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.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, December 3, 2002

1545

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.))

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

1550

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

1555

1600

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard (Senior Legal Counsel, Department of Justice)

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

1605

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

1610

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

1615

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

1620

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber (Director General, Policy, Planning and Priorities Directorate, Department of Health)

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

1625

The Chair

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.)

The Chair

1630

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

1635

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

1640

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Mr. Paul Szabo

1645

The Chair

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

1650

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

1655

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

1700

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

1705

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

1710

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

1715

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

1720

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Glenn Rivard

1725

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

1730

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

1735

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

NUMBER 011

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, December 3, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1545)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I think we are ready to proceed with clause-by-clause of Bill C-13. I'd like to welcome Mr. Simard, who is replacing Dr. Bennett. As usual, we will not start with the title, but with what comes after the title.

Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): I was just wondering if I could debate one issue. After I got back to my office and started looking at the amendments, I started thinking about this piece of legislation and wondering where the minister is on it. We haven't heard from her on the draft piece of legislation, we haven't heard from her on the present piece of legislation. It would probably help us an awful lot if we knew where she was at on this piece of legislation. Would it not be appropriate to hear from her prior to starting clause-by-clause, and in the long run would it not move the speed of this legislation ahead?

The Chair: I have two answers to that, Mr. Merrifield.

During this process and since we have seen the new piece of legislation, which was first called Bill C-56, the minister has been here and members have chosen to question her on other issues, such as the estimates. Had there been a pressing question about this legislation, it could have been asked at that time.

Second, we know where the minister is on this piece of legislation, because the minister speaks through her words as printed on the page in the bill. That is her position on this issue, what is in the bill that was presented in the House, to which she spoke at that time. We don't need her to come and explain her position further as long as we can read, because it's right here on the pages.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I understand there are a number of amendments put in here by the government.

The Chair: They're mainly technical, clarification of things.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I haven't looked through all of them.

The Chair: I did look through them, and I assure you they are technical.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Nonetheless, I feel it absolutely important that we be able to question the minister on this piece of legislation prior to going to clause-by-clause. I think in the long run it would speed things up and help the proceeding. I think it's a reasonable request, I don't think it's abnormal. What's abnormal is that we haven't heard from the minister on a piece of legislation, especially one of this importance.

The Chair: This committee has spoken by motion just last week. Last week they voted on a motion to approve moving forward to clause-by-clause on this date, and seeing that this is the last hour at which we can begin clause-by-clause, I intend to begin it.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Would it be appropriate to ask the committee if they would consider the beginning of the clause-by-clause having the minister?

The Chair: It would be quite appropriate. I will ask the committee for a show of hands.

The will of the committee is that we not wait for the minister, and so that question is decided.

I'm moving on now to the package of amendments, the first one of which is CA-1 from Mr. Merrifield. It is a new clause. It would be inserted under the title, but before the statement of principles.

Mr. Merrifield, would you like to address your motion?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, but before I address this one, you said the title would be talked about later?

The Chair: That is the usual format for dealing with legislation. You do everything, then you make sure the title still reflects what you've done.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I can understand that, and I don't have a problem with it, other than the short title. Is that the way you would see the short title as well?

¹ (1550)

The Chair: Everything to do with the title will come at the end.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Because there's Bill C-13 and the initial part of the short title.

The Chair: Mr. Merrifield, would you like to address CA-1? Otherwise, I will have to rule you out of order. It is on the agenda.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay, as long as we'll deal with both of those at the end. That was the clarification I was looking for. It doesn't matter whether we do it now or later.

The Chair: We're doing your first amendment now, and I'm going to time your intervention. So far you've had about four minutes delaying this, and I would like to get started.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's fine, but is what you're saying that I get cut off at a certain time?

The Chair: The usual pattern at this committee has about five minutes per member, and that's what I'm hoping we can stick to, so we don't get great long speeches.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, but we're into clause-by-clause, and that was the pattern with witnesses. Is that the pattern we're going to proceed with here?

The Chair: Can I ask the will of the committee on this? Do you think five minutes is sufficient for a person to explain and defend the amendment they have put forward?

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Could we have discussion, please.

The Chair: It's pretty clear-cut.

Mr. James Lunney: No, I'd like to speak to the motion.

The Chair: I think we're having obstructionist tactics here to slow things down. That's how I read it.

I'm going to proceed with this. Mr. Merrifield, you have the floor on this amendment. If you choose not to speak on it, we will vote.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I think we should take a look at this amendment, because it is actually an addition to the legislation. I hope everyone takes a serious look at it, because I think it goes along with what most of what the committee has talked about, one way or another, over the last number of months. We are talking about a legislative framework for assisted human reproduction and the conduct of research using human reproductive materials. We want to make sure, first, that we hold the interests of the child who is born paramount. In fact, we felt, as a committee, strongly about this when we listened to the witnesses.

We had a group of witnesses yesterday, four of them, who were very passionate about what they felt the interests of the child should be in this piece of legislation. In fact, this was the second time they were here; they were here on the draft piece of legislation as well. I found it absolutely amazing. When we listened to them the first time, we were so impressed with their plight, being born and not knowing who their parents were, not having any idea, that through their testimony, collectively, we changed the whole intent of the bill. In fact, we renamed the piece of legislation as a recommendation to the minister about the interests of the children who are born through assisted reproduction. We argued about many different issues. We can go through the witness list and the dialogue for the last number of months, and I don't think you can find an issue we are more united on than this around this table, the interest of the child born from reproductive technologies.

If that is the case, it is absolutely important that we put it there, that we amend this piece of legislation to have the interests of the children born through assisted reproduction right at the very beginning. We must state it right off the bat. This is the intent of in vitro fertilization, this is what it's all about and where we should go.

Further to that, one of the other things we unanimously agreed on around this table was the idea of informed choice. Madam Chair, one thing you impressed upon all of us as committee members, and I think this was something you championed as chair of this committee, is the importance of informed choice. When we talked about the adults who got involved in reproductive technologies and we listened to the witnesses who came forward on this, it was very obvious that they did not have the right information and were not informed appropriately when it came to what they were about to get into with assisted human reproduction procedures. In fact, it was absolutely astounding to me when we asked these exact questions to the witnesses last week from Toronto. All of them were involved in in vitro fertilization or sperm donation or had gone into the clinic, and we asked if they had been counselled, if they even knew about the opportunity or were given the option of an embryo adoption. They all looked at each other stunned, saying they'd never even heard of it before.

¹ (1555)

As I say, Madam Chair, you have championed this wording more than anyone on this committee. I have yet to hear anyone around this table argue with you on that, and I think it's very important that it be there. If it is unanimous around the table, we'd better say it, and we'd better say it here, to show that this bill is intending to make sure informed choice is there for anyone who participates in the whole area of in vitro fertilization, and there's an awful lot that goes into it.

Parents get into it. I think I can understand how excited they would be when they come into a clinic and expect that they're going to have a child. We've heard all kinds of testimony where they would do exactly that, and in their zeal to have a child, they're not thinking clearly about what might happen in the future. They're not thinking of that child when it's 17 years old at the time they go into the clinic. They're thinking, can I have a child? They're not thinking of whether the donor is going to be anonymous or not. So it's very important that we, as legislators, step away from the emotion of that moment and make a very informed decision to make sure they are informed on the decision they're about to make. It's very important, I think, that we consider this with all seriousness and all soberness, because we do have an opportunity to affect many lives through what we do right now, either negatively or positively, and it's very important, I believe, that we consider this. Proposed paragraph 1.1(c) is:

the interests of researchers and physicians are supported to the extent that they do not compromise the interests of these children and adults.

