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

Monday, December 9, 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

The Chair

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

1550

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

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

The Chair

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

The Chair

1555

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Glenn Rivard

1600

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

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

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

1605

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

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

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

1610

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

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

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

1615

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

1620

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

1625

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

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

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

1630

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1635

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

The Chair

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

1640

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

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

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

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

1645

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

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

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

1650

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

1655

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

1700

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Ms. Carol Skelton

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

NUMBER 014

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, December 9, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1545)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's my pleasure to call this meeting to order.

I hope we can pick up a little bit of speed, compared to our previous meeting. However, we found with the pesticide bill that it was very slow at the beginning, because that's when we made so many of the really heavy decisions. Hopefully, as we get through these pieces of the puzzle, it will become easier because you will have debated and decided on the major issues.

We have set aside a couple of them, and we're waiting for a rewrite of Mr. Merrifield's amendment CA-35(b), so we'll really know what the whole clause will say. Mr. Rivard has ordered that done, and it's coming back from the department.

For now, please turn to page 49 in your major package. You have one amendment called CA-33. Mr. Merrifield has agreed to withdraw that, so you can put a “W” on that. It's in the main package.

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Do you want to speak to the intent of that, because we had talked about it?

The Chair: You'll recall that Mr. Merrifield has had several amendments where he wanted the words “donor” and “person” in the plural, where he thought there were two or three people involved. Our counsel has suggested that we could have an extra clause at the beginning of the bill called a “for greater certainty clause”, stating clearly that words written in the singular in this bill may also be meant to apply in the plural. So even though all the lawyers know that's the case, because of the Interpretation Act, the average citizen reading it probably wouldn't know that. But if we inserted that other clause, meaning it could be singular or plural, even outside readers of the bill would be clear.

So on the premise of the possibility of doing that, Mr. Merrifield is withdrawing CA-33 in the main package, CA-33(a) in the supplementary package, CA-34 in the main package, and CA-34(a) in the supplementary package. Those are the only amendments that were put forward on clause 16.

(Clause 16 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 17--Personal health information registry)

The Chair: There's one amendment on clause 17. If we do it, then we'll be right on the one we want to do, which is clause 18.

Mr. Merrifield, will you tackle CA-35?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: This is really just about identification and records. We feel there should be some sort of recognition of the dignity of the embryo. It should be clear who the embryo came from, and there should be a standard formula identifying the donor by name rather than just by number. I think that would probably happen, at any rate, but we should have it there.

The Chair: You want that added on line 19. I don't see how you go from “means” to “procedures”. You say:

procedures, persons conceived by means of those procedures, and identification of all embryos created and destroyed.

What do you mean by the identification of all embryos created and destroyed?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That means they should be identified, in the sense of where they came from. If you go down to the third point, it says “the agency be identified by a standard formulaic name composed of the donor's name rather than by number”.

Embryos should not just become anonymous masses of cells, tissues; they actually come from donors and should be identified. So we respect that. That would be done at any rate, I would imagine.

The Chair: But I'm worried about the phrase “identification of all embryos”. How would you identify them?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Exactly by the standard formula.

The Chair: You have to formulate a name.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: If it was Mrs. Jones, you wouldn't just say it's “sample one”; it would be “Mrs. Jones” or “Mr. Smith”.

The Chair: Like “Jones-Smith embryo one”.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes. It's that we put this into a formulary. I think that would be happening, but let's put it in here so that we have some identification. I would imagine it would happen at any rate.

The Chair: Is everybody clear on what Mr. Merrifield is suggesting here?

He's suggesting that all embryos have a name, such as if it was from Mr. Jones and Mrs. Smith it would be “Jones-Smith embryo one”, “Jones-Smith embryo two”, that kind of thing. That's what he's suggesting in CA-35, with his proposed subclause (3).

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes. I think this comes from some of the witnesses as well, who we... And there was a newspaper article that was written about a case involving an in vitro fertilization that actually went to court in England, where it was a black child who was actually born through in vitro fertilization. So obviously there was a mix-up in the identification of whose semen was used and a court case followed.

I think it's very important that we identify the samples we have of semen as well as the ovum and the embryos. I would imagine that would happen at any rate. I'm quite familiar with what we do in the case of animals we use for artificial insemination, and believe me, it happens there, so I would expect no less from humans.

The Chair: Ms. Weber.

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

Mr. Merrifield, we have had this conversation before, and so I do think this comes from animal husbandry practices. In paragraph 65(1)(l) we do have there that regulations need to address this issue in terms of identifying embryos. Some clinics use a naming convention similar to what Mr. Merrifield is proposing; others do it differently. There may be privacy issues there. I don't know what the best way is.

Labelling is important in terms of trying to control things and make sure the wrong material doesn't end up somewhere. But I'm not sure that specifying the way you label them is going to actually avert the problem. We did also try to address this in the bill in terms of requiring in clause 65 that regulations would have to be drafted with respect to labelling and identification.

¹ (1550)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: There should be a standard of some sort.

