”, it was “three consecutive terms”. That is the motion I would like to move.

The Chair: Okay, but you were sleeping at the switch a little bit, because we're going back now.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I came late.

The Chair: We're going to provide the latitude for it this time, but next time, know what you're doing or we're going to move on.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you.

The Chair: Okay, we are going to go back, then, to amendment R-6, on subclause 7(3). You're saying that instead of two consecutive terms, it should be three.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Yes.

The Chair: Judy, I'm going to hold your amendment in abeyance until we deal with this one.

Mr. Grewal, do you want to bring that forward, then?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Sure.

The Chair: Okay, does everyone understand what he's doing?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Where are we?

[English]

The Chair: We're dealing with subclause 7(3), at the bottom of page 6, and Mr. Grewal is saying that the Reform motion R-6 should read, instead of “two consecutive terms”, it should be “three consecutive terms”. Is that correct?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Can we vote on this now since we have already discussed the matter and then can we go back to the amendment moved by Judy?

[English]

The Chair: We have to take this first. We're going to put Judy's in abeyance until we deal with this, because of the process.

All those in favour of Mr. Grewal's motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Why three?

[English]

Why?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: He will have to explain this motion a little bit.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I think the knowledge and experience gained would be useful in the future. Two terms might not be enough for one to be used to working operationally efficiently, whereas three terms would be giving enough latitude for someone to be effective in that.

The Chair: Okay.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We'll now go back to Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis' motion, reference number 4679, and a recorded vote has been called.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Are there any other amendments to clause 7? Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, following along in our handouts, the next amendment is that clause 7 in Bill C-13 be amended by replacing line 6 on page 7 with the following: “nor in Council shall appoint”.

The Chair: That's as opposed to “shall consider appointing”. Do you want to explain that, or is it self-explanatory?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think it's self-explanatory, but I'll explain it very briefly. If we're serious about ensuring that this council does meet this new agenda of transforming our health research agenda while looking at the broadest possible definition of health, and it opens up a number of opportunities pertaining to research in this area, then in fact we want to ensure the makeup of the board and the structure in place is conducive to carrying out that objective.

• 1130

I think putting in the words “shall consider appointing” leaves it quite open to any kind of possibility. Why wouldn't we want to be as absolutely clear as possible about structuring this new body to carry out the noble objectives of the legislation? If we're truly serious about broadening the scope of research in this country, then I don't think you can achieve this by happenstance. I think you have to build that into your structure.

To me it's self-evident, and I guess I don't understand why it wasn't worded like that in the first place. I would certainly appreciate any legal interpretation of the difference between those two phrases. I hope committee members would agree to this obvious change.

The Chair: Monsieur Rivard, do you want to just quickly speak to the legality? Then we'll get Mr. Charbonneau to comment.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Again, I would say that in fact this clause provides an unusually high degree of advice to the governor in council in terms of the appointments. Secondly, it's a bit difficult really to create a requirement and marry that with a standard that is quite subjective, which is the case here. It puts the government in a position where it has to make appointments that meet this very subjective standard and therefore obviously can be quite easily criticized as to whether or not it feels it has honestly met that standard. Therefore, the more discretionary language is more appropriate with the somewhat subjective standard in the clause.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Do you have anything to add, Mr. Charbonneau?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Rivard provided us with a very full explanation.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Any other amendments? Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: This amendment is that clause 7 of Bill C-13 be amended by adding after line—

The Chair: A point of order, Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I wonder if the committee would agree that we should accept that all of the amendments before us are deemed to have been read and presented to the committee.

The Chair: That would be a good suggestion. Is there any difficulty with that?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Come on, Mr. Szabo, that's not like you at all.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: It's just so she doesn't have to read it to us, but she can debate it.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It won't take long.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: We're not talking about several pages of amendments. This is only one paragraph.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: It's just that they're moved, so Mr. Grewal won't miss his. They are all moved. That's all it says.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Grewal is capable of looking after that. He's a big boy.

Mr. Réal Ménard: We have to obtain as much information as possible, Mr. Szabo. You were the one who taught us this saying on how we operate.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, just to be clear, the motion I am proposing is simply that the committee will deem that all of these resolutions have been moved. We will deal with them one at a time and not have to worry that somebody missed speaking up on their motion, as Mr. Grewal almost missed his.

That way, for instance, in the case before us now, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis does not have to say to us it's NDP-4 and it moves that in clause 7, blah, blah, blah. That is not adding to the discussion. What it does do, though, is it puts the item automatically on the table, and she can immediately start to address the points she wants to make in support of her motion.

The Chair: I think in fairness, Mr. Szabo, we probably understand that. The trouble with the thinking there, though, is the government too has some motions they may not want to move. In fact, I know they won't be moving them. Therefore, we would get trapped ourselves. I think we should probably not follow through on that. I'm hearing objection, in any event, so let's just carry on with Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

• 1135

Go ahead, Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I move that Bill C-13 in clause 7 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 7 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.

The Chair: Thank you.

Questions? Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely important amendment. You will remember that several witnesses were concerned about the possibility of conflicts of interest. I would like to ask two questions. Does the member who moved this motion feel that the pharmaceutical industry includes both the generic drug sector and the brand-name-drug sector? We understand that difficulties may arise with shareholders. We'll have to examine the definition of administrator. I'd like you to be a little bit more explicit. Does that also cover an employee?

[English]

The Chair: Are you answering that, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Certainly, I will make an attempt to answer that question.

The purpose of this amendment is in fact to deal with a potential conflict of interest, something that was identified time and time again by presenters and witnesses before this committee. Over and over again we heard from representatives about the possible distortion of the stated objectives of this legislation in terms of commercial interests. We've had some of this debate with the opening clauses of this bill around the use of the word “commercialization”. Proposals to change the bill in that regard were defeated, so this is an attempt to have this committee understand the importance of actually identifying and laying out conflict of interest procedures in this legislation.

To help clarify Monsieur Ménard's point, I want to just reference a couple of comments we heard from witnesses before this committee. One is from Evelyn Shapiro, who is a well-known health policy analyst from the faculty of medicine at the University of Manitoba. She registered very strong concern about the fact that the bill fails to specify the constituencies that will be represented on the governing council of the CIHR and therefore opens up the possibilities for very serious conflicts. She in fact states in a letter dated November 15 to the committee:

[This] omission is particularly troubling because it permits the appointment of representatives from the pharmaceutical industry which carries with it the potential for conflict of interest between the major goal of improving the health of Canadians at the lowest possible cost and the major objective of increasing profits on the part of the pharmaceutical industry.

