HEAL Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ
EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Monday, December 13, 1999
• 1554
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, we'll call this meeting of the health committee to order.
As you know, we're moving into clause-by-clause today, and we have a number of clauses to look at, as well as a number of amendments.
With us today we have Mr. Rivard, who's general counsel from Justice Canada. We have Mr. Hoye, who's the director of policy and government relations, CIHR Transition Secretariat, and we have Monsieur Richard, who's the executive director of the CIHR Transition Secretariat. We also have Ms. Mosher, who's the executive director of the Medical Research Council of Canada. They're here simply on a technical basis, to answer technical questions only.
Before we begin—and I know, Mr. Ménard, you have a point of order—I do want to lay down the rules in terms of what we'll be doing here today. As you know, we've heard a number of witnesses and now we are moving to clause-by-clause. Everyone should have in front of them the amendments as collated by the clerk. You should also have the prepared agenda, which indicates the order of the amendments we will be dealing with, clause by clause and line by line.
• 1555
I should note for the record that even though
amendments have been circulated to members of the
committee, an amendment is not officially before the
committee until it's been moved by the member under
whose name it's been circulated. If the member is not
present, another member of the committee may do that
and move it accordingly.
Two, only members of the committee can move amendments or subamendments. I think that's standard.
Three, when an amendment has been moved and during debate if there appears to be a consensus developing between the various parties as to the wording for such an amendment, the amendment and the clause, by unanimous consent, can be allowed to stand to allow for negotiations to continue.
Four, when an amendment has been moved and during debate the member who moved it decides to withdraw it, this can only be done by unanimous consent.
Five, the standing orders provide that all motions shall be in writing.
Six, when lines in a clause have been amended, earlier lines and earlier clauses can only be amended by unanimous consent.
Seven, unlike report stage, where standing orders provide for motions to be printed in the relevant section of the notice paper, the standing orders do not provide for a notice paper for the clause-by-clause consideration of a bill in committee. Consequently the chair can only rule on the procedural acceptability of an amendment when it has been moved.
I should also note, in relation to report stage.... I'd like to bring to all members' attention Standing Order 76(5), which reads in part as follows:
-
The Speaker will normally not select for
consideration any motion previously ruled out of order
in committee, unless the reason for its being ruled out
of order was that it required a recommendation of the
Governor General, in which case the amendment may be
selected only if such Recommendation has been placed on
notice pursuant to the Standing Order. The Speaker
will normally only select motions that were not or
could not be presented in committee. A motion,
previously defeated in committee, will only be selected
if the Speaker judges it to be of such an exceptional
significance as to warrant a further investigation at the
report stage.
You may wish to keep that in mind when making amendments.
As I had noted then, we have the officials from the department and others here. I would like to begin by simply indicating to you, if you would turn to the bill itself, that we will stand the preamble and clause 1, which is the short title of the bill. We'll move then, after that, according to clauses and amendments as submitted.
With the committee's consent then, clause 1 will be stood.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Before we move to clause 2, I'll ask for Monsieur Ménard's point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Chairman, you are aware that the bill we are studying is of the greatest importance, both for the research community and for those who believe that the future demands that we have innovation capabilities. You are aware that it is of the highest importance that we, the parliamentarians, carry out our work in a serious fashion and possess all of the information required so as to be able to evaluate each of the clauses of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, because we want to do our work properly, I am convinced that, beyond any partisan considerations, we will not be able to carry out the clause by clause study of the bill without first having heard the Minister. You are aware that the Minister is in the House a very enlightened voice and that he is respected by all of the members here in this room. It is my belief that we had planned on meeting with the Minister before moving ahead with our study of the bill. The Bloc Québécois members have numerous questions for him, even though they are relatively favourable to the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I therefore feel duty-bound, in my quest for professionalism, to ask you to accept a motion to adjourn. We could resume our clause by clause study of the bill once the Minister has appeared. I believe the Minister would be able to contribute greatly to our work, given especially that he has consulted various partners.
I have been a member of the House since 1993. I was there before you, Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that I am a little younger than you. Even if this practice is not required by Beauchesne, tradition has it that the Minister appear before a committee prior to clause by clause.
I believe it would be imprudent and ill-advised, and perhaps even on the verge of anti-democratic, to proceed with our study without having heard the Minister, who is such an enlightened contributor to the work of the House.
• 1600
Obviously, we do not know if he will be a candidate or not
during an eventual leadership race and there is no point in
discussing that now, but I believe he is a man who could give us
information.
I am sorry that our work was disrupted, but it was the Reform Party's prerogative to launch a filibuster. It served as a reminder to us that there are within the Reform Party two types of MPs: early birds and night owls. And as it turned out, we were all called upon, in turn, to do night duty.
Mr. Chairman, in the face of this situation, I believe it would be imprudent to adopt the bill without the Minister having appeared before us. I believe that my request should be supported by all sides of the House.
Furthermore, I believe that the Minister will make himself available quite quickly. Here is a very naturally welcoming man, and all those who have met him appreciate his great qualities and his courtesy. Once again, I believe that we should pass a motion to adjourn so as to allow the Minister to appear before us.
Mr. Chairman, we have numerous questions to ask him. As a matter of fact, you are well aware that this is possible under Standing Order 60. I will therefore read to you, officially, the motion that I will tabling, Mr. Chairman.
I move that the committee adjourn now and that it charge the Chairman with contacting the Minister's office and his agenda officer—and, if I am not mistaken, it is Ms. Moore—and that we then invite the Minister to appear before us.
You will have our agreement if you choose to call a meeting of the committee for tomorrow or the day after. We will make ourselves available when the Minister is available. We will understand that this is an important bill. I will feel comfortable with that, because I have long thought that in the House our duty, when conventions, traditions...
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chair: I think you've made your point.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Nearly.
[English]
The Chair: I think we understand where you're heading here. I'm going to deal with the point of order first. Then I'm going to say as follows. If the committee wants to vote on your motion, they're free to do so. But with respect to the point of order, I can tell you that while it is customary for a minister to appear, it's not necessary and obligatory.
As you know, last Wednesday, on December 8, the minister was scheduled to appear. Events overtook us in the House of Commons that prevented this appearance. It seems to me, as you pointed out, the importance of this bill is such that we need to move on, and that's precisely what we're doing today: we're moving on.
It's too bad the minister is not able to come. That's unfortunate, because we had him scheduled and we were going to have him here. But events overtook us.
So on the point of order, it's precisely that. It's a point of order and I've listened politely to it. That's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. If you want to raise a motion, you're free to do that right now. We'll vote on it, we'll get it out of the way, and that will be the end of it.
Bring your motion forward without a lot of debate. Simply present the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: You would like me to table my motion? Very well.
I move that the committee adjourn now and that it charge the Chairman with contacting the Minister's office to ask him to appear before us before we undertake our clause by clause consideration of Bill C-13.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. Is there a seconder for that?
[Translation]
An hon. member: That is not necessary.
[English]
The Chair: It's not necessary on that. We'll call the question. All those in favour?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I would ask for a recorded vote.
[English]
The Chair: A recorded vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, indeed. I will vote in favour of the motion because I believe it is a matter of democracy.
[English]
The Chair: Ah, ah—
Mr. Réal Ménard: Don't be tough on me, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: I'm older than you. I will be tough.
