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 10, 2002

1615

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

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

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

The Chair

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

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

1620

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

1625

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

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

1630

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Ms. Monique Hébert

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

1635

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Mr. Réal Ménard

1640

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Ms. Caroline Weber

1645

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Mr. Réal Ménard

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

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

1650

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Ms. Monique Hébert

1655

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Mr. Réal Ménard

Ms. Francine Manseau (Senior Policy Analyst, Special Projects Division, Health Policy and Communications Branch, Department of Health)

Mr. Réal Ménard

Ms. Francine Manseau

Mr. Réal Ménard

Ms. Francine Manseau

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

1700

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

1705

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

1710

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

1715

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

1720

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. James Lunney

1725

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

1730

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

1735

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

1740

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1745

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)

1750

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

1755

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

1800

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

1805

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

1810

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

1815

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

1820

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

1825

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

NUMBER 016

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, December 10, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º (1615)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order.

We have an outstanding point of order from Mr. Ménard this morning, and I have an opinion written by the clerk's department on it.

With regard to the moving of motions or amendments, our practices in committee are similar to the practices in the House. Whenever notice is not required, a member may move a motion in one language and submit it in writing. After the chair is satisfied that the motion is admissible, the motion is proposed to the committee by being read aloud by the chair.

Well, that was a mistake on my part. I asked Mr. Rivard to read it aloud, but it was read aloud.

Standing Order 46 also states that any member may request that a motion proposed without notice be read at any time during debate. This ensures that the essence of the motion is clearly understood and that it is available in the other language through the simultaneous interpretation services.

That is the procedure we followed. In this particular instance the amendment was proposed without notice during an animated debate on clause 17. Mr. Ménard claims that there may have been some confusion or some misunderstanding regarding the intent of the amendment because it was proposed in such a fashion.

I am extremely reluctant to reopen decisions already taken by the committee, as this could severely limit the progress the committee has made on the bill. I do have the authority to enforce order in the committee, but feel that the proceedings were conducted in an orderly manner and that I did have unanimous consent to proceed in that manner.

The other thing is, had any member present been unclear as to the intent of the amendment, they could have requested that it be read again, and perhaps I should have asked that it be read again just before the vote, but I did not do that, because I thought we all understood it.

The decision of the committee taken at that time therefore stands.

(On clause 65--Regulations of Governor in Council)

The Chair: We passed an amendment in clause 14 that apparently had a consequence for clause 65. We just agreed that clause 65 pass, and for the first time now I'm seeing this consequential amendment. It has been suggested to the government that it could be presented at report stage, but the preference is that we fix it now, because it is consequential. We're calling it G-10d.

First, I need unanimous consent to open clause 65, so we can insert this consequential amendment. Do I have unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

I just need somebody to move this.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): I so move.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Was that Merrifield's amendment?

The Chair: I'm not sure whose it was, but it was an opposition amendment, and it has a consequence for clause 65 that the government has identified. Is that correct, Ms. Weber?

Ms. Caroline Weber (Director General, Policy Planning and Priorities Directorate, Department of Health): Madam Chair, it was brought to us by the clerk or by your research staff, I'm not sure which, and we've looked it over. We haven't moved this. We didn't even identify the issue ourselves, so that's why it's causing some confusion, but—

The Chair: But you are in agreement that it is a consequence of something passed earlier and you think it's better to pass it in committee than at report stage. Is that right?

Mr. Glenn Rivard (Senior Legal Counsel, Department of Justice): My recollection is that the committee rewrote paragraph 14(2)(b), and as a result, it would be preferable to change the language in paragraph 65(1)(o).

The Chair: That's just what I said. So you agree with that. Do you agree that we pass it here, as opposed to at report stage?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: It is up to the committee to reopen the clause, but it would certainly be more convenient.

The Chair: I have unanimous consent to reopen the clause.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Madam Chair, could you just explain?

The Chair: You want to know the substance?

Ms. Judy Sgro: Yes. We just walked in and heard unanimous consent.

The Chair: We passed CA-31a, which amends paragraph 14(1)(b) with the following:

ensure that the person receives professional counselling services in accordance with the regulations.

Now, because we added that and we added the word regulations, we have to put it in the list of things that are to be in the regulations. That's what the consequential amendment does.

º (1620)

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Currently, paragraph 65(1)(o) says “respecting the counselling services to be made available under paragraph 14(2)(b), and with the rewrite of paragraph 14(2)(b), we no longer have “available”. Therefore, it was suggested that paragraph 65(1)(o) be replaced with new language, which would say “respecting the counselling service referred to in paragraph 14(2)(b)”.

The Chair: Those in favour of amendment G-10d?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 65 as amended agreed to on division)

The Chair: There is some leftover business, but I'm guessing that the committee would rather plough ahead and go as far as we can before we go back to the leftovers. Is that correct? I have a sense of momentum, and I think you do too, so let's carry on.

(On clause 66--Proposed regulations to be laid before Parliament)

The Chair: I think we're on BQ-7. There are conflicts with it, so we have to look at which other ones go. There's CA-79. So could you look at those two together, please? This concerns the referral of the regulations to the committee.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Chair, I believe that the Alliance amendment is more than complete and seeks the same objective. According to the bill, the referral of the regulations to a committee appears to be an option. We would like this to be compulsory.

[English]

The Chair: Amendment BQ-7 is withdrawn in favour of amendment CA-79. This is to get the committee in on the action of reviewing the regulations.

Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The assumption created is that there will always be a Standing Committee on Health, and it is open to future Parliaments to change the name of the committee. Generally speaking, as a broader rule, each Parliament would determine its procedure and where these sorts of things should be referred. If this provision were in, we could end up in a situation down the road where there is no committee this could be referred to, because there would be no Standing Committee on Health. I honestly don't know if that means the regulations would be in limbo, or there would be no place to refer them and the government could just proceed without the referral.

The Chair: In the history of this place, has there been a situation where there never was a committee on health?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I believe that's right. It was health and social services at one point.

The Chair: But health was in the title, right?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: If there were a committee with a different title, it would not correspond with the requirement that is set out here.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Can you give us the assurance that the bill, as it is worded, provides for the referral of the regulation to a committee? In the bill it says "may" which means that it is optional. The Bloc Québécois amendment said "shall". The way in which this would be accomplished was not as specific, but in the end, the committee is the vehicle. Do we have a guarantee that the regulation will be referred to the committee?

[English]

The Chair: Why don't you say “standing committee dealing with health matters”, because there will always be one doing that?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do we have a guarantee, Madam Chair, that the bill, as it is now worded, would force the government to refer the regulations to the committee? That is not how we read it.

º (1625)

[English]

The Chair: All those things about drug patents and the cost of drugs will always go to Industry. I can't remember what the issue was, but there was something we were totally expecting to come to Health, and the House leader directed it to Industry. The agriculture committee was totally expecting to be assigned the question of GMOs, and it was assigned to the health committee instead. So they make some odd choices, but I'm thinking we might get around it. Instead of saying “the Standing Committee on Health”, could we say “the standing committee which deals with health matters”?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: The problem does not lie with the committee. The wording of the bill does not give us any guarantee that the regulations will be referred to the committee, because in French it reads "peut (may)". That is what we have in the Bloc Québécois amendment. The committee is of little importance: the committee is the vehicle. The same thing happened when the committee examined the tobacco regulations. I do not want us to find ourselves in a situation where the regulations would not be examined by a committee. That is what my amendment seeks to do. What committee? I do not care, because that may change. The House will deal with it: that is not the issue.