Ms. Caroline Weber: Yes, exactly.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: And I think that's what I'm saying.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question? We're on CA-35. It's about identification of embryos by name as opposed to number.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 17 agreed to on division)

(On clause 18--Use of information by Agency)

The Chair: G-6 is next. In your main package on page 52 you have a government amendment, number 6.

We're on page 11 of the bill, G-6, line 32 on page 11, so you're in the bottom clause. This is the suggestion as to why the agency might disclose everything to a doctor. It has to do with the health of the offspring and any kind of information that might have come in, in the interim, for example, and making sure that's shared with the people it might affect. Is that correct, Mr. Rivard?

Mr. Glenn Rivard (Senior Legal Counsel, Department of Justice): It came to our attention that there may be situations in which the doctor of an offspring needs to know the identity of the gamete donor. A perfect example might be where the offspring requires a bone marrow transplant. So this would allow the disclosure of the identity to the physician, and then the physician could attempt to contact this donor and obtain their permission for a bone marrow transplant. It provides that the disclosure must remain with the physician. He or she cannot disclose that name any further. It's very similar to a provision that exists currently in the civil code of Quebec.

The Chair: Thank you.

I think Dr. Castonguay is moving this. Is he?

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): I wish to underline, Madam Chair, that it must be understood that what we had was “(3) to (7)” and that we have replaced this by “(3) to (8)”, so as to be able to add the next paragraph. Once again, in cases of medical emergencies, the Agency will be authorized to share the information.

[English]

The Chair: It's the underlined portion on that page.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

¹ (1555)

The Chair: Thank you. That was carried almost unanimously, I think.

Now, we're on page 12. Has the page been given out?

Ms. Caroline Weber: Madam Chair, we do have a problem.

The Chair: I understand. It's about the French.

Ms. Caroline Weber: Yes, we had a family health crisis.

The Chair: That's okay.

The request to have the whole clause rewritten so that we can clearly see what it says has been taken care of by the staff. Unfortunately, they only have it in English. My suggestion is that it be read into the record by them before it's given out to you. Then it will be on the record in French due to the work of the translators. Read it slowly so the translator can pick the very best words she can think of.

Does the translator have a copy of the English? Could we give her one, please?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Can we have a copy of the English?

The Chair: We don't have it yet. You're going to hear it read in English. Then the translator will translate as we go and then we'll get a copy to look at. Everyone here currently is English or can read the English.

Excuse me, did anyone give it to the translator yet? Where is the copy?

We're on the extra piece of paper that you got this morning. It is being revised, but I think they took their copy and sent it to the photocopy machine.

An hon. member: What number is it?

The Chair: I'm not sure yet. I think it's amendment 35A. No, I'm sorry, it's amendment 35B.

Do you have a copy?

Ms. Caroline Weber: Glenn has a copy.

The Chair: Glenn has a copy and the others are at the photocopy machine? Where are the copies that are going to be given out?

Ms. Caroline Weber: In English only?

The Chair: Yes. Where are they?

Ms. Caroline Weber: We don't have them because they were worried that they wouldn't be accepted in English only.

The Chair: Do I have unanimous consent to accept this in English only, provided it's read into the record in French? All in favour?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

We've taken care of the problem. I want one copy to be taken to a photocopier as quickly as possible, after Mr. Rivard reads it, because we only seem to have one copy.

Mr. Rivard, would you read into the record amendment 35B, please?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Okay. The alternate wording, if you will, to the proposed motion to amend would read as follows--

The Chair: It's on page 12 of the bill, subclause 18(3).

Mr. Glenn Rivard: It is on page 12, clause 18, subclause (3), and it is that Bill C-13 in clause 18 be amended by (a) replacing lines 9 to 13 with the following: “but, subject to subsection 3.1, the identity of a donor shall not be disclosed without the donor's written consent”.

The Chair: That's what it says already. You were going to change the words “shall not be disclosed to the woman”.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: No. The crucial distinction is the addition of the phrase “subject to subsection 3.1”.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Then we have a new subclause (3.1). It says, by adding after line 13 on page 12, the following new clause:

The Agency may disclose the identity of a donor to a person conceived by means of an assisted reproduction procedure using that donor's reproductive material or in vitro embryo, or their descendants, if the person or their descendant as the case may be is at least 18 years of age.

The Chair: Would you like to speak to that, Mr. Merrifield? That is your amendment.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes. I have a question. Is that a “may” or a “shall”? Could you read it again?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: It is a “may”, because that is the term used whenever you give authority to an agency.

º (1600)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Shouldn't it be “shall”?

The Chair: In the next subclause, subclause 18(5) it says:

The Agency shall disclose health reporting information

They all say “shall”. Why does that one say “may”?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: If we place the word “shall” in, then we need to put in the concept of it having been requested.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: It could say:

shall, upon request,

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Okay. It would then read:

The Agency shall, on request, disclose the identity of a donor

And that copies the language in subclause 18(3), right at the very top.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Can I have him read it, and not just the part that's changed?

