Bill C-42 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Quarantine Act

This enactment amends the obligations set out in section 34 of the Quarantine Act that apply to the operators of certain conveyances arriving in or departing from Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We'll call the meeting to order.

We are here pursuant to our order of reference of Thursday, March 29, 2007, concerning Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act.

We have with us, through video conference from British Columbia, Minister of Health Perry Kendall.

Mr. Kendall, can you hear us all right and see us okay? Or Dr. Kendall, is it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We'll try for Wednesday, and if not Wednesday, we can deal with Bill C-42 in the first part of the meeting on June 4, which is next Monday, and if not then, we'll put it to June 11, and we'll try to get it done at that time.

I want to thank both the witnesses and the questioners for their participation in the meeting. With that, we'll adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thanks very much, and thank you to the witnesses for coming in and certainly contributing to the discussion and to the interest of the committee on this issue. I want to thank you for that.

I believe the only thing we need to do before I call the meeting to a close is just to clear with the committee that we want to bring Health Canada back. I would suggest that we try to get them on June 4, when Dr. David Butler-Jones is here, which is just before we finish on Bill C-42.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Yes, we have Bill C-42, and the Quarantine Act as well on June 4.

I'm fine with that, but it's so the committee understands where we would be going with this.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

So in essence, this isn't a technical bill, then, Bill C-42. We're making some changes here to something that was passed through the House of Commons and then through the Senate.

Mr. Brodie has answered the question. Do any of you three gentlemen want to comment, or is that your understanding as well?

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

So let's get down to brass tacks here. I'm picking up on Ms. Brown's questioning. As we sit here right now, Bill C-42 will apply, and the change we're making is that it will limit advanced reporting obligations to air and marine conveyances, which is different from just reporting obligations.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank the public health officials for being here today to answer our questions on Bill C-42.

I'm still in the learning process on Bill C-42, so maybe you guys can help me out a little bit. Proposed paragraph 34(1)(a) specifies specifically “a watercraft or aircraft that is used in the business of carrying persons or cargo”, and proposed paragraph 34(1)(b) says “a prescribed conveyance”. Where do I find this list of prescribed conveyances?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For members of the committee, I would like to reframe this discussion a little bit and put it into context.

Under the International Health Regulations, which were revised at the same time the Quarantine Act was modernized, operators of ground conveyances are not required to report in advance. To repeat that, under the International Health Regulations, ground conveyances are not required to report.

Ms. Brown, in our debate, I think there was a suggestion about an amendment. It wouldn't be helpful in this case because Bill C-42 is a catch-all bill.

I would like to refer you to proposed subsection 34(1), which reads: “This section applies to the operator of any of the following conveyances”. We've been talking about watercraft and aircraft, but paragraph 34(1)(b) talks about “a prescribed conveyance”. It can be defined as anything, be it a bus, a train, a Segway, or whatever humans come up with in the future for land transportation.

I hope you guys will be able to elaborate on the points I'm raising to make sure I understand correctly.

On the other point I'd like to raise, under the Quarantine Act, customs officials are actually also screening officers. It is also another safety valve.

A prescribed conveyance actually deals with land conveyances, or transporters, or whatever we come up with. I think it addresses the issue and allows for the catch-all nature of Bill C-42, which was the whole purpose.

Could the officials comment on that understanding and address those concerns?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming.

When I read these changes in these amendments to Bill C-42, which we worked on pretty seriously here, I didn't hear any concerns from the officials at the time that it was too onerous for land transportation drivers to report. This is new.

From whence did this initiative come? Did it come out of the Public Health Agency? Did it come out of the officials who were trying to figure out how to apply the new Quarantine Act? Did it come out of a worry about how much money it was going to cost and how many quarantine officers would have to be hired? Where did this come from?

[Dr. Robert Clarke, Deputy Chief Public Health Officer, Infectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness, Public Health Agency of Canada]

Good afternoon. I'm very pleased to be here today in support of Bill C-42, an act to amend the Quarantine Act.

I would like to introduce my colleagues: Dr. Howard Njoo, director general of the Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response; Dennis Brodie, manager of the legislative and regulatory policy group; and Mr. John Cuningham, senior counsel.