I also want to just briefly quote from a letter to this committee by Bob Evans, a person who needs no introduction, but for the record is a prominent health policy analyst and is with the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research in Vancouver, and he states very clearly in his letter dated November 19 to this committee:

My impression, watching mostly but not entirely from the sidelines, has been of a continuing struggle between those genuinely committed to this broad view of the CIHR mandate, and those who would prefer to see an “MRC on steroids”—a vastly expanded program of basic biomedical and clinical research, with at best a nod in the direction of research in either the provision (and financing) of health services, or the more fundamental determinants of health embedded in human social and economic environments. Behind the “MRC on steroids” model, have been those who see the CIHR as primarily a vehicle for using public funds to develop private “intellectual property” for private profit, whether or not there might be health benefits for Canadians, or anyone else.

I think that concern is a very real one, and it certainly was brought home to all of us with the recent announcement this January—despite the fact that this bill hasn't been approved—of a partnership with the Medical Research Council and Canada's research-based pharmaceutical companies.

• 1140

Considerable investment was announced on January 11, 2000, in a press release co-sponsored by MRC and research-based pharmaceutical companies, indicating a very significant partnership in working together to advance research in biomedical areas and working very closely as a partnership.

Mr. Chairman, I think that press release really helped to very clearly point out the problems we will get into, that this government will take this country into, if we don't in fact put some qualifications in this legislation and spell out very clearly the possibility for conflict of interest.

Mr. Ménard asked the question about which companies and who is involved. The point of my amendment is just to ensure that people with a direct interest in the pharmaceutical industry in this country and in the medical devices sector of this country are not in any way, shape, or form appointed to a council that is supposed to independently be determining the research objectives in this country.

I don't think we need to go into details in terms of spelling out which companies. I think we're talking about all pharmaceutical companies, whether they're generic companies or brand-name companies. I don't think we need to go into who we mean by those companies. We're talking about the owners, the managers, and the shareholders of these companies. The basic point of this amendment is to do everything we can to ensure that they aren't in a position to influence the research agenda of this country.

That's not to say, obviously, that there isn't a place in this country for research to be carried out by pharmaceutical companies and medical devices companies. We know this work will go on and that it's important. We respect that.

But the role of government is quite different. The role of government is to ensure that the broadest possible approach to health and health research is pursued and to ensure that those with money, those with power, those with influence, are not allowed to determine the public policy agenda of this country. I think this has to be spelled out in the legislation. We heard from presenters before this committee; this is not an unheard-of proposal. Conflict of interest amendments are part of legislation on a broad basis when we're dealing with appointed bodies who have been assigned to carry out public policy objectives.

I could go into more detail if the member has more questions about the possibilities, but—

The Chair: I think you've done a very good job, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: —I would at least refer the members of the committee to the presentation by Jim Turk, who is with the Canadian Association of University Teachers. He presented to us all kinds of examples in which conflict of interest provisions are incorporated into legislation and are seen as a valuable part of government pursuits in that regard.

I would hope that something as fundamental and as basic as pursuing an independent, science-based research agenda in this country is basic and fundamental to the goals of this committee and to the government.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Ménard, a short question.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Although I'm inclined to support this amendment, I would like to obtain clarification on two points. In your mind, is it clear that an employee... Right now, one person from the pharmaceutical sector is sitting on the Governing Council. Secondly, given the fact that, in Canada, 50% of the money available for research comes from the pharmaceutical sector, how can we accommodate these two realities? You talked about people who had a vested interest in promoting a product. Obviously, we can understand that there may be a conflict of interest. Does that mean that no one from this sector should sit on the Governing Council? Could we not stipulate a condition stating that these people may sit on the council, but have no voting rights? Shouldn't we try to make some kind of accommodation, given their importance in promoting research? Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like our officials to shed some light on this issue.

[English]

The Chair: I'm going to ask Mr. Rivard if he or someone on the expert panel could respond to that.

• 1145

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Any member of the governing council would be subject to the normal conflict of interest rules. If they have a specific interest in a matter coming before that governing council, they should declare that and not participate in the discussion. That's normally how questions of conflict of interest are handled. This sort of blanket exclusion can certainly cause some problems. There are definitional problems just looking at it in terms of asking what is a pharmaceutical industry or a medical devices industry. I don't know if that answers the question.

The Chair: Yes. I think we've had a very thorough discussion on this. We're going to hear from the parliamentary secretary at this point and then we're going to call the question.

Mr. Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, this amendment highlights the specific case of Governing Council members who are from the pharmaceutical or medical devices industries. Mr. Rivard has just explained that any member would be subject to conflict of interest rules, in any event.

I would like to point out that all the members of the Governing Council will come from somewhere, either the private sector or the public sector. Some will be members of professional associations constituting major pressure groups that lobby the government. Some members will perhaps be from universities, from teaching hospitals in particular, which have an interest in defining research fields and allocating funding. Some members will perhaps be associated with one or another of the provincial administrations. All of the Governing Council members could be scrutinized from the angle of their specific interests.

Why single out people from the pharmaceutical industry? This question can probably be asked for each and every one of the future members of the Governing Council. There is a basic rule protecting against abuses, which obliges people not to place themselves in conflict of interest situations. This rule will apply.

Mr. Rivard explained that it's a blanket rule covering all appointments. Members must undertake not to serve the interests of the organizations to which they may have been linked in the past.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, did you have a point of order?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Chair, I'm seeking clarification from the parliamentary secretary. Surely there is a big difference between public, non-profit institutions and private, for-profit corporations in terms of their role in public policy pursuit. Are we not talking about something significantly different and therefore requiring that kind of potential for conflict of interest to be addressed in a piece of legislation like this one?

You can't compare apples and oranges to address this point. Given the huge power of the pharmaceutical industry and other health corporations over public policy in this country today, surely we, as a committee, have a responsibility to take that seriously and ensure that we minimize this kind of influence as much as possible and protect ourselves from undue influence. I think—

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, sorry, but we're now going over old ground. You've already made your points on this. We're going to hear Mr. Charbonneau's response.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: To take up the expression used by our colleague, we're not comparing apples and oranges. We are recognizing that both apples and oranges are types of fruit.

If we dwell too long on potential conflicts of interest, we could claim that someone appointed to the Governing Council who comes from a hospital or university and has already done research in a given field, must be carefully monitored because of such conflicts. The same would be true for individuals who were linked to a provincial administration or to a private sector business other than the pharmaceutical industry.

Therefore, in all cases, there are benefits that certain people could attempt to realize from their position. And so a basic rule applies in all cases, to both apples and oranges.

[English]

The Chair: Final point to Monsieur Ménard, and then we're calling the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Couldn't we stand this clause and come back to it at the end? I'd like to have more information on ethical rules. I agree that all the Governing Council members will represent organizations, but I still think that we need more information.

Nevertheless, we cannot ask the pharmaceutical industry to pay for half of the research without being represented on the council. This also poses a problem.