There may be members of the committee who want to argue with one of these items or amend them somewhat. Maybe they agree that the interests of the child being born from assisted reproduction procedures be there, but maybe they're not so excited about the last one, as just quoted, because they feel it is somewhat restrictive. But I feel that if the first two are right, if the child's interest is paramount and the informed information that is given to the adult is paramount in this whole procedure, the third one is also very appropriate, because it just solidifies what we have said in proposed paragraphs (a) and (b).

So as an amendment, I think this is very valid, and I don't see why we would not consider this. It sends a strong message in this piece of legislation of its initial intent. I know we can't talk about the title of this and we'll talk about it later, and that's fine with me, because I think we should consider looking at where the title is going and what this whole piece of legislation is all about. But if we're going to get a start, if we're talking about the principles of this bill, and that's what we're talking about here, we'd better be putting the child there as paramount, we'd better be putting the parent and the informed choice there, and we'd better make sure that happens ahead of the interests of research and science and physicians in this bill. If we don't do it now, it won't be done, and we will not have to blame anyone else, it'll happen on our watch. I think we should consider that very carefully.

Before you think I'm just sitting here trying to delay, I will wait and let somebody else debate this amendment.

º (1600)

The Chair: Before we go to debate, I'm wondering if the lawyer from the department sees any problem with how this fits in. By the way, it's not principles, it's called “object”, which is ahead of the principles.

Mr. Rivard, did you have any comment on this? Do you see that this fits in with the bill?

Mr. Glenn Rivard (Senior Legal Counsel, Department of Justice): Frankly, I think it will cause confusion on the part of courts if they have to interpret the legislation on the part of the agency. I say that because the bill already contains a statement of principles that will set out some guidance that can be used in the interpretation of the legislation. This would graft on top of that a different statement, which I presume is intended to provide some guidance as well. The concepts in the two different parts don't really mesh with each other, and so a court or the agency looking at this, I think, will be puzzled as to which of these statements it is supposed to follow. I would suggest that if there's a desire to provide guidance in this, it all be confined to the one clause, and then at least you have an integrated approach to assist the courts or the agency.

The Chair: Thank you.

Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Madam Chair, I listened to my colleague. However, on reading the principles listed, namely “the promotion of human health, safety, dignity and rights” and noting the reference to “the health and well-being of children born through the application of these technologies”, I have a very clear idea of the principles at stake here. We must take steps to avoid overloading this legislative provision, because then it would become even more difficult to interpret. As I see it, the stated principles are adequate and I see no need to add anything further.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

In December 2001 the chair tabled a report on behalf of the Standing Committee on Health on the draft legislation. Recommendation 4, which was adopted by the committee, was precisely the amendment proposed by the Canadian Alliance, word for word. I raise that for the edification of the members, that the health committee approved this as an expression of their will.

I would ask the official who felt something in here might cause confusion if he could be more specific as to what in this statement of objectives would provide confusion.

The Chair: Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The bill would end up containing two completely distinct clauses that are intended to provide guidance for the operation of the bill. There's no relationship between them.

º (1605)

The Chair: Where's the conflict, Mr. Rivard, between the two?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: There is an element of redundancy, if you will, in that the motion, in proposed paragraph (a), seems to raise roughly the same ideas as are covered in paragraph 2(b) of the bill, and paragraph (b) in the motion is roughly comparable to paragraph 2(d) in the bill. As to the third element, paragraph (c) in the motion, it doesn't seem to have any corresponding provision in clause 2. It is based, I guess, on a notion that somehow there is a conflict between the interests of researchers and physicians and the other two interests above. It's also then unclear, given that there are three objects set out in this clause and there are six set out in the existing clause 2, what the court or the agency is to do with the clauses for which there's no correspondence.

In the normal course of events, if you want a clause that provides guidance for the interpretation of the legislation, you do all of that in one clause, so it's clear to the reader that there is a coherency about it and all of the factors are to be considered. Here you're saying, we've got certain objects, and then you're saying Parliament “recognizes and declares”, which is to trump. Are objects more important than what Parliament has declared, or is it the other way around? It's a confusing way to approach the matter.

The Chair: So you can't identify real conflict, but you're saying the redundancy itself is confusing.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: It's also the fact that in the motion you really only have three statements of principle, if you will, and in the statement of principles you've got six. For the agency, or a court, or anyone operating under the act, which are they supposed to be governed by?

The Chair: Ms. Skelton had a question.

Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): You say the first two are similar to principles below them. The third one you said isn't in here. From the testimony of the witnesses yesterday, I think it's essential that this be put in somewhere. Would you suggest that it be moved down into the principles, then, paragraph (c), if the other two are redundant?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: It would be preferable to put any of the guiding directions in one clause. As to whether this particular one should be in clause 2, I'd have to leave that to the committee.

The Chair: Would the mover of the motion, Mr. Merrifield, agree to try to take paragraph (c) and get it fitted into the statement of principles in order to avoid this confusion?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I fail to understand the logic of the confusion, because one is the objects and the other is the principles. If one part of the bill dovetails into the other part and actually reinforces it, I don't see the confusion. It makes no sense to me. You're saying, put paragraph (c) in there, and we could do that, I suppose, if we can't get it up there as an object, but as an object, there should be absolutely no problem. I would like some clarification as to why there would be a problem from one part of this bill to another if they're reinforcing each other. I see it with paragraphs (a) and (b) being the same as subclauses 2(b) and (d), so there's no issue with that, but it makes very good sense to have it as an object, because they, as a package, set out, right at the very beginning of this piece of legislation, the true intent and the importance of where the child is and where the adult is, with an informed choice, and also the place of the researcher and the physician in this whole area. So I think it's much stronger, much more accurate, and much more straightforward if we have it as an object rather than a principle.

º (1610)

The Chair: Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): I would like to speak against this amendment. I believe the contents are already contained in clauses 2(a), (b), and (d) of the principles, and there is no need to reiterate them. With proposed paragraph (c), who is going to make a decision on the interests of researchers and physicians to the extent that they do not compromise? The only way you make that decision is if, in doing so, you harm the children and adults. If you do so, there is already legislation in place, it's called criminal negligence on the part of a physician who performs any act that is negligent and harms a patient. That's going to be taken as a criminal act and taken to court. So I don't understand why we're getting involved here in the whole issue of medical malpractice. I think this has nothing to do with this particular bill, and I would like to call the question, please, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Can I see how many people would like to have the question called?

That is the majority, so I will now call the question on amendment CA-1.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 4--See Minutes of Proceedings)

(On clause 2--Declaration)

The next three amendments go together. I would ask you to look at them together: LL-1, CA-2, and CA-3. You can't have all of these; you have to pick the one you like or defeat them all, whatever you want. There's a line conflict, they're amending the same line.

The clerk says we could move CA-2 and CA-3 as subamendments before we vote on the first one, which is to switch the paragraphs.

