Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Issue 45 - Evidence

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill S-12, to amend the Statistics Act and the National Archives of Canada Act (census records), met this day at 11:05 a.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill; and to consider the draft report on Bill S-21, to guarantee the human right to privacy; and to consider the draft report on the developments since Royal Assent was given during the Second Session of the Thirty-sixth Parliament to Bill C-67, to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act.

Senator Marjory LeBreton (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, we will begin with our agenda for today. We have Bill S-12, a report on the subject matter of Bill S-21, and a report on Bill C-6. We will start, honourable senators, with Bill S-12. I note that Senator Milne is here with us today.

Senator Milne: I am inadvertently a member of the committee.

The Deputy Chairman: I will follow the proper order here. It is my understanding there was general agreement among committee members to dispense with a clause-by-clause examination. I would therefore require a motion to dispense with the clause-by-clause examination. It is moved by Senator Cook, seconded by Senator Cordy. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chairman: Carried. Unless someone wishes to propose amendments, I now need a motion dealing with the bill in its entirety. I will require a mover for this as well. It is moved by Senator Cordy, seconded by Senator Morin. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt this motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chairman: Carried. I will put for the record "on division" on behalf of one of my colleagues, one of the permanent members of the committee, who had requested that, if that is legal.

I understand committee members would now like to discuss the attached observations to the committee's report on this bill. Does everyone have the draft observations that were circulated?

Senator Milne: I would like to make some factual corrections to this report. Sault Ste. Marie is usually spelled with an "E" in the "Ste." I believe in the last paragraph on this first page, it shows 92 years and it is actually 91 years.

The Deputy Chairman: All right. Senator Kirby had submitted his comments. On the third paragraph of the first page, the paragraph beginning, "Those in support..." Senator Kirby recommends the following changes. The last sentence in the paragraph starts with, "It was suggested..." On the original, it was a very short sentence, suggested that the insurance industry, et cetera.

His recommendation is: "It was suggested by one witness that the insurance industry could use such information for making decisions regarding coverage." This is an addition: "However, it was also pointed out that several serious but preventable conditions are also genetic in nature and that an accurate family tree can predict these conditions and allow for their early treatment or even prevention." He wanted to add that sentence.

Senator Callbeck: Would you read it again?

The Deputy Chairman: "It was suggested by one witness" - he wanted that clarified, because there was one witness - "that the insurance industry could use such information for making decisions regarding coverage. However, it was also pointed out that several serious but preventable conditions are also genetic in nature and that an accurate family tree can predict these conditions and allow for their early treatment or even prevention."

Senator Milne had some views on that. That was the question about having genetic information used against you.

Senator Cook: Should "genetic" be in a different spot than where it is?

Senator Milne: That, to me, seems to be factual.

The Deputy Chairman: It did reflect the witness.

Senator Cordy: That seems to give it a more balanced viewpoint.

Senator Cook: Is he referring to illnesses or conditions?

Senator Milne: Genetic conditions, they are not necessarily illnesses.

Senator Cook: It says, "preventable conditions are also genetic in nature." I think that "genetic" should be before "condition."

Senator Milne: You are right, "genetic in nature."

Senator Cook: Preventable conditions that are... Something is loose here.

Senator Callbeck: What something?

Senator Cook: "However, it was pointed out that several serious but preventable conditions are also genetic in nature." There is something here. "That accurate family tree can predict these conditions and allow for their early treatment."

Senator Milne: "Several serious but preventable conditions are also genetic in nature, and several conditions are genetic in nature, and an accurate family tree..." You can take that out over here if you want.

Senator Cook: I do not know what the conditions are until I get over here.

Senator Cook: That needs to go in there somewhere.

The Deputy Chairman: Senator Cook, if you could suggest the wording, because I cannot put myself ahead of Senator Kirby.

This sentence was lifted off of testimony.

Senator Milne: This is the statement as it stands.

The Deputy Chairman: I did not have a problem with it.

Senator Cook: I have to read the entire sentence to find out what the condition was.

The Deputy Chairman: Senator Kirby, as Senator Milne noted, corrected it to 91 years. He took the word "their" out on the second page, first paragraph, "while their access..." should be "while access would be unrestricted..." You do not need "their" or "they."

Are there any other comments on Senator Kirby's recommendations?

Senator Murray, who as you know has taken a great interest in this legislation, felt that we should describe this as all personal census data in the preamble to be more definitive about which data is addressed.