• 1150

I therefore wonder whether we couldn't stand this clause until the end of our work and come back to it on Thursday.

[English]

The Chair: Are you looking at standing the amendment or the whole clause?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm referring to the amendment. We need more information. Could we come back to it at the end?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, could we suggest that Mr. Ménard ask his question? The legal expert is here. If he has a question to ask, he should ask it.

[English]

The Chair: I would prefer to go the route that is being suggested by the parliamentary secretary. So on the question, we'll pose it to the experts. We'll get an answer, and we're going to call the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, you must understand that what we don't know is exactly what a potential conflict of interest may mean. For example, according to the ethical rules, what kind of behaviour would be expected of someone who is a member of a governing council which is discussing a research project in which the pharmaceutical industry is involved?

The question being asked by our colleague is quite valid, but it sidesteps the reality that the pharmaceutical industry in Canada funds 50% of all research. Can we ask that it not be present? What ethical rules apply in this type of situation?

Mr. Charbonneau has not told us what he really thinks; he has been somewhat stingy with the information. He could have said more.

[English]

The Chair: Who wants to deal with this? Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Having been appointed to this body, the governing council, any member in effect takes on a fiduciary responsibility of trust and must discharge his or her duties in accordance with the requirements of the legislation and without a view to personal gain. As a consequence, if the question in front of the committee pertains to their business interests, they should exclude themselves from the discussion of that issue and the vote on it. The clearest example would be, obviously, an examination of a research proposal in which one of the proposed partners is a company with which this member of the governing council is associated. That would be a clear conflict of interest.

Going broader afield, if the discussion were more general in terms of a policy of collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry, that may not be as clear, and I think you would have to examine the specifics of that at the time and determine whether or not there is a conflict on that matter. It may be appropriate for the member of the governing council to speak to the issue so that the other members can have the benefit of that perspective. Depending on the nature of that policy, he or she may want to exclude themselves from the actual vote on it.

It's very difficult to answer the question sort of in a vacuum without knowing the specifics of the situation, but—

The Chair: I am going to ask Ms. Mosher to comment. You are the executive director of the MRC. I wonder if you have some comments that perhaps you could add.

Ms. Karen Mosher (Executive Director, Medical Research Council of Canada): The only directly comparable situation I would expect would be in the operation of our peer review committees, whereby if a proposal is being reviewed and one of the review committee members is affiliated with the institution from which that research proposal is coming, they would absent themselves from the discussion of the merits of that program.

There isn't a directly comparable precedent from MRC experience that I can draw on because the program approvals at that level are made at the level of principle and not on specific cases. So they are approving a global envelope as opposed to an approval for a specific program in which a direct conflict could arise.

The Chair: Very good. Thank you very much.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, is this a final question?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. I'm seeking some clarification.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think this is a very important point. What I am hearing from the legal representative and from MRC is that the issue of dealing with a possible conflict of interest is self-evident. If there's a conflict of interest, it'll be declared, and it will just happen. But surely the point of law and legislation is to avoid the slight possibility of a conflict of interest. Surely the point of legislation is to make sure it's rock solid in terms of any possibilities that may occur. So my question is, why wouldn't that be the case in terms of this bill? Why would we have other pieces of legislation, other laws in this country, which are not dissimilar to the kind of model we have before us, that clearly entrench a conflict of interest provision?

• 1155

I go back to Jim Turk's presentation referencing the Canadian Radio-television & Telecommunications Act in which it is clearly stated that:

38.(1) A person [who] is...directly or indirectly, as owner, shareholder, director, officer, partner or otherwise...(a) is engaged [in telecommunications or]...(b) has any pecuniary or proprietary interest —etc., is disqualified from sitting on the commission.

The same holds true for the Canada Transportation Act. People who have any kind of involvement in a transportation business or any pecuniary or proprietary interests in this regard are excluded very specifically from sitting on a board.

When we're dealing with health research and advancing an important public policy agenda, why wouldn't we want to take every possible precaution and include that provision in this bill?

The Chair: Ms. Mosher, please.

Ms. Karen Mosher: That's something I think I can speak to from the perspective of the practical experience at MRC where we have almost 100 partnership agreements. The R and D agreement you referred to is one of those. We expect that under CIHR the range of our partnership agreements will grow, as opposed to shrinking. So with each of those 100 agreements with voluntary sectors, professional associations, and community groups, it's virtually impossible to predict all the kinds of conflicts that may arise. So we have adopted some general principles, and we rely on the Privy Council guidelines for conflict of interest to govern those situations, as opposed to trying to anticipate every conflict that might come up in each of those 100 arrangements.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We're calling the question, with a recorded vote.

Mr. Réal Ménard: No. Monsieur—

The Chair: No. We've had a full discussion on this. We understand—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Why vote now? Why not stand the clause until later? We could have some discussions outside. Why do we have to vote now?

[English]

The Chair: No. We're going to vote on it. We've had a good discussion, and we're calling the vote.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Moving on, Mr. Grewal, you indicated you had an amendment.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-13 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 7 the following new clause:

7.1 All Governor in Council appointments shall be ratified by a two-thirds majority of members present, by the Standing Committee of the House of Commons that normally considers health matters.

The Chair: Okay. That's self-explanatory, I believe. Thank you.

Calling the question.

Mr. Réal Ménard: No.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Have we come to an amendment dealing with clause 9?

The Committee Clerk: Between clauses 7 and 8.

[English]

The Chair: We're on page 7 of the bill.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Oui.

The Chair: We're adding some additional lines under subclause 7(4), and Mr. Grewal just read it to you.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: It's after line 10.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: There's something wrong. I'd like to understand. Mr. Chairman, it is important to understand what is being voted on. Can we find out what the meaning of the amendment is?

[English]

The Chair: Do you want him to read it again?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'd like to understand the meaning of the amendment.

[English]

The Chair: I think it's very obvious he's saying it has to come back to the health committee for a two-thirds vote.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: If you want, I can....

• 1200

All the governor in council appointments should be coming through the health committee so that two-thirds of the members can ratify before the appointment is considered a final appointment.

The Chair: I think it's pretty clear. Thank you.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I need a further clarification. Is this then another attempt to deal with the fact that the wording around the structuring of the governing council is loose and leaves so many unanswered questions? Mr. Chair, this is a serious question.

The Chair: It's a serious issue, and I'm trying to listen very intently to what you're saying.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I remain concerned about the bill generally, in terms of the structuring of the governing council, and I have lost every amendment I have presented to try to tighten up the provisions around the structure. I had hoped we would have something to do with securing the appointments and ensuring no political interference. Secondly, I was hoping we would have some way to have gender parity on this governing council, which I think is a civilized approach to this area. Thirdly, I was hoping we would have some conflict of interest provisions.