As you know, Bill C-42 was introduced in the House of Commons and given first reading on the same day that the new Quarantine Act was brought into force, on December 12, 2006. I wish to express my gratitude to this committee for your past efforts and for your direct contribution in strengthening Canada's public health system. It was your hard work, commitment, and spirit of collaboration that led to the development of this renewed public health legislation.

The Constitution Act of 1867 gives legislative authority for quarantine to the Parliament of Canada. To date, federal jurisdiction for quarantine has been applied to travellers, conveyances, and cargo that is arriving in and departing from Canada. The federal government fulfills this constitutional responsibility through a national quarantine program under the legislative authority of the Quarantine Act.

You may recall that the modernization of the new Quarantine Act was the key deliverable in response to the SARS crisis. This significant communicable disease outbreak vividly demonstrated that emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases will continue to pose a threat to the health and safety of Canadians.

With the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, many communicable diseases were brought under control and the need to apply the Quarantine Act gradually diminished. However, beginning in the 1980s, dangerous infectious diseases such as Ebola virus and drug resistant strains of tuberculosis began to emerge.

At the same time, international air travel greatly increased, contributing to the rapid spread of disease from one part of the globe to another in a matter of hours. The most recent example of this new migration of health reality was of course SARS. The outcome resulted in two epidemic waves and 43 deaths, not to mention considerable distress to the health care system and significant economic loss.

Acknowledging the work that unfolded in this committee and in the Senate, this government made a decision to bring the new Quarantine Act into force, with the exception of section 34. The decision to bring the new Quarantine Act into force without section 34 was not taken lightly. However, the government deemed it important to do so, given the heightened concerns surrounding the Avian influenza and the looming threat of a possible human influenza pandemic.

Honourable members, section 34 mandates an advanced reporting requirement to be met by conveyance operators. Unfortunately, a problem was discovered with the language used in section 34 when attempting to draft a supporting regulation and section 34 was found to be unworkable. As a temporary fix, and to keep present protections in place for Canadians, two existing quarantine regulations have been maintained until the wording of section 34 is amended.

Having a new Quarantine Act in force, with the exception of one section, gives federal officials access to new and modern authorities. This allows Canada to mitigate contemporary risks associated with global disease transmission. It also provides an opportunity for the government to amend the problematic wording of section 34 so that the Quarantine Act can gain full entry into force.

To this end, Bill C-42 proposes new wording for section 34 and it offers a solution to a minor and technical problem. In general terms, section 34 will require operators of conveyances used in the business of carrying persons or cargo to report in advance of arrival into Canada any illness or public health concern or death on board.

Advanced notification allows for the timely development and coordination of an appropriate response at the receiving port of destination. This response often involves other key public health partners and emergency responders across all levels of government. Both chambers supported this provision in 2005 because it provides the Minister of Health with timely information that would be helpful in deciding whether to order the diversion of a conveyance to any place in Canada, if necessary, to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

Advanced notification of important public health information will trigger an intervention by a quarantine officer and the subsequent management of a suspect risk to public health. It facilitates the application of appropriate control measures at the point of entry to stem the spread of disease. Examples of possible interventions may include the isolation of a sick traveller and the conduct of a health assessment, the cleansing of a conveyance, and possibly the temporary quarantine of those who are exposed.

Section 34 serves an operational purpose in the context of emergency preparedness, response, and public health protection. As previously mentioned, the problem with section 34 is minor and technical in nature. The language used in section 34 is simply too restrictive.

In its current wording, section 34 requires direct reporting to a designated authority situated at the nearest entry point. This is problematic for three main reasons.

First, in practice, a conveyance operator may not be able to determine which entry point is the nearest at the time of reporting.

Second, a designated authority may not be situated at an entry point. As you may recall, an entry point is defined in the Quarantine Act as a place where a customs office is located or a point in Canada designated by the Minister of Health.

Third, the current wording implies direct reporting. It does not take into account the role of third parties and other established communication protocols.