Madame Thibeault, would you move LL-1, because we have to put it on the table first?

º (1615)

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Yes, I will move LL-1.

The Chair: And please hold back from promoting it until we see if the committee wishes to amend it.

So we now have CA-2, which is the addition of the word “life” in paragraph 2(a), line 13.

Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: This amendment goes right to the heart of this piece of legislation. Do you realize that we have a piece of legislation that really is all about the creation of human life? That's what in vitro fertilization is all about, creating a new human being. We felt that way so strongly last time, as I say, that we called the bill “building families”. That's what the whole intent is. This piece of legislation gets a little sidetracked, because we do dip into areas of research and science. The intent of the legislation is to really deal with human life, and yet there is not one reference to human life in the bill. That is something we have to soberly take a look at. We can play with language all we like and skirt around the issues all we like, but what we're talking about here is the protection and promotion of “human health, safety, dignity”. We are also talking about human life with “rights in the use of technologies and in related research”. If that's what we're talking about, that's what we really should be saying.

When you look around the world at countries that have discredited the value of life, in many life becomes very cheap and it's a very shallow word. I don't think that reflects Canadian values at all, I don't think it ever has. Over the last century particularly we have sent our people into war for the protection of human life, yet here around this table we are prepared to pass a piece of legislation that shows total disregard for the whole idea of what we're talking about, which is human life.

I think it was last year about this time that we were actually doing our majority report on the draft piece of legislation, and we wrestled with some of the wording. We did agree at that time, I believe, that there should be some reference to human life in the preamble. This goes right to the beginning of the legislation, and that was something we felt should be there. I don't know why we would reverse our view on that. Actually, I think we all should have been a little alarmed when the piece of legislation came forward and it wasn't there. It's very important that we consider it. When we're talking about the creation and manipulation of human life in this piece of legislation, that's really what we're doing. So I think the reference has to be there. I don't see any negative in putting it there.

Maybe I should be asking our colleagues at the end of the table if they have some reason the word life would not fit or would be inappropriate, or why it isn't there now. Maybe it's an oversight. Maybe I could have them comment on where they're at on this.

º (1620)

The Chair: Ms. Weber.

Ms. Caroline Weber (Director General, Policy, Planning and Priorities Directorate, Department of Health): We had no model within the federal legislation. There's no piece of federal legislation that defines human life for us that we could use. We didn't think it was within the scope of the bill to define human life, but rather, the purpose of it was to protect the health and safety of individuals using assisted human reproduction procedures to build a family.

The Chair: Dr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Madam Chairperson, the only place I'm aware of--and I could be wrong--where the status of the human being is declared is in the act pertaining to the responsibilities and regulations for those who are involved in the undertaking business, the mortuary business, where they refer to human beings who are deceased. Every other piece of legislation that pertains to the human realm, rules and regulations governing their behaviour and so forth, and the activities in which they might be involved on a daily basis and everything else, doesn't talk about life, but about human beings, their responsibilities, their behaviour, and so forth.

I don't know why we have to put the word life in there. We're talking about human beings who are alive, not talking about dead ones. We're talking about human beings and their health, we're concerned about their safety, we're concerned about these people who are alive and their dignity. I see it as redundant. I challenge the statement Rob made that in no place in this piece of legislation are we talking about life. The whole bill is talking about life. We're talking about human beings who are alive, not dead.

The Chair: Dr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: The short title of the bill is the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, and human reproduction is all about adding human beings to the planet and the generation of life. So with all due respect, Mr. Dromisky, I don't see your point there. It seems a very innocuous addition to the bill, to simply state we're talking about the promotion of human life, health, safety, dignity, and rights. In fact, both of the amendments we have suggested here, CA-2 and CA-3, are easy to add to the LL-1 amendment there. Perhaps we could wrap this up quite expeditiously if we were to include this couple of simple words and look at LL-1.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Dr. Dromisky has made, I think, a relevant point that “human being” and “life” are somewhat synonymous. I would like to quote, for the record, testimony of Dr. Françoise Baylis to the committee, May 31, 2001, in which she says:

The first thing to recognize in the legislation and in all of your conversations is that embryos are human beings. That is an uncontested biological fact. They are members of the human species.

The items in paragraph 2(a) with regard to health, safety, dignity, and rights in the main refer to those going through the process, although the word dignity, I think, can cover dignity of human life, whether it be an embryo, a donor, or whatever. I've read all the testimony, and I can assure you that since the beginning this is the only reference by any person before the committee with regard to the definition of a human being.

It is corroborated, however, even further, to a limited extent, by the tri-council policy statement. I'm not sure whether it is the intent of the government to incorporate that tri-council policy statement, which has been the guiding document for researchers in the absence of legislation. It is also in this legislation that the research on embryos shall be permitted, but not beyond the fourteenth day, which is the point at which the primitive streak commences, i.e., pain can be felt, spinal cord features etc. are starting to be created. So even the tri-council policy statement and the CIHR guidelines and this legislation, by their very nature and their statements, have said, come day 14, there is an acknowledgement not only of status as a human being, but of moral rights. The argument--and it's been made by Dr. Sommerville and others--is that there is not a position by the research community that an embryo prior to day 15, i.e., for the first 14 days after conception, has any moral status.

On that basis, it is totally consistent and it is totally reflective of what this bill says aboutf life being a human being. So it's not somebody who's dead or when they got birth. Even the research community has made it very clear that you respect that embryo after day 14, because it is a human being then. Indeed, as far as Dr. Baylis is concerned, it is a human being, a biological fact, from conception.

º (1625)

The Chair: I've had a request for the question. May I see a show of hands from those who would like to proceed to the question?

That is a majority, so we will proceed to the question.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 3)

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): I have a point of order, Madam Chair. I hate to be critical, but when we started off you proposed a way to conduct the meetings. I have a desire to get through this bill. People have worked on this for a number of years, and I do think we have to proceed. I know you said the speaker should be able to speak for five minutes on every proposal. I would like to make a motion that whoever introduces the motion has, say, two minutes and each subsequent speaker one minute. I'm going to put that as a motion at this time. I would put in a rider that we can have a subsequent round, but only on the bigger issues, not on these small things. I'm sorry, Madam Chair, but I don't think we're ever going to get through it.

The Chair: I agree. I don't think we need to debate this. It is simply a choice the committee will make, whether they want five minutes or three minutes.

May I see a show of hands?

Monsieur Ménard.

º (1630)

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I think some caution is in order. There's no question that I would like this bill to be passed quickly. At the same time, I wouldn't want us to set any unfortunate precedents. As a rule, there is no time limit on motions in committee. However, if everyone starts acting in bad faith and talking only to prolong the debate, then we're bound to have problems.

I don't want us to start setting time limits of one, two or three minutes. That's ludicrous. I suggest the Chair put the question when she feels members are ready to vote and the will of the majority will prevail. However, we can't set time limits, because members need to be able to express their views in committee. That's the difference between committees and Question Period. If people are deemed unreasonable, then the majority will prevail. However, as a rule, there is no time limit on debate in committee. That's a general procedural rule that applies to all committees and it cannot be changed. Therefore, everyone needs to be reasonable. I'm strongly opposed to setting any kind of time limit.