The Chair: Mr. Rivard, could you read subclause 18(3.1) again?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I could. With the suggested change it would read:

The Agency shall, upon request, disclose the identity of a donor to a person conceived by means of an assisted reproduction procedure using that donor's reproductive material or in vitro embryo, or their descendants, if the person or their descendant as the case may be is at least 18 years of age.

The Chair: Okay? Is everybody clear?

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, I wish to give a little warning to committee members. If each and every time we have an amendment we make changes to it, this is a very dangerous practice, and we risk winding up with a bill that will not hold water. We must have the complete picture. If every time an amendment is moved we start fiddling with it, I will have to vote against, because it is extremely confusing when we start playing around with a bill in this way.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Dr. Castonguay, it seems to me we debated this issue fairly fully for about 25 minutes prior to the break to go and vote. The staff have done their best to draft what they thought the committee was trying to do. I had the sense that the committee did not like Mr. Merrifield's amendment as it stood. There were reasons against that, but there were things the committee wasn't opposed to.

So it seems to me this captures...but that's just my judgment. I have to try to figure out where the consensus lies, and that's why it comes down to some redrafting.

Madam Sgro, did you want to speak to this?

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Call the question.

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): I want a recorded vote, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): I don't understand it.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

º (1605)

The Chair: It would have helped if we'd had the papers in front of us.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, with unanimous consent, we can go back to it once we get the papers. Would we be prepared to do that?

The Chair: I don't know. I knew asking for a recorded vote was...

Mr. Rob Merrifield: If some members are confused, I certainly don't have a problem, once we get all the papers, to revisit it. I would ask for unanimous consent on that, Madam Chair.

The Chair: No.

Amendment NDP-7 on page 54.1 is withdrawn. NDP-8 on page 54.2.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): NDP-7 and NDP-8 are another way to accomplish what we were trying to do with respect to disclosure, basically to delete everything under subclause (3) after the second word “conceived”, the fifth line from the bottom of subclause (3).

The next amendment, NDP-8, is to delete all of subclause(4). Basically it gets rid of those portions that deny disclosure.

The Chair: This particular clause, as I see it, is the one that allows the agency to disclose, when there's a possibility that two adults who might want to marry need to find out if they are actually genetically related. That's the clause that I see in lines 14 to 22 on page 12.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: First dealing with lines 9 to 13--

The Chair: I'm sorry, I'm on NDP-8. I don't seem to see NDP-7.

NDP-7. Sorry. Page 54.1, 9 to 13.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It deletes everything and starts with the word “but”, which means it's--

The Chair: On line 9 she wants a period after the word “conceived”. That suggests--

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Why do you want to do that? Can you tell us?

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, I'm looking through my notes here, and I was under the impression that NDP-7 was withdrawn.

The Chair: That's what we thought too.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Is that the one I said I would withdraw?

The Chair: Dr. Castonguay, I had a “W” on mine as well.

Are you sure you didn't withdraw that one?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm confused.

The Chair: I think Mr. Merrifield withdrew three and you withdrew one in the same question that I asked, and we put a “W” on it.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Then I'll accept that.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Castonguay, for that clarification.

That's why I thought we were on NDP-8.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Then we might as well withdraw NDP-8, because it's all to take that full section out, which I know you'll say we've dealt with now and we can't revisit. So we might as well withdraw it.

The Chair: Amendment NDP-8 is withdrawn. That is it for clause 18.

(Clause 18 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 19—Information available from Agency)

The Chair: We're now on CA-37 on page 55, clause 19 on page 13 of the bill.

Would you speak to this amendment, Mr. Merrifield?

º (1610)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: This wording comes from pages 29 and 30 of the Building Families report we tabled here last Christmas. Our concern at that time was that the agency not be driven totally by science and scientists; that we have open and transparent public hearings; and if we're going to garner the trust of Canadians in an agency that is going to walk down a very volatile road, it's absolutely essential to have that transparency there.

If you would like more explanation I'll go into it, because I don't want anyone to be confused.

The Chair: Clause 19 would then read:

The Agency shall make available for inspection by the public or for public appearance for licensing or for special issues any information that is prescribed by the regulations relating to

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's right.

The Chair: Did you see that? He just changed the initial paragraph.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 19 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Next is amendment CA-38. This is a new clause that comes on page 14 of the bill after line 4.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Since the committee doesn't want the agency to be transparent and open, surely you'll allow a public information registry to be placed on the activities of the agency. That's what this is all about.

The Chair: What does that mean, “a public information registry”?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: All of the agency's activities shall be reported in a public information registry, unless specifically excluded by the act.

The Chair: What is a registry? Do you mean a website or a book somewhere? What do you mean?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: It would be a public information registry on what the agency was dealing with and what they had decided on the legislation.

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

Mr. Rob Merrifield: It wouldn't disclose names, but it would disclose what issues they were changing and what they were doing, openly and transparently.

I think it's fairly clear that the agency, in this case, should not be working in any kind of closet. It must be open and transparent. As you read through some of the later pieces of this legislation, this agency really has sweeping powers, and the minister has sweeping powers over the agency. So you have to put some kind of check and balance in there. That's why we talked to the United Kingdom. Their agency has been working for 10 years now.