Bill C-42 proposes a solution. It amends the current wording to promote flexibility in practice and in the utility of section 34. Simply put, a newly worded section 34 will obligate conveyance operators in the marine and air community to inform a quarantine officer as soon as possible, before the conveyance arrives at its destination in Canada. Operators of conveyances in the process of departing from Canada through a designated departure point are also obligated to inform a quarantine officer as soon as possible.

The proposed new wording will not require the development of a regulation regarding the designation of an authority situated at the nearest entry point, as required in the present section 34. Instead, the designated authority is replaced with a quarantine officer.

New wording ensures that the reporting obligation extends beyond the time when the conveyance reaches the territorial sea of Canada or the airspace above Canada, and the obligation continues until the time the conveyance arrives at its destination in Canada. This is consistent with international practices.

New wording will also allow for indirect reporting as long as the quarantine officer is informed. Giving this advance notice through an intermediary, like an air traffic control centre, is sufficient, provided that the information reaches the quarantine officer as soon as possible.

As well, this indirect reporting through an intermediary actually makes the proposed section 34 stronger than the present section, as it expands the number of contact points for reporting of urgent public health problems on board conveyances coming into Canada. This also honours existing communications protocols and mirrors present practices.

As pointed out during second reading, new wording does limit the reporting obligation to conveyance operators in the marine and air sectors. New wording does allow for the development of regulations in the future, to be prescribed to other conveyances.

From an operations point of view, this decision supports a risk management approach toward protecting the public's health. The risk of dangerous infectious diseases entering or leaving Canada via ground conveyance is significantly lower than the risk of spread by air or marine transport for a number of reasons.

First, it is important to note that air or marine travel is significantly different from ground travel. Passengers are often in close proximity to each other for significant periods of time, with no opportunity to disembark. This makes it easier for communicable diseases to spread from one sick traveller to another.

Air travel is a special concern from a risk management perspective. In today's world, passengers can travel from one continent to another in a matter of hours, rather than weeks, or less time than the average incubation period for most diseases. This new migration health reality accelerates the global spread of disease in a way that land travel does not.

Further, the United States is not a country of great concern when it comes to serious communicable disease outbreaks. These are more likely to occur in countries where there is not a strong public health system in place to provide citizens with access to potable water, immunizations, and proper health care and treatment. These travellers arrive predominantly by air.

In practice, operators of rail or land conveyances will likely address a serious health threat before the conveyance arrives at the Canadian border. For example, a sick traveller on board a bus or train heading for the U.S.–Canada border is able to disembark and seek medical attention in the United States. This is not a practical option for air or marine travellers.

In the event of a very sick traveller seeking entry into Canada, the reporting of any public health concern will be captured at the border point, when travellers are processed for admittance by a customs officer, who is also a screening officer under the Quarantine Act. Under section 15 of the Quarantine Act, all travellers, including conveyance operators, are required to disclose any issue of public health concern at the point of entry, and to answer all relevant questions posed by the screening officer. If a public health risk is discovered at this process point, screening officers have various powers under the Quarantine Act. For example, they can isolate sick travellers or detain a conveyance. Further, they are required by law to immediately notify a quarantine officer or an environmental health officer for further direction.

Regarding the issue of transporting cargo by ground conveyances, the detection of a public health problem by a conveyance operator is not likely, given that most cargo is packaged and contained appropriately for shipment. For example, under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, there are stringent packaging requirements for the shipment and transport of dangerous human pathogens, meaning live agents capable of causing disease in humans.

It is also important to note that other government departments have a role to play in protecting the health and safety of Canadians. For example, the detection of a disease-carrying cargo, such as contaminated spinach or alfalfa sprouts being transported from the United States, will likely come from federal officials in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency or directly from U.S. counterparts. The problem may also be detected by local public health authorities in the post-arrival stage.

From a public health point of view, expanding Bill C-42 to include ground conveyances will not add value to the current system of controls. The benefit of this measure does not outweigh the burden to the stakeholder community and the quarantine program, given what happens in practice and the fact that adequate screening measures do exist at the border. As such, a decision was made to maintain the current reporting requirements under the Quarantine Act for the marine and air transport sectors only. This decision supports current reporting requirements to be met by conveyance operators.