Mr. Réal Ménard: You're older than me. That's true.
(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 2)
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ladies and gentlemen, as I indicated, according to Standing Order 75(1), the title, preamble, and clause 1 are deemed to be stood. We'll move to clause 2.
Mr. Ménard.
• 1605
[Translation]
(On clause 2—Definition of “Minister”)
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to join with you in welcoming the witnesses. I am convinced that they will do their utmost to answer our questions. I would like to ask them three questions.
Mr. Rivard, are you a lawyer?
Mr. Glenn Rivard (General Counsel, Justice Department): Yes.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Congratulations.
Could you tell us the meaning of the words “the Governor in Council” in the context of Clause 2?
[English]
The Chair: Did you have three questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, but I would like to ask them one by one.
[English]
The Chair: Let's get all three out.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: First of all, what do the words “Governor in Council” mean?
[English]
The Chair: And the second?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: How must one look at changes by order? Why are we given the impression that ministers other than the Minister of Health might eventually be charged with designating institutes?
[English]
The Chair: Is there any further question, or is that it?
[Translation]
Is that all?
Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, for now.
The Chairman: Mr. Rivard.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: The Governor in Council is a legal entity responsible for making certain designations. The Governor in Council is virtually equivalent to the Cabinet, though they are not exactly the same.
Mr. Réal Ménard: What is the difference?
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Ménard, let's establish some ground rules right away. You're not going to interrupt when they're answering.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Fine.
[English]
I'm going to ask a question.
The Chair: You will ask a question and then they will answer, but you will not interrupt while they're answering.
Mr. Réal Ménard: But you will not push me.
The Chair: I'm the chairman of this committee and I'm telling you the way the rules are going to be.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm a member.
The Chair: I understand that.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, and I want to put a question.
The Chair: You will not interrupt when they're answering.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I have another question afterwards?
The Chair: That's fine, that's fair, and that's the way it should be.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Rivard.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: The Governor in Council is a legal entity comprising the Governor General and his or her ministers.
The second question dealt with the possibility that another minister be charged with enforcing the act. The approach we have used with this bill is that used with all bills and acts, because a government shuffle and the redistribution of ministerial responsibilities is always a possibility. It is thus possible that a Minister see his title changed. For example, a few years ago, we had a minister of Health and Welfare. The approach we have used in Clause 2 thus allows for some flexibility.
Could you please remind me what your third question was?
Mr. Réal Ménard: My third question related to changes to the order. Is that a standard provision?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Forgive me, but I do not understand your question.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Clause 2 provides for some flexibility in the case of changes to the name of the Department of Health or the responsibilities of the Minister. Any such changes would require changing the Order in Council.
So what does the word “order” mean in the context of Clause 2? Could you give me a synonym?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: I do not see the word “order” in this clause.
Mr. Réal Ménard: You do not see it? It appears in the French version. Are we looking at the same clause?
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Ménard, are you using an old copy of the bill, or do you have the current one?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I have before me the bill I was given here. Are we at the right place? Are we on Clause 2?
[English]
The Chair: Yes, we are.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Am I to understand that this is a standard provision in bills?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Clause 2? Yes, it is a standard or usual provision.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Could a Minister other than the Minister of Health be called upon to make decisions relating to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Yes, in accordance with this clause, that would be possible.
• 1610
Mr. Réal Ménard: What is the rationale behind that?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: As I was saying, Cabinet shuffles and changes to the responsibilities and titles of Ministers are always possible. If we were unable to use such an approach, we would be forced to change the act whenever there was such a reorganization. Thanks to this approach, it is much easier for us to reflect any changes flowing from a reorganization.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Why are we saying that it is a definition, when in fact it is not one at all?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: It is the definition of the Minister designated by Privy Council for the purposes of the act.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Legally speaking, you are telling me that Privy Council and Cabinet are not synonymous. As a matter of fact, people say that the last time Privy Council met was when Prince Charles got married. For all intents and purposes, Privy Council has a protocolary role to play. What can you tell us about Privy Council?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Privy Council is a legal entity. Cabinet includes members of Privy Council, but it is rather a political organization.
Mr. Réal Ménard: It is important that one have the correct view of these matters. Might we say that all Ministers are automatically members of the Privy Council?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: If I understand correctly, that is the case.
Mr. Réal Ménard: For example, is Mr. Lucien Bouchard still a member of Privy Council? I believe that not just ministers but former ministers as well are members. Could I be a member?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Clause 2 deals with the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. This legal entity is different from the privy councils of each province.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Each province has its own Privy Council?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Yes.
Mr. Réal Ménard: For Canada, Privy Council is made up exclusively of Ministers. For example, Brian Mulroney, in 1992...
Mr. Glenn Rivard: No. Certain members of Privy Council are not Ministers. We talk of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, and not of the Cabinet, which is a political term.
Mr. Réal Ménard: As a matter of fact, people say that that is where the big things happen politically speaking. Is there a difference between the Council of Ministers and the Cabinet? Could we talk about the Council of Ministers in a bill? If there are errors in the bill, we will suggest amendments. It is clear that we are ready to serve.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: All I can say is that the correct term is “the Queen's Privy Council for Canada”.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Is that the legal term?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Yes.
Mr. Réal Ménard: You are certain of that?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Yes.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Did you study constitutional law at Ottawa University?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: No, at Osgoode Hall, in Toronto.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Very well. When one is a member of the Privy Council, one is not necessarily a Minister. You must know of Lucien Bouchard. He is a member of the Privy Council. What that means is that if a person has been a Minister, he or she is also a member of the Privy Council. Were former ministers consulted about the bill?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: No.
Mr. Réal Ménard: They were not consulted, and you want us to adopt the bill.
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Ménard, are you just wrapping up here, or are you done?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Nearly, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chair: We need to go to vote, and I'd like to at least get through clause 2.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you want us to vote on this clause now?
[English]
The Chair: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I have not finished with my questions, Mr. Chairman. Be kind with me while I ask my questions.
I do understand this idea a bit. You have made a distinction between the Council of Ministers and the Queen's Privy Council, based upon our constitutional organization. How many times a year does the Queen's Privy Council meet?
The Chairman: I do not know.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Is there some way of obtaining this information? If you do not obtain this information, Mr. Chairman, you may go ahead with the vote, but a recorded vote will be required for each clause. This is very important.
[English]
The Chair: Okay, we'll have a recorded vote right now. I'll call the question on clause 2 and I'll ask the clerk to read out the names.
• 1615
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): On a point of order, I'd like to put a motion forward that there be no recorded votes on any of the clauses throughout this proceeding in the order of trying to expedite things.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: No, we cannot proceed in this way.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin: I'm putting it to a vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: It is a member's privilege, Mr. Chairman. This is not an option.
An hon. member: The Reformers.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Oh, the Reformers.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Martin, I think it's a standard practice that we can ask for a recorded vote. I'd prefer that we did that if it's been asked for.
(Clause 2 agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: We'll suspend this committee meeting, we'll vote in the House, and then we'll be back.
• 1616
• 1713
The Chair: We'll reconvene the health committee.
(On clause 3—Canadian Institutes of Health Research)
The Chair: Do you have a question, Monsieur Ménard?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Are we at Clause 3 or at Clause 4? You said Clause 3, Mr. Chairman. We are still on Clause 3, are we not?