I think this goes along with the intent. It certainly goes along with what we decided in the committee a year ago and recommended in this piece of legislation. Now that it's not here, I'm a little surprised that we have members who don't understand what we requested to have in this piece of legislation initially. So that's the intent of it.

The Chair: Dr. Castonguay is next, and then Ms. Sgro.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, when I look at all of the activities of the Agency, I see that they are extremely broad. This would mean that if a computer is purchased or if a salary increase or sick leave are granted, there will have to be... None of this makes any sense. In my view, it would be impossible to report all of the activities.

º (1615)

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro: I'd like to hear Mr. Rivard or Dr. Weber make a comment on this.

Ms. Caroline Weber: Our general sense is that the wording is too vague, and there's already a pretty exhaustive list in clause 19 for all of the information the agency would have to make public. It would be impossible to actually enforce this to exclude activities, since the bill doesn't provide for any exclusions already, so all activities would have to be reported.

The Chair: I'll call the question.

(Amendment negatived)

(On clause 20--Assisted human reproduction policy)

The Chair: We are now on amendment CA-39 and still on page 14. We're now looking at line 11, which is the word “Agency”.

Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'm going to withdraw it.

The Chair: So amendment CA-39 is withdrawn.

We are now on amendment CA-40 and still on page 14. After line 11, you wanted a new subclause 20(3).

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay. This deals with the “gamete donors in relation to children born as a result of their donation”. What we are trying to do is to ensure uniformity in a manner such that the age of majority is required for disclosure of the information, for the donor's anonymity from a gamete donor.

I think this is really where I'm at with it. I don't see a problem with it. But I would ask counsel to give me his indication as to whether there would be a problem with this.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I do have some comments.

The first is that the cabinet ministers, if you will, responsible for the legal status of children would be the provincial attorneys general, not the ministers of health. A second comment I would have is that it really is quite vague when we talk about “all required actions”. Basically it's quite unclear what is meant by this. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to determine whether or not the Minister of Health has complied with this section.

I guess the other comment I would have is that it may well be that the provinces would have a problem with the notion of uniform legislation. They may move toward a uniform policy approach, if you will, but it's quite unlikely they would adopt uniform legislation. In particular, Quebec, with its civil code, would have a different approach. But even amongst the other provinces, it's extremely difficult to get uniform legislation.

These are at least three problems I see with it.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: There's no question that some of these issues are under provincial jurisdiction. But if we at least had this in there, it would give a direction to the bill and to the health ministers to strive for that uniformity across the country. I think this is where we should be. If we don't put it here, it's not going to be there. I think it's very...

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 20 agreed to on division)

(On clause 21—Agency established)

The Chair: We are now on amendment CA-41 and still on page 14, at line 14. It is substituting “shall” in place of “may”.

º (1620)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: It reads “body corporate that shall exercise powers”.

The Chair: Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Why would this not be in there?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: In drafting, when you are authorizing somebody to do something, you use the term “may” as a matter of grammatical correctness. When you require them to do something, you use the term “shall”.

In this instance, you are simply stating that the agency will be operating as an agency or agent of Her Majesty. The term “may” is a more appropriate grammatical term here.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I have a question.

The Chair: Come on, it's one word.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, it's one word, but it's a fairly important word. If the intent is that they “shall” do it...I really fail to see this, and we just had this discussion here a while back about the “may” and the “shall”—

The Chair: With respect, Mr. Merrifield, I think it's quite a different thing that the agency “may” as opposed to the agency “shall” disclose something. The agency shall do specific things, yes, but the agency may use powers. That's a very general thing, and it's not a comparison of note you're making.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, I think it is.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): I agree with you, Madam Chair. “Shall” doesn't do anything more. That the agency shall, may, will, or whatever perform duties only as an agent of Her Majesty excludes all others.

The Chair: Well, coming from an esteemed grammarian such as yourself, Mr. Finlay...

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 21 agreed to on division)

(On clause 22—Objectives)

The Chair: We're on amendment CA-42. This is only the addition of the word “life”. The committee has already decided against the inclusion of that word in a similar phrase earlier in the bill. This has already been decided, so it's gone.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Madam Chair, are you suggesting that where we talked about life with respect to the embryo is the same as the intent of the agency with respect to life?

The Chair: It was in the statement of principle that we rejected this, which was about life, health, etc., of Canadians, if I'm not mistaken.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, but we're now talking about the agency and its objectives, right?

The Chair: The objectives of the agency should reflect the principles of the bill, and in the principles of the bill we rejected the word “life” in this list.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: No, this is completely different. The reason we rejected the word “life” is that some people have difficulty in recognizing the embryo as life. This is different. This is talking about the agency and its intent and objectives, which are to protect and promote the life, health, human dignity, and human rights of Canadians. I certainly don't see how you could—

The Chair: Do you want to challenge the chair? I've already ruled, so if you need to disagree with--

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, I'll challenge the chair.

The Chair: The question is, shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

º (1625)

The Chair: The ruling of the chair is sustained, and amendment CA-42 is gone. I think it's the same thing for amendment CA-43.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'll withdraw it.