Senator Milne: That was mentioned.

Senator Callbeck: Where do you put that in? Where in the preamble?

The Deputy Chairman: It was in the first paragraph. "The proposed amendments would mandate the transfer of census records..." Senator Murray thought that should be more clearly defined "as all personal census data or records..."

Senator Milne: It is a personal census. I think that is how it is defined.

The Deputy Chairman: Because of Statistics Canada's comments, he felt that there was some confusion because Statistics Canada also collects a lot of data that is more generic.

Senator Milne: They do call it "census."

The Deputy Chairman: That was something he thought that we should clarify. You are right though.

Senator Milne: Where should it go?

The Deputy Chairman: Put in the first sentence, "The proposed amendments would mandate the transfer of all personal census data..." rather than "census records."

Senator Callbeck: It is in the first paragraph, second sentence.

The Deputy Chairman: Instead of "census records," Senator Murray thought that it would be much clearer if it read "all personal census data."

Senator Cook: Data, records, same thing.

The Deputy Chairman: I do not think we have to worry about that. It is the word "personal" that should be added to clarify what is personal information on individuals.

[Translation]

Senator Pépin: Should we verify the French translation?

Senator Morin: I do not have the French translation with me, only the English. We will look it over. We have some experts here with us, specifically the people doing the simultaneous translation for us right now.

[English]

The Deputy Chairman: Were they not? Do any honourable senators have any comments?

Senator Murray mentioned two other things. We had a discussion in the committee previously about not quoting directly from the Privacy Commissioner or the witness from Statistics Canada. He felt that we were not direct enough in stating in our observations that both the Privacy Commissioner and Stats Canada opposed the bill.

Senator Milne: If you say that, you should also say that the National Archivist and the Access to Information Commissioner approved the bill.

The Deputy Chairman: That is a fair comment.

Senator Cook: It is fine as it is. We could say, "notwithstanding the compulsory provisions of the Statistics Act."

The Deputy Chairman: I must say I agreed that it was a little bland. We had the witnesses. I agree with Senator Milne that in fairness we should also reflect the testimony of the two others. However, we should put it on the record.

Senator Cook: Are you in the third paragraph?

The Deputy Chairman: I was not talking about any particular paragraph.

Senator Cook: The third paragraph talks about the compulsory provisions of the Statistics Act.

The Deputy Chairman: However, Senator Murray felt that we should make a more direct reference to the testimony of the Privacy Commissioner and the witness from Statistics Canada, but as Senator Milne pointed out that we should also include National Archivist and the Access to Information Commissioner.

Senator Milne: I would just as soon not have any of them in, as it stands.

The Deputy Chairman: These are just suggestions I am putting on the table.

Senator Cordy: We generalized in other observations. It would have to be everyone. What happens to the other witnesses who appeared?

Senator Cook: We are opening up something that does not need to be opened.

Senator Roche: I support Senator Cordy; I think it is better to leave it in general terms.

The Deputy Chairman: Are all honourable senators in agreement?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chairman: Would you agree, even though it is self evident, that the words "all personal census records" could be put in there? It clarifies that which we reference. We are talking about peoples' personal records. Are all honourable senators agreed? It is more for the public.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chairman: Just before I came in to the meeting I was given some comments from Senator Robertson. I will have to read them for the record. These are her questions:

I think it should be raised with Senator Kirby and the Social Affairs Committee. Though supporting the bill, in effect, are they saying that they can answer the following questions: When and under what conditions can a government legitimately be released from a promise?

That is her first question. Her second question is: What is the proper balance between privacy and knowing ourselves?

Those are her questions.

Senator Cordy: That goes along with, are we not presenting the bill on division? I think those questions can be raised later.

The Deputy Chairman: That is a good suggestion. She can ask them herself when the bill is brought forward in the Senate.

Senator Cordy: The bill is being brought forward on division; is that correct?

The Deputy Chairman: Yes, it is.

Senator Cordy: That is a reason why it would be brought forward on division, in my opinion. I am less knowledgeable than others here.

Senator Cook: I can identify with the first question. I am out of the loop on the second question.

The Deputy Chairman: I read that as: Are there some things that we ourselves really do not know?

Senator Cook: It is an individual's response to a moral question or whatever.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any other amendments, suggested changes or comments on the observations?

Seeing none, then I will need a motion to adopt the observations with the changes that we had.

