[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Monday, April 14, 1997
.1542 
[English]
The Chair (Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.)): Order, please.
Mr. Graham, welcome to our committee for the first time. It's nice to have you with us.
Ms Baird from Vancouver, welcome. It's nice to have you with us today. We will give you ample time to give your briefing. Then my colleagues will have questions for you after you're finished, starting with questions from the opposition. Would you like to get started? The time is yours.
Dr. Patricia Baird (Former Chair, Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies): Thanks very much for the chance to talk with you. I couldn't quite compress my statement into five minutes but I have it down to seven or eight.
The Royal Commission had two main recommendations. One was that the Canadian government should act to put boundaries around the use of reproductive technologies. The second was that we put in place a regulatory system to manage access to beneficial technologies in an ongoing way.
Both of those aspects - prohibitions and responsible management - are important. We need boundaries of prohibition so that unethical or exploited use of reproductive technologies isn't made, but we also need access to help people who are otherwise unable to form a family, because about 7% of Canadians are unable to have a pregnancy after two years, and having a family is important to most people's emotional lives.
A regulatory body that can also act as a focus for ongoing discussion - with policy continuing to be made as the field evolves - is critical. In my view, it is in some ways more badly needed than the prohibitions.
I'm sure everyone sitting around your table realizes that Bill C-47 addresses only half of what's needed. So I very much hope that as well as the prohibitions put in place by Bill C-47 there does turn out to be regulated management of access to some technology uses.
.1545
With respect to the bill itself, I'm supportive of most of it. In fact, as you probably know, much of it arises from the commission's recommendations. Most of the bill is well reasoned and it reflects what Canadians told the commission. For most of its provisions, the harms that the bill guards against are quite clear, and we heard strong consensus across the country in support of them. But there are three clauses in which a blanket prohibition is too blunt an instrument and where going that route may end up with you inadvertently preventing some beneficial uses. I'm going to touch on each of those three in turn and explain to you why I think it's worth considering whether these particular clauses would be better omitted from this legislation and instead dealt with under a regulatory regime.
The first of the three relates to subparagraphs 4(1)(f)(i), 4(1)(f)(ii) and 4(1)(g)(i). These are those provisions that prohibit research on ova and sperm from a fetus taken from a person after death. Yet useful insights that may help to understand why some people are infertile - for example, why their sperm doesn't mature - can come from such research. I think a better approach would be to permit research, but only under strictly regulated conditions, with licensing required and with requirements that informed consent must have been given and that no implantation in a woman of a zygote that is derived from these sources be permitted.
It seems to me that taking that kind of approach would still stop unethical uses, but it would permit useful knowledge to be accumulated.
The second point I want to touch on is in paragraph 4(1)(k). This prohibits the fertilization of an ovum outside the body for purposes of research.
You are very aware, as am I, that there are differing views on the moral status of the zygote. Clearly, zygotes are not simply things to be used in any way we like. They are connected to the human community in many ways. Most of the bodies that have examined the question believe that given stringent regulation, it's ethically permissible to do research on human zygotes up to fourteen days after fertilization because such research is needed to ensure the safety and the well-being of patients who are having infertility treatment.
The commission's recommendations were that procedures done specifically to retrieve eggs for research should be prohibited, but if consent were given, extra eggs retrieved during treatment could be permitted to be used in research. We did this because some important research questions can only be answered if unfertilized eggs are donated for research. As a very simple example, only if you keep unfertilized eggs in different kinds of culture media and then put them with sperm to see if they do fertilize can you tell what kind of medium you should be using in the techniques.
I think if you were to prohibit all such research it would be unethical, because that would create a situation where women are subject to IVF techniques for which the safety hasn't been adequately tested in an ongoing way. One of the stated objectives of Bill C-47 is to protect the health and safety of Canadians in the use of assisted reproduction. I believe that taking paragraph 4(1)(k) out ofBill C-47 and instead requiring licensing with strict regulations for any facility that uses human zygotes is a better way to go. We don't want to prohibit research that would bring benefits to people as well as prohibit the kinds of research that should never ever be done.