The Chair: We're covering all ground here. Is there a question to Mr. Grewal?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The question is, does the member share our concern, then, about the way in which the governing council is being structured, and is this proposal something that would actually address those concerns? I worry about all this coming back to the standing committee.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, we understand what you worry about. Do you understand as a part of what you're—

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I think your concern is well taken, but on the other hand, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, this committee, is an all-party committee. We want to reassure that there is confidence in the appointment, so that's why this amendment is put forward. I think it's in line with what you are proposing. I think this will strengthen the democratic process.

The Chair: Very good. We're calling the question, with a recorded vote.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, please, control yourself.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): I too would have liked to ask a question before voting. It's a wording that is...

[English]

The Chair: We're in the vote, Mr. Bernier. Yes or no?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Oh, oh!

Mr. Yvan Bernier: The committees work in different ways. I'm going to vote yes.

[English]

Mr. Réal Ménard: He's a visitor, Mr. Chairman. Please be nice to him.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: That refers precisely to the difference with respect to what that usually means...

[English]

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: There are no other amendments to clause 7. This will be a recorded vote.

(Clause 7 agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 8—Deputy Minister of Health)

The Chair: There are no amendments to clause 8.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask our witnesses whether this is a normal procedure and what advantage there is in having the deputy minister be an ex officio and non-voting member of the Governing Council.

Mr. Pierre Richard: The deputy minister is appointed ex officio, which means that he or she sits on the Governing Council but is not entitled to vote. Since the Deputy Minister of Health is the most senior official in this area under the responsibility of the Minister of Health, this provides a measure of coordination and continuity between the department and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The deputy minister acts as an important liaison while files are developing, and as you know, these files will be very complex in the coming years.

• 1205

I can tell you, in all frankness, that the Deputy Minister of Health made a very valuable contribution to the interim Governing Council for the setting up of this bill. In the debates and discussions, he was able to put forward a very important point of view, that the Governing Council had to take into consideration, regarding the direction it wished to take later on and on which it had to vote.

[English]

(Clause 8 agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Perhaps the clerk might answer a question on voting procedure. At the committee that I usually attend, it works fine because I'm the only one. However, if the other House of Commons MP whose name is Bernier were here, would we have to include the names of the ridings in the recorded vote?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: No?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: But how would we be identified? Would it be by number: Mr. Bernier 1 and Mr. Bernier 2?

[English]

The Chair: You're sitting here and we know who you are.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Okay.

The Chair: I hope you know who you are.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I do, but since I'm new to this committee, I wanted to know whether...

[English]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Everybody can applaud him to say welcome.

The Chair: Mr. Bernier, you're covered. You're fine. You're okay.

(On clause 9—Chairperson)

The Chair: Are there any amendments?

Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I want to move one part of the amendment, actually, but not the other part. Can I do that?

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: The amendment is that Bill C-13, in clause 9, be amended (b) by adding after line 24 on page 7 the following:

(4) Following the initial five-year term of the President, the members of the Governing Council shall elect, among themselves, the Chairperson of the Governing Council.

The Chair: Is that self-explanatory?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I think so.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Not at all. I'd like to have an explanation of what it means.

[English]

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: After the initial five-year term, the members of the governing council shall elect among themselves the chairperson of the governing council, so that the chairperson who's in place has been elected by the members present. I don't see anything that is not clear in this.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll call a recorded vote, as Mr. Ménard asked for previously.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Is it the United Alternative Party or the Reform Party that is moving the amendment?

[English]

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: It's the Reform Party. The alternative party is not in place yet. You'll be hearing from them when the time comes.

[Translation]

The Clerk: Mr. Bernier?

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Yes. However, I find that this is happening a little fast. I'm not sure whether it's because of the interpretation, but I find...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bernier, we're in a vote here.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Could we talk about this again afterwards?

[English]

The Chair: We're moving on, so maybe you can talk on clause 10.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I will be voting against it. I'll explain why later; it's because the French term is meaningless.

[English]

The Chair: Fine.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 9 agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 10—Establishing committees)

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I have another question. Could the officials enlighten us on the meaning of the word "inquiry" and provide us with examples of additional committees which may be created in addition to the executive committee?

• 1210

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Frankly, the use of the term “enquête” is incorrect, and there is a motion, I believe, to be brought by the government to amend paragraph 10(1)(b).

The Chair: That's a good point. I think we should, in fairness, in answering your question, hear from Mr. Charbonneau, who I believe has government amendment number five.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Amendment G-5, which we want to introduce now, deals with section 10 on page 7.

Mr. Réal Ménard: On page 7?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: On page 7 of the bill.

Mr. Réal Ménard: From now on, can you refer us to the page number in the stack of amendments?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: It is in the last part, in the last stack.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Fine, we have found it. Thank you.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I do not have the same reference document. I was on page 17.1.

[English]

The Chair: Page 17.1.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: You have to read the initial wording to understand the scope of this amendment. The original wording read:

10.(1) The Governing Council:

b) shall establish by by-law, in respect of the full range of health research inquiry, one or more standing advisory committees.

We withdrew amendment G-2 because the new wording proposed under amendment G-5 eliminates the word "inquiry". Therefore, the reference to inquiry disappears.

As for the substance of the amendment, we propose the following regarding the Governing Council:

b) shall establish by by-law one or more standing committees to advise the Governing Council with respect to the full range of health research, and in particular for the purposes of paragraphs 4(d) and (e).

The difference with this amendment is that the committees are “to advise the Governing Council”. When we reviewed the bill, we realized that it was not clear whom the standing committees should report to. Generally, these committees would be accountable to the entity which created them, but we thought it was better to clarify the situation: “to advise the Governing Council”. Therefore, they will not advise the minister or anyone else, but rather the Governing Council.

The last part of the amendment reads as follows: “and in particular for the purposes of paragraphs 4(d) and (e)”. These paragraphs explain in detail the mission of the institute. By adding that last bit, the work of the new committees, which may be created and disbanded as needed, will be very clearly and precisely defined. These paragraphs describe the scope of the work these committees will undertake. We will not reread that part of the bill, since it speaks to the core of the mandate and is very long.

• 1215

Paragraphs 4(d) and 4(e), in particular, state that there shall not be a proliferation of these committees. That is what we are trying to focus on.

The objective of the amendment is to clarify, to specify or to circumscribe the system. I don't think it adds any substance, but it could help us answer future questions regarding the role of these permanent committees.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like a brief clarification, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, sorry.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I don't really like to speak before Réal, but I simply wanted to raise the same issue, namely the role of these standing committees. I'm sorry, but I'm not very familiar with health statutes. At first glance, upon reading these paragraphs, I wonder what these standing committees will be called. Wouldn't it be useful to add a schedule giving a field of reference? For instance, paragraph 4(f) talks about “addressing emerging health... threats and challenges”. Does this mean there will be a new standing committee on emerging diseases?