Mr. Rivard, would the minister be compelled to refer the regulations to a committee according to the wording of clause 66 as it now stands? I do not think so. That is what we were seeking to do with the Bloc Québécois amendment, as was the case for the amendment moved by my colleague from the Canadian Alliance.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, this is one of those “shall-may” things, but it's different.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I just wish to clarify that subclause 66(1) requires the minister to lay the proposed regulation before both Houses of Parliament. That is a requirement. Subclause (2) really addresses the internal operations of Parliament, and it is typically left to Parliament to decide how it will operate. In fact, this is quite expressed when it says, “as determined by the rules of that House”. So a change here really amounts to this legislation directing each Parliament as to how it will operate. That is my fundamental point here. I guess the members will have to decide if they wish to do that.

The Chair: In the Standing Orders it says “Any report, return or other paper laid before the House in accordance with an act of Parliament shall thereupon be deemed to have been permanently referred to the appropriate standing committee”. So it suggests that the Standing Orders, which clause 66 leads into, would take over at that point.

Are you satisfied, Mr. Ménard? Do you want us to vote on CA-79?

Mr. Réal Ménard: I want to vote.

The Chair: Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): As the mover, I wouldn't mind having it.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Merrifield. I forgot you were the mover.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I think there are two concerns here. The one is a “shall”, and that may be looked after in a Standing Order. I think--and we talked about this quite a bit last year when we did our draft report--we wanted this to come back to the Standing Committee on Health because of the complexity of the issue. If there is going to be a change in those regulations, it is very important that it not just be thrown to any committee, because of the detail and the material we're dealing with. So that's the intent. I think it's very appropriate that we have it here. It likely would happen 99 times out of a 100 at any rate, but this just ensures it, and I don't think there should be any resistance. It's certainly the will of the committee, to judge by anything I've heard any committee member say.

The Chair: Thank you.

Dr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): The difference is simply in the word “may”. As Mr. Ménard has pointed out, the regulation as it stands says it “may be referred” and the committee “may review”, and I think we want to make sure it “shall”, so that it isn't bypassed.

º (1630)

Mr. Réal Ménard: As to by co-regulation.

Question.

The Chair: It doesn't say “shall” and “shall” though. I don't see it in this amendment.

Mr. James Lunney: Basically we're just talking about changing those words.

The Chair: Those in favour of CA-79?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We're at BQ-8. Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: That is along the same lines as the initial amendment that I had introduced. Since I withdrew that amendment, I also withdraw this one.

[English]

The Chair: So that is withdrawn. Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

Now we have G-11, but we have line conflicts with CA-80, CA-81, and LL-10. I have a feeling that through the discussions on this, the government has tried to respond by presenting G-11. So would the movers of those other motions look and see if G-11 doesn't solve it for you?

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, if I may, I would be willing to withdraw G-11 in favour of CA-81, if that is fine with the mover, Mr. Merrifield.

The Chair: There's a huge difference, Dr. Castonguay. G-11 covers more contingencies than CA-81. The government has tried to capture the essence of the opposition amendments and put something together that is comprehensive in G-11.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, may I ask the witnesses, because we had a little side discussion in trying to accommodate everybody?

Ms. Caroline Weber: It seems it might get too complicated, and in the interests of simplicity, because there was overlap with CA-81 and G-11--

The Chair: We do not want to lose this thing about the 120 calendar days, because that would cover us for the summer.

Monique.

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): It's my reading of G-11 that it would be conceivable for proposed regulations to be tabled in Parliament right before a summer adjournment, and if that summer adjournment is unusually long, it could cover 120 calendar days, in which case this committee, and indeed Parliament, would not have the opportunity to scrutinize those proposed regulations.

The Chair: So have you got a suggestion?

Ms. Monique Hébert: The catch, I guess, is “the earliest of”. Those 120 calendar days could expire and Parliament really didn't have the opportunity to sit and consider them.

The Chair: How would we get around that?

Ms. Judy Sgro: Can we do 160 days?

The Chair: Wasn't it 160 we agreed on?

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: We were trying to figure out the right number.

º (1635)

The Chair: I think the staff had figured out 160 days. That's why I'm wondering why this is before me with 120 days.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Could we amend it to 160 days?

The Chair: Yes. Are you going to make that amendment, Madam Sgro?

Ms. Judy Sgro: I so move.

The Chair: All in favour of that subamendment to 160 days?

(Submendment agreed to)

The Chair: This seems to cover all the contingencies now--sort of.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Can we withdraw now CA-81 and LL-10?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Because there's a line conflict with CA-80 and we've already passed G-11, I cannot put a question on CA-80, because we've already amended that line. Do you understand that, Mr. Merrifield? I'm sorry.

So I think we're at CA-82 now. We've already made this decision. We voted once to go with “relevant committee, so CA-82 and CA-83 are already decided. We don't have to vote on them.

Ms. Caroline Weber: This one is different. This one is about the time limits on regulations.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, that is not the same thing. We want to ensure that before the regulations are adopted, the House of Commons committee will have an opportunity to examine them. That is not the same thing.

I think we should once again vote on this amendment in the spirit that applied to the previous amendment. These are two different things.

[English]

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Madam Chair, as I read CA-82, it is contradictory to G-11, which was just adopted.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard disagrees. Mr. Ménard, state your position.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Please explain why you think we have a conflict.

[English]

Mr. Glenn Rivard: G-11 is giving you three time limits before the government can proceed with the regulation. It has to wait until there are at least 30 days passed, or 160 calendar days, or the day after the committee reports, the earliest of those. This is saying that a regulation cannot be made until the committee has reported. So in effect, it undoes (a) and (b) in G-11.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, because it means that the committee will respect the deadlines that were adopted in the previous clause, but as parliamentarians, we want to ensure that no regulations will be adopted before the Health Committee has submitted its conclusions to the House.

It is a precaution, but it is not incompatible with the deadlines that were adopted earlier. However, the committee will have to be mindful of these timeframes.

º (1640)

[English]

The Chair: But it doesn't really say that, Mr. Ménard. It suggests that the department or the agency cannot make a regulation until the committee on health has done something. If you're giving instructions to the health committee that they must make their best effort to deal with it within the time period, you should instruct this health committee that way, not the minister. Can you reverse that? Do you agree with that? What you're giving instruction to is the health committee. They can't decide not to do it, is what you're saying, they have to do it.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: What I mean is that there is an obligation, within the timeframes that were adopted in the previous clause, for the committee to examine this before sending it on to the House. Logically, we would begin by having the Standing Committee on Health examine the issue, as we did for tobacco.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Rivard, can you think of a different wording that tries to put some onus on the health committee? A future health committee might be engaged in some very interesting study and decide not to bother, just as sometimes committees decide not to bother with the estimates. We want to make sure the committee is compelled by law to study these.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: CA-79 says “The committee shall review the proposed regulation and report its findings to each House”.

The Chair: We've already got it, then, Mr. Ménard. We've already instructed the committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Let us be clear. Might we not find ourselves in a situation where draft regulations might appear in the Canada Gazette without this committee having previously examined the regulations? Would that be possible, in view of what we have just adopted? Could the House adopt the regulations without the committee having examined them beforehand? Could that be done? If it is possible, then that is cause for concern.

[English]

Mr. Glenn Rivard: That's my understanding of G-11. G-11 says, if the regulation is tabled and the committee addresses it within the timeframe of (a) or (b), the government can proceed with the regulation. If the committee does not address the matter in the timeframe set out in (a) or (b), the government can proceed once either of those deadlines has passed.

Ms. Caroline Weber: But we also have CA-79 now that says “The committee shall review the proposed regulation”.