[English]

The Chair: I think having recorded votes on subamendments to amendments, particularly if the subamendment is a one-word addition, no matter how important that word, is really testing the committee's patience. There are people in the room now who have projected and told others this bill will not get through till April. All I can say to that particular projection is, over my dead body. I think the vast majority would like to finish this bill, and I would suggest that people who are being obstructionist against trying to get this through in a reasonable and courteous way, as Mr. Ménard has so well put it, will face the wrath of the committee, and we will have the kind of vote that is suggested by Ms. Chamberlain.

Ms. Chamberlain, in order to get into the spirit of the thing, as suggested by Mr. Ménard, I wonder if you would withdraw your motion for the time being. We'll see how the movers of the motions can constrain themselves, because both the speaking and the recorded votes are taking far more time than is necessary. I'm quite able to count hands quickly, and we could move much more quickly if we could constrain our remarks and just have a show of hands.

What is your point of order, Mr. Merrifield

Mr. Rob Merrifield: In the spirit of where we are at in debate, if debate is not relevant and is going off on some sort of tangent, it is fair for you, as the chair, to say, listen, this is irrelevant to the motion we're debating. If we're going to have a clause-by-clause fair debate on the amendments that are put forward, as long as we keep the debate relevant, I think every bit of wording that can be offered to the committee is valid. I think it's a judgment call you make as to the relevancy of a motion, but as to time, we have had difficulty trying to get enough time even in questioning witnesses. Now we're into clause-by-clause, the final strokes of this committee's work, and I think we should not invoke closure, in a sense, in that debate.

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Merrifield. if you don't want to have closure and if you don't want to have rules, please try to confine your remarks. If you're going to put the total onus on me to declare whether every word you say is relevant, that's a pretty heavy burden. I would much rather work with the democratic opinion of the committee. So far every vote we've had has seen a request by a committee member and a show of hands. Every single time members have wanted to move to the vote.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: You challenged me with regard to a recorded vote on the word life, and I would challenge the chair by saying, if the word life is not relevant or is not important in this, I'm not sure what is.

The Chair: The committee has already ruled on that. That point has been dealt with. We're not going to talk about it any more.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's fair. They dealt with the word, but they didn't deal with the comments by saying that word was not relevant.

The Chair: They did. By voting it down, they disagreed with you and you lost that motion.

You have raised a point of order. What is your point of order?

º (1635)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Does that mean that every time we lose a vote, the debate is not relevant? Is that what you're saying?

The Chair: No, it will be on the official record, but once a point has been decided by the committee in a vote, we do not debate it a second time, so you don't bring it up after that.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Fair enough, but when we're making remarks on the amendment we're putting forward and hoping that amendment will find the agreement of the committee, as long as it's relevant, it should be okay, as deemed by yourself. I don't know where your comments were, but my comments were as relevant as I could make them to the amendments we had before us. I don't think it's a matter of delaying, but of seriously looking at this piece of legislation.

The Chair: That is not a point of order.

Mr. James Lunney: Madam Chair, I have a point of order I would like to address that needs to be clarified. A motion to limit debate is a debatable motion. If that's the direction the committee--

The Chair: That motion has been withdrawn.

Mr. James Lunney: Then put it on the table. If members want to go that way, that is a debatable motion, and everyone has an opportunity to speak to that for as long as it takes. Mr. Mills spoke three days on Kyoto.

The Chair: We're all very aware of that.

Mr. James Lunney: Well, if you want to, we can start to talk about--

The Chair: I thought that's what we were starting today.

Mr. James Lunney: It's an invitation to filibuster, if you want to go that way, and we'll see how long we can talk on that one. I think it's a very serious thing to limit debate, so that people understand.

The Chair: That motion has been withdrawn. What I'm looking for is the goodwill of the committee not to take five, six, seven minutes to talk about one word and not to call for a recorded vote on everything. That's what I would hope for--I don't need a response to this--that the committee be cooperative. While one side is going round and round the mulberry bush, the other side is getting very impatient, that's what I can see from this seat. I'm trying to get everybody willing to work together to get through this package.

We're at CA-3, which is the second subamendment to LL-1, on the rights of Canadians in the use of these technologies. I believe it is simply the addition of the two words “of Canadians.”

This is Mr. Merrifield's.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's right, two very simple words I can't imagine this committee would argue with. It's very simple. It is impressing that on this clause, it's the rights of Canadians we are speaking about, and I don't think we need to go into it at any length. It just adds greater clarity to the clause, and I would ask if there is any reason the colleagues at the end of the table would have a problem with this.

The Chair: Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, I have a problem with this. We also have in this country landed immigrants who are not yet Canadians. Are they to be subject to different laws? Are we allowed to do anything we choose on them, outside the regulations and outside this bill? If someone from another country comes to this country to take part in a particular assisted reproductive technology, are we to also throw away the laws with regard to them, so that they can have experimentation and other kinds of things done to them? That's what this does by naming Canadians, it limits this bill only to people who are actual Canadians, who carry a passport and have been sworn in as Canadian citizens.

The Chair: Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I asked a question to the colleagues at the end of the table.

The Chair: And I ruled that Madam Fry could comment on this.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Are we going to get them to respond?

The Chair: Are we going to do that on every single amendment?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I don't know about every one, I just wonder about this one.

The Chair: What was your question to the experts at the end of the table?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: If they had a reason this would not be appropriate. It's very simple.

The Chair: Madam Weber.

Ms. Caroline Weber: The intention of the bill was to apply to individuals who make use of assisted human reproduction services in Canada, irrespective of nationality.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'm going to call the question.

(Subamendment negatived)

The Chair: We'll go back to LL-1, which now stands on it's own. It is simply a reversal of two paragraphs in clause 2, (a) for (b) and (b) for (a).

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: The wording of paragraph (b), which becomes paragraph (a), doesn't change, but now, children are mentioned at the beginning, in keeping with the objective sought by the committee.

º (1640)

[English]

The Chair: I think I'll ask the mover first. I'm sorry I didn't do that. Will you speak to that, Madame Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Madam Chair, my colleague opposite clearly understood what I and my colleagues were thinking on this point. It's a simple technical detail. However, as Mr. Merrifield stated earlier, during the course of its deliberations over a period of two years, the committee's primary concern has always been the protection of children. The title of the committee's report isBuilding Families and children are the number one priority, in my estimation. That's my sole reason for requesting this change, but I realize that in the English version of paragraph (a), another change is warranted on line 2, with respect to “the application of these technologies”. We haven't yet talked about this. The provision should read “the application of assisted human reproductive technologies”. No change is warranted in the French version. That's all.

The Chair: The mover has explained the motion and has added the words “assisted human reproductive” before “technologies”. Is there any question on this amendment?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Madam Chair, you would also have to drop “these”.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I went on some time about the importance of children, and so I would support this. It does at least give some emphasis. I suppose, if people just start to read, you'd get a little bit more emphasis on the well-being of children born. From that perspective, I have no problem. I'm wondering whether it would take another amendment to then add the other one, which is talking about clause 2(d) right below it as the second most important.

The Chair: The member has asked the mover a question. Does she have an answer?

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: No.

[English]

The Chair: There's your answer.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Because there is a friendly amendment, could paragraph 2(a) be read as it's intended to be?