The third point I want to touch on is in subclause 6(2), which says that expenses incurred in the collection, storage, and distribution of ova or sperm may be reimbursed, except to the donor.
.1550
Adoption is now no longer an option for many people, so donor insemination is one way for couples to have a family. It's not acceptable to all, but it is one possible option for people. We need a system where safe, tested sperm is available, with good record-keeping, and where the donor and the recipient choose to participate in an informed way.
Those men who are donating need to think through carefully how they'll feel about allowing their sperm to be used in this way. During the commission, we heard several men say they donated as students and that it was only later they realized the significance of it. We heard that their wives and their parents also had feelings about this.
If sperm donation is done not in an unthinking way but by men who have the support of their own families in making it possible for other couples to have a family, then it's a win-win situation.
The commission recommended a publicly supported, safe system with good record-keeping, and recommended, and I quote:
- Donors should be compensated only for their inconvenience and for the direct costs of
donation. Payment...should not be substantial enough to constitute an incentive to donate.
Also, why should all others in the sperm donor system be reimbursed and not donors? The potential for profit is much greater for sperm banks. Each sperm donation that is given produces eight to ten straws, which are sold to practitioners by sperm banks for about $125 each. That's over $1,000 for each sample of sperm given. I think it's clear that sperm banks can potentially make far more profit than it costs to test, freeze, and transport sperm and maintain adequate records.
I want to say that I strongly agree with the goal of making a change to a non-profit system. I understand a transition phase is planned, so perhaps this has been taken care of, but I wanted to draw this issue to your attention because I don't think you want to stop sperm donation.
To summarize and conclude, my comments are made in the context of me being supportive of most of the bill.
There are three specific topics where I believe the issue would be better dealt with by taking it out of the bill and requiring licensing and regulation. I think overall it is clear that Canadians want to see the rest of the things that are dealt with in the bill prohibited.
I would like to finish by giving my strong support to most of the bill. We need limits on reproductive technology use in Canada, and I think it's the responsibility of our government to protect the public interest.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Baird.
Because of the time allocated here, I'll go right to Pauline for questioning.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, B.Q.): Good afternoon, Ms Baird. A number of witnesses have stated that reproductive and genetic technologies should not be in the same bill. They also have mentioned that apart from prenatal genetics, genetic technologies and the new reproductive technologies are usually applied in different contexts by different practicians. Do you agree with that type of distinction?
.1555
[English]
Dr. Baird: I think there are many uses of genetic technology that may be of benefit, if done appropriately in a regulated and accountable fashion. Genetic alteration of a zygote that is to be implanted into a woman is not defensible. The harm that could come from that is very large, and there is no immediate benefit that is foreseeable.
There are other ways in which people can have a family that is healthy without having to resort to tinkering with the genetic structure of a zygote and then implanting it in a woman. That child develops, and the woman and family into which the child is born really don't know what they're getting into. We also don't know, as a society, what we're getting into. I'm supportive of that provision of the bill.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: I understand that you would not be in favour of a separate bill that would apply to the new reproductive technologies and of passing another one for assisted reproduction. Some witnesses have stated that if we prohibit some genetic technologies, the bill will completely forbid the use of some technologies which are used for assisted reproduction. We are told that we should not mix those two aspects. Do you think there should be a special regulation for assisted reproduction technologies and another one for genetic technologies.
[English]
Dr. Baird: I think it's appropriate to have this particular section in the bill. There is a need for accountability and a need for regulation in how we use both techniques of assisted reproduction and techniques of genetics, as applied to human beings. The commission recommended that we have a regulatory body with a subcommittee to deal with five areas, and one of the areas we suggested was prenatal diagnosis. But prenatal diagnosis is a different topic from genetically altering a zygote and implanting it, and that is something we should not be doing research on in Canada.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Madam Picard.
Mrs. Parrish, do you have any questions?
Mrs. Caroline Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): No. I just want to thank Ms Baird very much for her participation and her many years of work with the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. I am pleased to hear that she is pleased with the majority of the report, and we will consider the suggestions she has made today very seriously. I thank you very much.