[English]
The Chair: We're at clause 3.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Very well. Could someone explain to me the meaning of “personne morale”?
An hon. member: Look at the English version.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, but I would like an explanation from the witnesses, from Mr. Richard, Mr. Hoye or the lawyer. Would you prefer that we wait for Mr. Rivard's return, Mr. Chairman?
An hon. member: We can move on the Clause 4.
Mr. Réal Ménard: No, we cannot move on to Clause 4.
[English]
The Chair: No, Monsieur Ménard. You have that question. Do you have any other questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.
[English]
The Chair: Do you want to get them all out now? We'll take notes, and then we'll go from there.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: No, I would like to ask them one by one and I would like answers as we go along.
[English]
The Chair: Okay, Mr. Hoye.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Rivard is coming.
The Chair: The first question is the meaning of “corporation”.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Corporation is a legal entity able to take decisions and be legally bound in its own name.
The Chair: Thank you.
• 1715
Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Does the term “personne morale” have the same meaning in Clause 3 as in section 735 of the Criminal Code, for which there are many jurisdictions?
In the Criminal Code, a “personne morale” means three things. For example, if you wish to charge a “personne morale” there is what is called the “theory of identification”. As you know, in law, a “personne morale” does not have a mens rea. However, an infraction...
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Ménard, I'm going to rule that out of order. We're going down a path here that is starting to be—
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: No, my question is admissible.
[English]
The Chair: I want it specific to clause 3, not about the Criminal Code but clause 3.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the work you are doing, but I would like to refer to Clause 116 that stipulates that each and every member may ask the questions he or she pleases. It is not up to you to decide if the question is relevant or not.
I have asked the lawyer the meaning of the term “personne morale”, that may be interpreted in different ways in the legal domain, and I have also asked him for a comparison with the Criminal Code. I will not accept the Chair's attempts to muzzle members who wish to ask questions. We will ask whatever questions we want, one by one, and these questions will deal with what we want them to deal with. I respect your work because you are the Chair of the committee. I will do my work and I will use my prerogative to ask questions, as provided for under Standing Order 116. I warn you that any attempt to prevent me from asking questions will cause a lot of trouble in the committee.
[English]
The Chair: Well, Mr. Ménard, I'm telling you that you're going to get to the point and ask relevant questions or I'm simply going to ask whether or not we move on and call the question. It's your choice. You will either ask the questions pointed to the clause or I'm going to ask the question. It's up to you.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: My questions are relevant and I will repeat them. What is the meaning of the term “personne morale” and what is the difference between the meaning under Clause 3 and that contained in the Criminal Code? My question is relevant and it's no business of yours, Mr. Chairman, to doubt its relevance.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: “Personne morale” is a technical and legal term. I am not an expert in the area of the section of the Criminal Code that you are referring to and I therefore am not in a position to tell you if there is a difference between the two usages. I do however know that the term “personne morale” has the same meaning as the term “corporation” that is found in the English version of the bill.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Perfect. Now then is my second question, that will followed by many more.
The word “Instituts” is used in the plural form. Why is the word “Instituts” used in the plural form in Clause 3, whereas in many of the other clauses of the bill, it is used in the singular form?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: The name of this organization is in the plural, both in English and in French. The organization is called Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada or Canadian Institutes of Health Research. When we talk of an institute, we are talking of a division or of a part of this organization specialized in the health field. That is the difference.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I am not sure I understand your answer. Am I to understand that when we talk about an institute in the singular, we are for example alluding to the governing council, and that when we talk about institutes in the plural, we are talking about various divisions?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: An institute is a division of CIHR, created by the governing council under Clause 20 of the bill.
Mr. Réal Ménard: When we say that the institutes, in the plural, are established as a “personne morale”, that means that we believe the institutes, that are scientific creatures closely linked to Health Canada, must be considered as corporations.
Isn't there something slightly illogical here, given the mission of these institutes, which is focused upon research and the need to belong to a network? One of the strong points of the bill which, I repeat, will get our support if certain Bloc amendments are passed, is the fact that it will link researchers within a network.
I fail to understand why the term “personne morale” is used in this way, without any preamble, any word of caution. I find this hurtful.
• 1720
Mr. Glenn Rivard: Clause 3 states clearly that there is a “personne morale” to be known as the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Even if the title uses the plural, we are talking here of an organization.
Mr. Réal Ménard: That means, for example, that if there are 10 or 15...
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Ménard, I've heard enough on this institute/institutes thing. Ask your next question.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: It is not up to you to decide if...
[English]
The Chair: Okay, then I'm simply going to ask the question. Shall clause—
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: We are against that. We have the right to ask questions. Until I understand the meaning of the word, I will ask questions.
[English]
The Chair: At some point it gets silly, and it's at that point now. I'm going to cut it off. If you have another question you want to ask—
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: No, it is not silly.
[English]
The Chair: —you go ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: It is not silly. We have the right to ask questions, and my questions are very relevant. I find your comments out of place. It is not for you to decide whether or not a question is silly. A question is relevant so long as it enlightens a member.
The Chairman: Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Réal Ménard: That is the role of parliamentarians.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Ménard, a committee is destined in its own way, and if you want to challenge me, you go ahead. But I'm going to rule that the question is going to be put unless you have another question you want to have answered. But we are not going on with institute/institutes any further.
If you have another question, you go ahead and put it. If not, I'm going to call the question. So it's your choice.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I will not tolerate that you prevent me from speaking. You do not have the right. You do not have the right to prevent us from asking questions. Standing Order 116 is clear.
[English]
The Chair: No, at some point, though, as chairman I am going to step in and get to the question, and I'm going to ask for that very soon. Do you have another question? If not, I'm going to call the question.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I have another question.
[English]
The Chair: Let's hear it.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: And I will ask it, Mr. Chairman, since it is my prerogative to do so.
I would ask you to explain to us the meaning of the word “mandataire” in subsection 3(2). As you know, the subsection reads as follows:
-
(2) The CIHR is an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada.
What does the word “agent” mean in the context of case law, of doctrine and of the law?
[English]
Mr. Glenn Rivard: If an organization is an agent of the government, that means it is operating, if you will, in a semi-autonomous fashion. It can operate in its own name, take on legal responsibilities and fulfil legal obligations in its own name, but it also has behind it, if you will, the financial and legal authority of the Government of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: You say that the word “mandataire” talks to the autonomy of an organization. Am I to understand that in such a context, the word “agent” may be replaced by the word “autonomous”?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: The word “agent” indicates that there is a certain relationship between the organization and the government. The organization is semi-autonomous. In front of it, there is the government.
[English]
and the government will guarantee, as it were, the operations of the organization.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: How far can it go? For example, a little further in the bill, there is a provision requiring that the Minister report to the House on all of its activities. Is the word “mandataire” synonymous with fiduciary, legally speaking?
[English]
The Chair: Okay, Mr. Ménard, I've had enough on “agent”, too. Do you have another question? I'm soon going to call the question.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I have not finished and in my opinion you do not have the right to decide when the questions of a member have been satisfactorily answered. That is not your privilege. None of your predecessors has acted in that way. I have always respected your work, I have been a parliamentarian, I have not missed a single meeting of the committee and I do not allow you the right to decide when my questions have been answered.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Ménard, I am not calling into question your hard work. I am, however, telling you that under Standing Order 116...while we as a committee generally operate not unlike the House of Commons, we don't operate totally like them. We operate the way we want to. And if at some point you have asked enough frivolous questions and we as a group want to move on.... As chair, I am deeming that to be the time right now.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: No.