The Chair: It reads, “the health and well-being of children born through the application of assisted human reproductive technologies must be given priority in all decisions respecting their use”.

Mr. Paul Szabo: In paragraph 2(b) it says “and related research”. I'm wondering why the reference to related research is not being repeated in paragraph 2(a).

The Chair: I don't know.

Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Paragraph 2(a) refers to children being born, and they're born through the use of these technologies, not through research.

The Chair: That's your answer, Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: It's just not appropriate.

Mr. Paul Szabo: The health and well-being of those children is also predicated on the fact of a safe system of working with gametes and embryos, and that is research. We want embryos to be available not just for reproductive purposes, but for education and training of those, for instance, outlined in the tri-council policy statement, to make sure you have healthy children. The research is an integral part of making sure you have healthy born children.

º (1645)

The Chair: That's a way of looking at it.

Ms. Skelton.

Mrs. Carol Skelton: Would you consider putting “individuals and families and society in general” into that? I would appreciate it. Is that possible?

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Could you tell me at what point you would like it?

Mrs. Carol Skelton: In the second line of paragraph 2(b), “and related research for individuals, families and society in general”. Would you agree?

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I wish you would read the whole paragraph for me the way you see it, because I'm not following you right now.

The Chair: It's at the end of the second line.

Mrs. Carol Skelton: You have “for individuals and for society in general”. Just include “families”. Would that be a problem? It's a friendly amendment.

Ms. Caroline Weber: I'll let Glenn think about that for a second. I think the problem, Madam Chair, comes from the way this was written. There was a very broad purpose in what was originally paragraph 2(a) in the bill. All the things in what used to be the first paragraph are now in the second, and people are struggling with trying to recraft it so that all the things that were in the first paragraph are now still in the first paragraph.

The Chair: She wants to change the new paragraph 2(b).

Ms. Caroline Weber: I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

The Chair: After individuals, the end of line 2 in the English.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I will agree to “for individuals, for families and for society in general”. Okay,

The Chair: There's been a friendly amendment to add “families” and the mover has accepted it.

I'll now call the question on LL-1 as amended.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: On the basis of procedure, the legislative clerk has said amendments CA-4 and CA-5 are inadmissible at this point, because they expand the scope of the bill. You'll recall from our previous legislation that once a bill has been introduced in the House and has been put through first and second readings, we are asked to examine what is there, but we cannot expand its scope. That is the principle upon which she is saying CA-4 and CA-5 expand the scope of the bill, one being about taking it to persons with disabilities and one taking it to adopted people.

Is there any objection to that? That is the ruling I have.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Could I have clarification as to why that would expand the scope?

The Chair: It's because nowhere in the bill that came through first and second readings were people with disabilities or adopted people mentioned. The bill is now sort of in an alleyway, with everything that came through the House, and this is expanding it.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: But we're into the principles. I really don't see how that would change the intent. All it does is make sure--

º (1650)

The Chair: Not the intent, the scope.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Even with the scope, though--

The Chair: It broadens the scope.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Not really. It just makes a statement that disabled people are not to be affected or excluded.

The Chair: Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, when the Minister, Allan Rock, first appeared before the committee in May 2001 -- hence the importance of wrapping up this bill -- we referred to infertility as a disability. Is there a negative or positive connotation here? Everyone has their own interpretation, but one can argue that amendment CA-4 is certainly in order.

As for amendment CA-5, that's another story, since the bill does not deal with adoption, which in any event, does not come under federal jurisdiction.

There are people who refer to infertility as a form of disability. Perhaps the term needs to be defined, particularly since officials and a number of witnesses have asked us to eliminate the stigma associated with infertility. Including a reference to this in the bill might counter some of these prejudices. I think we should call upon our legislative clerk to act in a liberal manner, in the true philosophical sense of the word. The rest could pose some problems.

[English]

The Chair: The clerk has to advise me what she thinks from a process point of view, but if people are unhappy with that judgment, we could deal with it. How many people would like to deal with CA-4 about people with disabilities?

I'll go with the ruling of the clerk, then, on the process issue, which is that this is broadening the scope of the bill, which we're not allowed to do.

I'll ask the same question on CA-5, which is about adopted persons.

Mr. Paul Szabo: On a point of order, Madam Chair, that particular item was also a recommendation of the committee on the draft bill.

The Chair: Yes, I know that. That's not a point of order. What is the point of order?

Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Chair, to the extent that if a subsequent amendment in the body of the bill does happen to deal with either, it would be in order, because it does not broaden the scope, but encompasses the scope that would be defined subsequent to receiving amendments.

So I would like to make a motion, if I may, that--

The Chair: No, you can't. You're not signed in. You can speak, but you can't make a motion or vote.

I'm going to ask the committee whether they would like to deal with CA-5 or go with the ruling of the clerk that it expands the scope of the bill.

The majority would not like to deal with CA-5 either, so we'll follow the clerk's advice again.

Amendment CA-6 is that Bill C-13, in clause 2, line 21, read “technologies and related research, women more than men are”. It's just adding “and related research”.

Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: This one is going along with the intent. I don't know why it was missed in the original draft, but it's adding “and related research”, which I think should be added. We would like to see that in the title and the short title, and I think we'll have a debate on that at the end. I think this would flow into that. Maybe what we should do with this one is table it until that time. That might be a better time to debate it.

The Chair: Will you explain where you want to go with this? You want to get this in several places, and then go back and add it to the title, is that right?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, I think it should be part of the title. You said we can't deal with the title till later, which is fair enough.

The Chair: But we can deal with this. This is not beyond the scope of the bill. It is before us now, so if you want to sell it, go ahead.

º (1655)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'm trying to sell it, but it's obvious to me that we've got a pretty closed shop. At any rate, this is what we think this piece of legislation deals with, human reproductive material and related research. We should be saying that in the legislation. To inject these three words here is appropriate at this time, and I don't see where there would be any argument about it. I'll leave it open for debate at this time.

The Chair: Seeing no hands, I'll call the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Could we an example? What exactly is meant by related research? Does this include biotechnologies? I'd just like an example of related research.

[English]

The Chair: Rob.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Is he asking me?

Mr. Réal Ménard: You're supposed to know.

The Chair: He's asking you.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: All related research that is bound by the scope of this bill.

The Chair: You mean stem cell research?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, and all the related research that goes with that, fertility, everything. Those are the things we're dealing with, so why aren't we saying so? It's absolutely ridiculous that we would say no to an amendment like this. If that's the case, I see this committee as railroading, if I can be accused of delaying when I see a committee acting the way they are on this kind of stuff. Nonetheless, we go by a majority vote.

The Chair: Does that answer your question, Mr. Ménard? Are you satisfied?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, I'll take the vote.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We now have NDP-1. Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis, would you like to speak to your amendment?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair.

This amendment is proposed in the spirit of significant testimony we received from women's organizations who felt we should acknowledge in the bill the fact that women are the most affected by reproductive technologies. The existing clause is simply a statement of fact, it doesn't have any prescription, any direction. The purpose of my amendment is to indicate clearly that this fact must be the primary consideration in application of technologies in the scope of the act.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Good amendment.