Secondly, since this would be a Canada-wide committee—I haven't read the bill that carefully—should we somehow refer to particular health features found in different parts of Canada? For example, everyone knows that physiologically, some Aboriginal people from certain parts of the country would not adapt well if they had to live in the Gaspé or in downtown Montreal.

Will we be looking at such things? We are talking about the health of Canadians and the establishment of research institutes. My fear is that by associating standing committees with the long list of things contained in paragraphs 4(d) and 4(e), we could be opening a Pandora's box.

Moreover, since there are budget restrictions, as legislators it is incumbent upon us to define the scope of these standing committees' terms of reference.

I'm going to refer to the Canadian parliamentary system and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, with which I'm very familiar. The committee studies fisheries and oceans, but also deals with environmental issues, ecosystems and aquaculture.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bernier, excuse me. I think there's quite an easy explanation for what's being said here.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: In clear terms, so that I can...

[English]

The Chair: Maybe we'll have Monsieur Richard respond so that it's very clear.

Monsieur Richard, why don't you do that now?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: May I identify the clear question myself? Is there some way of identifying a priority areas? In my view, the current scope of this provision is too broad. But you may be able to give me a summary of what 4(d) and 4(e) really mean.

Mr. Pierre Richard: Let me explain how the process will work. There are many different things involved here. The parliamentary secretary was talking about apples and oranges, then someone said both were fruit. The issues here are also somewhat similar, in that many different but related aspects are involved.

First I'll talk about paragraph 10(1)(a), then about the amendment, then about the institutes themselves.

Paragraph 10(1)(a) states that the Governing Council may use by-laws to establish an executive committee and other committees. We would therefore expect an executive committee of the Governing Council, as well as other committees. The Governing Council would be responsible for deciding which committees to establish. The interim Governing Council is considering a number of committees, including one on ethics and one on peer review. Its first task is to determine what committees are required, then it can establish them when they are needed and abolish them when they are no longer needed.

Amendment G-5 suggests new wording for 10(1)(b). It proposes standing committees to integrate areas of research. One of the challenges of the concept we are developing is in fact how to integrate the four major sectors of research that exist today. In 25 years, there might be six such sectors. The committee would be responsible for ensuring they're integrated, and this government amendment is aimed at establishing a clear purpose for the standing committees.

• 1220

You also mentioned research on Aboriginal health. Will there be an Aboriginal health research institute? Possibly. As it stands, the bill enables the Governing Council to decide which institutes or institute branches are to be established. If there were an institute for this research sector, your question would be brought to the institute's attention, not to the standing committee's attention. The Governing Council will determine needs and create institutes appropriately, in line with the objectives of section 4. There must be a balance between the two.

Forgive me for giving such a long answer.

[English]

The Chair: No, it was very thorough and very good.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have a brief question, Mr. Chairman. Basically, you would like a committee whose terms of reference are to coordinate research in the four major areas identified: biomedical research, clinical research, basic research and population health research. This would be a standing committee. There would be no liaison committee that would in turn create other committees. There would just be this standing committee.

We will be supporting the amendment, Mr. Chairman. When an amendment makes sense, we support it. That is how we are.

But go easy on my colleague, who is not usually at this committee and needs to become familiar with the issues.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I am not stupid, I am curious.

Mr. Réal Ménard: He is not stupid but curious, and that makes him different from some other people.

[English]

The Chair: He's too used to fish. That's his problem.

[Translation]

Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Yes, they have good healthy babies.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Since Mr. Ménard has given us to understand that he was going to be supporting the amendment, I hope that my remarks will not discourage him. So that it is clear to everyone, I would just like to say that the overall coordination, if I can put it that way, will be under the responsibility of the executive committee and the Governing Council as such.

Mr. Réal Ménard: For the research.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: For the research as well as for the mandate of the institutes. The purpose of the amendment is that one or a number of permanent advisory committees are mentioned, especially under clause 4(d) and (e). Will there be one, two or five? That remains to be seen. This is an enabling provision, which authorizes the Governing Council to establish advisory tools for its work.

Mr. Réal Ménard: But that is not said. The clause does not contain the word: “consultatifs” in French.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: It says: “responsible for advising the Governing Council”. In my opinion, that is about the same thing as “advisory”. I used the word “advisory”; when you advise someone, you are not running things. The Governing Council is still responsible for integrating all the research programs and the institutes that will be established. It sets up a certain number of bodies or organs, which are described here as permanent committees responsible for providing advice. Listen, if these are not advisory committees, I do not know what they are.

[English]

It's a standing committee to advise the governing council.

[Translation]

There will be two, three, four or five committees, as needed, that will respond to challenges that the Governing Council will feel need looking into. It might be Aboriginal health issues. The door is open. Clauses 4(d) and 4(e) open the door to issues like that. In these clauses, “the health of populations” is mentioned. The last lines read:

...the health of populations, societal and cultural dimensions of health and environmental influences on health;

If the need is felt at some point to take a close look at the issue of Aboriginal health, it can certainly be justified on the basis of 4(d) and 4(e).

Mr. Réal Ménard: But you promise that you are going to respect provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: We are talking about an advisory committee to the Governing Council. Frankly, I see nothing out of the ordinary in this. In many organizations, the board of directors has an executive and advisory bodies to deal with specific issues. That is what it says here. In 4(e) and 4(d), it says specifically—because there are a lot of interdisciplinary areas and somewhat new concepts—that a new way of working will be necessary to carry out research under these institutes...

Mr. Réal Ménard: Fine. That makes sense.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: ...taking into account very broad determinants of health. With advisory committees of this sort, it will be possible to do that.

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup. Excellent overview. Thank you.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, on this point.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. I haven't had the same experience of enlightenment Mr. Ménard has had with respect to this amendment being proposed by the government. I look at the existing paragraph 10(1)(b) and fail to see the difference between the two. I've compared it to the new proposed amendment, but I fail to see a difference in terms of addressing the issue of standing advisory committees, except for the fact that the new proposed amendment attempts to limit the field of advisory pursuit in terms of advisory committees.

• 1225

I'm at a loss to understand why the government is proposing this amendment. I've listened carefully to the explanation, but I don't understand the difference in the two wordings, other than the fact that this now, in a very limiting way, could possibly restrict the possibilities around advisory committees by focusing on paragraphs 4(d) and (e). My questions were why not (f), why not ethical issues, and why not (i), commercialization? Is there a reason for that, or is this in fact an attempt to limit the pursuit, as we were going to do as a committee, of establishing advisory committees in such areas where there have been clear representations made to this committee and where we need to be absolutely vigilant in terms of the future of this new governing council? I just don't understand what this is for.