[English]
The Chair: I'm going to call the question whether you like it or not.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: It is not a frivolous question.
[English]
The Chair: I'm calling the question on clause 3. All those in favour of clause 3? We'll have a recorded vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: It is not a frivolous question and you cannot do that. You cannot. This is not a privilege you are entitled to. Paragraph 116 of Beauchesne stipulates that we have the right to ask questions and I will not tolerate your limiting my exercise of this right.
[English]
The Chair: Enough, Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: That is not your privilege. We will ask questions.
• 1725
[English]
The Chair: Enough, Mr. Ménard, enough.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: We will ask questions.
[English]
The Chair: Carry on.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: We will ask questions. That is not your privilege. It is a matter of rules. You do not have the right to do that. You have no such privilege. You do not have the right to act in this manner. We will ask questions. You do not have the right to do that. We will not tolerate it. It is not your privilege. We will not accept it. We will ask for adjournment. You do not have the right to do that. It is not your privilege.
We have the right to ask questions and we will ask them to whomever we wish. You are antidemocratic. We have the right to ask questions and you will not prevent us from doing so. If the government did not want us to ask questions, then it should not have tabled a bill on the national issue. We will ask whatever questions we please. We have the right to ask these questions and you do not have the right to decide. That right belongs to us. We have not finished with our questions. You do not have the right to do that. This vote is out of order.
[English]
(Clause 3 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 1)
(On clause 4—Objective)
The Chair: We have an amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: You do not have the right to do that, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Charbonneau.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: On a point of order.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Charbonneau, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: You do not have the right to not give us the floor. Point of order. I have the same privileges as any other parliamentarian.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Charbonneau, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to present an amendment on behalf of the government: it is amendment G-1, and it is on paragraph 4(g).
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Ménard, I'll take your point of order after Mr. Charbonneau. He has the floor right now and he's going to speak.
Mr. Charbonneau.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I have a point of order. You do not have the right to do what you are doing.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin: I move to call the question on Mr. Charbonneau's—
The Chair: All right. I'm calling the question on Mr. Charbonneau's—
I told you, I'm getting to you in a minute. Now settle down.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: On a point of order. You do not have the right to do this. We are challenging the Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Go ahead.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 0)
The Chair: Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Keith Martin: Excuse me. There's still another amendment on clause 4.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Keith Martin: There are two other ones, by Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis and myself.
The Chair: Okay. Do you want to lead off then?
Mr. Keith Martin: Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis is first, actually.
The Chair: Go ahead, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Iles, BQ): Mr. Chairman, are you not going to give the floor to Mr. Ménard as you promised?
[English]
The Chair: As soon as we get through the amendments, we will. I'll give it to Mr. Ménard. We're going to go through the amendments first.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I move that clause 4 of Bill C-13 be amended by deleting lines 1 to 4 on page 5.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Perron: Mr. Chairman, since we have finished looking at the amendment put forward by Mr. Charbonneau...
[English]
The Chair: I said after clause 4 we'll hear the point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Perron: ...you must now give the floor to Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Réal Ménard: That is what you had said, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilles Perron: You said that after having listened to Mr. Charbonneau, you would give the floor to Mr. Ménard. I am simply repeating what you yourself stated. So give Mr. Ménard the floor.
[English]
The Chair: I understand. But what I want to do is get through all.... What I meant to say was after clause 4.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Perron: I am not repeating what you had intended to say, Mr. Chairman, but what you did in fact say.
• 1730
[English]
The Chair: Enough.
We're going to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis now.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Perron: Mr. Chairman, could he have the floor? It is not the intention that counts, but what was said.
[English]
The Chair: Enough.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.
[English]
The Chair: Enough.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: No, it is not enough. It is a point of order.
[English]
The Chair: Enough!
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, when a point of order is raised, you must give us the floor.
You said that after Mr. Charbonneau, it would be our turn. That is the commitment that came from the Chair, namely that after Mr. Charbonneau's intervention, you would give us the floor. Mr. Chairman, if you do not wish to behave...
[English]
The Chair: After clause 4—
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: No, that is not what you said.
[English]
The Chair: —we'll deal with this.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: That is not what you said.
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: This is a point of order.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I would move that clause 4 of Bill C-13 be amended by deleting—
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: —lines 1 to 4 on page 5.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. You should give us the floor afterwards. That is what you said you would do. I believe that the Chair should commit to doing what it said it would.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Keith Martin: I'd like to ask Ms. Wasylycia-Leis a very important question.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, this is a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin: I understand, I think, the rationalization for Ms. Wasylycia-Leis doing this, and to some extent I agree with her, but I wondered if she'd first explain the reasons for her amendment and whether or not the removal of the words “the commercialization of”, would be acceptable to her.
The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The reason for the amendment is to ensure that this bill is absolutely clear and unambiguous about the paramount importance of the public interest.
It's based on a number of representations we received at committee. I'm not sure if I have the complete list of organizations and individuals who supported this change we're proposing, but they certainly include, as you will recall, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Healthcare Association, the Prairie Women's Health Centre of Excellence, the Network for the Advancement of Health Services Research, the Canadian Nurses Association, and the National Council on Ethics in Human Research.
I believe the point was made time and time again before this committee that while it is understood that research in this country has a commercial aspect, in terms of the purpose and principle of this bill on the CIHR, it is absolutely clear that we put the public interest first and foremost, and that this reference, this particular paragraph, 4(i), is a particular problem in terms of skewing the balance and misrepresenting the fundamental purpose of the bill.
By deleting this paragraph, I think we answer that question and we also avoid the risk of allowing this bill to be used as a vehicle for commercial interests ahead of the public good.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Charbonneau, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Perron: Mr. Chairman, one moment please. This is a point of order relating to the previous vote.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: To the previous amendment...
Mr. Gilles Perron: Mr. Chairman, this is a point of order relating to the previous vote.
[English]
The Chair: No. We're on this amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Perron: Mr. Chairman...
[English]
The Chair: Enough.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Perron: I raise a point of order.
[English]
The Chair: Enough.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Perron: Please ask the Clerk. It relates to the previous vote.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Charbonneau.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: You do not have the right to do that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: The purpose of this amendment is to remove a paragraph...
Mr. Gilles Perron: On a point of order, please.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Point of order. You do not have the right to do that.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: This amendment would remove a paragraph...
Mr. Gilles Perron: Sir, you are obligated to give us the floor.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: The paragraph that would be removed would be the following:
-
i) encouraging innovation, facilitating the commercialization of
health research in Canada and promoting economic development
through health research in Canada;
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I raised a point of order.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I believe this paragraph should be read in the context of the clause in its entirety. This is one way for the CIHRs to carry out their mission. This is not the only way or the main way, but this fits into a series of means or mandates allowing them to carry out their mission. I believe that Clause 4 mentions, in this order, the need for leadership in the various fields of research, the characteristics this research work should have, namely excellence, respect of international standards, integration, inter-disciplinarity, etc.
At a certain stage, we recognize that it must also encourage innovation and facilitate the commercialization of research. I believe it is essential to translate the results of research into concrete benefits for the sick and for the broader public. We do not carry out research for the pleasure of doing research work, but rather for the benefits it will give people through commercialization and other means.
