Evidence of meeting #19 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was estimates.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Members, Dr. Bennett has brought forth two motions.
Dr. Bennett, would you begin by reading them into the record and making comments? You can start with number one.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Whereas the Minister of Health stated in the House of Commons, with respect to consumer product safety, on November 26 that “without Bill C-6, our government does not have the authority to order a product recall when companies fail to act on safety concerns”, and that “without Bill C-6, we do not have the tools needed to protect Canadians and their families”, and on December 7, that “one death is one...too many”, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Health request that the Minister of Health immediately reintroduce comprehensive product safety legislation.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you.
I support this motion. I think it's a good motion.
We all know that Bill C-6 was before this committee. It was passed by this committee. It was passed by the House, and it got bogged down or derailed in the Senate. Other than that, it would have been legislation by now. I know that the Minister of Health certainly supports it as well and has great concerns that Bill C-6 did not pass the Senate and get royal assent.
So I support this motion. I hope we can pass it and move on.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just for the record, the problem with this legislation passing...was not bogging down anywhere other than prorogation. It was wiped out due to prorogation, having done a time in the Senate that was completely appropriate given the complexity of the legislation.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Oh, apparently I should have said--this is just a friendly amendment--that the results of this motion be reported back to the House.
9:05 a.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I don't want to hold up the work of the committee, but I just want to say that we have been waiting for this legislative measure for quite some time. You will recall that in 2006, the Auditor General had already identified a number of irregularities. We are lagging quite far behind and I'm even surprised that the government did not move right away to table this kind of draft legislation when this session got under way.
I'm pleased that all members of the committee will support the motion. Thank you.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Are there any other comments?
All in favour of this motion, raise your hand.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
It is unanimous. Thank you.
Could you read your second motion, please, Dr. Bennett?
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Well, in the new spirit of cooperation, if the minister is willing to appear before the parliamentary committees, we thought it would be appropriate, before we write the report on the Canadian HIV vaccine initiative, that the committee ask the Minister of Health, the Minister of Industry, and the Minister of Public Safety to appear before June 15 on the issue of the cancellation of the HIV vaccine manufacturing facility in order that the committee send back to the House a comprehensive report on this study.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I certainly have difficulties with this. We have studied this for a significant number of sessions. The minister actually referenced it when she came to do the estimates. Certainly, we have her comments on this particular issue. I can read them into the record, if we'd like to do that:
As the member is well aware, a study was commissioned by the Gates Foundation that concluded there was sufficient current vaccine capacity in North America and Europe and there was no longer a need for a facility in Canada. That study itself is one piece of the work that we're undertaking. The Government of Canada remains committed to fighting HIV and AIDS, and we will be moving forward with the Gates Foundation to identify areas we'll work together on.
It's also about ensuring that we are spending Canadian taxpayers' money in the right areas. If there is no need for a facility in Canada, then we have to make decisions to ensure we are spending Canadian taxpayers' money wisely. At the same time it's a joint partnership with Gates Foundation, and we'll continue to collaborate with the organization in terms of next steps and how we can use the investments made by the Gates Foundation and the Government of Canada to address HIV in Canada.
That was on March 16.
We have studied and have had numerous sessions. We've had Dr. Butler-Jones. We've had witnesses. We have a very busy agenda for the rest of the year. Therefore, I think it's not appropriate to use our time to continue in this vein.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Madam Chair, is the Minister of Health scheduled to appear once again before us, if only to discuss Supplementary Estimates (A) and, of course, other matters of interest to the committee?
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
That's something I'll have to get back to you on, because we don't know. This has not come up at committee, so it will have to be discussed and decided.
Ms. Davidson.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I have concerns too about how we're going to even try to get through the agenda we have before us, and Monsieur Malo has just brought up another subject, the supplementary estimates. If we have to work that in as well, it's going to be extremely difficult.
I agree with my colleague that we have had a lot of input on this subject. I think the comments we've heard have been comprehensive and have answered the questions of this committee. When we went into this study there were several misconceptions, and I think some of them have been cleared up.
I'd like to read into the record what Dr. Butler-Jones said before this committee on April 22:
As I've said before, the committee needs to pursue its processes in the most effective way possible. I've been very clear with the committee, in terms of what is known, the process, the facts of the process, and whatever else. It's been very frustrating for us in terms of the innuendo and claims of certain people saying certain things to certain other people. If someone did that in the agency it's totally inappropriate, and I would have to deal with that.
Secondly, the suggestion that any of the bidders actually crossed the bar was just wrong. Whoever said that, wherever they said it, was ill-informed and had no business saying that. And if it's somebody related to the agency or in the agency, then I'd appreciate it if someone would let me know so I can deal with that, because it is a matter of inappropriateness in my organization. If it's someone else, then let us get on with our business.
So I think we have the correct information. We have enough to finish this study, and I think we need to get on with it.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
While there is not really any connection between the two, Madam Chair, I think the minister should be called before the committee before the end of June, if only to discuss a variety of issues, including Supplementary Estimates (A).
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON
Madam Chair, I agree with what Mr. Malo was saying. I think it makes more sense, if you're going to have the minister, to have her for something like supplementary estimates, which is more of a natural fit than something she has already commented on.
At the same time, we all have to be aware that if we're adding in a new meeting, we should also reference what we want to take out, because it was difficult for us all to agree on a schedule that worked. So if you're talking about an arbitrary date of June 15, are we taking caffeine out? Are we taking nanotechnology out? Are we taking the Weatherill report out?
I'd like to hear what meeting we plan to cancel.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
We do have a very full agenda, and sometimes the reason why committees aren't effective is that they don't stick to their agenda. This can't just come up on June 1. But it's the will of the committee.
Dr. Bennett.