The Chair: Ms. Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): I'd like a comment from staff on that. We said earlier that children were the primary concern. Are we getting conflicting messages here? Frankly, I want them all to be primary. So should we just simply say “a primary concern” if we were to adopt this?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I think that's the point. With the bill and the previous motion, which flipped paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 2, in both cases you are stating that the welfare of children is the priority consideration. You can't have two priorities, that's the problem.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Could we make it either with the wording “the well-being of women must be a primary consideration”?

The Chair: No, you can't have two primaries.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Exactly, that was the concern.

The Chair: You don't want to say “secondary”.

Ms. Judy Sgro: It was a great motion, and I would have liked to support it.

The Chair: Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understood it, in terms of the application of these technologies, the well-being of women must be of utmost concern.

However, the well-being of children is a more general concern. What's involved here is not only the technologies, but the decision to have children, the ramifications of these technologies and their place in society. I'm not convinced that these considerations are incompatible. However, the well-being of women must be the overriding concern when it comes to applying these technologies. But I don't think the two amendments are incompatible.

[English]

The Chair: The technology is applied to women, if we're talking about the application of technology.

Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I would hope for some help from Ms. Weber or Mr. Rivard on this one. I agree with this very much, because that technology is applied only to women, so their health and safety and all of that must be the primary concern. I think we're saved by the term application, which is a different thing from the overarching primary concern for children. This is the application of the technology, where the primary concern is for women. So I think, as it stands, it sounds as if it's okay. I think of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. If we don't look at that, we could force women to become reproductive technology little ovens, or whatever you want to call them, if we chose, so I think this is very important.

» (1700)

The Chair: Our research lawyer has suggested that we might consider “the health and well-being of women must be protected in the application of technologies”, to get away from “primary consideration”, that we make a specific point about protection of women in the application of the technologies.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I will accept that as a friendly amendment.

The Chair: Okay, the mover has accepted that as a way of getting around the issue, but still making the statement about protecting women. So I'll give that to the clerk.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Chair, there was sufficient testimony about the infertility clinics' use of large amounts of drugs to induce hyperovulation and the concern about that for health.

The Chair: We're hoping we can have that in the regulations. It would spring from this.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Moving away from the principle of the technologies and the related research would take away from the specific concern, and that's an area where women are primary, because of the invasive procedure and so on.

The Chair: We're aware of that, and that is what this is trying to get at, Mr. Szabo. You can't go into great detail when we're talking about these principles, because that detail doesn't even appear elsewhere in the bill, but will appear in the regulations. So right now you're simply judging whether these words, as amended by Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, should pass or not.

Mr. Rivard wanted to comment.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: For drafting consistency in the bill, nowhere else do we say “technologies within the scope of this act”. We do say “the application of these technologies”. It's a minor point, but if we're looking for consistency in drafting, that would improve it.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, would you agree to removing “within the scope of this act”?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: And just adding “of these technologies”.

The Chair: “Of these technologies” to end that sentence.

(Amendment agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Now we move to BQ-1. Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's very simple, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: This one, the clerk is telling me, is inadmissible, because it's beyond the scope of the bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I disagree with that interpretation. I think our clerk is mistaken. The bill sets out some principles and all legislation adopted by the House must be consistent with the principles set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter prohibits all forms of discrimination. I'm not sure whether this should be included in (d.1), but I think we need to state clearly that which lesbian mothers and members of the legal profession told us. Currently, a number of clinics deny access to treatment on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation. In any legislative provision, that's unacceptable and the committee needs to reaffirm this. Therefore, Madam Chair, it should be stated in the preamble and in the principles. This amendment does not go beyond the scope of the bill in that it concerns access to treatment by very specific groups of persons.

[English]

The Chair: The clerk has made her case, Mr. Ménard has made his case. How many people are willing to deal with this particular subject matter?

» (1705)

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I would like to hear what the expert has to say to make sure I am very clear.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I would only reassure the committee that this being federal legislation and the agency created under this legislation being a federal agency, both the act and the agency are already governed by the charter and the Canadian Human Rights Act. Therefore, these grounds of discrimination are already protected against. There's no instance in which we specifically duplicate the protection. In a particular statute we do not duplicate the protection. It already arises by virtue of the application of the charter. If we did that, we would have to do it for every federal statute.

The Chair: We had testimony that despite the charter, this is happening to people who approach these clinics. Seeing that this is the legislation that governs these clinics and the charter is not being applied by those people....

Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, I don't believe discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is in the charter. If it were, we would not have had to come up with a whole modernization of benefits, as we did just a year ago, or to change all the income tax legislation etc. In reality, there is this discrimination. I think this is an important amendment that is required here. We had to change a lot of legislation, and we only changed specific legislation in the modernization of benefits etc. and in the Canadian Human Rights Act. We had to make those changes specifically because it wasn't in the charter.

The Chair: Those who would like to deal with BQ-1, please raise your hands.

Dr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: You're zeroing in on one specific group of individuals in our society. I'm not trying to quash it, because I support your position, but I think it should be more encompassing. Racial discrimination comes into the picture. There are people who will find all kinds of excuses not to deal with certain clients. It could be racial discrimination, it could be based on sexual orientation, it could be religious, or whatever.

The Chair: We didn't hear any testimony that black people or yellow people or the other groups you mentioned were discriminated against, but we did hear testimony on this.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I don't think this committee knows exactly what's happening out there. We hear little snippets of information from individuals, a story here, a story there. What I'm driving at is that we should have some clause that covers all these people, so that every time something goes wrong, they don't have to run to the lawyers and say, under the human rights and freedoms act, I'm being discriminated against. We should have an overall, encompassing clause in here somewhere.

The Chair: Dr. Dromisky is suggesting a broader clause that talks about this, so that at these clinics various groups of people can't be discriminated against. Would you like to set aside BQ-1? A few of you who are interested in this might come back to us tomorrow with a subsequent version. Is that okay, Mr. Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, but who's going to take the initiative of amending this clause? Will that task fall to our legal drafters? Who will make the amendments? I'm prepared to include other types of discrimination, but discrimination based on sexual orientation was one form clearly identified to the committee. Perhaps we could also include discrimination on the grounds of a physical disability. I don't have a problem with that, but who's going to take on the job of reworking the amendment?

[English]

The Chair: Dr. Fry, would you take this on with Mr. Dromisky?

Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, not really, because I don't particularly support the all-encompassing broader thing. I think we should add only one thing. The others are already in the charter, race, religion, etc., sexual orientation isn't, nor is disability. We should add sexual orientation, marital status, or disability to broaden that. I think that's all we need to broaden it, because everything else is in the charter. We don't need to go back to it if we're in agreement with that.

The Chair: Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: With all due respect, Madam Chair, you already ruled out our amendment to include people with disabilities, which was brought forward for the same reason.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. James Lunney: That person with disability might be excluded.

The Chair: But we didn't vote on it.

» (1710)

Mr. James Lunney: That was ruled out of order because it was outside the scope.

The Chair: I asked the committee if they wanted to deal with it, and they said no at that time. It wasn't defeated. The committee voted to show that they did not want to deal with it, because they wanted to go with the decision of the clerk, which was that it broadened the scope of the bill. We have the same decision on this one, but I can't seem get to the vote as to whether the committee wishes to deal with it. If the committee wishes to deal with this and does not consider it beyond the scope of the bill, it could be on the table, moved my Mr. Ménard and amended, if anybody wanted to expand what's in this clause.