The Chair: The only situation would be if the government went to recess, let's say, on June 1 and the House did not come back until November, so five months and several days went by. And it could happen in an election year, as counsel has pointed out. That's the only way it could happen, if the summer break were combined with an election call.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: It seems to me that CA-79 also contradicts G-11, because it says “The Minister shall take these findings into account before making any regulation”, yet under G-11 it's quite clear that the minister could proceed at a date before the committee had considered the matter. So it seems to me the committee has to decide whether it accepts the different time limits under G-11 or the government has to wait until the committee has examined and reported on the matter. Is that an open-ended obligation on the part of the minister? In other words, if the committee doesn't address it or takes a lot of time to address it, how would the minister proceed with regulations that may be required?

Ms. Caroline Weber: And this decision has implications for some of the other amendments that come later putting time limits on the regulations. Regulations are rather time-consuming to develop anyway, but some of these amendments will make any hastening of the time to complete regulations impossible. So you have competing objectives here, and I'm just looking for a little policy clarification perhaps.

º (1645)

The Chair: Great. I didn't know when we were passing them that they were in conflict, because G-11 was put forward by the government. But maybe you didn't expect CA-79 to pass.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: We did not see the conflict at the time, but it is apparent that there is a conflict. It is not possible to do one and then the other.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Personally, I would prefer CA-82 over G-11, because our duty is to ensure that the committee be responsible for examining the regulations. If that guarantee does not exist because of other, incompatible provisions, I think you should seek consent to re-examine this, in view of the information that we have been given. It is in the committee that a member can truly be effective; not in question period, where we can never get an answer. It is not answer period, anyway.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Even when we put a question to the chair of the Public Accounts Committee, we do not get any real answers.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Who is chair of that committee?

[English]

The Chair: It reads “The Minister shall take these findings into account before making any regulation”. Mr. Rivard, considering the conflict between CA-79 and G-11 and these others that are following, I'm looking at CA-79 and I think it may just cover it, because it says the minister may not proceed until the House committee has reviewed it. Isn't that good enough?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Amendment CA-79 sets a requirement before the minister can proceed without any timeframe on the committee. Amendment G-11 sets three possible timeframes. The first two, in a given situation, could be in conflict with the requirement under amendment CA-79. It's quite possible that 30 sitting days could have passed before the committee has reported, and therefore the minister, under CA-79, could not proceed, but under G-11, he could.

The Chair: I understand the conflict, but all these things that have been put forward seem to me to be suggesting that most people here want the committee to have a look at the regulations, which is a little tradition started by the immigration committee last spring, I think. Most people liked that idea. If that's the goal, to make sure the committee reviews the regulations before they go forward, then CA-79 captures that, and the timelines become irrelevant. I think CA-79 is saying, no matter what happens, if there's a five- or six-month break over an election or something, there can't be regulations until the committee has looked at it.

Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Of course, Madam Chair, I did not vote in favour of amendment CA-79. There is another side to this, namely, that a committee could decide to take two, three or even five years to draft its report. During that time, nothing could be done and everything would stand still. That is the other side of the coin. A committee could simply decide to put a freeze on the regulations and examine them ad nauseam. So you see what problems could arise.

[English]

The Chair: Dr. Fry, is that what you wanted to say?

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Yes, I think Dr. Castonguay has articulated my concerns. If you want the timelines, the committee should have a timeline too. You can't just give an open-ended mandate to the committee to take as long as it wishes, because you could be holding up very important regulations.

The Chair: So is there some way we could synthesize or get rid of this conflict?

º (1650)

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Let me propose something for the consideration of the committee. I'm going to CA-79 where it says “The committee shall review the proposed regulation and report its findings to each House”. If you were to add “within 30 sitting days or 160 calendar days”, that would capture the essence of G-11 as well.

The Chair: So we'd add those phrases into this one.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Yes, you would have to add “whichever is the earliest”. I'm still concerned about what happens if the committee simply doesn't report. It has a legal obligation to do so, but there's no real mechanism to make it live up to that. You could solve that problem by amending the last sentence in CA-79 to say something like “Where the committee--”

The Chair: “Fails to report”?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: No, I was going to say “reports its findings to each House, the minister shall take these findings into account before making any regulation”.

The Chair: It's awkward.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Do I understand that this requires the Standing Committee on Health to report to both the House of Commons and the Senate?

The Chair: We question that here, but the previous clause talks about each House. I wondered about that, because how can we suggest that the Standing Committee on Health of the House of Commons report to the Senate? There are other phrases in this section that talk about the committees of both Houses, so that implies the social affairs committee of the Senate.

I think it should say--

Mr. Réal Ménard: You have to say “Parliament”.

The Chair: We'd have to say “...Parliament shall be referred to the relevant committee in each House”, because that's what it's talking about in the rest of this section.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: That's what we have in subclause 66(2) of the bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Rivard, if it says "report to Parliament", this would necessarily imply both Chambers; we need not include the Senate by name. I would put it very simply. I would simply state: "The regulation is referred to the Standing Committee on Health. The committee shall review the proposed regulation within 90 sitting days and report its findings to Parliament within the same timeframe." Therefore, the committee could not escape a 90-day, or even a 120-day—that remains to be determined—deadline, and it will necessarily have to be submitted to both Houses.

[English]

Mr. James Lunney: Say 90 sitting days, it's much safer.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: What happens if the committee doesn't?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: The same applies to the adoption of a budget. From the moment that, in a legislative document, the House leader orders a committee to meet, if it is in an act... The committees have other statutory obligations, and if they do not act on these, then Parliament will be breaking the law. It is up to the government House leader to ensure that it is done if it is written in the act.

[English]

The Chair: The other convention is that legislation always takes precedence. Would regulations fall into the same category? Maybe they would.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I believe we must adopt the estimates before mid-April. If the committee were to decide not to meet, the estimates would still have to be adopted. There are legislative obligations incumbent upon a committee.

Do not get discouraged; anything is possible.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, Monique.

Ms. Monique Hébert: I hate to complicate everybody's life, but I wish to raise a technical problem here. I'm wondering if the day a proposed regulation is laid before Parliament is always going to be the day it is referred to the appropriate committee, because if not, we are dealing with two sets of timelines.

º (1655)

The Chair: The answer to that, according to the legislative clerk, is yes. The day they're laid is the day they're referred, almost simultaneously. We are only dealing with one timeline. The question is how to phrase this to make it work. CA-79 is trying to constrain the minister, but we can't do that without constraining the committee as well, it isn't fair.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: But I don't really see the major problem between the two. CA-79 is fine, it's approved. G-11 has got the constraints. You're saying what happens at the committee doesn't comply with G-11. In reality, we're here at the will of Parliament, and if we didn't comply, I suppose we'd get disbanded. I can't imagine that happening.

The Chair: We can't make it happen that the minister, because we or some future committee didn't meet and do the job, cannot proceed with regulations. We can't do that.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Let us move the amendment. I move the amendment. What did Mr. Rivard have to say about the following amendment? I will repeat it so that we will all understand: “The proposed regulation shall be referred to the Standing Committee on Health. The Committee shall review the regulation within 90 sitting days and shall then report to Parliament within the same timeframe.”

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Eighty days?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Ninety days or one hundred twenty days. The timeframe...

Ms. Francine Manseau (Senior Policy Analyst, Special Projects Division, Health Policy and Communications Branch, Department of Health): We can use what was already in G-11.

Mr. Réal Ménard: In that case it would be 90 calendar days.

[English]

Ms. Francine Manseau: But 90 days or 160?

[Translation]

We can use what was already in G-11.

Mr. Réal Ménard: But are you concerned about the sitting days or calendar days?

Ms. Francine Manseau: Sitting days would be too long.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It could be 60.

[English]

The Chair: Thirty sitting days is six weeks; that should be enough when the House is sitting. The problem is when the House isn't sitting.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: But if the House...

[English]

Mr. Rob Merrifield: It's still 30 sitting days, so you couldn't do it...