It is moved by Senator Callbeck and seconded by Senator Morin.

Shall I report the bill without amendment but with observations to the Senate, on division?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried. That dispenses with Bill S-12.

Now we will consider the draft report - this is not a bill - on the subject matter of Bill S-21, which is Senator Finestone's bill, an act to guarantee the human right to privacy.

The committee was asked to consider the subject matter of Bill S-21 as a result of a number of questions that were raised in the Senate. I will list the questions that were asked: Clarification of the definition of privacy, along with an assessment of whether privacy is a fundamental right; an evaluation of the existing federal legislative infrastructure regarding the protection of privacy, such as sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Privacy Act, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, formerly Bill C-6 of the last session of Parliament; the interaction between the right to privacy and the Criminal Code and the burden of proof, and the role of the federal Privacy Commission.

The committee held one session with witnesses to discuss questions and a report was drafted, as you have before you. That includes the summary of this session and the committee's observations.

Does everyone have a copy of the report?

Are there any changes, observations or comments you would like to make on the draft report?

I have a few very minor ones that Senator Kirby asked me to raise with you. I will proceed with those.

On the "Observations," page 4, the second sentence reads, "The Committee's observations are founded on the premise that privacy is a fundamental human right." Senator Kirby believes we should remove the word "fundamental" and make a direct statement that it is a human right, period.

Four lines down from that, the sentence begins: "We completely support..." Change that to: "We completely understand the idea of legislating a statement of privacy principles..." It is stronger language.

In the last sentence of the same paragraph, take the word "fundamental" out again: "safeguarding human rights..." That is a stronger, more direct statement.

In the next paragraph, the second sentence reads, "It has been called a personal right of freedom, in that one may not realize its importance until it is taken away."

Senator Kirby recommends that that whole sentence be removed. He felt that it was a sentence that did not make any sense in the context of the report.

Those were his recommended changes. Are there any comments?

Senator Roche: Are we reporting this out today in order that the Bill bould then get second reading then come to committee and be passed before Senator Finestone leaves? Is that the object of this exercise?

Senator Milne: I was just going to follow through on what Senator Cook mentioned to me with regard to that second last paragraph on page 4.

The Deputy Chairman: We were going to address that.

No, that was not my understanding at all. It was just that we as a committee were mandated to answer the questions on the bill. We have not got the bill before us, so it would go back to the Senate and the bill would eventually come back to us.

Senator Roche: Why are we doing a pre-study on it?

The Deputy Chairman: I read that into the record at the beginning. We were asked by the Senate to clarify some things about the legislation.

Senator Milne: For interest, I have just been handed a note from my lawyer assistant, who has pointed out that this whole thing is quite interesting. I am wearing my Legal and Constitutional Affairs hat now. If the question of whether privacy is a right ever got to Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, it would probably be dead in the water. There is no conception of privacy in the Canadian-British legal system.

The Deputy Chairman: You can deal with the bill when it goes to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Based on what we were asked to do in responding during second reading in the Senate, we produced this report.

Senator Keon: I was going to say, Madam Chair, "Here comes another bill."

The Deputy Chairman: Do any honourable senators have any comments?

Senator Milne: I was going to comment on that other word. In that same paragraph, the second last one on page 4, the wording is little awkward when you say, "...to what extent they wish to expose themselves..." I would suggest saying, "expose their lives," or something else, rather than "themselves."

The Deputy Chairman: Has any honourable senator a better word that we could put in?

Senator Finestone, have you a comment on that particular change of wording? It has been described as "...the desire of people to choose freely under what circumstances and to what extent they want to expose themselves..." and perhaps we could change that to "expose their lives, their attitudes and their behaviour."

Senator Finestone: That is cute.

Senator Milne: I do not think that is the note you want to go out on, Senator Finestone.

Senator Finestone: It is really to open up their lives.

The Deputy Chairman: "Lives" is better than "themselves."

Senator Cook: I would add "open" rather than "expose."

The Deputy Chairman: "Expose" is fine if you say "their lives."

Any other observations, comments?

Then I will need a motion to adopt the report as amended. Senator Pépin, Senator Callbeck seconding.

It is moved by Senator Pépin that the committee adopt its draft report on the subject matter of Bill S-21. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chairman: Carried.

