Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his questions. I will try to answer each and every one of them.
In dealing with the makeup of the board, I will not attempt to answer that in French. We tried very hard to convince the government that if it made sense anywhere, in terms of introducing the concept of gender parity and ensuring equal representation on a board or agency of the government, it was in the area of reproductive technologies. After all, we are talking about a women's health matter. Surely on such an issue, it makes sense, more than in any other area, to have women represented at least on a fifty-fifty basis.
We introduced the amendment at committee. We were successful. It came forward as part of the legislation and, lo and behold, the Minister of Health and her colleagues on the government benches decided to negate and nullify that amendment and the important work of the health committee. Interestingly, we came to the House with an amendment to put back on the table the issue of gender parity and equal representation on the board of reproductive technologies. Liberal members stood one after another and opposed the idea. Women themselves on the Liberal benches opposed the idea.
How could it have happened that on an issue as basic as this, we could not even get the government to show leadership on equality on a board like this? That is the tip of the iceberg on the government's handling of important issues put forward by New Democrats and dealt with at the committee level.
The second area about which the member asked me was conflict of interest and whether the provisions were significant to ensure that when appointments were made to the board, it would not be possible for representatives of big pharmaceutical companies and big biotechnological companies to be appointed to the board. Members should know that the government decided to veto, nullify and eliminate an important amendment presented by New Democrats at the committee and supported by the health committee. Again it was treated to the same disregard that we saw from the minister on the gender parity issue.
On two fundamental issues where the bill could have been improved, the government shut the door, turned back the clock and denied the work of the committee.
We also have concerns about the issue of donor anonymity. We believe very much that the identity of donors should be made known. That we believe to be necessary, after important deliberations at the committee level.
The preamble could have been strengthened. Suggestions were made by committee members to strengthen it to reflect some of the concerns about women's health and to ensure that the issues of people living with disabilities were included and incorporated into it. Some of those changes were ignored by the government.
Finally, after the intense discussions we have had on this bill and others, many of us are feeling a bit weary and anxious perhaps on one level to dispense with the rest of the day's agenda if possible and move on to tomorrow's work with new energy. However we have responsibilities to keep in mind. We have to keep cognizant of the fact that there are flaws in the bill. Although we want to see the bill passed and want to see legislation in place, we also know it could have been a much better product. It is on that basis that we will continue to express our opposition to this bill and our intentions to be vigilant in the days ahead.