The Chair: But what if there is some strange delay in proceedings? I know, for example, in the Ontario legislature they went about six months without ever meeting, and if a minister was left hanging with a set of regulations and the public was waiting, it could be a long time, because sometimes the Houses don't sit very often. You don't know what a future Prime Minister might do.

Ms. Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Are you saying, if we don't deal with it as a committee in 60 days, it automatically goes back to the House?

The Chair: No, it frees the minister to make the regulations without the committee reviewing.

Ms. Judy Sgro: So if we don't do it within 60 days, it's not going to get done.

The Chair: If we have unanimous consent, we could get rid of CA-79 and go with G-11, because then we would eliminate the conflict. Let's just read an amended G-11 and see if it captures the intent.

A regulation may not be made before the earliest of (a) 30 sitting days after the proposed regulation is laid before Parliament, or six weeks when the House is sitting, (b) 160 calendar days after the proposed regulation is laid before Parliament, and (c) the day after the appropriate committee of each House of Parliament has reported its findings...

The bill says the thing has to be laid in the House, the Standing Orders I read out to you say it has to be referred to the relevant committee, and once its referred, this timeline would prevail.

So I'm going to ask for unanimous consent to reopen CA-79, because we cannot proceed with a conflict between two things we've passed.

» (1700)

Mr. James Lunney: Can I say something before we do that?

The Chair: I'm going to ask the question, if you want to talk to the matter of unanimous consent. Do you?

Mr. James Lunney: No.

The Chair: I'm not going to get unanimous consent. They've already told me.

What are you going to do about this conflict, then? We cannot have a bill where two clauses conflict, it's as simple as that.

Mr. James Lunney: The thing that makes me nervous is that the committee--

The Chair: Well, your feelings of being nervous, James, are irrelevant. How are you going to resolve the conflict?

Mr. James Lunney: I am concerned about the dates, this 120 days, or even 160 days, when you have a recess, particularly as we've seen things get dropped right as we're breaking. That scenario with the summer break is a conceivable one. And when we come back together, you get new committees being struck, and that takes time. Often, at a break in session you have to recompose your committees, and that takes another so many weeks. So I am concerned about those timelines. That leaves a big loophole, I think.

The Chair: You don't think 160 days would be sufficient? Because 180 days would be six months.

Mr. James Lunney: Think about an election year, for example.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: First of all, we must not forget that the timeframe we are discussing is only relevant when the regulations are to be examined, something that will not be happening every year, in view of the bill that is involved. We must review the act every three years, but does this mean that we must also review the regulations as often? Of course, the act and the regulations go hand in hand; that is why I'm wondering about it.

It doesn't matter who forms the government, as long as we have a British parliamentary system, there will be someone leading the government and, if Parliament is not sitting, it will be called back.

As legislators, we cannot set a limit contingent on whether or not Parliament is sitting. I would therefore move, Madam Chair, that we vote on our amendment with a 30-day deadline in order to ensure that the committee will proceed quickly. But let us not set these timeframes based on the fact that Parliament might not be sitting. The rationale would be far too convoluted.

[English]

Ms. Caroline Weber: That's where we were moving also when we were suggesting that perhaps G-11 be withdrawn, that 30 sitting days maybe gets away from all these concerns, and that you make sure you've covered the sitting days.

The Chair: So you're not concerned that the minister could get stuck at the end of a session with regulations just prepared and nobody--

Ms. Caroline Weber: Of course I am. I'm concerned about all of this, the impact on the time it takes to make regulations.

The other concern I have is that you're bypassing the Senate with the current approach.

The Chair: In CA-79? Yes, I'm concerned about that, too. I don't think they're going to be very happy.

So which amendment is it, Ms. Weber, that you are suggesting? We can't report to the Senate, their committee has to report. You're saying the one with the 30 sitting days, period. Which one was that?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: CA-81 would put a limit of 30 sitting days.

Ms. Caroline Weber: But the problem is still with CA-79. They're still in conflict. So it doesn't--

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Well, you would have to drop CA-79, yes.

The Chair: Yes.

Okay, I'm going to ask for unanimous consent to reopen CA-79. Do I have it?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have a question, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: I've heard yes, but I haven't heard a no--not that I want to.

» (1705)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: No.

The Chair: That's what I thought you were going to say.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Let's get back to basics. We want the Standing Committee on Health to examine the regulations, as is the case for the tobacco regulations. We also want the minister to adopt the regulations as soon as possible.

We could adopt the following amendment: “The proposed regulation shall be referred to the Standing Committee on Health. The committee shall review the proposed regulation within 30 sitting days and report its findings to Parliament.” As Parliament is by definition bicameral, it would not be necessary to specify “each House”. In constitutional law, the Senate is included in the term “Parliament”. Would you agree with me?

[English]

Mr. Glenn Rivard: CA-79 says the Standing Committee on Health will report to each House.

The Chair: “The Standing Committee on Health” implies this committee. We can't report to the Senate. They don't want us to, they have their own committee. So “committee of each House” is the way the bill is worded, and that's how this should be worded, “the relevant committee of each House”.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: There should be an amendment.

[English]

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Our point is, if you open it up, we could lose the intent of it.

The Chair: But we can't have it, because it's in conflict. We'll be here until 6 o'clock talking about this particular thing if somebody doesn't allow us to get rid of amendment CA-79 and go at it from a different angle.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: It can be dealt with at the report stage, and the minister can fix it then.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Leaving aside the procedures for now, as I understand it, CA-79 is trying to accomplish three things. First, it wants to ensure that the committee of the House to which the regulations are referred will be the Standing Committee on Health. Second, it wants to ensure that the Minister of Health will take into account any report of the committee. The third objective that is under discussion is a concern that the deadlines are problematic, more particularly, the 160 calendar days. I may add that there is a problem with having a significantly rewritten subclause 66(2), because it's quite unclear then what is to happen with the Senate.

So this would be my proposal to resolve it. I would leave subclause 66(1) untouched and subclause 66(2) untouched. Then I would add another subclause that would say “The committee of the House of Commons referred to in subclause 66(2) shall be the Standing Committee on Health or, in the event that there is not any Standing Committee on Health, the appropriate committee of the House”.

The Chair: Then you cover both contingencies.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I've covered both contingencies.

The Chair: You've also accomplished the second goal?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Sorry. Then I would make an amendment to subclause 66(4). I would add a sentence at the beginning of that to say “The minister shall take into account any report of a committee”. And the last change I would suggest is that we basically adopt amendment CA-81, which would change subclause 66(3) so it would read, “A regulation may be made on the expiry of 30 sitting days”.

The Chair: So 60 calendar days.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: That's right.

The Chair: What about the contingency that the House has recessed and before it comes back an election is called, so all of a sudden six months have gone by and there haven't been any sitting days? That would constrain the minister. I think we have to be fair to the minister.

» (1710)

Mr. Glenn Rivard: It would constrain the minister. The other approach--and I guess I would have to leave this to the committee--would be to stick with amendment G-11, which would address that concern.

Mr. James Lunney: The problem I see in what he's presented is that he didn't change those words “may” to “shall”, and that was the whole point of amendment CA-79, to make sure it would happen, not just having an idea that it could happen.

The Chair: But it will be referred to committee, because the Standing Orders require it, and we're telling them in the law which committee.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: As long as we put “may” for “shall”, I think we could accept that and pull back CA-79 and G-11. That would solve the problem, would it not?

The Chair: Can we agree to withdraw all these amendments on clause 66 and ask the officials to come tomorrow with a new clause 66 that incorporates those ideas Mr. Rivard just articulated?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I won't pull it back until we see it.

The Chair: Okay, stand them aside until we see the replacement clause that achieves the goals you identified, Mr. Rivard. Is that possible?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: That is possible.

The Chair: For tomorrow afternoon?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: We could do that, yes.