I would also like to note that this decision is compatible with requirements for advance notification under the International Health Regulations, which were being revised at the same time that the Quarantine Act was being modernized. Expanding the scope of Bill C-42 to include ground conveyances would likely be perceived as overly prescriptive and unnecessary. As of now, no other country in the world imposes this requirement.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that proposed section 34 does allow the reporting requirement to be extended to land travel in the future. This can be achieved through a regulation or an interim order, should there be a change in the threat and risk environment to support this measure.

I wish to thank the Standing Committee on Health in advance for taking the time to review and study this proposal. It is my hope that Bill C-42, in its current form, will address your concerns as a collective and will proceed to the next stage of the parliamentary process in a timely manner.

Thank you.

Quarantine Act

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to address the Quarantine Act within the context of both its urgency and its relevance in terms of the concerns of Canadians.

I do not see this as just a normal technical amendment. I think that Canadians view their members of this House as their last bastion of support when it comes to protecting them against the kinds of epidemics that are global in nature, pandemics that are possible at any time, and against the magnitude and enormity of the issue with respect to possible pandemics and how they would affect our society. I think it is important that from time to time we assure Canadians that we do not take this trust for granted.

To give this a little context, it has been my experience in the House that nothing is self-evident. I remember when, in the name of making our electoral system more accountable and more secure in terms of those who might abuse it, we had a huge debate here when amendments were made to that electoral system as to whether it was a right to privacy to have one's age kept secret. We spent many hours on that. That was in looking at our basic democratic process of a vote in making sure it was secure against those who would abuse the franchise. We spent hours on whether it was an invasion of privacy for age to be one of the necessary requirements in order to make the system secure.

I do not mean to digress, but that was an example of where we spent a great deal of time on what could have appeared to be a technicality. That was to protect the right to privacy of individual Canadians.

However, this particular amendment is much more than just elementary and technical in nature. What it does is that if there was not an accountable regime in place it could place at risk our whole concept of human rights, the rights under the charter. With respect to border security where challenges are made, there could be a period of time, whereby under the old Quarantine Act a great deal of harm may have been done while legal technicalities, not medical ones, were being used as the parameters for assessment. That might be critical in terms of the potential harm that might be done at a border crossing.

To give a little context for those who may be listening, the objective of the bill is to create at the border two new classes of inspection, so to speak, and two new classes of officials: environmental health officers and screening officers. These officials, along with quarantine officers, would make the decisions based on total information that is available to them as to whether someone should be detained and in fact put in quarantine because of a possible risk to society. That is a very incisive and deep intrusion into what we have been used to having in terms of the flexibility to move across borders and within the global community. It has become a more urgent matter to deal with.

The amendments that are being provided have a history. When the SARS epidemic occurred, the government of the day saw fit to bring together the best health specialists in the country. In 2003 we established the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health. That was placed under chairmanship of an esteemed Canadian, Dr. David Naylor.

That particular committee made some recommendations. One of the fundamental ones is what provides the root of the government's amendments today, that is, to set in place these two classes of health officials and to work in close concert with provincial public health officials in order to tighten up the Quarantine Act and in order to take immediate action and not get embedded in technical, legal and more immigration related issues.

It is hard to believe that back in 2003 Dr. Naylor and his associates and colleagues were reviewing an act that had not had any substantive amendment since 1872 or 1873. I am sure that Canadians are going to be extremely surprised with respect to that, especially if they draw the broad context of how much medical challenges have changed from 1873 to 2007 and the experiences we have had with respect to pandemics.

If this were characterized in terrorist terms, and we indeed have been more shocked in terms of our susceptibility to acts of bacteriological terrorism and so on, if that were the issue, there would not be anybody who would apologize for standing up in this House and talking about that particular threat and having a substantive debate on the views that would be put forward by this government or any other government. All parties would be interested in that.

This is another aspect of what could constitute not terrorism but an international and global threat, whereby we have to bring our institutions up to date and have the capacity to respond to a very wide variety of threats. My colleague has expanded the debate to some extent. I do understand the concerns that he has raised and I do not think this debate is finished. There will be many other opportunities to expand the nature of the Quarantine Act in keeping with what Canadians' expectations are of us.