Senator Finestone: I can hardly believe that from April to today we made it within the year 2001. I hope your committee will see fit to make some of the revisions and the changes, and that, eventually, Canadians will have some sense of a template against which privacy rights are examined and will know that if they are not, they can be adjusted, given the circumstance, as long as there is a proportionality in the circumstances.

The Deputy Chairman: I think we should go on record as a committee and as individual senators to thank you, Senator Finestone, because you have been a leading proponent of this in the Senate, the House of Commons and in your private life. You are to be congratulated.

We will now turn to our consideration of the draft report on Bill C-6, the follow-up study. As a matter of background, you will recall the committee sought an order of reference to follow the developments when Bill C-6 was given Royal Assent in December 1999.

The committee received a number of documents relevant to the study: a letter from the Privacy Commissioner, CIHR regulations, the statement of principles from the privacy working group made up of CMA, Canadian Medical Association, Canadian pharmacists and others.

A report has been drafted, including a summary of these documents and the committee's observations. I would like to know whether you have a copy of the report and if you have had a chance to study it, honourable senators.

Senator Cook: I have it, but I did not have a chance to study it.

Senator Morin: This is a very important report. This is one issue that is important for the health care delivery system. I might point out the three major issues are dealt with here.

Bill C-6 is now a law - it had Royal Assent - that deals with privacy of health material that is transmitted across provincial borders and of a commercial nature. At first, it was not realized that it might create impediments to proper activities relating to the health care delivery system, and there are three major issues that are related here in our report that should be well identified.

The first one is research. If this had not been changed and left as it was, it would have created an impediment to normal research, mainly of epidemiological nature. CIHR, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, were charged to look at it and they did their job well. In June 2000, they had a meeting of over 200 people in Toronto. All the stakeholders, Health Canada and others involved with the project were there. They came out with a number of recommendations that were approved by all the stakeholders. They put them on the web and conducted three additional meetings with investigators across the country in that field. They came up with a number of recommendations, and then they met with Senator Kirby. He recommended that they put these recommendations in the form of regulations for it to be within the proper legal format. That was done.

Those regulations were studied at the Governing Council of CIHR in Halifax two weeks ago. We have their recommendations, and they do reflect the view of the scientific community with the approval of those other players, such as Health Canada and so forth. That issue has been well treated. The work there is excellent, and it has been conducted over two years.

The same cannot be said of the other aspect. The other aspect deals with management, evaluation and quality assurance of the health care delivery system. Those who manage that system must rely on information to ensure that the health care system is dealing efficiently with such matters as the cost of prescriptions in private pharmacies, for example that would fall within the realm of the law. This is a commercial activity; we want to know what is the amount of a new drug that is prescribed in pharmacies throughout the country, so the cost goes across provincial boundaries, and whether it has increased or decreased over the last year. This is not research. This is important information that the managers must have to adequately control the health care delivery system.

It fell under the realm of a group of six, mentioned as the Privacy Working Group in our report. The chair of that group of six was the Executive Director of the Canadian Pharmacists Association. He is the fellow who writes the letters, Jeff Poston. CMA is part of the Privacy Working Group, as is the Canadian Health Care Association. There were nurses and other health professionals.

Unfortunately, we did not have the same success with this organization, and there is a problem with it. There is some finger pointing, which is unfortunate, and in their letter, which will be part of our report, the Canadian Medical Association made statements that I think are unfortunate. They said they regret to report that nothing substantive has occurred at the federal government level.

Fortunately, we have two letters, one from Minister Rock and one from the deputy minister prior to the last letter in October, in which they say, "We would appreciate if you could provide us with your concerns and level of specificity." They asked for a certain number of things that the group of six had not done. It is not easy for them; they were a disparate group.

We are now in a position where, with respect to research, the field is very well covered. However, as far as the management of the health care delivery system for those who manage the system, little is being done.

In addition, we have an extraordinarily generous letter from the Privacy Commissioner, which really settles the matter with respect to his own views on the subject. However, unfortunately, it settles the matter strictly for the research aspect. The letter from the commissioner deals only with research. Was he asked to deal only with that? Did he voluntarily not deal with the other? I am not denying the importance of the research portion, but it is not covered under our present situation.

However, we have a number of regulations, which you have in your material, that are suggested by CHR that are very well done. There is a letter from the Privacy Commissioner that is good but cannot be used as a permanent guideline for those involved in health care research for two reasons. First, the Privacy Commissioner might change and the next commissioner might have different views on this; and, second, it is difficult for researchers throughout the country to base their activity only on a letter. We recommend that the regulations should be put in place eventually. It is not urgent, but we recommend that in the report.