The Chair: Because we have several matters that are thorny like this that are left over. I would love to finish tonight, but it's now ten after five. I don't think we can get through all this. We can make some more progress, but I still think we have some clean-up to do tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Since we have a number of lawyers in the room, I would like to ask one of them to draft the amendment so that we might be able to finish this tonight, so as not to have to return tomorrow. It is not all that complicated. Someone should draft the amendment so that we will then come back to it and move on to something else. We have 14 lawyers here. We should ask one of them to sit down and...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Rivard, can you respond to that challenge?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I would require some flexibility on the part of the committee in respect of procedure. I think we could prepare it in English, but I don't think we could prepare a French version here and now.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard agrees with that idea.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: And we would need a motion, obviously.

The Chair: When you bring it back, somebody will move it.

I'm going to ask the committee to stand aside these amendments on clause 66, so that this little project can take place while we proceed with other amendments. Is that agreeable? Thank you very much.

(On clause 67--Exceptions)

The Chair: I think we are now on LL-11, Madame Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): That is withdrawn.

The Chair: Okay.

CA-85 is not admissible, so that is it for clause 67. We don't have any amendments.

(Clause 67 agreed to on division)

(On clause 68--Non-application of provisions in a province)

The Chair: Now we're at BQ-10, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: It is no longer relevant. I will withdraw it.

» (1715)

[English]

The Chair: You're withdrawing it?

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, I have been told that at lines 29 and 30,

[English]

in subclause 68(4), where it reads “sections 18 and 19”, it should be “sections 17 and 18”, and I may ask the experts here to explain what happened. This is information I just received.

The Chair: There's an error in the bill, you're telling me.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: It should read sections 17 and 18, not sections 17 and 19, at line 30.

[English]

Mr. Glenn Rivard: There's a simple technical error in the bill.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Clause 19 does not refer to health reporting information. It should refer to sections 17 and 18, rather than 18 and 19.

The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent to simply make that change? Thank you.

We were on BQ-10, and Mr. Ménard has withdrawn it.

(Clause 68 agreed to)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: There's another amendment, CA-74, you said we'd take here.

The Chair: It was an amendment proposed a long time ago, and after discussion it was decided that it was not applicable in the section it was proposed to go in. So we agreed to stand it aside until we got to the section it should belong to. That is clause 68, and it would be a new clause 68.1, so it's still okay that we approved clause 68, I think. It's a new clause.

This is called CA-74, and where are we proposing we put it now? Just put “new” beside it, because we don't know how it will be numbered.

Okay, Mr. Merrifield, would you speak to this, please.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: This is just to add some more accountability. We're talking about the equivalency and the enforcement agreement, and it's all laid out there, (a) through (f). I think it's fairly straightforward. It's a matter of putting more accountability on the minister and Parliament to make sure the equivalency agreements take place.

» (1720)

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 69 agreed to)

(On clause 70--Parliamentary review of the Act)

The Chair: We have CA-86, changing “within” to “every” three years, because the way this reads, he's assuming three years after it comes into force is the last time it's reviewed.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's the last time it's reviewed ever. Because of the dynamics of the subject and the way it's changing, particularly right now, we certainly should be considering this every three years. It has changed so much just since we've been studying it.

The Chair: Are there any problems with that?

Ms. Caroline Weber: The Standing Committee on Health could launch a review of the legislation any time it wants anyway, but this amendment would force the Standing Committee on Health to spend time and resources on the review when it may have legitimate competing priorities.

The other thing is, we think this amendment is unique, there isn't anything like it anywhere else.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: There isn't anything like this piece of legislation.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: There have been precedents. In the Patent Act, there is a statutory five-year review. The reviews are not always every three years, there are many statutes with a five-year obligation, including the Patent Act as well as others. We are not creating any precedent here.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Ménard has been around here for a very long time. He doesn't look very old, but he really is.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, I look so young that I still manage to attract a lot of attention when I go to a bar!

[English]

The Chair: Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, while I understand the rationale for doing this, I think it's a very unusual thing every three years after legislation coming in to be forced to have a review. I would suggest that within subsection 70(1), as it's currently written, there be a review within three years. If it is felt by the committees that are reviewing it that the review should be every year or every two years, that would be the appropriate time to make that kind of decision, when it comes up for that review, because every three years may be not soon enough, every three years may be too long. Every five years may be more appropriate, who knows? We're making a decision now without having the initial review in three years time. I would think it would be more prudent to review it in three years time and see what we think.

Mr. James Lunney: I'd like to speak to that. I don't necessarily disagree, inasmuch as when you review it, you have the opportunity to change it. Nonetheless, the intent now is that we review it every three years, and if that's found not to be appropriate at the review, we certainly could change it at that time. If right now we discern that this should be reviewed every three years, I don't think that's a problem.

» (1725)

The Chair: Are you ready for the question on CA-86?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: CA-87 is inadmissible, because it's beyond the scope of the clause.

(Clause 70 agreed to on division)

(On clause 71--Grandfathered activities)

The Chair: We have a line conflict with CA-88 and CA-89. The same party has put the line conflict forward.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'll withdraw this one.

The Chair: Mr. Merrifield is withdrawing CA-88, so CA-89 has no conflict there, but has a conflict with CA-90. We have to look at CA-89 and CA-90 together.

Dr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: The is about controlled activities. If they've taken place at least once during the period preceding the coming into force of those sections, as it stands, a person “may subsequently, without a licence, undertake the controlled activity and use any premises required for that purpose until a day fixed by the regulations”. This amendment takes out the last sentence and replaces it with “only until six months after the act comes into force, and thereafter only with a licence”. The concern here is that clause 71, as it's written, is open-ended and would allow someone doing a controlled activity to go on literally indefinitely if regulations get held up for some reason. This would simply say it would cease within a six-month period.

The Chair: The regulations have to be enforced by the agency, so if the agency took a year to get going and you ended the activity after six months, the person would be in limbo, not knowing what to do, illegally doing it, but not having a chance to get a licence, because the agency isn't ready. So you could end up with someone who, say, has a fertility clinic, has been working there, and has a staff being shut down for a period of six or eight months. It doesn't seem fair.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, my intent in CA-90 is that the activity should only be allowed for one year, maximum.

Mr. James Lunney: As CA-90 would make that a year, I think we can withdraw CA-89 if we want to. A year is certainly plenty of time, is it not?

The Chair: We don't know. Even if we get the agency up and running, it has to work on its own regulations, its own systems, its own licensing, the way it's going to do it. I don't think a year is very long.

Ms. Weber.

Ms. Caroline Weber: We have identified approximately 14 sets of regulations, and they all need to come to this committee. The question is, can we draft them and get them through all the processes we need to get them through in the time that's being specified here? I think it's completely unrealistic, and basically, the effect of this is to shut down activities.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question on CA-89?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: The intent is the same in CA-90, so do you want to withdraw it?

» (1730)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Sure.

The Chair: Shall clause 71 carry?

(Clause 71 agreed to on division)

The Chair: CA-91 is inadmissible, because the Patent Act is not in our purview.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: It should be.

The Chair: I know it should, but you made your little statement.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: What do you mean, little statement? It's a very important statement.

The Chair: We have several clauses with no amendments, clauses 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, and 78.

(Clauses 72 to 78 inclusive agreed to on division)

The Chair: CA-92 is to do with the title, and we do it last.

Now we have to go to the stood-aside clauses. I'm sorry about that people, but there are quite a few of them. I need you to go back to the front of your book again, because we'll start back there, with CA-18. Why was this set aside and what is it you want done with it?

(On clause 5--Prohibited activities)

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Madam Chair, my recollection is that I was asked to think about the proposed amendment and to come back with a commentary on it, which I have done. I just want to quickly review what the section does, and then provide my comments.