I would also just like to mention that I heard one of the speakers suggesting that to some extent we are violating provincial authority and so on. Canada, the federal government, has absolute responsibility at borders. We have heard a great deal of debate with respect to new security measures that our American friends are bringing in, but I have to say that here in the province of Ontario there is a major initiative to update our public health card to include a picture and the necessary information in keeping with the complexity of health care, health related issues and so on.

Therefore, it should not be any surprise that, while this matter of provincial jurisdiction and public health is important to keep in mind, it is important to strengthen the bridge of federal cooperation with provincial public health authorities in terms of the whole matter of quarantine.

That is important, because it would seem to me that in the regime that clicks in at the border when there is a detention because of issues related to health risk, provincial authorities are going to be extremely important in the health care system in terms of the follow-up that takes place with respect to those who are coming from other countries who may be returning to Canada, those people who have visited other countries and who may have been exposed to a health related risk. It is the total health care system, not just the federal Quarantine Act, that is being integrated by this amendment to the Quarantine Act.

I would like to close by saying that Canadians expect us, as a matter of accountability and responsibility, to make sure that there is no part of health care or the international regime that is loose and open, and that it is totally tight and coordinated with respect to global threats that may come as a result of health implications.

I think the government should be congratulated for bringing Bill C-42 forward, because it maintains the continuity that was established by a previous government, and this is not a partisan issue. Every single Canadian would agree that it is in our higher interest, in the common interest and the public interest, that on matters of health we work closely together and make sure that Canadians can rest in the notion that we are doing the job they want us to do with respect to health and the possibility of pandemics in this country.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member is so keen on moving the debate forward, he could have stood and said that his party supported Bill C-42 and end his speech there. That way we could move on to more important issues.

The member brought up HIV and AIDS. This government has done a huge amount in this area. We had the announcement with the Bill Gates Foundation a few weeks ago. It is partnering with expertise in Canada, with my university, the University of Manitoba, and with David Butler-Jones and Dr. Frank Plummer. This will be revolutionary for AIDS prevention and hopefully a vaccine. This government did that. We are also partnering with international leaders in the field. This government is very proud of the tremendous amount of work that we have done in the area of AIDS research.

We are here to talk about Bill C-42, a technical amendment. The member is complaining. Why does he not encourage his party to pass this bill as soon as possible, perhaps through unanimous consent, in the next little while? I am sure we can arrange it with the House leaders office to do that. Will the member do that?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I was giving the hon. member and his government is something called leadership.

It should be embarrassing on the part of the government that it has chosen to take up the time of the House on Bill C-42, which we support. To use the member's own words, it is a minor technical amendment.

The Canadian public should be asking themselves why on earth the government is using a bill and all this time in the House on a minor technical amendment rather than implementing solutions and bringing them to the House, solution of a much larger nature that would affect more people in a bigger way, in a positive way.

Why I brought up the issue of primates is the bill deals with significant public health risks, including SARS, as the member I hope knows. I also brought up the issue of HIV and primates. Why? Because human immunodeficiency virus, of which we are all aware, has been the single most devastating pandemic ever to affect our species. It is one of many viruses that are harboured in primates in Central Africa. HIV came from there. That is why I brought this up.

This is why I have asked the government to do something more than deal with a minor technical amendment. Rather it should deal with something more substantive, something that should and would have a greater impact upon the lives of our Canadians at home.

Canadian taxpayers should ask why the government did not take the type of leadership role, as we did when we were in government, to do such things as the 24 hour op centre, the development of regional op centres in every province, the development, the production and the deployment of portable hospitals, mobile hospitals, across the country in case of an outbreak of SARS or some other emergency.

I could go on about all the things we did. Those, I would argue, are substantive things; they are not a technical amendment.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, before giving direction to the government, the member should really focus on the debate at hand, and that is Bill C-42. I just heard for the last 20 minutes, which seemed like a lifetime, about primates, habitat and so on. We are talking about Bill C-42, the Quarantine Act, with a minor technical amendment, which we need to move forward on, and the member started talking about things that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

The issues he raise are important, but I encourage him to raise them at a time that is appropriate. I also encourage him to participate in the debate on the issue at hand and prepare for the debate on the topic that we are supposed to discuss.

