Evidence of meeting #39 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cells.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:47 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I'm sorry to interrupt all these valuable conversations, but let me please ask the committee to join us.
We have in front of us a motion submitted by Dr. Duncan.
I would ask you, Dr. Duncan, to read it into the record.
12:47 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's my understanding that since these are five separate motions, we have to do one at a time, and each time I have to ask that it be reported back to the House.
The first motion is:
That the Committee recommend that the federal government work with the provinces and territories to determine how best to provide Canadian Blood Services and Hema-Quebec with the funding required to establish a public cord blood bank.
12:47 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Yes, I was wondering if we could speak to this.
We would recommend a slight wording change. As we heard from the presenters today, Health Canada's role here is as a regulator responsible for the product's safety, so Health Canada must maintain an arm's-length relationship with the blood operators and is not involved in corporate or operational decisions, including the determination of funding priorities.
Broader decisions around cord blood are under the purview of the provincial and territorial jurisdictions. I think CBS made that quite clear. An initiative such as the establishment of a national publicly funded cord blood bank would therefore not fall within Health Canada's federal authorities.
So what we would recommend—we would like to support this, if we could change this—is that instead of “funding”, it would say “provide Canada Blood Services and Hema-Quebec with the support”—we would use the word “support”—“required to establish a public cord blood bank”.
12:47 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
I have a general comment, Madam Chair.
I have here the committee's meeting schedule, and a study of the draft report is planned for December 9. Do the recommendations we are currently studying regarding stem cell donation in Canada replace the committee's report? Basically, we could include these recommendations in the report. So, if we adopt recommendations, the report may not be as useful. I think it would be a duplication of work.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Basically, are you saying that we're reporting this back to the House, so we don't need the other report, that this will take the place of it?
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Actually, I think that's a good idea, because it would free up a meeting, wouldn't it, if we just did that?
Good idea.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
It is a good idea, but the report also gives parties an opportunity to express supplementary opinions, to present other perspectives and perhaps to make other recommendations. The way I see it, studying the report involves a lot more than simply adopting the motions put forward by Dr. Duncan.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
The only thing is that we've only had two days' study on this, and to do a full report on a two-day study is, in my opinion, a little thin. Dr. Duncan has a very comprehensive notice of motion.
Dr. Carrie, I'm not clear on exactly what you want.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
For that reason, and also because funding is just one part, whereas by way of “support”, after the discussions there might be agreements made in other ways as well.
November 23rd, 2010 / 12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair, but my question was asked by Monsieur Malo, and I know what the answer is now.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I would in fact say, Mr. Carrie, that it should be “support including funding”, because giving funding doesn't detract from the jurisdiction of the provinces. The idea here is that we want to commit the federal government to funding—at least to recommend that we fund.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I would argue against the funding; I'm arguing for support. Clearly we heard that there's actually a business case for these banks at least being self-sustaining. So I would say to support but not to fund.