Dr. Baird: I'll be glad to send my comments by fax later this afternoon if it will help.
The Chair: Perfect. Thank you.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Ms Baird, you recommended that the committee consider replacing the outright prohibition, in the sections you referred to, with a somewhat more flexible regulatory framework. What body would conduct this supervision and regulation, if this were to be done? On what existing body would you confer the responsibility of making these decisions?
Dr. Baird: We recommended that there be a regulatory body consisting of 12 people, half of them women. We also recommended that they build on the guidelines and on the work that has already been done by the medical profession in many ways. The medical profession has a fair number of standards and suggestions about guidelines, but that certainly isn't sufficient. We need a much broader input into how we use these techniques of genetics and assisted reproduction.
For example, with regard to genetics, we said it should be a requisite that the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists accredit a facility as a prerequisite to applying for a licence from the regulatory body, so the regulatory body could address some of the ethical, social, and economic aspects that a self-regulating medical body cannot.
.1600
In terms of the reproductive technologies, there are medical professional bodies that can be helpful in terms of the technical aspects. But in terms of the licensing of facilities, you need more than the technical aspects considered and assessed; you need some of the social and ethical aspects, so you need a broader representation of people making those judgments about facilities.
Does that answer your question? The sound is not very good, so it wasn't very clear coming through.
Mr. Bill Graham: Maybe it was because I hadn't clearly thought it through before I presented it. Maybe it's not the sound's fault and it's just my articulation that's the problem.
I take it from your answer that in your view there is no body presently in existence that could do this. A new body would have to be constituted to carry out these functions.
Dr. Baird: I would say yes, partly because what we need, as well as a body to license and regulate, is a focus for ongoing discussion, so the public can have input into how we continue to adjust policies and make policies as the field changes.
This is a field that changes from month to month. You had the example in the last month of cloning. And that's not going to be the last thing; there will be more and more. So we need a body that is more broadly representative to take wide social aspects into consideration, as well as the strictly medical.
Mr. Bill Graham: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Graham.
Ms Baird, I have one question before we let you go, in relation to the gamete donations. You mentioned that compensation should be available for the inconveniences experienced by the donor. Can you explain that a bit further for us, please?
Dr. Baird: People have to come back several times. They have to have blood samples taken. They have to give the sperm samples. They have to have a physical examination. All of those things are really a hassle and a bother. They shouldn't also have to pay for their own parking, or for transportation if they don't have their own cars, and maybe they should get mileage. We actually said that anything over $75 was getting to the point where it could be viewed as a financial inducement, but we thought reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses would not act as a financial inducement.
Probably just as important as that aspect is that all men who are considering sperm donation should have counselling. They should think about what this entails. It's not a trivial act that should be done on a spree with a bunch of your fellow students after having a beer. It's a serious act resulting in children, and the children themselves who result from this would feel much differently if sperm donation were an act of altruism, and a considered act of altruism.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I think Madam Picard has one more question.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: I have a last question, Ms Baird, about section 5 which deals with surrogate mothers. The witnesses we have heard, especially the women and the Infertility Awareness Association of Canada, have submitted a number of comments about that clause, saying that applying criminal law to surrogate mothers would have a detrimental effect on women. Do you agree with that statement?
[English]
Dr. Baird: I think it's more harmful to women to continue to allow it and, by allowing it, to implicitly approve surrogate parenting for money. The harm to women by not controlling it is far greater.
.1605
The women who are going to be doing this, who are undertaking pregnancies because they are being reimbursed, are not the well-off wives of clinic directors. They are women who are disadvantaged because they are poor, by and large. When we at the commission looked at the evidence of who does surrogate motherhood and who commissions it...there's a very wide disparity. The people who commission it are well off, well educated, and the women who actually do it are less well educated and much less well off. They are often in need. I think the potential for the exploitation of women is so blatant and so clear in commercial surrogacy that we would harm women much more by not addressing it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Thank you very much. I commend you for the excellent work your doing, Ms Baird.
