Evidence of meeting #55 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1 p.m.
Bloc
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Okay. We have a subamendment from Mr. Bigras for paragraph 6(d) of amendment 9.1, which is really 3.2, which is on page 15.2.
1 p.m.
NDP
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Sure. That's what I thought.
If you have a subamendment, Mr. Bigras, we'll hear that now.
1 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I repeat. I move the removal of paragraph (d) from amendment G-9.1 on page 15.2. Understood? I move that the paragraph be removed because we believe that the Minister of Health must consult public health authorities in the provinces, rather than drawing up guidelines with hospital associations. The danger is that there would be discussions between the Minister of Health and hospital associations, whereas hospitals, as far as I know, are responsible to public health authorities in the provinces. Those public health authorities are responsible to the provincial ministries of health and social services.
1 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
We asked the witnesses about that.
As a matter of practice, under paragraph 6(d), does that not occur? Don't you sit down with the health authorities of different provinces? When you're drafting protocols and clinical practice guidelines, would you attempt to conduct or facilitate a process that would do so without consulting the provincial health care ministries in practical steps when appropriate?
1:05 p.m.
Associate Director General, Therapeutic Products Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
I should give a point of clarification. Especially from the regulatory perspective, we wouldn't be drafting the clinical practice guidelines; the term “facilitate the drafting”, or the development of it, is purposeful because of the issue of jurisdiction.
As I mentioned, it really would be going to the people who would be best placed to give advice, and bringing them together to be able to formulate the clinical practice guidelines. We would normally have people at the table who could inform that position, but it would be unusual to go through, for instance, a ministry of health if the issue was really at a hospital level, because you would end up going through another organization, and that organization would speak to somebody else.
The reason it takes 24 months for the drafting of clinical practice guidelines is that it's a very detailed process. You not only draft them, but you have to bring in the expertise. Then you have to do the reality check of what this really means for practice; then you have to figure out a way to implement and communicate that. It really is bringing the appropriate people to the table. Whether we go through another organization or.... If it's a product-related thing and a very specific thing, we would normally go directly to the users of those products.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Sorry, it didn't answer my question.
As a matter of practice, in the process you would facilitate through Health Canada, would you not engage senior officials from Ontario, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Quebec, and other governments who are involved in running health care systems, along with other hospital associations and experts, this subgroup of the Canadian Medical Association, and so on? Would you not convene them into this process as full participants?
1:05 p.m.
Associate Director General, Therapeutic Products Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
We would invite all those groups to the table, and then it would be up to those groups to decide, if they had a stake in it, if they actually wanted to participate. But we would absolutely invite those people to the table.
1:05 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I understand what Mr. McGuinty is saying, but I also heard what the official has just said. The intent of the bill is that the Minister of Health can take those measures and act directly. That was likely the case in the past, and I think that public health authorities must have had to be consulted. I prefer to keep the status quo instead of writing into the bill a provision like that which could ultimately exclude provincial public health authorities. Given that things worked well in the past, I do not see why we would not keep the status quo. Writing such a provision into the act could mean excluding public health authorities. I do not think that was the intent.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Just as a way for us to move past this impasse if we can, it seems that Mr. Bigras has some specific concerns with this part in paragraph 6(d) and wants to amend it. It seems that this is a separate debate on this whole paragraph of G-9.1.
In order to finish this, I suggest that the government move this amendment without paragraph 6(d) in it and consider it separately. Mr. Bigras can make his petition, and we can get on with it.
Has it already been moved?
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Yes, it has been moved. Mr. Warawa said he would leave paragraph 6(d) in his motion.
So we have to vote on this, and I think we've probably gone around enough times. We need to vote on the subamendment to remove paragraph 6(d) from G-9.1 on page 15.2.
Mr. Warawa.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I think we've moved a long way toward consensus. This is in there, I believe, in discussions with Mr. Cullen. If he supports having this removed, I'd like to hear that; otherwise, it's to provide guidelines for the use of phthalates.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