The Chair: Okay, we're going to have Mr. Charbonneau put it into context for us.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: In the original wording, the English version talked of standing advisory committees. In the new version, it says: standing committees to advise the Governing Council.

[English]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: What does that mean?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: It's about the same, but it's more accurate. It's more precise with respect to whom it will report and in what instance it will report.

The second dimension of the amendment is the reference in particular to the purposes of paragraphs 4(d) and (e). This is an enabling measure. We are not going to, either as a standing committee here or as the House of Commons, determine the number and the mandate of these particular advisory committees. It's not our role. I think the wise person who will be appointed as a member of the governing council will have a look at our debates and will read carefully—if that has not been done yet—all the briefs that have been submitted. They will be able to determine the proper areas in which such advisory committees have to be set up. We are not here to do the job that will be accomplished by the governing council as such. We are enabling the governing council to do that.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: May I ask a further question of clarification then?

The Chair: Very quickly.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Well, I hope we're not under that much time pressure, because I think this is an important point. It does impact on our ability to propose some changes to this bill, because I know we'll come to the next amendment I've proposed in terms of a standing advisory committee on ethics and, Mr. Chairperson, you'll rule me out of order because of this new amendment.

I think this new wording, by focusing specifically on paragraphs 4(d) and (e), is designed precisely to limit the areas of pursuit by standing advisory committees. Why would you specify 4(d) and (e)? Why wouldn't you have just stopped after “health research”? Why specify “and in particular for the purposes of paragraphs 4(d) and (e)”? I don't understand that change. I can see it if you want to clarify “standing committees to advise” from “standing advisory committees”, although I'm not sure about the legalities around that. But to then actually specify where those advisory committees might be set up is, to me, a limiting action on the part of the government and an attempt to restrict the pursuit of other areas. In fact, it's the areas in which we have the most questions and concerns that are not listed here.

• 1230

I think, for example, of the matter of ethics and of the number of representations we heard from folks about setting up a mechanism that is separate and apart from the actual governing council. It has some independence around ethics. I think the need for that has been made clearer than ever by the actions of the parliamentary secretary's government over the last month with the proposed changes in regulations around clinical trials. I made the point earlier at this committee when pursuing the issue of ethics and I make it again today with even more conviction because of the developments that have occurred.

I asked this question in the past. If we don't have a strong ethical framework from within Health Canada and as part of the whole health protection area, then we have to be extra vigilant in a piece of legislation like this one in order to ensure that provision is made. But we have your government on the one hand that is watering down provisions around scientific endeavour and independent surveillance on drug trials and clinical trials and we have—

The Chair: Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis, let's stick to the point here.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Well, we have—

The Chair: Excuse me. You have a very good question. We want to hear Mr. Rivard's answer, and we're going to do that now.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: All right, but I may have another question following from that.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I'm just concerned that there may be a bit of a misunderstanding here. This clause as amended, or even in its original form, creates a statutory requirement that this committee be created, and it's an advisory committee on the full range of health research. In doing so, though, it does not in any way limit the capacity of the governing council to create other standing committees. If it wished to create a standing advisory committee on ethics or whatever the issues were, it could do so. I just wanted to clarify that.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Because of the way this is worded, it doesn't establish and make statutory an advisory committee dealing with the full range of health research. It says “shall establish one or more standing committees to advise”, and blah, blah, blah. It leaves it wide open to any possibility. Does it establish one specific committee, an advisory committee? It says:

shall establish by by-law one or more standing committees to advise the Governing Council with respect to the full range of health research

The Chair: Okay, let's hear the answer to that, and then we'll go to Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: There is a statutory requirement that the governing council create at least one committee. It could create more, but it must create at least one committee that would advise it on the matters set out in the clause. My original point was that this in no way limits the governing council, at its own discretion, from creating other advisory committees on other subjects if it so wishes.

The Chair: That's good.

Mr. Charbonneau, and then Mr. Szabo.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: The amendment says “notamment”.

[English]

My perspective is that when we use the word “notamment”, or “in particular”, it means there are some other possibilities. It does not preclude anything different that could take place, but “notamment” is an indication of where the priorities are. But a priori there is no exclusion of any other area.

The Chair: Monsieur Richard, just further to the point....

Mr. Pierre Richard: I'd like to bring another piece for consideration by the committee. This is one area of discussion—the integration of the four areas of research, if you wish—that was the subject of great discussion by the members of the interim governing council. This is one area in which the government sought to take advice from the interim governing council on how to deal with the challenge of integration of the four themes.

Given the fact that this bill before you is seen as broad and enabling, the government did not want to go into detail to try to anticipate what the governing council in the years to come might need as mechanisms and tools in the way of committees. Whether it be ethics or others that have been mentioned, the government does not want to specify those.

• 1235

However, it did feel that it was important to listen to the interim governing council's advice that at least one committee be established, which in this case is the committee that would be providing advice to the governing council as it pertains to the implementation of paragraphs 4(d) and (e), which are two of the objectives. That is why that is here. But it does not preclude any others from being created, nor do we want to try to pretend that we could anticipate what others would be required in the years to come.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Paragraph 10(1)(a) says that the governing council may establish an executive committee or other committees. Could you tell me what “other committees” refers to?

Mr. Pierre Richard: Other committees that have been discussed, although this would be up to the governing council to decide, could be, for example, a committee to deal with ethics or a committee to take a look at peer review.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Does that reference to “other committees” include advisory committees?

Mr. Pierre Richard: Correct.

Mr. Paul Szabo: So is it not a contradiction that paragraph 10(1)(a) says “may establish” and (b) says “shall establish”?

Mr. Pierre Richard: Paragraph 10(1)(b) refers specifically to one or more committees that deal with paragraphs 4(d) and (e), and it is a directive that it shall establish that committee. However, paragraph 10(1)(a) gives the option to establish other committees it may deem necessary. Other examples could be administrative issues, whether it be HR issues or informatic challenges. It could establish whatever committee for whatever length of time it feels may be required.

Mr. Paul Szabo: You understand the dilemma here, because there is a mandatory advisory committee.

Mr. Pierre Richard: Correct. In fact, that is intentional in that the word “shall” as it pertains to the standing advisory committee that would deal with the integration issues dealt with in paragraphs 4(d) and (e) is a directive to the governing council. That is not an option. However, paragraph 10(1)(a) enables them to create as many committees as they feel necessary in order to carry out their mandate.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Any committee other than the executive committee can include non-members of the council.

Mr. Pierre Richard: Yes.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Amendment G-5 suggests that this is prompted by the chair and vice-chairs of the governing council to provide support for the themes and for encouraging, etc.

When I look at clause 4, the preface here is that whenever you have a list, something must be left out. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis would describe it as limiting. I see the emphasis.