The Chair: Amendment CA-43 is withdrawn, and we're on to amendment NDP-9.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: This proposal is to add in clause 22 another subclause dealing with a very distinct and important topic, and that has to do with the causes and prevention of infertility. I'm proposing that we add that issue as one of the objectives of the agency, the matter of informing the public about the causes of infertility and of playing a role in terms of developing programs and measures aimed at preventing infertility.

I think that was an issue that was articulated throughout our hearings. It's part of this whole exercise, and I think this is the best place to reflect that concern.

The Chair: So we would have to take the “and” out at the end of paragraph (a) of clause 22, then add the “and” after the word “principles” in paragraph (b), and then add paragraph (c), which is to get the causal factors of infertility out there, that educative function.

Do you necessarily want to say “causal factors”? The researcher is suggesting “risk factors” that may lead to infertility.

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

[Translation]

That is a good idea, is it not?

[English]

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): I want to be positive here. In my estimation the agency is there to regulate, right? Here we're going into another realm of responsibility, one we're adding to that agency. Somehow I think the area of responsibility that's being advocated in this amendment belongs to the Department of Health and not necessarily to this agency.

The Chair: The clerk has just raised the concern that if you give the agency an extra mandate, it could cost more money. In that case we go beyond the royal recommendation that sent the bill to us in the first place.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a point of order. I would like to have some help in terms of how to proceed so I may introduce this during report stage. When it's beyond the royal recommendation, then it should give me the option to present it again. In order for me to be able to do that, I want to make sure that whether we've voted on it or not doesn't get in the way.

The Chair: The way I can do that is to rule it out of order now, as I did with an idea Mr. Szabo had earlier. As long as I rule it out of order, that leaves you free to introduce it at report stage.

Mr. James Lunney: Why is this inappropriate? Is it the cost factor?

The Chair: There's an expansion of the scope of the role of the agency that is articulated in this bill. It's a broadening of the agency's powers, which could cost money. When you bring in this educative role--which we all think is a wonderful thing, but--if it's beyond the scope of the bill and the money...

Dr. Weber.

Ms. Caroline Weber: In paragraph 24(1)(f) we already have a provision that the agency has the authority to inform the public, so part of this educative role is already there.

The problems arise especially when you're suggesting the agency also implement programs and promote measures aimed at preventing things. As Dr. Dromisky already said, this is the responsibility of P-T health ministries as well as of Health Canada. Then we also have Krever saying that if a regulatory body runs the programs, it's put in the inappropriate position of having to regulate itself and its own programs.

For those three reasons... part of it is redundant as we read the bill and the other part of it causes all kinds of problems; the program part of it especially is problematic.

º (1630)

The Chair: Perhaps we can take a part out, the part that starts “and to implement programs”, and put a period after “infertility”. By keeping “to inform the public”, wouldn't that just be a specific suggestion that would also be more precise, elucidating the meaning of paragraph 24(1)(f), to “provide information to the public”?

Ms. Caroline Weber: Paragraph 24(1)(f) is broader than that.

The Chair: Paragraph 24(1)(f) is broader, but this mentions a specific thing the member would like to have up front as part of that.

I can see how the implementation of programs is both inappropriate and costly, but if the agency is expected to provide information to the public in paragraph 24(1)(f), as you have pointed out to us, what is wrong with talking about the risk factors that lead to infertility as a specific example of that?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: First, I don't see this as an objective of the agency. Rather, if anything, it's something the agency can do, and it might more properly belong under clause 24.

Second, it seems to me that it makes the sentence quite ungrammatical because you would have “The objectives of the Agency are”, and then going down to (c), “to inform the public of the risk factors that may lead to infertility...in relation to assisted human reproduction and other matters to which this Act applies.” It just doesn't fit within the clause.

The Chair: There are a lot of objections.

Dr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: I'd like to say something about this. I think the member brings up a very valid point. We would like to know that somebody is looking after this. The whole thing here is about helping people have babies through lab assistance. But we would like to know that somebody is addressing the causes of infertility so that people can have their babies the natural way. If that is a worthwhile objective, is it part of the mandate of this organization? Presumably, they are dealing with fertility. Why is it beyond their mandate to consider such things?

The Chair: Dr. Dromisky would like to comment.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Madam Chairperson, I would suggest to Judy that she allow this to be tabled for now and that we not have a vote. Once we have a vote and it is defeated, it can't come back. Is that right?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: What I am recommending is that it be set aside and that we do not have a vote. The agency is responsible for providing information pertaining to its specific role. It's not “to inform the public of the casual factors that may lead to infertility”. That's not part of the role of the agency, as I see it. I think that should be done someplace else, such as under better health regulations. It says “to implement programs and promote measures”. That has to be done by another part of the ministry, not by this agency. The job of the agency is to let people know exactly what its responsibilities are according to this bill. Therefore, Judy, you would want to save that concept so that we can deal with it later.