Nothing of that nature has occurred with respect to management of the health care delivery system, which is extremely important. We have repeated over and over in committee that we want the system to be efficient and to function efficiently. That information is the basis of that. We have repeated this. I do not think that you would solve this by finger pointing. Health Canada has said, "We are prepared to help, but you should point out where you need specific health improvements." This has not been done.

I think our report is excellent. I should like to make a few changes to it, however. The first two pages are perfect. Under "Observations and Recommendations," the first paragraph, the last sentence reads, "These discussions did not reach a definitive conclusion." I would like to add, "significant progress has been made." That deals with the CIHR work, which has been extensive and with a lot of consultation. In addition, the letter from the Privacy Commissioner is great step forward. We are lucky to have that. It helps us greatly.

The next two paragraphs mix up the two major issues I mentioned, namely, research and management. Unfortunately, the first paragraph mixes up both. The first paragraph under CIHR should deal strictly with research. The next paragraph should deal only with management evaluation quality. A sentence has been introduced under "Furthermore." I would take out "Furthermore." I will let senators find the sentence.

The Deputy Chairman: It is under "Observations and Recommendations" on page 3.

Senator Morin: Yes. It is on page 3, the first line. Let me repeat this. Under "Observations and Recommendations," the first paragraph states, "These discussions did not reach a definite conclusion." To that I would add, "significant progress has been made." We have two reasons to be very happy with the work done up to now. One is the letter from the Privacy Commissioner, which is more generous than expected; the other point is the work done by CIHR. The two points must be noted in our report.

I made a number of remarks about the second paragraph. There are two different substantive issues here. One deals with research; the other one deals with the management of the health care delivery system. The first paragraph deals with research, with CIHR. They state, with reason, that CIHR considered the two-year process, and so on. We have the regulations. Unfortunately, there is a sentence in this paragraph that does not deal with the research. It deals with the provision, management and evaluation of quality of health care services. This does not fall under the CIHR purview at all. They have nothing to do with that.

I would recommend that "...the committee recommends" be placed at the end of the next paragraph, which is deals with the Privacy Working Group. The Privacy Working Group is the group of six that I mentioned earlier, with the CMA, pharmacists, nurses, the health coalition, and so on. We would recommend that these people pursue their discussions.

The Deputy Chairman: That is the sentence starting with "Furthermore?"

Senator Morin: Yes. Remove the word "furthermore."

The Deputy Chairman: It then states, "the committee recommends" and it goes right down to the end of the paragraph.

Senator Morin: I would put it after, "...should be resolved between members of the group and the Privacy Commissioner." I would add "the committee" That is the recommendation.

The Deputy Chairman: Perfect.

Senator Morin: Having said that, we need a correction at the last sentence of the second paragraph: "The committee is confident that these regulations..." which I have mentioned, "...will receive their fullest and fairest concentrations in the relevant forum." I do not think further discussions are necessary because they have been discussed to death already.

Senator Milne: That sentence would remain in the paragraph where it presently is, then?

Senator Morin: Absolutely. The relevant forum should eventually be incorporated.

Under the next paragraph, I mentioned these accusations of the group of six toward Health Canada. For those honourable senators who read the letters of the deputy minister and of the minister, under "Appendix 3" do we have letters from both the minister and the deputy minister?

The Deputy Chairman: Yes.

Senator Morin: That is a fact. The last sentence is perfect. The government made it clear.

Finally, the last paragraph of page 4 should be made clearer without changing the sense. The second last sentence should read, "However, the Committee is of the view that regulations such as those proposed by CIHR..." There are no other regulations. That refers us to the first paragraph.

The Deputy Chairman: That is better.

Senator Morin: Having said that, this is a complex issue. The report has been well written because there are so many issues here. The report is very clear. It is just a matter of putting the sentences in place.

The Chairman: Any other comments?

Senator Keon: There is tremendous demand for this document out in the trenches. Is this now a public document? I am talking about the document dated November 30, 2001.

Senator Morin: the governing council of CIHR in Halifax approved it two weeks ago. As such, it is on the Web site of CIHR. It is public.

Senator Milne: If it has been tabled in this committee, then it is public.

Senator Callbeck: On page 4, under Appendix 3, you mention two letters.