Paragraph 5(1)(e) creates an offence for what we can call sex selection, but it also creates an exception if these processes are done “to prevent, diagnose or treat a sex-linked disorder or disease”. Medical or scientific knowledge will determine what constitutes a sex-linked disease or disorder. This is not a subjective test that is open to the interpretation of the involved doctors or couples. If there is a dispute on this prohibition and a criminal charge is laid, expert evidence will be submitted before the court to establish whether the accused's activities fall within the exception. That's my first observation.

The second one is that if you add “in accordance with the regulations”, as has been suggested, it would mean this prohibition could not be proclaimed until the regulations were adopted, which could take some time, a year at least after royal assent, even if these regulations are given priority. We understand the process involved there.

A third point is that when the licensing procedures are operational, the regulations will indicate for what conditions sperm sorting, PGD, etc. can be undertaken with a licence, and this will add further certainty for doctors.

Finally, there are, in fact, several prohibitions that allow, by implication, certain controlled activities, paragraphs 5(1)(b), (c), and (d), as well as (e). If (e) is to refer to the regulations, these other provisions should as well, but doing this would undermine the perception that the bill creates criminal prohibitions. They will read more like regulatory offences. That, in turn, could affect the constitutionality of the bill.

» (1735)

The Chair: Okay, CA-18 is withdrawn.

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(On clause 15--Disclosure of information restricted)

The Chair: Next we have CA-32. Mr. Merrifield, can you remember why we set this aside?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: This was about going to the agency as well.

The Chair: I know what it was. It was the question of transferring all the health information every time a transfer is made of an embryo to the other licensee who is taking it over, but also to the agency, and the point was made by Mr. Rivard that it was an awful lot of data to keep going to the agency with. Now what was the question?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: There wasn't any question, we just wanted to add the agency. But there was--

Mr. Glenn Rivard: My recollection is that I was directed to provide alternative language that would achieve the object, that is, to ensure that when an embryo is transferred from one licensee to another, the agency is informed, and that language was provided to the clerk.

The Chair: Where is that?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I'm sorry. Apparently it has been provided to Mr. Merrifield. That's my mistake. My apologies to the clerk.

The Chair: It's coming, people, we're solving these problems. This would add a new subsection (3.1):

The licensee who transfers an in vitro embryo to another licensee shall notify the Agency of the transfer in accordance with the regulations.

Are you happy with that?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes.

The Chair: Fine.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Now we have G-5. This was moved by somebody. I think it was Dr. Castonguay. Did you move G-5?

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Yes, I did.

The Chair: And are you withdrawing it now?

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I'll move it. I'm not going to withdraw it.

» (1740)

The Chair: In subclause 15(2) it's changing “except in the circumstances...” to “without the donor's written consent”.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 15 as amended agreed to on division)

The Chair: Now we have NDP-9.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: This was an amendment to add a new paragraph under the objectives of the agency, but concerns were raised about placement of this idea, which has to do with the inclusion of reference to infertility and risk factors associated with infertility somewhere in respect of the mandate of the agency. So, after the help of the officials from Health Canada and having talked to Dr. Castonguay, I would like to seek unanimous consent to open up clause 24 and make a suggestion to add a couple of words to paragraph 24(1)(f), so that it would read as follows:

provide information to the public and to the professions respecting risk factors associated with infertility and assisted human reproduction

The Chair: We want to put an idea about risk factors in. I think we talked quite at length about this.

Why don't we call it new NDP-9?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Judy, would you please withdraw the old NDP-9?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, I would withdraw the old NDP-9.

» (1745)

The Chair: Shall clause 22 as amended carry?

(Clause 22 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: We just changed clause 24, so we have to carry it again.

(Clause 24 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 32--Delegation)

The Chair: G-7a is replacing line 32 on page 17:

may not delegate its power to make a decision under sections 40, 41 and 42 or any of its powers or duties with respect to the provision of advice to the Minister, the approval of the Agency's goals, the approval of its budget and the making of by-laws.

So how do we get the licensing concept in there?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Those are the three sections under which the agency can make licensing decisions.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Could you just refresh our memory on those we are going to give?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Section 44 will deal with essentially emergency situations. It gives the agency the power to temporarily operate, for example, an IVF clinic, but it would be used only in an extreme situation where there's a real threat to health and safety and this is the only solution.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Is that going to be spelt out more in regulations?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The whole scheme, if you will, is set out in section 44. There are several clauses dealing with it. Section 46 is the authority to name employees as inspectors. Section 52 has to do with the forfeiture of material that has been seized, and really pertains to the role of the inspector. Section 54 deals with an aspect of the seizure of material. Section 55 is the designation of somebody to be an analyst, as opposed to an inspector, under the act. Section 58 deals with enforcement agreements that the agency could enter into with a department of federal or provincial government, for example. Section 59 deals with providing assistance to the Attorney General, a police officer, or a prosecutor.

The Chair: I have one other question with regard to this. My concern was giving an individual member of the board any power to operate alone. Where is that taken care of?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's what you allow in these. One member of the board can act.

Ms. Caroline Weber: With respect to the sections mentioned.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's right. That's my concern.

The Chair: We wanted to get rid of that one member of the board operating alone. It was only to be a committee of the board.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): When this came up this morning, there was some concern about the delegation. As I heard it, the only thing you were really concerned about was that the designation was on the licensing side, and they asked whether there was anything else you were concerned about. The committee said, we're really concerned, we really don't want it designated to one member on the licensing. That's why they changed it this way.

» (1750)

The Chair: But I spoke afterwards to them, I think, about the fact that I was nervous about giving an individual member of any board the right to carry on anything without the approval of the full board.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Madam Chair, my understanding is that there were really two things happening. You asked for wording that would prevent the delegation of licensing, so that is what is provided here.

The Chair: In G-7a.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The issue of whether you can delegate the other powers to one person or to a committee is covered by CA-60a, which I understand is still in front of the committee.

The Chair: You're absolutely right. I'm sorry.

So CA-60a comes first, as it would exclude the individual assignment.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The only thing I alert you to is that CA-60a seems to also remove the power of the president to act alone. I think, administratively--

The Chair: Yes, that's what I asked for, the separation of the things, the administrative stuff going to the president. When we talked after the meeting, I said there is actually--I think you raised it, Ms. Weber--a whole administration that has to be able to be assigned to the president. I don't see anything here to take care of that. Thank you for raising that, Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: That's why they've written theirs the way they wrote it, because they want it to continue to be allowed to be a committee, with a president or a member where appropriate. The actions of the members still have to be approved by the board, but there could be times where you would want a board member to act on certain issues, especially in an emergency situation, which is covered under section 44.

The Chair: I'm still worried about it.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Can I speak to it?

The Chair: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I think our very serious concern was that some of these powers we just read off are pretty significant. They're more than just administrative and just pushing papers and pencils and trying to make the system flow and work. A committee of the board is more than one, and it could be two. To allow one person to be able to go through and have the authority over these clauses you just read through I think is going a little beyond where we should allow the agency to transfer the power. And I think that's our discomfort in this whole area. With any one member of the board, or just the president himself, I think we would have problems. It's not trying to be restrictive, it's trying to be cautious.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I would just point out subclause 36(2) does provide a general statement on the authority of the president, described as the chief executive officer; he or she has supervision over and direction of the work and staff of the agency. It then goes on to say that the president “may exercise the powers and shall perform the duties assigned by the Agency's by-laws”, so it corresponds, if you will, with the authority in subclause 32(1) to delegate to the president.

Ms. Torsney is right when she states that CA-60a would prevent the delegation to the president, so it does more than simply remove any one member of the board, it also removes the president from being able to--

The Chair: From executing things.