There have been some questions from members on the opposite side, who were prepared for this discussion, dealing with conveyances and the duties to report coming over land. I want to reassure the members that there are two provisions in the act that allow operators moving vis-à-vis land. They are subsection 15(2) and section 38 in the act . Also, subsection 34(2) in the act allows for any kind of conveyance to be dealt with in an appropriate manner when entering the country if a quarantine issue is in play.

I also will put on record that there is a portal on the government website. It is pandemic.gc.ca. Perhaps the member could visit that website and find out more about Bill C-42 and the implications?

In the future could the member please talk about, or even pretend to talk about, the issue at hand, which is Bill C-42. This is an important issue, we want to get on with it and the member is delaying us.

Will the member confirm that his party is supporting Bill C-42?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to reiterate what was said, but, in the interests of the public, I hope they look at the facts on what occurred when we dealt with the big challenge of SARS and how we will deal with it and other similar diseases that may cross the species barrier in the future that can have profound pandemic effects causing a great loss of life and illness among our citizenry and those of the world.

I encourage people to look at the work that has already been done in the country, because a lot has been done, and, thankfully, we are a world leader in this. Does that mean that we need to rest on our laurels? Absolutely not. However, It does mean that we need to be vigilant.

Bill C-42 updates the Quarantine Act by providing new provisions to manage public health threats. I will go through some of those and perhaps go through some of the elements of SARS because there is a lot of misinformation out there.

Interestingly enough, if we go back in history we know that SARS is a result of a virus that actually starts to reside in birds. Those birds that are living with people in unclean environments at some point in time, that particular virus can jump the species barrier to humans. When it really becomes bad is when we are able to pass that bug on between ourselves.

If we go back in history, every 20 to 25 years a pandemic occurs with a great loss of life, which is why large amounts of public moneys have been invested in early warning systems, in prevention and in the manufacture of a vaccine. I neglected to say to the member that Canada is one of only two countries in the world that has the domestic capacity to produce the vaccine, such as the influenza vaccine.

The influenza vaccine is a difficult vaccine to produce because the type of virus we are dealing with is a very clever virus. It is a simple but lethal virus that can change itself very quickly. In doing so, we need to play catch-up to ensure that what we are doing and what we are producing will deal with the particular viruses that we are trying to protect against.

Our scientists are always playing catch-up and that is a challenge for them. However, we are one of only two countries in the world that have that domestic capacity. We are able to work quickly, effectively and provide that to Canadians.

We also stockpile Tamiflu which is a drug to prevent the symptoms from occurring and prevent infection. It is not something people would want to take regularly or something that should be widely dispensed in a preventative fashion because viruses can cause resistance. We do not want to cause resistance to a drug in case of a pandemic occurring.

As my colleague said, germs know no boundaries and that is a fact. This is an international problem. Where it is rooted as its epicentre is in Southeast Asia. It is very important for us to maintain relations with countries so we can work together to address the problem.

I hope the government works with Taiwan, China and other countries in Southeast Asia so we can be vigilant in preventing a situation where the virus skips a species boundary and people begin infecting each other which causes the virus to spread widely.

The only way we can do that is to have a competent early warning system. Unfortunately, the government has actually cancelled consulates around the world, which is a huge mistake on Canada's part. We have done this in St. Petersburg, in Japan and in other parts of the world.

We have contracted our foreign policy away from other parts of the world. It is good to focus but, while focusing on specific areas, it does not mean to say that it precludes us from having our fingers on the pulse of what is occurring in other parts of the world. A failure to do this means that we fail to address the problems that know no boundaries.

I say to the government that it has made a huge error in closing these consulates and, in doing so, contracted away our foreign policy so that it really deals with only two issues, Afghanistan and Canada-U.S. relations.