The Chair: I think maybe you are both right, that it is too strong as a principle of the agency, and you might be able to slide it in someplace else.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I would ask, then, for permission to set it aside so that we don't have a vote at this time. However, I would suggest that, given the great powers we've assigned to the agency and the delegation of so many responsibilities, it doesn't seem to make much sense to ignore one very fundamental facet of this whole area of reproductive technologies and to not include that in some broad way as part of the agency's work. I'll agree to set it aside, but I might suggest that we come back to it, if I can't think of a better place, and change the words to something like “to foster public understanding of the risk factors that may lead to infertility”, in order to broaden it. I wouldn't say that it must inform the public, but rather foster public understanding. I think it's an important part of the agency. It's no more far-reaching than paragraph (b), which is “to foster the application of ethical principles”. So I would suggest that it does fit here. But I will come back to it in another way, because I don't want to lose this.

º (1635)

The Chair: Thank you, Judy.

NDP-9 is stood aside for the moment.

CA-44 is withdrawn.

We cannot vote on clause 22 just yet because we stood aside an amendment.

Amendment CA-45 is a new clause. It would be clause 22.1. Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: This actually comes out of our report book as well. If we are going to give direction to the agency reflecting the principle of care, which is putting the child first, then the parent, and then the scientist, I think we have to have some direction there. This is where there is a conflict between the ethically acceptable and the scientifically possible, and the ethically acceptable course of action would be preferred. I think it's fairly self-explanatory. I think we should give direction to the agency, and this is the place to do it.

The Chair: I think I see the ghost of Preston Manning rising from the floor, because I remember him saying this over and over again.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: He had some things right, and I think we would be wise to acknowledge that.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: I'm ready.

The Chair: Well, I want you to explain to the rest of us what this amendment is about and which side of this you're on.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: I'm not voting with the Alliance on this one. I don't like this one. I don't want this one. I'm voting against, Madam Chairman.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Is there a reason?

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Yes, because it's too nebulous. It's out there. It doesn't say anything to me, in all honesty.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: That was a new clause.

There are no amendments in clause 23.

(Clause 23 agreed to)

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Judy Sgro: At what point, then, do we do clause 22, given the fact that Ms. Wasylycia-Leis is trying to hold on to that amendment? How do we do that? How does that happen on a procedural basis?

The Chair: I think she's trying to find a place where she could slide it in.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Wasn't the issue that we didn't want to vote it down because then she wouldn't have that opportunity? So if it didn't fit there--

The Chair: She might bring it back.

Ms. Judy Sgro: --is the suggestion, then, that it fit somewhere else within the bill?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My intention is to explore other possibilities, but I would like the opportunity to come back with a reworked amendment for clause 22, in case it doesn't fit anywhere else.

(On clause 24—Powers of Agency)

The Chair: We're now on amendment NDP-10, on page 63.1.

Is it “shall”?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It changes the first phrase, “The Agency may”. Amendment NDP-10 says, change “The Agency may” to “The Agency shall”.

The Chair: Okay, I think this is the same category as the other one. I'm going to call the question.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Amendments CA-46 and LL-5 have a line conflict, but the clerk is pointing out to me that amendment LL-5, which wants to “establish and maintain a human stem cell bank to which licensed researchers will have access”, is beyond the bill, because once again it's beyond the royal recommendation because it would cause an expansion of the mandate as envisioned by the bill and cost a lot of money.

It's always possible to do it at report stage, and you have to get a new royal recommendation. To use that route, you have to lobby the minister and the government to get a new royal recommendation for when it comes to the House, which has more money in it, probably, or a broader mandate.

Madame Thibeault.

º (1640)

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

At this stage, if everyone is in agreement with not making the new Agency responsible for this bank, could we not ask the Canadian Health Research Institutes to take charge of this bank? In this way, there would be no conflict, because these institutes are already financed by the government. It is just an idea that came into my head. I believe it is important to establish a central bank...

[English]

The Chair: Or you might want to talk to the minister about it, maybe expanding the dollars she has, or something like that.

There are two possibilities, but if you want hope, you have to withdraw this, I think, for the time being.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Very good, I will withdraw it.

The Chair: Okay. We're at CA-46 on page 64, page 15 of the bill. We're on line 16. Eliminate the “and”, he's suggesting. In subparagraphs (g.1) and (g.2), are you eliminating inspectors?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: No.

The Chair: Paragraph (g) already says “designate inspectors and analysts for the enforcement of this Act”.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: We're adding (g.1), (g.2), and (g.3).

The Chair: So you're adding:

(g.1) develop a code of ethics based on the principles of its mandate;

(g.2) table an annual report in Parliament;

(g.3) prepare a strategic plan every three years to be approved by the Minister and Parliament; and

What's wrong with this?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: It's right out of our majority book.

The Chair: This is simply giving more precise instructions as to what the agency is supposed to do. In other words, instead of only tabling an annual report, he's adding “prepare a strategic plan” of what they're going to do in the subsequent three years.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Actually, speaking to this one, Madam Chair, this comes from pages 27 and 28 of Building Families, our report, so it's language we've dealt with as a committee. It's our language. It's really the direction we wanted to give the agency. I think it should be supported here. It's nothing other than more accountability, more specific direction.