I'm going to ask you again whether or not you want to deal with this or go with the ruling of the clerk.

As you do, now Mr. Ménard is moving this amendment.

Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I think we need a vote on whether we're going to deal with it to bring it back tomorrow.

The Chair: No, we can deal with it now.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Then I'd like to amend.

The Chair: Mr. Merrifield has an amendment he'd like to present to see if the mover would accept it.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I would include disabled people and adopted children.

The Chair: Just try one at a time, please.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay, disabled people then.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'd like to see sexual orientation clearly mentioned because in actual fact sexual orientation is not listed in the Charter. However, since the Egan decision in 1995, the Charter has been interpreted as prohibiting discrimination on this ground.

If the majority would like to see physical disability included, I'm open to the idea, because there will be legal challenges. I believe there is already one case before the courts in the Maritimes involving a person with a disability who cannot get access to treatment. I want this amendment passed. If it is passed with these two reasons listed, I'm prepared to consider it. I'm well aware that some persons are the victims of discrimination...

[English]

The Chair: We can deal with it separately as a subamendment from Mr. Merrifield. The subamendment is, “grounds of sexual orientation, marital status, or disability”.

Monsieur Castonguay.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I'd like Mr. Rivard's opinion of this inclusion to know if it changes anything.

[English]

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I just want to bring two facts to the committee's attention. First, it was stated that the charter does not address questions of sexual orientation or marital status. In fact, there is a long series of case law in which the courts have interpreted the charter in exactly that fashion. There's no question that there is protection on those grounds already in the charter. Second, the question of, if you will, access to the clinics is a matter of access to health services, and so would be governed by provincial human rights law, all of which addresses exactly these issues.

The Chair: Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: If ever a court challenge is launched, we want lesbians in particular to be protected. If this matter comes before the courts, we want people to say that we the lawmakers, working in committee to get the legislation passed, wanted the bill to include a provision clearly prohibiting discrimination on the grounds listed.

You are correct in arguing that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be interpreted as including the ground of sexual orientation. However, strictly speaking, no mention is made of sexual orientation in clause 15. In any event, with two references, this would mean that...

Provisions can be enacted to counter poverty and to ensure equal opportunities for persons, both of which are referred to in the Charter. However, certain laws also included include references to these matters. Other laws also mention the status of women.

Therefore, do we, as lawmakers, want to make it clear that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or marital status is prohibited? That is the question.

Access to treatment comes under provincial jurisdiction. However, if ever a court challenge is launched, the case won't come up before the Department of Health and Social Services, but rather before a court of law.

» (1715)

[English]

The Chair: I just want to remind you that the only thing on the table at the moment is the addition of the word disability.

Mr. Szabo, on “disability”.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Chair, the addition of the word disability starts to form a list, and I believe, to the extent that's there is a list of anything, it must mean something is left out, or the implication would be that it would be read as somehow not inclusive. I think Mr. Ménard has raised an amendment, very clear, very straightforward. The committee, however, has shown a degree of acceptance that maybe the issue with regard to discrimination towards those with disabilities could be one where we could leave Mr. Ménard's amendment as originally proposed, go back to reopen the principle on disability, and allow that simply to stand on its own.

The Chair: Why doesn't the addition of the word disability create the same situation? Why would we go back when we can add one word here?

Mr. Paul Szabo: But, Madam Chair, the legislative counsel, in prior discussion about objects and principles, started talking about the possibility that it might lead to an interpretation that might take away from the intent of the bill. I think that's an important consideration, and so I raise it. To the extent that you include a particular matter that is already in the charter, what is the--

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The Canadian Human Rights Act.

Mr. Paul Szabo: The Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter. There are other items that are not included, so there is no end. You either put them all in or leave them all out. If there is evidence, testimony, or other concerns that disability specifically is something you would like to be enshrined in the bill for purposes of this act, we want to just highlight or re-emphasize the disability item. I have a feeling that if you add the word disability to Mr. Ménard's amendment, you begin a list that is not all-inclusive.

The Chair: Madame Scherrer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Madam Chair, I also have a problem with including the word “disability” in a provision that refers to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or marital status, both of which indicate social status. A medical evaluation is required in order to determine a disability. As you know, some disabilities are minor, while other are major. A person with a serious disability, one that may even put that person's life at risk, could certainly be turned away by a clinic. I think we need to draw a distinction between a disability requiring a medical evaluation and a person's social or marital status. As I see it, these are two very different considerations.

I suggest we leave the wording of the motion as is. If we want to talk about disabilities, we need to do so in another context because a medical evaluation is required. It's not the same think as being recognized or claiming to be a lesbian or a single person. The word “disability” has a medical connotation.

[English]

The Chair: I think that has put a new spin on it. Would you be agreeable to voting on the word disability, because it is on the table, and if you don't want it in this amendment, you're going to have to defeat it?

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Nobody has asked me to speak.

The Chair: I thought you spoke on this.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Oh, are you only allowed once? I never spoke on what you're talking about right now, on “disability”.

» (1720)

The Chair: Okay, go ahead, Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I have to agree with Paul. If we're going to list them, let's list them all, and not separate or put in isolation one or two areas. I just don't see the rationale behind it all. I think we have to list them all, race, religion, etc. All of them should be there.

The Chair: Madam Jennings.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Madam Chair, the Charter already lists several grounds on which discrimination is prohibited. The amendment put forward by Mr. Ménard does not focus on the grounds already included in the Charter. Rather, it focuses on two new reasons. Therefore, it's entirely appropriate in my opinion for him to move this amendment and to restrict it to grounds not listed in the Charter.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Jennings, we were just talking about disability--

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes, and I disagree.

[English]

The Chair: --and as Dr. Dromisky and Mr. Szabo have pointed out, that starts a list that may end up being exclusionary, so I'm suggesting that because the words “or disability”--

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: That's not the point I was trying to make. It's not discriminatory when protection has already been extended.

[English]

The Chair: No. Your point isn't to the subamendment that is on the table, “or disability”.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes, I'm speaking to the issue of where to include the reference to “disability”. It is being argued that “disability” should be included in the sub-amendment because other grounds of discrimination cannot be excluded. I for one think that there is no need to list grounds such as “disability” precisely because the Charter covers this. There is no need to specify it in this provision. All we need to do is mention sexual orientation and marital status.

[English]

The Chair: Those two, yes.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Dr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you.

You've successfully ignored me for a while on this, but I want to just remind the committee that this bill is about assisted human reproductive technology. We've heard from people, and very compassionately. They're concerned because they have physical problems that inhibit their ability to have children by normal means. They fail to ovulate, they have sperm that's dysfunctional, or they have failed reproduction for some reason. What Mr. Ménard is introducing with this is something completely unrelated to that. It's called social discrimination. It's dealt with in other areas of the law, and I think the legislative clerk is correct in saying this is out of order. It doesn't belong in the bill.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Lunney.

Madam Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro: I'd like to get clarification from Mr. Rivard again. We have a legislative clerk who says Mr. Ménard's motion is out of order, and you're saying it is unnecessary, because regardless of what Dr. Fry is indicating, discrimination of any form is unacceptable. We've been very clear on that in a variety of areas. We don't need to pass this motion today.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I'm saying, with respect to the interpretation of the act or the conduct of the agency, both are governed by the charter, which addresses both the grounds of orientation that are in the motion. My guess in respect of the legislative clerk's view is that to the extent that this addresses the question of access to services, the bill does not address that question, and so it's beyond the current scope, but I am guessing on that one.