I therefore believe that we cannot be in favour of this amendment. It would greatly skew the very mission of these institutes.
• 1735
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
[English]
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor].
The Chair: We'll get to the vote after. Just hang on.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Keith Martin: Maybe there's a way to actually marry up the concerns here. I understand where Judy is coming from. There are other parts of this bill, and indeed other amendments, that actually take Judy's concern, which is an important one, into consideration. So I think throwing this out entirely would be a very bad thing. However, there is a concern that many researchers have...as we know, a significant amount of research will be basic research that has no short-term or even intermediate-term impact and is difficult to quantify in terms of the commercial value of that research. And basic research is such an essential part of research in general.
Perhaps—if I could move a subamendment—the words “the commercialization of” can be removed. In that way, we do not damage the bill in any way, but I think we can take into consideration the concerns of the research community that health research in general is going to be commercialized and would give some degree of...it would alleviate the concerns of groups that basic research is going to be tossed out because everything has to have a commercial value.
So I would move that the words “the commercialization of” be removed from this paragraph.
The Chair: Okay. We'll get to that in a minute.
Mr. Szabo, please.
An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor].
The Chair: We're going to get to that in a minute. Hang on.
Mr. Szabo.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): I wonder if I could get a clarification from the clerk or some guidance from the clerk on the status of points of order relative to other activities within the discussions going on. Must they be suspended until a point of order or a point of privilege is dealt with?
The Chair: I think it's really in the hands of the—
Mr. Paul Szabo: It's parliamentary procedure.
The Chair: All right.
It would be normal to have points of order recognized, but I think we heard them, and we were going to deal with them in a minute after this was dealt with.
Mr. Paul Szabo: So the normal practice is that a point of order would be respected, heard, and dealt with and we would proceed again.
With regard to—
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Perron: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, when a point of order is raised, you must apprise yourself of the situation and ask the question. The point of order takes effect immediately.
We ask for nothing less than to cooperate, but you cannot limit our prerogative to ask questions. I spoke to the witness intelligently and respectfully and I will continue to behave in this way throughout the committee's meetings. But you have neither the right nor the prerogative...
Give me one single section of our rules that allows you to decide whether or not a question is relevant. I asked a perfectly relevant legal question on the difference between “mandataire” and “fiduciaire”. It is a perfectly valid question, Mr. Chairman, and you do not have the right to cut me off.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Ménard, I told you before that Standing Order 116 refers to what's standard in the House—
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: That refers to the Standing Orders...
[English]
The Chair: —and it doesn't necessarily have to be here at committee as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.
[English]
The Chair: No, it doesn't.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Read it, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chair: No, it doesn't. I'm not entering into a debate with you on this. I'm telling you that this is the way this committee is going to operate.
Now, we'll come back in a minute to how you voted.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: He interprets things the way he pleases... [Inaudible—Editor].
[English]
The Chair: I understand you have a question about how you voted. Do you want to clear that up now?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Perron: I am the one who has one.
[English]
The Chair: Go ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: The point of order must be heard when it is raised.
Mr. Gilles Perron: Precisely. Mr. Chairman, I raised a point of order relating to the first vote: I wanted to tell the Clerk that she had obviously not heard correctly. If my pronunciation was not clear, I apologize. I stated that I was refusing to vote, that I was going to abstain. However, she wrote down that I voted against.
I do not wish to take part in this masquerade of democracy, in this dictatorship, where the Chairman decides on his own how the committee is going to work...
[English]
The Chair: That's your choice.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Perron: ...and even your friends from across the way are telling you that you are wrong, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and goodbye.
Mr. Réal Ménard: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Another point of order. We need clear direction here. We believe, on this side of the House, that this situation is covered in the Standing Orders, Mr. Chairman, and that you cannot choose to not respect the Standing Orders. Standing Order 116 clearly applies to committees.
• 1740
[English]
The Chair: We've already gone through this, and I've told you what I'm prepared to do. While Standing Order 116 applies in the House, it does not necessarily apply here. I'm simply going to go on that basis.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: That is false. You do not have the right to decide what applies and what does not apply.
[English]
The Chair: Yes, well, I'm not going to debate it with you, Monsieur Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: You do not have the privilege of deciding what applies and what does not. Tell me why it does not apply.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Szabo, have you had your question answered?
Mr. Paul Szabo: No. Well, okay, thank you for at least clarifying on the administrative side. I would hope that all questions would be honoured, Mr. Chairman, provided they're not redundant or frivolous. I think that's generally the practice within committee, but I wanted—
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: That is the privilege of members.
An hon. member: It is his privilege to speak. He has the floor. Let him speak.
Mr. Paul Szabo: I understand. You are right.
[English]
The Chair: This is precisely why I did what I did in the first place: because I knew it would come to this. So having said that, let's move on. If you have a question, ask it.
Mr. Paul Szabo: I do.
On the issue of the commercialization, I think I do understand the fundamentals here, but I don't understand the sense of “facilitating”. I'm not sure whether or not the language of “facilitating” commercialization is clear. Maybe that's part of the problem.
But I do recall, from discussion with a variety of witnesses, that there was great interest in seeing the research translated into initiatives that in fact affect the health of Canadians, where the rubber touches the road. It would seem to me that getting it to the commercial stage is probably the most obvious way in which health research ultimately affects the health of Canadians.
So I'm wondering whether the mover of the motion is concerned about the facilitation aspect of commercializing research discoveries, or whether there is a concern about any commercialization, because it would seem to me it would be fundamental to affecting the health of Canadians.
The Chair: Do you want to answer that, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, please?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: A question for Madam.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I appreciate the question.
First of all, it is clear that the bill we have before us is about transforming the way in which we do health research in this country. It is in fact to broaden the definition of health research to ensure we start looking at economic, social, cultural, and environmental determinants as well as addressing health research from the narrower clinical definition of medical research.
So it's absolutely clear to me, and on the basis of the number of witnesses we had on this issue, that this bill has to be absolutely clear, in no uncertain terms, about that focus and about benefiting the public good. That's why we're here. That's why we're anxious to see this transformation and why in fact we think it's redundant, not necessary, and potentially dangerous to actually explicitly reference facilitation of commercialization.
It is absolutely a given that if this broad framework, this new approach, is taken, we will see innovation. Some of it will lead to economic development opportunities, and some of it, yes, will become commercialized. But in terms of the role of government and the role of this legislation, our emphasis should be on the public interest and on the public good. We have to be careful about feeding any process that allows for research to be focused solely on commercial benefit as opposed to the health and well-being of all citizens.
Mr. Paul Szabo: The beginning of clause 4 refers to “translation into improved health for Canadians”, and I can see the linkages there.
Maybe it's a question for the officials of the ministry, Mr. Chairman, to give us some words of wisdom on whether or not the facilitation of commercialization would be an essential element of achieving the principal objective and probably the most important statement of the whole bill, which is that the objective of the CIHR is translation into improved health for Canadians.
The Chair: Ms. Mosher, can you respond to that? Are you prepared?
Ms. Karen Mosher (Executive Director, Medical Research Council of Canada): Just in so far as it pertains to the way the Medical Research Council carries on its business at the moment, so to the extent that might be helpful to the committee.