[English]
Dr. Baird: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Baird, for being with us today. I apologize for any inconvenience we may have caused you by changing the date and the time this week. We have a lot of things to get done, and this is one committee and one bill we would like to get through the House. Your being available to us will help us do that. So thank you very much, and have a great day.
Dr. Baird: Thank you very much.
The Chair: We will take a short break while we change witnesses.
.1606
.1628
The Chair: Dr. Martin, welcome to the committee. Because of the time, I would like you to start your presentation as soon as you are ready.
Dr. Sheilah Martin (Chair, Advisory Committee on the Interim Moratorium on New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies): I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you. As you read from our brief, I'm doing so on behalf of the Advisory Committee on the Interim Moratorium on New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies, a representative organization that was put together under the auspices of Health Canada and reporting to the deputy minister on the interim moratorium. We met many times and discussed the issues that are addressed in Bill C-47, and I would like to amplify and perhaps answer your questions on the position we've taken.
In my introductory remarks I will let the brief speak for itself about the range of issues, but I would like to draw two matters to your attention. The first matter I would like to stress with this subcommittee is that we fully support the need for a criminal law in this area. There has been much discussion, as I am following in the media and understand from reports I've had about the conduct of your subcommittee, about the requirements at this stage for a bill that begins with prohibitions. Our advisory committee probably would have liked to have seen a full package of both prohibitions and regulations at the same time. That would have been ideal or optimal. But given that the government decided to split the bill for what we believe are legitimate reasons, we nevertheless support the prohibitions package, with the understanding and expectation that it will be followed with a proper regulatory regime supporting it.
.1630
When we started to think about the prohibitions, I think the members of our committee were all convinced there was a pressing and substantial need to regulate in these areas and in this way. Understanding that the criminal law is intended to be a power of last resort, we nevertheless felt, not just from our own perspective and given the communities we have access to but from reviewing the findings of the royal commission, that there was sufficient justification and that the idea that regulations would be sufficient was not a convincing or adequate explanation. We understand there are certain practices that ought to be prohibited - that is, not allowed under any terms or conditions - and ought not be subject to the type of licensing or permissive regime attendant in regulations.
The second point is something we mention just by way of an aside in our brief. We would like to see an amendment made to both the preamble and the objects clause of this bill to reflect the fact that the prohibitions are also done in the name of the equality interests of women and children. We think this is an important amendment and one that might help sustain these prohibitions in the face of any constitutional challenge. We believe they are important statements of Canadian values that may help the public understand the nature of these bills.
To be more precise here, the royal commission had as part of its mandate, as I'm sure you are very clear on, the protection of the equality rights of women and children as an express part of the mandate. We would like to see that carried forward in this bill.
We are also familiar with the approach in constitutional law, where if there is an infringement of an individual right or freedom here in terms of reproductive practice or research or any of the other categories that may be caught here, those kinds of infringements can be justified in a free and democratic society. One of the ways that can be done is to show there is a pressing and substantial equality interest that is served by this type of prohibition. So we see that amendments in the name of equality would help insulate these kinds of bills from attack.
It would also do it in a way that takes the focus away from individual rights, what individual people want by way of freedoms or the like, and refocus the debate on matters relating to equality rights, which are group rights, and that might help give a justification for why it is that individuals should not be permitted to act in particular ways when they want to act that way. So the committee is unanimous on that in terms of bringing to your attention the fact that we think there's an omission in this bill and it would help this bill in terms of constitutional law and in educating those who will be subject to the bill, which of course would be all Canadians, on why it is appropriate to curtail individual freedom in these circumstances.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Martin.
Madam Picard.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Good afternoon, Ms Martin.
.1635
The representatives of the Canadian Medical Association have told us that this bill was a dangerous precedent for the criminalization of medical and scientific procedures and that we should treat differently human reproduction techniques and human genetics. What do you think about that?
[English]
Dr. Martin: I disagree with it. I believe there is a proper place for criminal law and tight prohibitions in this area. They are seen as the method of last resort. The interim moratorium, I believe, has shown that people will not give up certain practices voluntarily and that laws are needed in this instance, and not laws that allow the practices but laws that say that because we don't know the consequences of certain activities we can prohibit those activities.