» (1725)

Ms. Judy Sgro: Mr. Rivard, on the same issue of disability, the only way someone could turn down a request for some of these reproductive technologies would be if there were clearly some other issue, but based on the straight disability, they'd be unable to refuse them. It was unnecessary for us to move forward on the motion, that is what I'm sensing. It's still out of order.

The Chair: Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I was just going to say that disability is also included as a ground of discrimination.

The Chair: Dr. Castonguay.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, I know we have a motion on the table, but we're also trying to have a general discussion to bring this to a head. Maybe we could change the wording a bit and try to come to the same thing and say, “Persons who seek to undergo assisted reproduction procedures must not be the object of discrimination, including on the grounds of sexual orientation, marital status or disability”. Does that create problems, or does it cover what you want to accomplish?

Ms. Judy Sgro: The question is, is it necessary? It's out of order.

The Chair: Madam Weber.

Ms. Caroline Weber: Before we turn to our counsel's view on this, I would like to insert my own concerns, from a policy perspective, that it does seem to be interfering in an area of provincial and territorial jurisdiction, something we have studiously, in crafting this, tried to avoid. So as sympathetic as I am to the principles that move it, to the extent that it does interfere with what is, in our view, an area of provincial and territorial jurisdiction, this does cause some problems. But I'll move it to counsel if you like.

The Chair: Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, I'm very surprised by what the legislative counsel are saying.

The issue here is also access to treatment, given that the Agency can license the way in which health care professionals will operate. Some of the bill's provisions focus on access to treatment. That's not what we're talking about. Clause 2 of the bill refers to principles. The Canadian Charter and the Canadian Human Rights Act mention dignity. Clause 2 also talks about dignity. Therefore, if we follow your logic, many principles would have to be stricken from the bill.

I remind you that we are lawmakers. In law, there's nothing that says that several laws cannot include references to the same thing. A judge in a court of common law will have a piece of legislation in front of him and if the legislator wishes to prohibit discrimination, then he has every right to say so in that act. All the better if the Charter backs him up. However, we're talking about principles here, specifically about the principles listed in clause 2. Discrimination is prohibited on 13 different grounds, two of which concern us at this time.

Madam Chair, the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the grounds that a person has been pardoned. No one told us that access to reproductive technologies had anything to do with that. The point is that some single women are denied access to treatment. Some lesbians are denied access to treatment. No one said to us that because a person is black, yellow, purple or green, that person will be denied access to treatment. Any amendments adopted by this committee must tie in with the testimony given and I think this amendment should be adopted. All the better if it provides additional protection. It means we will live in a more just society.

If Alliance members dislike gays, then that's another matter. They've never liked homosexuals. They've voted against them on five separate occasions.

[English]

The Chair: Do you want to go forward voting on this now, or would you rather pull it back and come back tomorrow?

Ms. Judy Sgro: I don't think it's fair, Madam Chair, to make that comment. If I go to change this, it would be because you made that comment, and I don't necessarily want to do that, because I already indicated at the beginning of my discussion how I was voting, and now you're making me question it. Why don't we hold this down, as the chair suggested earlier? Let's see if there's another form of wording for whatever it is we're trying to do and deal with this tomorrow.

» (1730)

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, we could include the words “in particular”, as is done in section 15 of the Charter. This would give the courts the latitude to interpret the legislation and to include other grounds. I have no problem with the words “in particular” being added. We can vote on that tomorrow.

[English]

The Chair: Dr. Lunney wanted to make a motion.

Mr. James Lunney: I would move that we table this.

The Chair: Okay, that is non-debatable. To stand it aside, is that what you mean?

Mr. James Lunney: It was a motion to table, just to put it off.

The Chair: You want to get rid of it.

Mr. James Lunney: Well, it's out of order.

The Chair: Okay, a motion to table is non-debatable. He wants to get rid of this motion. That would be the same as voting it down.

I'm going to call the question on Mr. Lunney's motion. This is not putting it aside, this is tabling it, which would require a motion to bring it back.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I wonder if the clerk could advise us of the difference between tabling and standing. My understanding is that tabling would require a motion to bring it back on.

The Chair: That is correct. I understand that.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Standing means it automatically comes back--

The Chair: On another day.

Mr. Paul Szabo: --when needed information comes.

The Chair: That's right. We all understand that. We've done it before at this committee. We've tabled and we've stood things aside. This motion is to table, which would require another motion to lift it from the table.

(Motion negatived)

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, I request a vote on the motion...

[English]

The Chair: We have to vote, then, on the amendment concerning the words “or disability".

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I would like to withdraw that, because the debate has gone around.

The Chair: Did you move that?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, I moved it. I tried to get your attention about 15 minutes ago.

The Chair: Mr. Merrifield is withdrawing that amendment, so it's no longer on the table. So now we just have Mr. Ménard's motion, which he wants us to vote on today.

Do you have another amendment?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: No. Can you stand the amendment or not?

The Chair: You told me you withdrew it.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, but--

The Chair: Oh, you're talking about the full amendment.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, no, I was talking about the subamendment, but--

The Chair: No, you withdrew it.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay, fair enough. I'll withdraw it, because I think there's an intent around the table to do something on that side of it, but not right here, because it clouds it up.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Ménard has asked for a vote on his motion without any subamendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: We now have CA-7.

You have to leave, don't you?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes. Carol had to leave because of the Christmas party, and I know Réal's--

The Chair: I thought that was Thursday.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, but it's the children's Christmas party, and she had to do a storytelling.

I have to catch a plane. I'm wondering if we've had enough for today?

» (1735)

The Chair: We did say six o'clock, but many of these are CA amendments, Mr. Ménard wants to get out at 5:30 too, and Ms. Wasylycia-Leis has gone. We maybe could get to some of the government amendments. Would you mind? They're mainly technical. On page 11, for example, is G-1.

Did you have a chance to look at the government amendments?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: No, I haven't had a chance. We've been rushed even to get our amendments in, let alone looking at all the others.

The Chair: Well, at this point, unless Mr. Ménard comes back, we wouldn't have a quorum. Is he coming back? He's left his coat.

An hon. member: No, he gave what he wanted and he ran out.

The Chair: Okay. If we end early today, it seems to me we have to at least book some more time on Thursday to work our way through it. We're supposed to go 9 to 11 and 3:30 to 5:30, so how about 9 till 1, with lunch provided? Will you agree to put in the extra hours on Thursday?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I don't know what Carol's schedule is like on her committees.

The Chair: Well, we can't get everybody.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Madam Chair, is there anything preventing us from working up to Christmas Eve on this issue?

The Chair: Absolutely nothing. If we don't finish it next Monday, of course, we'll just keep going. It is my experience that on the first day of amendments we're not really in the swing of it, and once we've been through a few of them, we'll move more quickly. That's what we did the last time.

So is it agreeable that we stop 20 minutes early to accommodate the requests of our colleagues? We don't have quorum.

Thank you for your attention. This meeting is adjourned.