Senator Morin: Yes, I have them here.

The Deputy Chairman: They are to the minister and the deputy minister?

Senator Morin: No, one is to the Privacy Commissioner and the other one is to the CMA.

The Deputy Chairman: The committee members have them because they were attached to the package with Mr. Radwanski's letter.

Senator Finestone: I participated as part of this committee on Bill C-6. I recall very well the difficulty we had with the health and commercial aspects of that personal information. What is the impact of the Privacy Commissioner's letter? With this become another annex to the bill?

The Deputy Chairman: Will it be annexed to the report?

Senator Finestone: The Personal Information Act has two parts, a general philosophy and then a set of standards by the standards council governing the privacy-related conduct of commercial business. What happens with this report? Will it become part of Bill C-6? Will there be a new bill? How does it work?

The Deputy Chairman: No, it does not become part of Bill C-6. When you look at our recommendation as we close off this report, the intent was not to alter Bill C-6. Bill C-6 has been passed and given Royal Assent. However, when Bill C-6 passed, there was a desire to monitor. Correct me if I am wrong, but we are, as a committee, following up on our undertaking when Bill C-6 was passed two years ago. I think Senator Morin has properly stated the matter. We will continue our interest in monitoring this but we are not in any way altering Bill C-6.

Senator Finestone: I did not think of it as "alter." I was wondering if this would be registered or gazetted as part of regulations or as an addendum? Perhaps the committee can look at how best to apply the good work that has been done by the CHIR. The oversight that was necessary shall be undertaken given the series of regulations based on the law.

The Deputy Chairman: That is a good point. We are simply reporting back to the Senate. You are asking, "but where does it go from there?"

Senator Finestone: This is essentially an Industry Canada bill. We passed it in the Senate with reservations. Now we have a good piece of work that has been done to move forward in the health sector. It cannot just stay as a report to the Senate. It must have some follow-up. I hope the committee will follow this to ensure that sector feels comfortable that they are acting within the law.

Senator Callbeck: We have in the reports the committee's intention to actively monitor the discussions as well as to broach solutions. How are we planning to do that?

Senator Cook: Did we not appoint the bill with the health piece?

The Deputy Chairman: We have so much on our plates, but we could seek another reference in the Senate if at some point we felt that the spirit of our work has not been followed or if people are coming forward and telling us that our good intentions in this report are not being adhered to. We could seek another reference and bring it all back again.

Senator Morin: I had the chance to discuss this with Senator Kirby. In the last paragraph of the report, Senator Kirby mentions electronic health records. I think it was his intention to have the CMA, the group of six, reappear before the committee. On this aspect of the management of health care, there were two issues outstanding.

With respect to the CIHR regulations, the objective is to have Industry Canada incorporate them as regulations. This would be outside the committee's responsibility, unless we recommend that.

Concerning the further work of the committee, Senator Kirby wanted us to pursue this work. The report mentions electronic health records. I know that several members of the committee, including Senator Keon, are extremely interested in that aspect of our work.

The Deputy Chairman: When you began your remarks, you mentioned the great interest in this and the proper separation of the research from the management. These are the operative words: "In light of the considerations, the committee is of the view that its further intervention is not warranted at the present time."

There is still the group of six and there is still the management side. Their work is not complete at the present time. That does not prevent the committee from seeking another reference at some future time if it feels that this has not been properly followed up. I will need a motion.

Senator Cook: For clarification, those regulations are not binding on the government. These can just go over to support why we did what we did a year ago, knowing that the bill was not coming into effect until a year later. We have now validated or reinforced, through this process, what we said a year ago.

The Deputy Chairman: That is right. We as a committee followed up on what we undertook to do.

Senator Cook: There is nothing binding here, which is what Senator Finestone said.

The Deputy Chairman: That is correct. I would need a motion to adopt the report as amended. We have certainly got all of Senator Morin's changes.

It is moved by Senator Pépin that the committee adopt its draft report. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chairman: Carried.

Senator Milne: May I come back to item 1 on the agenda because it has been niggling at the back of my mind? In the draft report, we put in the word "personal." The 1906 census is not a personal census. It is an agricultural census. It should be "personal and agricultural" in there. I do not know if that can be done at this stage.

The Deputy Chairman: On agreement of the committee, we could reopen that. Does everyone agree to that?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chairman: We can be sure then to cover exactly what that sentence intended.

The committee adjourned.