• 1745
We do see this as a critical step in the dissemination
and translation of research results, and we have seen
it be very successful in developing better
understandings between researchers based in industry
and those in universities.
There are a significant number of researchers in industry. This is the kind of approach authority that lets us build better bridges between university-based researchers and those in industry, again to accelerate discoveries and their translation into health benefits.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I move that we call the question on the subamendment.
The Chair: Okay.
I want to hear Mr. Patry and Monsieur Ménard.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): My question is regarding the subamendment from Mr. Martin. I just want to know if he wants to delete from the last two lines “promoting economic development through health research in Canada”.
Was that the idea of your subamendment?
Mr. Keith Martin: Not at all, no, Dr. Patry. The motion was to remove the following words: “the commercialization of”.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes, and your subamendment is...?
Mr. Keith Martin: That is the subamendment. The subamendment is to remove “the commercialization of” from the paragraph.
Mr. Bernard Patry: That means you agree with promoting the rest?
Mr. Keith Martin: Absolutely.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Okay, I just wanted to be sure I understood.
Mr. Keith Martin: Can I just ask one little question?
The Chair: Well, Monsieur Ménard is next in line, so I'd like to hear him and then you.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask my colleague if she shares my view, namely that several witnesses were concerned by the fact that such a clause appears in the bill. In the end, perhaps it is unwise to emphasize commercialization at the outset. I would like our colleague to remind us of the principles underlying her amendment in order for us to understand it properly and to give her our support.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you for your question relating to commercialization.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Com-mer-ci-a-li-za-tion, that is quite a long word.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: But now I'll finish answering in English, since it will take me forever if I try it all in French.
There was considerable representation before this committee from a number of groups that are very important players in this whole area of research. I went to the list earlier, and it's important to remind ourselves how strongly those groups felt about the possible impact of those words in paragraph 4(i).
My sense from all of those presenters was that in fact, with that phrasing in the bill, we leave a certain amount of ambiguity and potential for taking research down a certain path that is not in keeping with the public good and the public interest. The point of their presentations and my amendment is simply to remove any ambiguity about whether the public good and the public interest come first and foremost.
If you read through the rest of the bill, it's quite clear that there will be innovation. I mean, that's part of the whole purpose. There will be economic benefits for this country. But we, as a parliamentary committee and as part of this whole process, do not want to be advancing any possibilities for privatization of research or for any kind of shift in the agenda whereby commercial interests become paramount and we in fact start to lose the integrity of our health research and the health researchers in our community today.
It's not going to hurt this bill to delete paragraph 4(i). I appreciate the subamendment. If in fact there were no will to delete paragraph 4(i), I could see an amendment to paragraph 4(i) that would eliminate the words. I would assume “facilitating the commercialization of health research” is the sum total of the words.
The Chair: Actually, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, you make a good point, because the subamendment of Mr. Martin does not amend that.
So we would have to defeat Ms. Wasylycia-Leis' motion first, and then we'd have to take Mr. Martin's as a new motion. It's not a subamendment. I wanted to make that point.
Mr. Martin, you have the floor, and then Mr. Charbonneau, and then we're going to call the question, as Mr. Szabo requested.
Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• 1750
I just wanted to ask Madame Mosher a question. How
does this motion actually allow for basic research to
take place when basic research doesn't necessarily have
short-term,
intermediate commercial value?
The concern of many researchers is that basic research is going to be thrown out the door, and the only way they're going to get funding is if they somehow have private partners that will enable them to do the type of research they want and that will have identifiable benefits. In many ways this has really cut the legs out from under research in Canada.
The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
Mr. Keith Martin: That was for Ms. Mosher.
The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. Ms. Mosher, go ahead.
Ms. Karen Mosher: Again just commenting on it from the perspective of our experience at MRC to date, we see nothing in this legislation that changes the situation as it pertains today because nothing in the clause mandates that this is the only way research can be done. Extrapolating from our experience at MRC, we do have a university-industry partnership program, but less than 3% of our budget is actually committed to those kinds of activities. So it's a special or niche program, if you will, and we would not extrapolate from this legislation that we would necessarily need a different kind of program or thrust under CIHR.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Charbonneau, and then we'll ask the question.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity earlier to speak to the amendment. I do not believe that any new arguments have been put forward. As to the second amendment that we would consider if the first is defeated, I believe it would remove from the clause a perfectly legitimate dimension.
We are basing this on the statements made by certain witnesses who brought up questions relating to commercialization. They asked questions and expressed concerns. However, answers were given to these questions and concerns and I believe that in the end these people did understand that the purpose here was not to over- emphasize commercialization.
When there is no commercialization, we talk of basic research. However, I see no problem in there being partnerships when appropriate, so as to allow the people to benefit from it.
This is why we are going to vote against the first amendment as well as against the second.
[English]
The Chair: We're going to call the question now. That's what we said.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
[English]
The Chair: Okay, one quick, brief question. Go.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, yes. Mr. Chairman, do not rush me.
An hon. member: He is unpleasant when he is rushed.
Mr. Réal Ménard: This is how Clause 4, page 4, line 23 in English, subsection d), paragraph (iii) reads. Have you found the text?
-
(iii) engage the provinces and voluntary organizations, the private
sector and others, in or outside Canada...
This gives the impression that you are placing the provinces and voluntary organizations on an equal footing. This worries us.
Mr. Chairman, this does not relate to the amendment. Will you allow me to speak? Oh, you would like me to wait. Fine, I will come back to that. Forgive me.
An hon. member: We are discussing the NDP amendment.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Fine. I will come back to that later.
[English]
The Chair: All those in favour?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: In favour of the amendment?
[English]
The Chair: We're dealing with the amendment of Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. If that's defeated, we'll go to Mr. Martin. If it's not, Mr. Martin's is over. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. Go ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: A recorded vote? As for myself, I am in agreement.
(Amendment negatived, nays: 10; yeas:2.)
[English]
The Chair: The amendment is defeated. That effectively deals with your subamendment, unless you want to bring forward a new amendment.
Mr. Keith Martin: The new amendment, Mr. Chair, is the removal of the words “the commercialization of” in paragraph 4(i).
The Chair: I'm calling the question on Mr. Martin's amendment. All those in favour?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Could he read it over again? Could he read the amendment once again in order to ensure we understand properly? Could you please read it over again so that we are sure we understand?
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Ménard, if you weren't talking, you would hear it. But we'll do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Do not say that, Mr. Chairman, you are being mean.
[English]
The Chair: Would you reread it, Mr. Martin?
• 1755
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Be nice with me.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin: The paragraph will read as such, Monsieur Ménard, en anglais:
-
encouraging innovation, facilitating health research in
Canada, and promoting economic development through
health research in Canada.
In other words, I'm suggesting the removal of the words “the commercialization of”.
The Chair: Okay.
A recorded vote, Madam Clerk.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 4)
The Chair: The amendment is defeated. We'll move on.
Mr. Martin, you have another Reform motion.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Chair, could I make another amendment to paragraph 4(i)? I move that Bill C-13 in clause 4 be amended by adding the words “consistent with the public interest”.
The Chair: Where is that being added, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I would recommend that those words be added to paragraph (i) of clause 4.
The Chair: But whereabouts?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sorry. It's “add”, so it's at the end of paragraph (i).