Ms. Caroline Weber: Forfeiture is important, but it winds up being something that needs to be implemented. A decision has been made that a facility needs to be closed or a licence needs to be withdrawn, and so it's carrying out what's necessary in seizing the materials and maintaining them. I did see the rest of these as pretty much administrative. As I'm looking over these, maybe section 44, “threats to health and safety”, is one you don't think is administrative, but I generally saw the bundle as administrative.

» (1755)

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I might also point out that delegation is by bylaw.

The Chair: There has to be a bylaw created. I guess I hadn't really internalized that, because the making of a bylaw would make all the board consider what it's transferring to the president and the administration. I still hate this individual member of the board, but I'm not going to go to the wall on it, because if there has to be a bylaw, it seems to me some thought for reflection will have to go on at the board table, as the board is responsible for its own bylaws.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I would also point out that all the bylaws require approval of the Governor in Council.

The Chair: Oh, right.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Under clause 31.

The Chair: Yes, okay.

Do you want to push CA-60a, or are you going to withdraw it?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: To get this clear, your recommendation is to pull sections 41, 42, and 43 from clause 32?

Ms. Caroline Weber: So all the licensing activities could not be delegated to an individual or the--

The Chair: Or a committee or the staff.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay, so you're removing that from this clause?

Ms. Caroline Weber: Correct.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's right. So how are we going to do that?

The Chair: CA-60a limits any kind of assignment to just a committee of the board, which, on first glance, I thought was a good idea. Now I'm thinking we can't do that, because certain things have to be taken care of by the president and his staff, the administration. But when that decision is made, what is going to be transferred to the president and the staff will be done by bylaw, so the whole board will be in on that decision.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I realize that.

The Chair: So I'm not as worried about that transfer of authority to the president now, because they're not going to transfer anything other than what gets the work done.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: You might be surprised. I'm wondering if “any one member of the board” could be changed then. The president is a full-time staff person, and we understand that--

The Chair: And a committee.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: And the committee, and get rid of that.

The Chair: What do you envisage this single member of the board being assigned to do?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I'm sorry?

The Chair: That function, by bylaw, would be handed to him or her. Then you say, “to an individual or to a committee”. I can envisage the kind of issues that would be sent to a committee, but I'm having trouble considering a board, let's say, of 16 or 17 people picking one of their number to take care of something on his or her own. What is it you thought might be assigned to an individual? On all the boards I've been on I've never seen one member stand up and say, I'll take care of that, with everybody saying, good, you have the power now to do it. Give me an example of what that individual might do.

Dr. Fry has some experience with this. She can probably think of an example.

Ms. Hedy Fry: It could be getting some of the research done, some of the background reading, to come and report to the board on what the issue is, so that everybody doesn't have to go and read everything all the time.

The Chair: That's an assignment, not a decision-making power. This is decision-making.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I've seen that happen, but I can't think of an example off the top of my head.

The Chair: Individual members will take on tasks, so as to come back to the board and say, I did this research and this is what I found out, but it's the decision-making power. I've never seen a board assign one person to go off and have the decision-making power.

Dr. Castonguay.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I had a little side conversation here with the witnesses. Maybe they would like to comment.

The Chair: The officials.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: The officials.

Ms. Caroline Weber: Perhaps we could amend CA-60a to include the president and duties to a committee of the board or the president and eliminate the possibility of delegating anything to an individual.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That I would be satisfied with, if you get rid of those other clauses.

The Chair: We'd amend it, then.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Let's do it.

The Chair: So we'd have “the Agency's powers and duties to the President”; you'd add “the President”.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: “To a committee or the President”.

The Chair: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Why not pass G-7a and make a different amendment that would just, on line 27, remove “to any member of the board”?

¼ (1800)

The Chair: Yes, that's what I was thinking would be easier.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Make it simple. Don't amend his, because it'll get too complicated. Just create a new amendment.

The Chair: Just to delete.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: To delete, yes, the effect of which is that line 26 would read “the Agency's powers and duties to a committee of the board or the President”.

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Then deal with line 29, which is G-7a.

The Chair: Are you making that amendment, Ms. Torsney?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sure, I'd like to make that amendment.

The Chair: Ms. Torsney is making the amendment to delete “any member of the board”. It will then read, “to a committee of the board or the President”.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Right. The amendment would be to replace lines 26 and 27 with “the Agency's powers and duties to a committee of the board or”.

The Chair: Okay. What will we call that amendment?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Let's call it CA-60a.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I don't want to have to be a CA.

The Chair: She wants to be on the public record here. Give her a chance.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: PT-1?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: LL-6a?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.

The Chair: This is LL-6a, a slight deletion.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Now we can move on to G-7a to address the second last line, capturing the licensing functions and reserving them for the board.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 32 as amended agreed to on division)

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, I would like to withdraw G-8.

The Chair: There's just one clause, clause 66. Do you want to persist or do you want to come back and do it?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Let's come back tomorrow, it won't take long. We've been here since 9 this morning, for crying out loud--8:30, to be honest.

The Chair: How many people would like to stay?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: How many are there?

The Chair: There's one clause, but there's a lot of material on it.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, how much more time do you think this will take? Will it take another half hour, 45 minutes?

[English]

The Chair: I think we could probably do it in 25 minutes and be out of here at 6:30, if you'd like to persist.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I think that if the Liberals agree—it's their party—we would not have to reconvene tomorrow afternoon. But of course, you are calling the shots.

¼ (1805)

[English]

The Chair: We don't really know how complicated it is. We haven't handed it out yet, because we're not sure if we're going to continue. It is clause 66. If you glance at clause 66 in the bill, you might recall what we assigned to the staff.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: There are quite a few things in there.

The Chair: This was about how the regulations will work from the point of view of timing and all that sort of thing. Should I read it to you to see if you think it's suitable?

Let's roll. Let's give it out.

You'll recall that we had several amendments to do with how to make sure the committee got access to the regulations and could report to the minister and that in getting access, they do something, and if they don't do it, the minister is not completely hung up for a year unable to do something about regulations. So it's kind of a mutual responsibility thing. The committee is responsible for getting back to the minister, and if it doesn't, the minister has to be free to do something without the committee. We're trying to accommodate both sides of the coin here.

So this is the proposed amendment, looking at clause 66, that Bill C-13, in clause 66, be amended by replacing subclause (2) with the following:

A proposed regulation that is laid before Parliament shall be referred to an appropriate committee of each House, as determined by the rules of that House, and the committee may review the proposed regulation and report its findings to the House.

It also adds after line 20, which is just where we are, a subsection 66(2.1):

The committee of the House of Commons referred to in subsection 66(2) shall be the Standing Committee on Health or, in the event that there is not a Standing Committee on Health, the appropriate committee of the House.

That covers all contingencies.

Subclause 66(3) is amended by replacing lines 21 to 28 on page 31 with the following:

A regulation may not be made before the earliest of

(a) 30 sitting days after the proposed regulation is laid before Parliament,

(b) 160 calendar days after the proposed regulation is laid before Parliament, and

(c) the day after the appropriate committee of each House of Parliament has reported its findings with respect to the proposed regulation.

Paragraph 66(3)(d) replaces subsection 66(4) with:

The Minister shall take into account any report of a committee of either House. If a regulation does not incorporate a recommendation of the committee of either House, the Minister shall lay before that House a statement of the reasons for not incorporating it.

I think you saved this.

Now we would have to rescind the decisions on CA-79 and G-11 we passed.

Madame Jennings.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: On page 2, at line (b), where it says 160 calendar days, there is a comma followed by the word “and”. Should that not be “or”?

[English]

It's the earliest day of one of these three scenarios, so it's either (a) or (b) or (c), and they put “and”.

The Chair: It should be “or”, I think. Should it not be “or”?