But I'm not sure if it's advisable for a piece of legislation, which is the Government of Canada's legislation, to be establishing the bias a council will use when it's doing its business, as opposed to allowing the expertise the governing council has to determine their priorities. It would be very easy for me to be a member of the governing council and say, look at the legislation, especially these two. We're doing this because the legislation says so. I'm not sure the legislators should be making or passing judgment on those decisions.

I think it is arguably good sense to have the facility to establish as many committees as the governing council feels it needs to do its job in the best possible way.

But this tends, for me in any event, to introduce a bias. I'm not sure I'm comfortable as a legislator putting that bias in the legislation to the exclusion of ethics, emerging issues, innovation, prevention, and accountability, which is a good word these days. It tends to put a weighting to all these various important things.

If, for instance, we were to take G-5 and simply put a period after “health research” and just drop the reference to paragraphs 4(d) and (e), would that in any way limit the intent of the amendment as far as giving latitude and flexibility to the governing council to do whatever it wants to do?

• 1240

The Chair: Mr. Charbonneau, you brought forward G-5. I'm going to ask you to answer.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Our colleague points to a bias. I would say for us it's a focus. We are indicating what should be the main focus in order to set up that kind of advisory committee. It does not exclude anything else. It's a precision. It's an effort, an attempt, to give the real meaning, the real intent, of this particular provision without excluding any other concern that could be tackled by setting up more committees of that sort.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Bernier, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, and then we're going to—

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Richard wanted to respond to this, and I did ask a direct question about if G-5 were amended to just delete that last phrase.

The Chair: We'll get a review from him.

Mr. Richard.

Mr. Pierre Richard: If you took out 4(d) and (e), it would be a bit more as it was before this amendment, in that it talks about more generically what the role of this advisory committee would be. What this amendment does is clarify and focus a bit more the work of this advisory committee as it pertains to challenges of integration.

The issue of integration of health research is a challenge. This is part of what CIHR is all about: it is bringing together all of the communities. In fact, without wanting to stray from the matter at hand, a lot of that has already been accomplished in the months leading up to, we hope, the launch of CIHR shortly, in that the communities are working much more closely with one another—the biomedicals, etc.

The focus here is that the bill is directing the governing council to pay particular attention to this challenge of integration of the health communities as they move along into this CIHR environment, which will be quite a change for many of them. It is not to belittle some of the other challenges, which are all important, within the objectives. You mentioned some of them, whether it be ethics or others. Those are all very important objectives, and in fact will always remain objectives under the law. However, it is not deemed necessary by the government at this time to direct the governing council to have to have committees on that. It might decide to use other mechanisms to ensure the fulfilment of the objectives, as opposed to a standing advisory committee.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I'll respond to his answer.

In fact it was said to us that we must establish one committee to do this, so that simply is contrary to what you just said. We are mandating that there be at least one advisory committee.

When I look back at clause 4, in particular subparagraph 4(d)(i) says “pertain to all aspects of health”. Then we follow it up with a bunch of different things. Again, it's this problem: if you have a list of things, what is included, or are we implicitly providing the biases?

Mr. Chairman, I'm really troubled by this, because if we allow this reference to 4(d) and (e) to stay there, it is suggesting that a part of clause 4 is in fact primary over other aspects of this, which was not highlighted in the legislation. The objective is the objective in its totality.

If the objective of this clause is simply to say “In discharging your responsibilities to meet these objectives, we are enabling you to have an executive. You may have an executive committee, you may have subcommittees or other standing committees, and you must have an advisory committee that deals with other things”.... And on that advisory committee, by the way, they can be outsiders to the governing council. That's all we're saying.

• 1245

If somebody is suggesting that this reference to 4(d) and (e) is changing the articulation of the objectives of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, then the proper place to do that is to put that focus in clause 4, and not a back door somehow through clause 7. It just doesn't make sense. If that's the intent, please let's understand what emphasis we want, and let's make sure the emphasis is in the right place, because come hell or high water, somebody is going to say, “Look at what the legislation says. It says we should put emphasis here, we should be biased in this direction. It is a directive that's coming from legislators.” And quite frankly, I don't think that direction should come from legislators.

The Chair: I want to hear from Mr. Richard and then perhaps Mr. Rivard.

Go ahead.

Mr. Pierre Richard: I would choose to replace “bias” with “focus”. I prefer the word. It's a focus as opposed to a bias.

I would also say the legislators in this case have decided to take the advice of 34 prominent Canadians who have spent numerous hours and many e-mails discussing this very specific issue. Their best advice is that this is a mechanism by which they feel the governing council will be able to fulfil the objectives.

In fact the governing council must still fulfil all the other objectives, and you will have an opportunity to see how well they are doing on a yearly basis. So it does not by any means exclude their responsibility for dealing with the rest of clause 4. It just creates a mechanism by which one of those areas will be dealt with. They can use other mechanisms to deal with the other areas, other committees to deal with other parts of the objectives. So it is a focus, it is a directed focus on how they could achieve this.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Rivard, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I would only say the obligation of the governing council is to fulfil the entire objective, and that's an obligation on the officers as well. This does create a particular mechanism with a focus, although not an exclusive focus, on some part of that objective, but it is an advisory committee only. The governing council remains responsible for achieving the entire objective.

The Chair: This is an important issue, as you know. We're going to hear from Mr. Bernier and then Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, and then we're going to call the vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I will try to be brief and direct, Mr. Chairman. I come back to my point that we really need to be clear about where we are heading. I feel that the provisions in clause 10(3) are linked to amendment G-5, proposed by the government. We need to target certain areas, or else the experts and researchers will have to tell us that they would like to have an additional committee. I imagine that there will be a procedure that will enable the government to give a little more money in such a case.

The scope is quite broad. In paragraph 10(3), it says:

(3) The members of a committee who are not members of the Governing Council may be paid for their services the fees that are fixed by the Governor in Council.

So it will be the government, or the Cabinet that will decide the fees.

If we are unable to identify specific advisory committees that would be created or the issues that they would study, it would be difficult to assess the sums of money that are required. And so, subsection 10(3) will result in the government being forced to pay for a service that they didn't ask for. I'm very uncomfortable with this. I would like the officials to respond to that.

Madam Clerk, is it I who is having problems understanding the English and French terms? In English, it says "may be paid". In the Gaspé where I come from, that means "may". In the French version of the bill, it says "reçoivent". These two versions do not mean the same thing and do not correspond. As I often say myself, when we want to say that it's raining hard in the Gaspé Peninsula in French, we say: "il mouille des clous", which would be translated in English by "it's raining nails". This does not mean anything. Anglophones say "it's raining cats and dogs". However for us francophones, "mouiller des chiens et des chats" doesn't mean anything.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to reexamine this aspect, because this wording may lead to different interpretations.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You have brought up an interesting point.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bernier, with all due respect, you're a little ahead of us here. We're still dealing with government amendment five—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: But they are related.