If we want an analogy, it is like environmental protection legislation, perhaps, where we stop certain harms from happening because we don't know exactly what harms there will be, and in that state of uncertainty there is a role for prohibitions to play. That it is dangerous to criminalize is a common complaint against any criminal law, but we have seen, I think in a happier way, that criminal law power has been used to protect the health and safety of many different kinds of Canadians across many different kinds of issues.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Ms Martin, some witnesses told us that this bill was mixing apples with oranges. If some procedures which are part of genetics are criminalized and if we don't make any distinction between those two, if we don't present a bill to regulate the procedures of assisted reproduction and another one for genetic technology, we could limit some in vitro fecundation technologies. What do you think of those comments?
[English]
Dr. Martin: Perhaps a scientist is in the best position to give you the scientific answer, but my answer there would be that there will be things by way of research that will be stopped underBill C-47, and I think that is appropriate, given what we know now. I draw to your attention the prohibition against germ line research, which is a very strict prohibition in the sense that it relates to research rather than even applied research. Nevertheless, the committee believed this was appropriate because of the intense hazards of unregulated, unprohibited activity.
I think the medical community is making an assumption I disagree with. They are saying there are only certain ways in which knowledge can be obtained. I think that is not necessarily the case. There are alternative ways these kinds of things can be brought to bear.
We must also ask the question whether or not these promises of some future gain are real promises. We know the threats they pose are real. Any smart person can come up with a hypothetical that creates the ability to have a gain at some time in the future. If at some time in the future someone wants to present that case in a real way, then they will be able to do so.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Thank you very much, Ms Martin.
Mrs. Martin: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Martin, for being with us today and taking the time out.
.1639
.1646
The Chair: We can get started again. I would ask Health Canada representatives if they have any comments for us before we proceed.
Ms Phyllis Colvin (Acting Director, Health Policy and Information Directorate, Policy and Consultant Branch, Department of Health): We don't have a formal presentation. Perhaps you would like to address some questions to us in light of the various witnesses you have heard.
The Chair: Are there any questions from my colleagues?
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Not necessarily, but are we going to start the clause-by-clause? Are they here for the clause-by-clause?
[English]
The Chair: There are no comments from Health Canada.
Do you have a question? After that we can start clause-by-clause.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: May I suggest something? You will understand that I haven't received the amendments and it is very difficult for me to proceed with the clause-by-clause. We have been studying this bill for the last three months and I am presented now with amendments and expected to make an honest judgment on clauses I have not been able to study. I feel its a very awkward way to proceed. I have dedicated a lot of time to that subject. I think its a bill that cannot be passed this way.
But I have a suggestion to make because we don't have to much time and we have wanted this bill to pass for a long time. I feel a bit frustrated but on the other hand, I know that elections are coming and I would be surprised if the bill received the royal assent. Therefore, why don't we do it go as fast as we can? We will probably have to come back to this question if I am elected next year. Lets go to the clause-by-clause but each clause will be adopted on division. I won't have any question to ask about that.
Anyhow, I am by myself; you won't have a very strong opposition.
[English]
The Chair: You're big enough.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: I know but I really think all members of the committee should appreciate my position. How can I make a thoughtful vote on clauses which deal with very technical aspects? I am telling you what I think and I am being honest. When I make a decision, when I vote, I have to have studied the subject before. To speed things up, I am ready to start the clause-by-clause. And I just want to inform you that every clause will be carried on division.
[English]
The Chair: Maybe you can present questions to me or Health Canada as we go through clause-by-clause, and Health Canada can explain any technical errors. Does that suffice?
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Perfect.
Mrs. Parrish, do you have a question?
.1650
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: No, I think I'll wait until we get to the section, then. If Health Canada is going to sit at the table and explain the amendments, I too, as a member of the government, have one or two amendments I'd like explanations on.