Interestingly enough, Afghanistan is not even one of our priorities. However, because of events that superceded, we have chosen Afghanistan which is now taking the lion's share of our CIDA investments and the bulk of our work in defence and in foreign affairs. It is consuming just about everything at the expense of our ability to deal with the challenges of other parts of the world that do affect Canada and Canadians. It is a huge error for the government to contract our foreign policy, CIDA and our defence involvement down to basically two issues. I agree with focus but there are ways to ensure we have a finger in other areas that are in the best interests of Canadians.

On the issues of SARS, HIV and other diseases, we know that HIV is a disease that started in primates in Africa and that probably 30 or more other deadly viruses are harboured in primates in that part of the world.

In the development that is occurring in the jungles of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in formerly difficult to reach areas in Central Africa, logging trucks have gone into the areas to exploit the logs and natural resources. A byproduct of that is that humans are now coming in very close contact to areas that were formerly not exposed to humans. Part of that involves humans killing animals for the bush meat trade, which is resulting in the destruction of many species in those parts of the world. They are being driven to the brink of extinction and will become extinct unless something is done about it.

It has also opened up the trafficking in exotic pets. Does the House know that the trafficking in endangered species is the third leading area of contraband trade in the world, behind drugs and weapons? We should think about that. It is a $25 billion trade in endangered species and it is resulting in endangered species being driven to the brink of extinction. Various forms of rhino: the Indian rhino, the Javan rhinoceros and black rhino. Various species of tiger: the Bengal tiger, the Sumatran tiger and the snow leopard. If we name it, there is a trade in it: the orangutan, low land gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, all of which are being driven to extinction, including, of course, elephants, which we thought were in good shape, but now we see there is a dramatic upsurge in the poaching of elephant.

We saw destruction in Chad, in the Central African Republic, in the Congo and in other areas. This, of course, is driven by primarily domestic wants, not needs, in the developing world.

We are guilty of importing these animals and animal products, which is driving these species to extinction. I do not think the Canadian public would be proud to know that our country is one of the top destinations in the trafficking of endangered species. That is absolutely appalling but have we heard anything from the government to address the problem? We have heard nothing.

What does it mean? If we look at what happens to these birds, amphibians and mammals, these creatures are packed into appalling circumstances and 80% of them die somewhere along the route under terrible situations: dehydration, starvation, disease, abuse, killed or die of shock. The 20% that survive come to our borders as pets.

People can buy, for example, a pink macaw in Brazil for $15 and sell it in Italy for $2,500. The mark-up is huge. Those so-called pets are actually taken by people who have no idea how to deal with them. Little pets that were formerly small become big and difficult to manage and sometimes they fall into terrible circumstances.

We can stop some of those things and I am advocating that the government should do the following: first, anyone wanting to import a wild animal should have an import and export permit and must have the import permit before they can acquire an export permit; second, only designated entry points should be used so that trained specialists would be available to examine the species; third, rescue centres must be identified so that species that are coming in that should not be here or that are ill can go to these rescue centres and receive the care they require; fourth, individual traders should be licensed and they should be the only ones able to bring these species into the country. This is important with respect to our obligation under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. Lastly, our Canadian wildlife service officers should have the resources to do the job.

Unfortunately, the government is utterly neglecting this area. It sounds small but it is important with respect to the bill because, if we connect the dots back to where I started, these species can be traced back to the diseases that are brought into our country and affect humans.

As I said before, there are 20 to 30 HIV-like viruses residing in mammals but primarily primates in Africa that will some day cross the species barrier from primates into humans and, in doing so, we will have a virus that can then jump the species barrier as the human immunodeficiency virus has done with devastating results.

As a country it is important that we deal with our area of responsibility. As I mentioned, if we continue to allow people to bring in endangered species, we are allowing destruction at the other end of the chain in countries that can ill-afford to do this. The outfall of this is the destruction of environments, which results in the destruction of species and the destruction of biodiversity. We all lose.

How can we address this? I have proposed in the past that CIDA should be involved in developing sustainable environmental protection. What Canada should be doing in sub-Sahara, Africa and also in South America where this is a big problem, is ensuring that these countries protect their biodiversity and that it is done in such a way that the people who live in the surrounding areas will benefit. I will give some examples.