The Chair: So “research in Canada” and...?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Add the words, “consistent with the public interest”.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Could you read us the clause including the amendment? Mr. Chairman, I did not understand. Could you read us the clause with the amendment so that we know what we are voting on?
[English]
The Chair: It's before you. It's paragraph (i) and it simply is “consistent with the public interest”. I think it's pretty clear.
Mr. Paul Szabo: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Mr. Szabo.
Mr. Paul Szabo: I would like to ask guidance from either the clerk or the officials about whether such a statement in fact should apply to the entire bill as opposed to just this paragraph. What is the practice? If we do this here, I think there are probably a number of other places to do this, so I would just ask for some guidance here.
The Chair: Monsieur Rivard, please.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: The member raises a very good point. Everything in paragraphs (a) to (l) are means to carry out the general purposes as set out in the preambular part of clause 4. In essence, that preambular part is a statement of the public interest as seen in the bill.
So if you were to, for example, adopt this particular amendment, logically you should adopt that amendment for each and every one of 4(a) to 4(l). If you don't, the implication is that you can pursue all those others without reference to the public interest.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, in light of that, do you still want to proceed with this amendment?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, I do.
The Chair: We're calling the question, then.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is pleasant working with you.
Consistent with the public interest, I would like to ask Mr. Rivard if there are any other acts containing this provision, if he is aware, because he does not have to know everything.
Mr. Glenn Rivard: No, not that I am aware.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
A recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 4)
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to put another amendment, please, to paragraph 4(i). I think we can get off this and deal with the issue here of commercialization; it's the removal of the word “the” and replacing it with the word “some”.
The Chair: Does everyone understand “facilitating some commercialization”?
Mr. Keith Martin: It's really a very important issue.
The Chair: Okay. I'm calling the question, Madam Clerk.
• 1800
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: You want to remove the word “the”? In French, it makes no sense.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Charbonneau.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I would like to hear what it would do to the French.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Keith Martin: I can only say it in English because my French is not up to snuff, but I will say this. It's replacing the word “the” with the word “some” in English, but I think en français, it means the same thing, “des” instead of “le”.
The Chair: I think it would be “de” instead of “des”.
Mr. Keith Martin: No, I think it's “des nouvelles”.
The Chair: Okay, let me see if I can get the interpretation of this: “encouraging innovation, facilitating the commercialization” is replaced with “encouraging innovation, facilitating some commercialization”.
Mr. Keith Martin: Right.
The Chair: I think we all understand.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: In French, it does not make much sense if we say it like that.
[English]
The Chair: If that's the case, if it's unclear, vote against it.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I want to improve the bill. I do not understand why that does not please you. I am so nice with you. I want to improve the bill, Mr. Chairman. I am your friend. Are you my friend?
[English]
The Chair: It has nothing to do with liking; however, it has everything to do with running this committee, and that's precisely what I'm doing.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, do not be too harsh.
[English]
The Chair: Madam Clerk, the question is called.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.
[English]
The Chair: Go ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It is my view that my colleague's remark was in no way dilatory. It is really a matter of understanding the text. If we simply do a literal translation, the text would read “et le soutien à certaines mises en marché”. That makes no sense at all in French, and my colleague, Mr. Patry, is in full agreement with me. We will have to find a better way of saying this. The text may mean something in English, but it means absolutely nothing in French.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes, you are right.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Patry, can you help us out?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: We are a distinct society.
Mr. Bernard Patry: I believe that the translation is correct, but what does “certaines” mean? What would be commercialized and what would not? This is redundant. In our view, therefore, we must vote against this amendment because
[English]
in “the commercialization”, to replace “the” with “some”, means which one? It doesn't make any sense.
Mr. Keith Martin: Can I say something here?
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Keith Martin: Dr. Patry, it makes an enormous difference, The difference between “the commercialization”, which refers to the commercialization of all research, versus “some”, gives us an out and a compromise, because what we don't want—
The Chair: Mr. Martin, we're getting into debate. I think we all understand that we vote either yes or no, according to what we like.
Go ahead, Madam Clerk.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: We will be forced to vote against it. Could we not stand this clause and come back to it later? I understand what he means, but if this does not mean anything...
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Ménard, yes or no?
[Translation]
An hon. member: Maybe.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Could we stand the clause while we wait to find a way... Please be nice.
[English]
The Chair: All right, fair enough, we'll stand this.
(Amendment allowed to stand)
The Chair: Let's move on to Reform amendment R-1.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you very much.
The next clause says that in Bill C-13, clause 4 be amended by replacing line 16 on page 5 with the following:
-
Government of Canada in
health research, including through the use of generally
accepted accounting principles by the CIHR.
The Chair: Yes, Mr. Szabo.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I have a question.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, the clause refers generally to the issues of transparency and accountability. In my sense of this, it's more broad than simply the accounting practices for institutes. Those are prescribed already by the Auditor General, and so on. So I don't think this really adds, unless the member simply wants to ascribe accounting as being the only source of transparency and accountability.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Szabo, it's not the only one, but we want that explicitly in the bill to ensure that the accounting principles that are here are going to be those that are generally accepted.
The Chair: Okay, the point is taken.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard.
• 1805
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if you remember, but several witnesses told us that they did not want to see the administration costs go beyond 5% of the budget these institutes will be given. Is that what you are alluding to or do you rather mean the principles generally accepted by the Auditor General and that the government regularly contravenes? What are you alluding to?
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin: M. Ménard, as it says here, it refers to “generally accepted accounting principles”. In fact, and I think it's a good point, subsequently there will be an amendment in here that explicitly requests that administrative costs be limited to 5% of the total budget, as Dr. Friesen said before.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: We too have an amendment aimed at the same thing as that of the Reform Party, but that does not mean to say that we are united.
[English]
The Chair: That's great. Thank you very much.
Mr. Charbonneau, you're going to wind this up and then we're going to call the question.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, my colleague Mr. Szabo has clearly indicated that what we are dealing with here is much broader than simple accounting matters. This could include the accounting dimension, but we are talking of very broad issues of transparency and accountability.
I would invite those who have concerns with regard to accounting to read Clause 31. Let us read Clause 31 together and you will be fully satisfied.
-
31. The Auditor General of Canada shall annually audit the accounts
and financial transactions of the CIHR and provide a report to the
Minister and the CIHR.
All lovers of accounting will find here what they are looking for. You yourself, Mr. Ménard, mentioned the Auditor General in your question. The role of the Auditor General is set out in Clause 31. The amendment is therefore pointless.
[English]
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Martin, is this a clarification?
Mr. Keith Martin: This is on removing the amendment.
The Chair: You're withdrawing it?
Mr. Keith Martin: I'll withdraw it, because Mr. Charbonneau has made a very good point. I think it would be duplication.
The Chair: All right. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment withdrawn)
The Chair: Do you want a recorded vote on that?
[Translation]
An hon. member: No.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Martin, on amendment R-2....
Mr. Keith Martin: This other amendment will read as follows, that Bill C-13 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 5 the following new clause:
-
4.1 In the pursuit of its objective, the CIHR shall take
reasonable steps to ensure that health research takes
into consideration ethical issues, in particular the
need for the utmost respect for human life and human
dignity.