Since we've all cooperated so well at this committee - Madame Picard has been extremely onside - I think we could probably do it in a very friendly fashion. I would like Health Canada to do the rebuttals instead of me, because they handed me this binder ten minutes ago. So this is making me very comfortable. I like this plan.
The Chair: We're a good team.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: We're excellent. We should solve all the problems of the government.
The Chair: Mr. Graham, did you want to ask a question?
Mr. Bill Graham: No, I think I'll stay out of this one.
The Chair: Are you feeling outnumbered, Mr. Graham?
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to on division
On clause 4 - Prohibited procedures
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Madam, I have some amendments to clause 4. If we could go through and make all of the amendments and then pass each subclause.... Is that how you want to do it?
In paragraph 4(1)(a), line 29 of the English version, instead of ``manipulate an ovum'', we are going to change ``an ovum'' to ``a human cell''.
[Translation]
In the French version, un ovule would be replaced by une cellule humaine.
[English]
Madame Picard is free to laugh at my French.
Going further, in paragraph 4(1)(f), line 10, we are going to replace the word ``cadaver'' with ``corpse''. No change is required in the French version.
Again, under paragraph 4(1)(g), line 17, we are going to change ``cadaver'' to ``corpse''. No change is required in the French.
Under paragraph 4(1)(h), we are going to change the first word on line 24 from ``use'' to ``perform'' in the English. No change is required in the French.
Also, in paragraph 4(1)(i), on line 30 we are going to change ``use'' to ``perform''. No change is required in the French.
In paragraph 4(1)(j), on line 34 -
The Chair: Mrs. Parrish, would you hold for one moment. Health Canada wants to -
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: They're going to change the changes.
Ms Susan Zimmerman (Legal Counsel, Department of Health): I believe there may be a change to the French as well for paragraph 4(1)(i).
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Oh, right. I'm sorry. I'm out of sync.
Paragraph 4(1)(i) will read pratiquer une procédure, instead of utiliser un test.
Under paragraph 4(1)(j), on line 34, instead of ``maintain an embryo'', we're going to insert ``maintain a developing embryo''.
[Translation]
In French, the subparagraph 4(1)(j) will read conserver un embryon en développement à l'extérieur du corps humain.
[English]
I believe those are all the changes in clause 4.
Ms Zimmerman: Perhaps a change to subclause 4(2).
.1655
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish:
- No person shall offer to do anything prohibited by subsection (1).
Ms Zimmerman: No.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Those are now, I think, all the changes to clause 4.
Amendments agreed to on division
Clause 4 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 5 - Payment of surrogate mothers
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Madam Chair, I've just been informed I only have to read the English. The French will follow logically and magically without my having to butcher it. So we're going to do this a little more quickly.
I have amendments to clause 5, Madam Chair. Under subclause (1), instead of ``No person shall give'', we're going to change the word ``give'' to ``provide''; ``provide consideration to a woman''. Instead of ``to act as a surrogate mother'', we're going to insert the word ``serve''; ``serve as a surrogate mother''. And there's an addition -
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: If nobody wants to ask questions on your amendments, you don't have to read them. We can vote on them right away.
[English]
The Chair: Then you will let us know if there are questions and we will -
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Madam Picard has the amendments in front of her. Therefore I don't even have to read them.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Yes, that's it.
[English]
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: That's even better.
The Chair: I might even get to teach you Newfoundlandese by the time the day is out.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Then we have the amendments before us on clause 5.
Amendments agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 5 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
On clause 6 - Purchase and sale
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: There are amendments.
The Chair: Are there any questions, Madam, on clause 6? No.
Amendments agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 6 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clauses 7 to 10 inclusive agreed to on division
On clause 11 - Consent of Attorney General
The Chair: There is an amendment.
.1700
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 11 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 12 to 14 inclusive agreed to on division
On clause 1 - Short Title
The Chair: There is an amendment.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 1 as amended agreed to on division
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: On division.
[English]
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: On division.
[English]
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: On division.
[English]
The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: On division.
[English]
The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: On division.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you all very much. This meeting stands adjourned to the call of the chair.