Health Committee on June 1st, 2010

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Madam Chair, we do expect some leadership from you, and the estimates is one of the primary jobs of committees. I am concerned that yet again, when it should have been presented that this would happen--in the same way as after six years we don't have any regulations on assisted reproductive technology--we have statutory requirements that we're not doing.

Estimates is the basic work of this committee. I expect the chair of the committee to make sure that these things that are absolutely imperative for us to do are put before us, and not fill the schedule with other things that do not allow us to do our primary job, which is to approve the estimates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

The function of the chair is to do the will of the committee, and, Dr. Bennett, I don't remember you, at any point in time, making this request. So you can sit there this morning and badmouth the chair and be displeased, but the fact of the matter is that Mr. Brown asked you what you want to take out to put the supplementary estimates in.

Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

I'm just saying, talk about filling the schedule, four of the next five sessions we're having—I look at June 8, 15, 17, and 22—are suggestions that the Liberals had. So talk about filling schedules, are you willing to skip the session on caffeinated drinks, or are you willing to skip the Weatherill report? Are you willing to skip the session on the HIV vaccine or lessons learned?

If you talk about filling the schedule, we've been very agreeable to making sure that we address all your ideas, so I don't think it's fair to say that the chair has filled up the schedule and not made us available for supplementary estimates. I think it's a good idea to look at the supplementary estimates, but we try to work in a fashion that we get everyone's interests looked at.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Bennett.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

One makes decisions in a deliberative fashion with everything on the table. I think the supplementary estimates should have been on the table when we were making up this schedule. Because of the prorogation they've been clumped at us, and there are a number of problems with it.

Many other committees have extra meetings and do whatever it takes to get the work done. I think that doing the supplementary estimates must be a priority, and yes, I would be prepared to sacrifice nanotechnology.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Discussion, Dr. Malo--on nanotechnology, please.

Dr. Malo, Dr. Bennett, Dr. Brown.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

I'll ask the clerk.

For which studies have witnesses already confirmed their attendance? Maybe that would help us to decide who can be bumped from the schedule?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Christine Holke David]

Obviously, we have witnesses confirmed for the 8th, for our study on caffeine. I have issued invitations for the study on nanotechnologies, but I haven't received any confirmations yet.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

I see. So then, unless I'm mistaken, we could schedule a meeting with the minister for the 10th, even if that meant pushing back the other witnesses to a later date.

[The Clerk]

I haven't received any confirmations yet with respect to our study on nanotechnologies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Brown and then Ms. McLeod.

Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

I appreciate Ms. Bennett's generous offer not to do the nanotechnology session, but that was the only one that we had suggested.

If you look at the five remaining sessions, four of them you suggested, and there's only one that we suggested. In the notion of fairness, I think it would be good to displace another one of the studies. Given the comments we heard from Mr. Butler-Jones, maybe we don't need to do the draft report on the HIV vaccine manufacturing facility. I'm not sure how long that's going to take, but I don't think we should cancel the session on the potential risks and benefits of nanotechnology.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Ms. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I also agree with the importance of having the minister for supplementary estimates. But in the spirit of how we have perhaps done things in the past and most recently, why don't we just do the bumping that we did before? It's like the four little kids in the bed and one falls off, and....

I think that would be the fair way to approach this issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Bennett.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I guess my concern is that if the Conservatives feel strongly about nanotechnology, then some of the potential witnesses might have responded by now, in terms of you actually coaching them and coaxing them to accept the invitation that the committee has made. As the clerk has said, not one of those witnesses has agreed to come, and so it seems the obvious one that should be pushed out of the way.

I also think that it is such a huge issue; to think that we're going to do due diligence to anything like the risks and benefits of nanotechnology in one meeting, without any ability to report back to the House or do a report or even a letter to the minister, is, I think, not only ambitious but not possible. I think it is the obvious one.

I also think that in terms of Ms. McLeod's comments about the pushing and shoving, as long as the minister can come, we would take her on whatever day she would come and move the other ones around, eliminating nanotechnology.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Ms. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

In terms of process, I think we actually are debating a motion that really has nothing to do with how this is all going to fit together. I'm wondering if we can deal with the motion of Dr. Bennett and then perhaps move into committee business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Very good. We have just one more person speaking and then we'll do that. Thank you, Ms. McLeod.

Ms. Leslie.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Chair, my question is actually for Dr. Bennett.

As you all know, I'm new to the committee, so I'm maybe not up to speed on understanding the urgency or non-urgency for a lot of things. But if, on June 17, consideration of the draft report about the cancellation of the HIV vaccine manufacturing facility is bumped to the fall, then I would assume there'd be enough time to have the ministers appear as per your motion.

Is this something that would work?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

It's the will of the committee, Ms. Leslie, and we would have to.... I think everyone's in agreement; this is the first time this has come up. It is the will of the committee, what they want to do.

If it is the will of the committee to do the supplementary estimates, the suggestion is nanotechnology, but--

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I'm just asking Dr. Bennett what her perception is, because this is her motion. I'm just wondering if she thinks that the fall might be a better time. It's a friendly amendment to the June 15 date.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

So you're making a friendly amendment?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I'm canvassing it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

You're canvassing it. Okay.

Dr. Bennett.