Health Committee on June 4th, 2007

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I understand that. However, take the example of pesticides. We let pesticides used elsewhere come into the country when it is prohibited to use them here. I do not know what Health Canada does in that situation, because there are no controls.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We'll allow a brief answer on that, as your time is gone.

Ms. Verdun.

[Emmy Verdun]

On ensuring that food coming into Canada is safe, whether it's related to residue levels on fruits and vegetables, or an issue of meeting Canadian standards, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency does the enforcement to ensure compliance. That is not part of SPP. It is a normal part of our business that's continuing.

Whether the products come from China, Mexico, or the United States, it's the same thing. We enforce our regulations. We ensure that food imported into Canada meets the same standards as domestic food in Canada. There's a whole program of compliance and enforcement directed towards that. It depends on the food and the risk associated with that. For example, with pesticides the standards are set by Health Canada on the PMRA and we enforce it at the border.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

This has been a bit of an awkward meeting because we're talking about the security and prosperity partnership on health issues coming into the country and how that relates particularly to the United States, as well as Bill C-42. That's why you're here speaking on both of them.

We have one more questioner on Bill C-42 that we want to move to and get that answer and any answer related to that, prior to shutting it down and going to clause-by-clause on Bill C-42.

Ms. Kadis, go ahead.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Chair, thank you. I think this will help us in our work following this.

Dr. Butler-Jones, you mentioned that you were aware of the concerns the committee had regarding deletion of land conveyances from Bill C-42. I understand there's an amendment coming forward that will deal with that and essentially put it back in. I just want to clarify that with you, because I think you have been involved in this process significantly. I think it's now going to say “conveyances”, or something along those lines. Will that include land conveyances and all the conveyances that were in the original Bill C-12?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

There are two basic elements. One is to put land conveyances back in—it's a small wording thing—and the other is to affirm the normal right to due diligence, so it's clear that's actually in the act, that the requirement on the operator is due diligence in reporting. Those are the two small things.

I'm not sure, in terms of process....

Monsieur le président, it's up to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

The process—just for the committee—is that they'll be introduced as amendments to the act as we go into clause-by-clause, but I think you were all notified of it.

But your question is, does it actually comply with all of the conveyances?

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Yes, does it specify the word “inclusive”—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

That's a good question.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

—or including “land conveyances”, or does it just say “conveyances”, per se. Are you aware of that?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

Sorry, I don't have the exact wording in front of me.

Jane Allain is our legal counsel, and she has the wording in her head.

[Jane Allain, General Counsel, Legal Services, Public Health Agency of Canada]

Thank you.

The amendment would essentially go back to the term “conveyance” as used in the act; and “conveyance” includes all modes of transportation, whether aviation, marine, or land. So it brings you back to the main definition.

It is also restricted, though, to conveyances in the business of carrying goods or people. So the rest of the definition would be maintained, but we're taking out air and marine and referring generally to conveyance, going back to the main definition found in Bill C-42.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

I was going to say that's how it was in Bill C-12, and it's going back to that exact one.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Ms. Gagnon.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

I would like to come back to the case of Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chair. In a case like that, whether the travelling is done by air or land, there is still a flaw in the system.

Do you think the bill should be improved to ensure that this situation does not happen again? For example, if the information is not known to the Canadian authorities, is that protection included in the bill? Who is responsible? If nothing happens, fine, but if there are complications with other people who were infected, legal proceedings would be brought against the individual and could even be brought against the country with which... In any event, there has to be a mechanism in place. What could be included in this bill that is not in the bill now, to give Canadians assurances that they can have confidence in the mechanisms and in the bill we are enacting today?

For example, for land travel, how can an individual be stopped? Is there information that could be included in a passport that would make it possible, when the passport was presented, to determine that the person who holds the passport is not even authorized to travel within the country, whether by land or by air, because the person has to go immediately to hospital?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

There is no solution in the law. The solution is the result of arrangements with other governments and the World Health Organization. The solution also lies in communicating and transmitting information in this regard to the others, as we do.

We do this; we do notification. If we have someone we're concerned about, we talk to the airlines, etc., to reduce the chance of that person flying.

The international health regulations come into effect later this month, and there is a requirement on each country to do everything they can to prevent people leaving for another country while they have a risky infectious disease.

So there will be many lessons learned. We don't have all the answers in terms of what actually happened and who knew what, etc. We may never have all of them, but certainly we will be working with our American counterparts and others to make sure we have....

I actually sent a letter last week. Dr. Gerberding and I have been in conversation about what we're going to do next about this, and I've made a formal request so that we have more formal agreements in terms of information-sharing, to help prevent this in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you.

Ms. Priddy, you have the last question.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Yes, thank you.

Very quickly, from an SPP perspective, were you in any way involved in the discussions around the Quarantine Act, and the movement back and forth across the border?

[Paul Haddow]

No, I wasn't.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

It never came up under SPP? All right.

Ms. Allain, if I might ask you, by putting back “conveyance” and not specifying “air, water, land, etc.”, is there some legal loophole where someone would say...? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm just looking to see that “conveyance” closes off all doors of crossing the border around conveyances. Does this leave us open in some way?

[Jane Allain]

When you look at the definition as it's found in Bill C-12 in the Quarantine Act that's now in force, it's quite broad, actually. It says a watercraft, an aircraft, a train, a motor vehicle, a trailer, other means of transportation, including cargo container. So it's essentially every mode of transportation that we know of or any means of transportation that could be developed in the future. It's quite broad. As well, under Bill C-12 there are also other prescribed conveyances that could be included later on by means of regulation, so it could be included in that provision as well. But we cover essentially every mode of transportation that we know now and any potential motor transportation that we could know of in the future, I would say, with this.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Just out of curiosity, given that we've spent a pile of time discussing this, why did we take it out in the first place and cause us all--including you, by the way--to have to come and spend time talking about it?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

I enjoy talking with you.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you so much. I'd really like the real answer, though, Dr. Butler-Jones.

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

The real answer is very simple. Following the initial go at it, without the benefit of having the conversations around the international health regulations table, further analysis in terms of the risk involved, it was felt that this was not sufficient risk to leave it in there, so that's why it wasn't put in there.

We respect the views of the committee and the view of our minister that even though there's very small benefit, any benefit is worth including, and it does not increase the risk to public health. Therefore, quite appropriately, it's back in there.