The Chair: Dr. Lunney wants to speak to it.

Mr. James Lunney: For some of the members opposite, who seem to be a little distracted today, the committee actually did deliberate this at great length when we were going through the draft legislation. We spent a lot of time going over it and this is the language that was put in at that time. Tabling an annual report to Parliament is a means of keeping Parliament aware, so it doesn't drop off the radar screen into some closet but remains open for members of Parliament to scrutinize.

The strategic plan seems like a good idea. It was something we debated at length before, so I would encourage members to consider following through with the original plan and agreement that we considered in the draft legislation.

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Madam Chair, could we have staff respond to this amendment, please?

The Chair: Would you address the amendment, Ms. Weber?

Ms. Caroline Weber: There are two clarifications I want to make. One is that already under the Financial Administration Act the agency would have to submit two reports annually, the RPP, the report on plans and priorities, and the DPR, the departmental performance report. So this seems like it potentially reduces the reporting requirement that's currently there.

The other thing is with respect to strategic plans. It's always difficult to define what that is, but three years would have to be changed, I think, to at least coincide with the president's term, which is five years.

º (1645)

The Chair: There's an annual report and a review of the legislation in three years, so why wouldn't it coincide with the review of the legislation? Why wouldn't you have the annual report, the strategic plan, and the review of the legislation at the same time?

Ms. Caroline Weber: Okay. A strategic plan that's filed every three years would be out of sync with the term of the president. I wasn't thinking so much about a review of the legislation.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: It is in sync with the review of the report, which is more important than--

The Chair: Yes, review of the agency.

Mr. Rob Merrifield:—a review of the agency. It would actually make very good sense.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 24 agreed to on division)

(On clause 25--Policy directions)

The Chair: You're suggesting in your amendment that you delete clause 25 entirely.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I wish to withdraw, if I may.

The Chair: Withdraw or stand aside?

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: No, withdraw this one.

The Chair: We're at CA-47, deleting lines 32 to 35 on page 15.

Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, this is actually a very important amendment. And there's no question that as we look forward, no matter what we think of the piece of legislation, we have this agency that is very critical to what will be done or what will not be done in reproductive technologies.

This clause gives the minister a tremendous amount of power. The minister should not be able to dictate policy to the agency, number one. We recommended in our Building Families that the agency be semi-transparent. This gives the minister absolute total power.

The other thing is, it comes right out of Building Families, on page 25. It says the committee did not specify that the minister should be able to direct the activities of the agency that he or she would like. I think we have to not look at the present minister or any future ministers. We should be looking at the potential that anyone in that position might have with regard to this agency and to what is allowed or not allowed under this agency in the future.

I fail to understand why it has such sweeping power, why it gives the minister that kind of sweeping power under this legislation, and I would certainly encourage the committee to consider this amendment.

Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): It's against Krever too, isn't it?

The Chair: Dr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: Well, we went to a lot of trouble and a lot of detail has gone into this.

Are members of the committee listening? Is anybody listening?

Order, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Dr. Lunney has the floor.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you.

We're discussing a rather important issue here in clause 25. For all of the regulations we've put in place that we would hope to see as law, we have a clause slipped in here that would give the minister the right to change it just as a policy directive. That is a lot of power in this clause to slip into the hands of the minister.

I don't think that was the intent of the committee as we worked through this very delicate issue. A lot of issues that were discussed at some length could be overturned just as a policy directive from the minister under this consideration. I wonder if that's the intent of the committee to allow that to stand.

The Chair: Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Perhaps I can clarify that. If the concern is that either the provisions of the bill or the regulations can be overturned by policy direction, that is not the case. Those are laws, and therefore mere policy direction cannot overturn them. All the policy direction can do is provide some direction that still fits within and is congruent with the legislative framework.

I would also point out that the committee has adopted clause 20, which provides that the minister is responsible for policy in this area. All clause 25 does is provide for means of communication on these matters, and it makes it transparent as a result.

(Amendment negatived)

º (1650)

The Chair: I feel better about it from your explanation, Mr. Rivard. Every policy direction the minister might give has to be within the framework of the law.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: That's absolutely the case, yes.

The Chair: Amendment CA-48 is adding a new subclause to clause 25, which has three parts now, and you're suggesting a fourth? What are you suggesting?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: We're making a new subclause, subclause 25(1.1).

The Chair: It comes after subclause 25(1). Okay, go ahead.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: It's very plain and very simple. Before a policy direction is issued to the agency, the minister goes to the House of Commons to lay that before the House of Commons for their comments and recommendations. And this is giving the Parliament of this country, the House, its rightful role in this whole area of policy direction.

So we really wanted to work on this, especially when we saw what was happening with other agencies.

It's very important. It's an area that I think we should seriously consider rather than just waving our hands in the air and not considering the repercussions of this.

Mr. James Lunney: Can I have a clarification?

The Chair: Dr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: Mr. Merrifield, is the intent of this that it should go before the House or before committee?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I think it should go before the House, but with us being an agency of the House, it could come here. It would be a process that isn't in place at the present time.