¼ (1810)

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The earliest of option one, two, and three. So it's the earliest of those three.

The Chair: Shouldn't it be one or two or three, whereas it has “and” three?

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I understand, but if we look at the provision that you are amending, it clearly states “or”.

[English]

Under subclause 66(3), if we look at (a), it says “or”.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The bill uses “or” because there is no reference above to ”the earliest of”.

The Chair: Can I have a motion to rescind CA-79 and G-11? So moved by Mr. Dromisky.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Now you have before you the replacement, G-10e, for which I very much thank the lawyer who has attended us today.

Can someone move this please? Who hasn't moved anything? Madame Scherrer, I think. Let Madam Scherrer move G-10e.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Merry Christmas to everybody.

The Chair: Those in favour of G-10e.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 66 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: You'll remember that in your main package there were two little pages at the back that we didn't do, CA-92 and CA-93. This is about the title. The Canadian Alliance is suggesting that it be called the Human Reproduction and Related Research Act. The title we have is “an Act respecting assisted human reproduction”. Mr. Merrifield would like to change the title. Would you like to speak to this, Mr. Merrifield?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I think it just reflects the reality of the bill, which is about human reproduction and related research, much more accurately.

The Chair: Don't you want to talk about assisted human reproduction? We don't talk much about normal reproduction, so shouldn't it be “assisted human reproduction and related research”?

Ms. Caroline Weber: It's because it's two lines. It's okay.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, it's two lines. We're just changing the bottom line in the short title.

The Chair: Oh, I see. Okay.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: We're just adding the three words “and related research”.

The Chair: That is the proposal. It's self-explanatory.

Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, I don't know if we are.

The Chair: Well, you should be, you're proposing it.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, I know, but the problem is--

The Chair: It's only people who don't get it who want to ask a question.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: They're just adding three words?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's right, “and related research”.

The Chair: I asked three times if you were ready.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, could we have a comment?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sorry, but the research isn't related to the assisted human reproduction.

The Chair: Well, they wouldn't have the embryos without the assisted human reproduction.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: There's other research that's not related to assisted human reproduction.

The Chair: What research in this bill isn't related to reproduction?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Stem cell research is not related to assisted human reproduction.

The Chair: There's no way to get the embryos except through the assisted human reproduction process, because the bill forbids any other way to get an embryo.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The way Mr. Merrifield inadvertently has made it sound, the research relates only to assisted human reproduction. It's because they're related, because it connects. It's just an English thing. Hedy will explain it to you, and maybe Ms. Weber could tell us.

¼ (1815)

The Chair: Ms. Weber, maybe you'd like to comment on this.

Ms. Caroline Weber: I had a similar concern, because I didn't think the related research was defined in the bill. The only thing the bill does govern is use of the in vitro embryo for research purposes. I think it does add this kind of confusion. For example, there is research using human reproductive material for other purposes outside reproductive activities. So you'd have to define the matter. There are a whole bunch of other things the bill does gently touch on, such as counselling and ethical conduct of research, but I don't think you want to expand the title to include all those little things.

The Chair: Mr. Merrifield, I thought we were at a vote, but we're not.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: You actually did call for the vote, and hands were up.

The Chair: I know.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Nonetheless, “human reproduction” certainly doesn't capture all of that. So when you add “and related research” to it, you do encapsulate all of what is there. To just call it “assisted human reproduction” not only does not capture it, it is somewhat misleading as to what is actually covered in the piece of legislation. That's why it's very important that we call it what it is.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: The prerogatives afforded the minister include being able to authorize research on biological material. So research is included. It would not be wrong to state “related research”. If it said: “basic research”or “applied research”, that could give rise to some confusion, but I think it would be acceptable to say “related research” as it applies to the purpose of the bill. Christmas is coming, and we should all be a little more giving.

[English]

The Chair: Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, I just want to be a little picky. Research related to assisted human reproduction also means research on infertility, and we don't have that in this bill.

The Chair: Well, we do in a way, because we allow for the research on the embryos to test for their viability, and we also have a lot of teaching about it.

Ms. Hedy Fry: No, Madam Chair. Why do people get infertile in the first place, why is there male infertility, why is there female infertility? That's related research, and it's not dealt with at all in this bill.

The Chair: But that would be infertility and related research.

Ms. Hedy Fry: No, Madam Chair, infertility--

The Chair: That's what you're describing.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Infertility is what has led to the need for assisted human reproduction. Therefore, infertility is fundamental. If you read the royal commission report--

The Chair: I did.

Ms. Hedy Fry: --it speaks to infertility prevention, to research on pauses. That is not there, so it's misleading to add such a broad statement.

The Chair: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: If you take out “related”, I think it addresses your issue about research and assisted human reproductive technology. I wasn't disagreeing that the current title doesn't describe fully what's in here, all I'm saying is, “related” implies the research is only on assisted human reproduction, a result of some assisted human reproduction, but it's not just related to that.

The Chair: So how could we get research into the title without giving the wrong implication?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Take “related” out and just put “assisted human reproduction and research”.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: “Relevant research”?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, it's not about having to make tubes open.

The Chair: Mr. Rivard, let's have your comments.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I will simply note that there are in fact two remaining motions, CA-92 and CA-93. CA-93 proposes to amend the long title of the act. My only comment with respect to CA-92 is that it's preferable to have a short title be short.

The Chair: Where is that long title?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Right under the heading “Bill C-13”.

The Chair: It's pretty short too. They're both really short, “An Act respecting assisted human reproduction” and “This Act may be cited as the Assisted Human Reproduction Act”. That doesn't take too many brains to figure out.

¼ (1820)

Mr. Glenn Rivard: My only point is that if members wish to have this concept captured somewhere in the title, it would be more appropriate to do it in the long title.

The Chair: Okay.

So, Mr. Merrifield, if you're going to win this battle, I would suggest that you leave the short title the way it is, because that's the way people will refer to it, and work on the long title.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, I think--

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Madam Chair.

The Chair: Madam Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: The bill begins by mentioning, in clause 2, “the benefits of assisted human reproductive technologies and related research”. Why not go with that as the title?

The Chair: Okay, how about this? We leave the short title as it is here, and we change the long title above to exactly what Madam Jennings has pointed out, “assisted human reproductive technologies and related research”. It's the only thing that's going to sell it if you want it longer. Do you agree with that?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Oh yes, it's just a wonderful title.

The Chair: Well, you get a long title and you get the word research in.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Oh yes, does it ever. It makes me warm all over.

The Chair: The other advantage, as Madam Jennings has pointed out, is that you then get the repetition of that.

Mr. Merrifield would have to pull back CA-92 or have it defeated. Do you want it voted on?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: No, we can pull it back.

The Chair: Okay.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

The Chair: Now CA-93 is about the long title up above becoming “assisted human reproductive technologies and related research”. Are you moving it, Mr. Merrifield, with that amendment?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I have the bill reprinted to incorporate all your amendments?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Congratulations, ladies and gentlemen.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Ms. Torsney has her hand up.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Can we congratulate all the many people who have stayed and worked so hard at both tables? You certainly have slogged hard, and it shows.

The Chair: Yes, exactly. Thank you to all the officials from the department and those from the library and the clerk's office. Here's to you.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Yes, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Would I be correct in saying that there will be no more meetings this week and that we will reconvene at the end of January?

[English]

The Chair: For regular members of the committee, there was a motion passed that we meet on Wednesday and Thursday to discuss Romanow, but I would be willing to entertain a motion that seeing that two meetings probably wouldn't do it, we change our mind on that.

Madame Thibeault is moving that this be the last meeting before Christmas.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: You're right.

¼ (1825)

The Chair: Are we agreed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: This will be the last meeting before Christmas. It is now adjourned.