[English]

The Chair: —which is on paragraph 10(1)(b) actually. You've I think jumped to subclause 10(3), which is fine.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: There is a link.

• 1250

The Chair: We understand you have to get involved in this and you'll take your time, I'm sure, to do that.

Maybe we can get a response to (3), and then we'll get back to the point with Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Without a doubt it's always a challenge to be assured that the two official language versions are saying the same thing. But I don't have any problem, and neither did the drafters, in this case. In both instances they leave discretion to the governor in council to establish fees for members of these committees, and if the fees are established, then of course they would be paid, but the discretion remains with the governor in council, in French and in English.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, you bring closure and we'll vote. Thank you.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I want to address more concerns about this proposed amendment and then make an amendment to the amendment at the end of my remarks.

If you compare paragraph 10(b) in the bill before us with the new proposed (b), with the exception of the last words, which begin “and in particular for the purposes of”, blah, blah, blah, you will see in fact that they are almost identical. Both say “shall”, both say “establish”, both talk about a bylaw, both talk about standing committees—one says “standing committees to advise” and the other says “standing advisory committees”. Both say “in respect of the full range of health research”. So except for that additional descriptive part at the end of the new amendment, they're identical.

They achieve the purpose of giving the ability to the governing council to actually establish advisory committees to further their work, not to become the raison d'etre for the actual bill, because in fact the whole issue of integration of these various research areas under the health rubric is the essence of the legislation. It's implicit from start to finish.

If I hear what Mr. Richard is saying about the need for this supplementary wording to accomplish the objective of integration, for me it's reason to doubt the whole purpose of the bill. If we need that, then what the heck is this bill for? It's stated over and over again to provide a new and integrated approach to research, to be a holistic approach in terms of the determinants of ill health, and to be transformative in our understanding of health research.

In fact, paragraph 4(c)—never mind 4(d) and (e)—says to forge an integrated health research agenda across disciplines. It states it right in the bill. I don't know why we need to specify, when it comes to advisory committees, something that's supposed to be implicit in the bill. Surely the point of the original paragraph 10(b) was to actually give some latitude to the committee to deal with some issues that are not intrinsic and integral to the purpose of the bill but complementary—for example, in the case of new developments around ethical issues or, as we heard from the Canadian Medical Association, around clinical research and looking at health outcomes.

I just don't understand why we would go down this path. It makes me worried. It does make me think there's an attempt here to limit the potential of the new body and to restrict its activities around some controversial areas like an ethical framework and health outcomes. Having said that—

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, these are points you can make in debate in the House of Commons. I think you've made your point. Now go on to your subamendment.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My subamendment would be to delete all words after “full range of health research”. So it would read:

shall establish by by-law one or more standing committees to advise the Governing Council with respect to the full range of health research.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Any questions? We'll call the vote on your subamendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Are you putting to a vote the amendment or the subamendment to a vote?

[English]

The Chair: The vote is on the subamendment only. Do you want a recorded vote, Monsieur Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.

• 1255

[English]

(Subamendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We'll now call a recorded vote on the main amendment, G-5.

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

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I would like to try an amendment to clause 10 to deal with my concern around ethics, which was outlined in an amendment that you will no doubt rule out of order, given the amendment we just passed. I would propose that we amend this bill by adding paragraph (c) to clause 10, saying:

The Governing Council shall establish a special advisory committee on ethics which will report directly to the Minister of Health.

The Chair: The original amendment is out of order.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.

The Chair: This amendment as being proposed is in order.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Explain, please.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'll just take a minute to explain. Committee members will recall we had a number of presenters who raised questions around the need for a very clearly defined ethical framework, especially in the context of this pursuit of a new approach to health research. That concern has been reinforced more than ever by the fact that we appear to have really lost the resolve in this government to ensure ethics is at the top of the agenda.

Mr. Chairperson, as I said earlier, if in fact we're dealing with a situation where the Minister of Health is dropping the ball on the highest possible ethical standards, especially when it comes to such critical matters as clinical trials, then we have to ensure this new research body has that capacity. It has to be somewhere in government.

I'm going to keep pushing as hard as I can to convince the health minister to change his mind and to return to a framework that addresses these very critical issues. But in the event that I'm unsuccessful in doing that, I would hope at least we can ensure that with the new Canadian Institutes of Health Research, that capacity is built in and there is some sort of expert committee that looks at ethical issues and helps to develop an ethical policy framework that reports to the government.

The Chair: Point taken.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I hope committee members will support that.

The Chair: Mr. Charbonneau will give his advice, and then we'll call the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: We need to reject this amendment for two reasons.

First of all, this amendment requires the Governing Council to create a specific committee. I understand that ethical issues are very important, but this mechanism bypasses the Governing Council. It would force them to establish a standing advisory committee for this specific question.

Secondly, the amendment stipulates that the Council would report directly to the Minister of Health.

[English]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You just did that with your amendment.

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, no.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sorry.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's not true.

The Chair: Mr. Charbonneau, you have the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: “Which will report directly to the Minister of Health”. So we would have here a standing committee which would basically bypass the body that is responsible for directing institutes and which would report directly to the Minister. It just doesn't make sense.

To reassure our colleague and other people...

[English]

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor].

The Chair: Carry on, carry on.

• 1300

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: With respect to ethical concerns, I can only refer our colleague to amendment G-1, the first amendment proposed by the government, which was agreed to. We amended clause 4 by specifying in paragraph (g) that we were fostering the discussion of ethical issues and the application of ethical principles to health research. So ethical concerns are important for the government.

I would like to refer our colleague to the content of clause 5, which outlines the powers and functions attributed to the research institutes. Paragraph 5(d) indicates that the institutes will:

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

Thus on two occasions, the ethical concerns are laid out quite explicitly in the paragraphs which deal with the thrust of the bill. So there is no need to worry that the government might be trying to relegate these issues to the back-burner. These issues are one of the key concerns; and they must be integrated into each of the institutes that will be created. The government wishes to avoid having them relegated to a special committee that would deal with ethical issues while the other committees deal with research.

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Mr. Charbonneau. I think you've made your point and I think it's a good one. We're going to call the question, with a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Shall clause 10 as amended carry?

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, could we have a further explanation on subclause 10(3) in regard to the translation? I think there's a difference between “may be paid” and “reçoivent”. Maybe the translators can help you on this.

The Chair: Okay. Can we agree to have that accurately done?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Sure.

The Chair: We'll do that, Mr. Rivard, and make sure it's done properly, but we'll vote knowing that will happen.

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: I think clause 11 is pretty straightforward.

(Clause 11 agreed to)

A voice: It's one o'clock.

The Chair: This meeting stands adjourned. Thank you very much.