The Chair: Are there any questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, would you allow our colleague to give a little explanation of the meaning of this amendment? Are you alluding to the centre for ethics under the purview of the transitional committee of the governing council? What does your amendment add? I believe it is important that we have a good understanding of this.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin: It explicitly puts into the bill the importance of the respect for human dignity and human life in the context of medical research, given the fact of what's taking place currently and in the future. The research into genetic engineering will be dealing with some very contentious ethical issues. In our view, it would be important to have this in there to ensure that research taking place does give respect to human life and human dignity.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: That is already in the bill. Mr. Chairman, I would be interested in knowing the enlightened opinions of Mr. Rivard and of Mr. Richard. I believe this is already in the bill. I would like to understand what this adds to what is already in there.
[English]
The Chair: M. Ménard, I'm not going to ask what they think. However, I'm going to ask them to reference where it is in the bill.
Mr. Richard.
Mr. Pierre Richard (Executive Director, CIHR Transition Secretariat, Canadian Institutes of Health Research): Mr. Chair, maybe I should point out, on a point of clarification, that earlier in today's proceedings this committee did adopt a resolution entitled amendment G-1, and perhaps this amendment should be read in light of what this committee has already adopted regarding the ethical principles. There is a certain link between both of these.
The Chair: Monsieur Rivard, is this further clarification?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: I was simply going to make that point.
The Chair: That's good. Thank you.
Mr. Patry.
Mr. Bernard Patry: I just want to pinpoint that it's already in the bill in paragraph 4(e):
-
(e) promoting, assisting and undertaking research that
meets the highest international scientific standards of
excellence and ethics and that pertains to all aspects
of health, including bio-medical research, clinical
research and research respecting health systems,
health services, the health of populations, societal
and cultural dimensions of health and environmental
influences on health;
• 1810
It's already there. I think it's there because we
agree that we should have ethics. I think it's in the
bill already.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Charbonneau, a final word, and then we're going to call the question.
[Translation]
Mr. Charbonneau.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Paragraph (g), as amended, deals with matters of ethics and of ethical principles. I believe that our colleague's concerns are very well covered here.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Martin, a final word.
Mr. Keith Martin: I don't think Dr. Patry mentioned that the specific reference to respect for human life and human dignity is clearly not in section (e). They talk about the issues of scientific standards and ethics, but they don't explicitly mention that. This is a contentious issue, as he knows full well, and it will be one in the future. It's a very shady area. No one's been able to deal with it yet, either in our country nor in the international scientific community. That's why this is in here.
The Chair: We understand.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I have a final question to ask, because I am not convinced that we are saying the same thing.
[English]
The Chair: Be very quick, Monsieur Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Well, tell that to the others as well. Your requests to be “very quick” should not just be for me.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the comments made by our colleague are very relevant given that neither paragraph (e) nor paragraph (g) speaks of the utmost respect for human life. I believe it would add value to the bill if we spoke of “utmost respect for human life”. I will therefore vote in favour of the amendment and I believe my colleagues should do the same. The issue of the need for the utmost respect for human life is not mentioned in paragraph (e) nor in paragraph (g). We must be sensitive to that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It is a most forceful motion.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Martin, do you want to take that as a final amendment to what you're saying?
Mr. Keith Martin: I'm always happy to be friendly to the Bloc Québécois.
The Chair: There you go. It's a friendly amendment.
Mr. Réal Ménard: It's a good habit for you and for the chairman.
The Chair: I think we understand.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, could you please explain what the amendment is and where it's going?
The Chair: Mr. Martin, would you read yours again?
Mr. Keith Martin: My amendment is that at line 16 on page 5, the amendment would read:
-
4.1 In the pursuit of its objective, the CIHR shall
take reasonable steps to ensure that health research
takes into consideration ethical issues, in particular
the need for the utmost respect for human life and
human dignity.
The Chair: Mr. Ménard, what was it that you wanted to add?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I believe we should pass this amendment because it adds value to the bill. One could never overemphasize the importance of writing into the bill the need for the utmost respect for human life. As a matter of fact, that is pretty much what the witnesses told us.
[English]
The Chair: That's good. I think we understand.
Mr. Szabo.
Mr. Paul Szabo: I would like to ask for some guidance again from the officials with regard to the statement, which is basically the last phrase, the “in particular need for utmost respect for human life and human dignity”. This is not specifically articulated in the bill in terms of the sentiment that is being raised here. I can think of things like reproductive technologies, etc. Would it be contradictory to anything else in the bill if the sentiment were incorporated into clause 4 at an appropriate spot?
Mr. Glenn Rivard: I guess the biggest difficulty is that it's a bit unclear just exactly what is meant by this language. Therefore, I'm somewhat reluctant to suggest that it go in the legislation.
I would say the references to ethical research or ethical principles respecting research clearly encompass the tri-council policy statement on ethical conduct involving human research, and that has as its base respect for human life and human dignity. Therefore, I think the references to ethics that are currently in the bill, including the government amendment, encompass this sort of concern. I personally would find it a bit difficult to recommend including this explicit language, simply because I'm not sure exactly what it means.
• 1815
The Chair: Mr. McWhinney, please.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): As a principle of prudent drafting, it's wrong to introduce a particularized ethical position in the interstices of a general law directed to other things. I wonder if these issues could not be better addressed in several of the projects of law before the House of Commons at this time.
In terms of the integrity of this bill, if in essence this is what Mr. Rivard is saying, I wonder if it would be best to leave them out of here.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I think this is still worth considering from the standpoint that paragraph (g) was amended by adding some more fuzzy language. I'm not sure whether or not I'm comfortable allowing the regulations or other legislation to address the issue that's been raised here about the respect for human life and dignity. In itself, it does not specifically identify a position other than a value that I think is very relevant to many of the emerging issues in health research, for instance, the utilization of fetal parts, etc., for different kinds of research. That's one example, but the reproductive technologies area alone does beg the question.
I would like to ask again whether or not the officials feel the value statement of having respect for human life and human dignity ought not to be part of a piece of legislation that would establish a value statement, and whether that value statement, even if it's.... Maybe the issue of ethics has been dealt with many times, but it's very fuzzy what the ethics are in here.
The Chair: Mr. Szabo, I think our officials are here really for clarification.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Well, if they have an opinion...if not, I—
The Chair: No, I would prefer that they not give an opinion. I'm here for factual information. I think it's putting them on the spot in a way that is unnecessary. We all have our feelings on this, and I think we vote accordingly, quite frankly.
Mr. Bergeron.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, in support of Mr. Szabo, that it might be wise for us, as parliamentarians, to hear an enlightened opinion on this matter. The Department officials have in this area an expertise that we do not necessarily possess. An opinion from them could substantially enlighten us. I therefore call upon your indulgence and your solicitude and ask that you allow the officials to answer Mr. Szabo's question.
[English]
The Chair: Well, it's my view that they've already responded. I think we heard Mr. Rivard state—
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Did they?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes.
The Chair: I think it was made clear.
Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Can we call the question?
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I was just going to say that I agree with you. I feel that while there are people who feel very strongly on both sides of this, it's a very cloudy issue. One we certainly dealt with last spring was xenotransplantation. I think it needs to be the subject of a broadly based, very comprehensive public debate. I don't think a subamendment on this is going to deal with it in all of its nuances.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 5)
• 1820
The Chair: We will adjourn to vote. We'll meet again tomorrow at 9 a.m.