Evidence of meeting #13 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Yes, thank you.
I'd like to move the two together, if I may. They are complementary; they go together.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I've just been informed they have to be done one at a time. My apologies. I'm willing, but he isn't.
NDP
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
This amendment brings this legislation into line with practices under other legislation, particularly the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. It ensures that the witnesses we have heard from would know that the regulations they'll be involved in, in terms of the consultation process, will also come to the House of Commons, that we'll have a chance for oversight. We'll have a chance to take into account any concerns and try to persuade the government of any changes that are brought forward.
Conservative
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
We would like to support this amendment, if we could make a slight amendment by adding the Senate, to have an appropriate standing committee in the Senate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Can you read it out, then, Dr. Carrie? That way we can put it down in print here.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Just give me a moment. I think you have to add “Senate” in a few places....
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I would accept a friendly amendment that says we add the word “Senate”--
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
She would like to table the regulations before the House of Commons. We would like to add that it has to be tabled with the Senate as well.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
But it would not be....
I mean, the point of the bill is that it be sent back to the committee that knew something about it and did the work. I wouldn't want the government to have the ability to send it to the Senate instead.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
No, no, not instead; it would be going to both.
If you'd like further explanation, perhaps we could we have the officials speak on that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
The analysts inform me that it's similar to what's in the Assisted Human Reproduction Act.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Yes. In fact, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act actually spells out that it's the House of Commons and the Senate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Yes.
All in favour of this amendment...?
I'm just going to read it into the record so that we know what it's about:
The proposed regulation shall be referred to the Standing Committee on Health or, in the event that there is not a Standing Committee on Health,
No, that doesn't work. It has to be rewritten.
Yes, “both Houses of Parliament” would do it. There we go.
Thank you to the analysts for that. It's great to have analysts here.
Can you read BQ-6 now?
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
We'll withdraw the amendment, Madam Chair, as it is now superfluous.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
It's no longer necessary? Are we going to delete BQ-6, Monsieur Malo? Is that what you're saying?
Okay, then, it's deleted. It's not moved.
I'll read the first part of new clause 66.1 as it would be amended:
66.1 (1) Before a regulation is made under section 66, the Minister shall lay the proposed regulation before both Houses of Parliament
The rest would be identical.
(Subamendment agreed to)
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are now on NDP-3, which proposes new clause 66.2.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, please.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
This basically rounds out the process that is now under the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. It further exemplifies that process.
I would move it with an amendment adding the word “Senate” wherever it says “House of Commons”.