I used to do a fair bit of work in conservation in South Africa, particularly in the area of KwaZulu-Natal in Zululand. At the beginning of the 19th century that part of South Africa had the second largest land mammal in the world, the white rhino: 6,000 pounds, six feet at the shoulder for a male, and 1,500 pounds less for a female. Only 60 of those animals, the largest land mammal in the world behind the elephant, were left in the whole world and they resided in one place, Hluhluwe Umfolozi Park.

What did the South African government do? It realized that it had a priceless treasure and it wanted to do everything it could to protect the mammal. It also said that it would protect the area so the animals could thrive and produce but it also recognized that humans needed to benefit from it too. We cannot just protect an area of habitat without ensuring the people in the surrounding areas also benefit from that protected habitat.

The South African government was very clever. It developed a system so people in the surrounding areas could benefit from the protected game reserves. What did people do? If poachers went into the area, the people warned the authorities because they knew that if the poachers were allowed to go in they would kill species and that would affect their future.

The reserves are also used to generate funds through low impact environmental ecotourism, which can generate a lot of money. In doing so, these moneys can be used for primary health care, primary education and water and food security for the people who live around the reserves.

I do not understand at all why CIDA has not caught on to this and used this as a way by which we can all benefit and preserve critical habitat. We could also use those habitats as a way of generating resources that could benefit people living in the surrounding area. In doing so, the critical habitat could be expanded and the people would benefit in terms of primary health care, primary education and so on. Human needs and species' needs would both be met.

Unless we can benefit people, wild spaces cannot be protected. Alternatively, if we do not protect our wild spaces and species' biodiversity, we negatively affect our future as one of the species on this planet.

As part of its agency, CIDA would be very wise to work with other countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo and Botswana, which has done an excellent job, Zambia, Uganda, Tanzania and others to help them preserve their wild spaces, their incredible biodiversity. This would generate a grassroots economic advantage for the people who live in these areas. By doing that, we would preserve forevermore these species, areas and biodiversity, which are a part of the future of all of us and our collective history.

The alternative is not to do this. If we do that, we will see what has happened now. I will use the Democratic Republic of Congo as an example. We have seen widespread destruction of habitat, lowland gorillas, bonobos and other primates for the bushmeat trade and plant life, the benefits of which we do not know because we have lost them. The destruction of critical habitat, including trees, will result in a wasteland that will not benefit the people of the Congo who desperately need it.

In essence, in a country like that, of which there are many in the developing world, its vast natural resources are being destroyed for short term gain, benefiting countries primarily in the west, many in Europe. The people on the ground are losing their future, their heritage and their hope.

Some of the developing countries in Europe, which include Norway and to a lesser extent DFID and Great Britain, have adopted this in a small way. What if we as a country were to be the champion of this? If were, we could do something that no one else has done before. Canada would be the intersection between sustainable development and human development. It is something that we can do.

Canadians are disturbed by the destruction of the environment, by the loss of biodiversity and by the loss of species. They want to ensure that we can preserve them not only here at home but also abroad. This is a collective part of our common heritage.

I encourage the government to do this, not only for the benefit from a health care perspective but also from a development perspective. A friend of mine, Mike Fay, who is the National Geographic Society explorer in residence in New York, has written some excellent pieces on the destruction of endangered species. He and others are fighting hard to preserve these areas, not only abroad and in Africa but also North America.

We have great a opportunity in the west, in my province of British Columbia, to have a consistent area between Canada and the U.S. In Southern Africa it is called a peace parks process. This process could occur, connecting wildlife habitat from Canada all the way through the United States so species would have a contiguous area of protection and for ranging. In doing this, we would do things that would preserve their future.

We have great opportunities. Unfortunately, the government has not chosen to embrace those opportunities at a time of great surpluses. Because of that it makes itself less than what it could be and it makes Canada less than what it could be.

I encourage the government to seize the day, carpe diem, and adopt some solutions that could have a huge impact on the lives of our fellow citizens here at home as well as those who live far away. We live on one planet, which, in essence, is a borderless planet. What happens half a world away affects us. For these reasons, the government should have a much broader, holistic and wider view and exercise its responsibility to act as a leader.