The Chair: Anything that's tabled in the House, as this suggests, is automatically sent to committee anyway.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: On amendment CA-49, line 37 on page 15, the change of “may” to “shall”, are you ready for the question?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Can I get an indication from the counsel at the end of the table as to why this should be “may” rather than “shall”?

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Rivard, quickly.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I believe that grammatically in the construction of this sentence they're equivalent terms. It doesn't make the provision any stronger. It says “it may not affect”. I don't think you can get any more clear than that.

The Chair: Okay, I'll ask the question again.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Amendment CA-50, clause 25, lines 40 to 42, deletes the statement “not a statutory instrument”.

Why did you want to do this, Mr. Merrifield?

º (1655)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I think the subclause, as currently worded, would exempt the minister's policy direction from the Statutory Instruments Act. They can escape the scrutiny of the regulations, as well as being published in the Canada Gazette.

The Chair: Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The effect of this, I believe, would be the same as in amendment CA-48. The intent is that policy directions would have to be reviewed by Parliament under the Statutory Instruments Act.

The Chair: I'm sorry, I didn't get that.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I guess there is an issue about whether a policy direction is a statutory instrument. I'm not saying it is. It may well not be. There is evidently some lack of clarity on the point.

If we accept that, if this were dropped, the intent then would be that the policy directions would have to be dealt with as if they're statutory instruments. It includes review by the joint committee. It really amounts to requiring a review by Parliament.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Is there a problem then?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: My only point is that it's therefore very similar in effect to amendment CA-48.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Why would you not want that?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The committee voted against amendment CA-48.

The Chair: Amendment CA-48 was stronger, wasn't it? Let's see. No, it's essentially the same.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I don't know if they are exactly the same in effect. My point is they are very similar in effect.

The Chair: It means that it would come to the committee again.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I want the committee to understand what they're doing. They're saying they don't want it to come here again. They don't want to see it. They don't want any input.

The Chair: They don't want to see changes in policy is what they've kind of said in amendment CA-48.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: No, there will be changes. They don't want to see it. They don't want to have any part in it. That's what they're saying by saying this.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I might also point out that all policy directions under paragraph 19(a) must be made public, so it's not as if these would not be publicly available. They would be known.

The Chair: And how would they be made public, in theCanada Gazette?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The manner of making them public is to be set out in the regulations.

The Chair: But lots of times the government makes things public and it goes right over our heads because it's in some obscure gazette or something. Making it public could mean that every member of the committee would miss it.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: If the concern was that policy directions are not transparent, I simply want to draw to your attention that in fact they are required to be made public.

The Chair: But you don't know how.

Ms. Caroline Weber: Usually, Madam Chair, when departments have to make things public, they have to make them available in print form and also on their website. While that still may seem obscure to many people, if one is interested, then one knows the agency or the department where one wants to find the information, and it needs to all be there.

The Chair: Dr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: Doesn't it seem to the committee a good idea to at least put it on the radar screen when changes come to this act, rather than have the minister announce it on the Friday...

The Chair: This isn't changes to the act; it's policy directions within the act.

Mr. James Lunney: Still, there are a lot of interesting and developing issues here. We'd at least like it on the radar screen rather than have it slip out on December 13, when these announcements are often made, or it slips out on the eve of some other break, when it's right off our radar screen. We're very busy people, as we all know around the table. This would at least require it to come before Parliament.

The Chair: Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: That comment simply reinforces my point that it appears the intent is the same as in amendment CA-48.

» (1700)

The Chair: So you're suggesting that we've already ruled on it; we've already voted on it.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): I wonder if counsel is aware of other legislation that has this kind of matter. This doesn't look like a new wheel that we've invented. Is it in place in other legislation?

The Chair: Ms. Weber is shaking her head.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: This clause, as drafted, is standard whenever a minister has this sort of policy authority over an agency. This is essentially the standard way of presenting this.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are you ready for the question on amendment CA-50?

Ms. Carol Skelton: Can I ask just one question first? Is this the same type of legislation that Canadian Blood Services has then? Would it be the same?

The Chair: It doesn't have legislation.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: There is no federal legislation governing the Canadian Blood Services. I believe in fact it's incorporated by the Province of Ontario, but I'm not precisely sure about that.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 25 agreed to on division)

The Chair: It's now 5 o'clock. We had struck 5 o'clock as the end of today's meeting because we thought the bells would be ringing by now. I'm wondering if you'd like to proceed, because we still have quite a bit to do and only one day to do it. I'm looking at this package, people, and I'm hoping it speeds up a bit as we move.

Do I see concurrence? I see some people packing up. Put up your hand if you're willing to stay. Five. Unfortunately, it's not a quorum.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will see you tomorrow morning at 9. We'll put in as many hours as we possibly can tomorrow. Tomorrow night we might have gone later, but we can't, because I think this vote that was supposed to be tonight is now tomorrow night. Oh, it's at 3 o'clock, right after question period. Okay.

We'll work as long as we can through lunch again tomorrow and maybe end at about 1:30.

We'll be in room 269 tomorrow at 9 o'clock, people. Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.