This bill was last introduced in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in December 2009.
Leona Aglukkaq Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
This enactment creates measures to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins and all activities associated with them. It establishes a comprehensive legislative regime that extends beyond the present importation regime. It requires every person conducting activities involving human pathogens or toxins to take all reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Madam Speaker, as I know the member is a renowned expert in the field of pandemics, could she outline for us the threat of an influenza pandemic in Canada and the evolution that we have witnessed so far.
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Madam Speaker, we are currently facing a very serious threat in Canada with influenza A(H1N1) that started in Mexico. It is a new virus. It has segments from avian, swine and human flu. We started with clusters in Mexico which then spread to the United States and Canada.
The pandemic alert level has been raised from a phase 3 to a phase 4 and now phase 5. This means that in Canada we are looking at rolling out our pandemic plan. Organizations throughout Canada that have developed a plan over the last several years will also be working on rolling out their plan.
Pandemics can be very serious. In the last century, we had 1918, 1957 and 1968. The latter two pandemics killed three million people. In stark contrast, the pandemic in 1918 killed 50 million people worldwide.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her input because she raised a very important point.
Under the bill there is a matter to do with releasing private information. I guess the issue arose in committee about violating the privacy rights of individuals. As the chair of the ethics committee that deals with the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act, I have some concern about this from the standpoint that currently a person does not have access to the federal court to appeal a decision on a requirement to release personal information nor, if they have a complaint, can they have remedy to the courts at this time, and this is causing some concern.
I want to ask the member whether the Privacy Commissioner appeared before committee to provide some input as to the concerns she had in terms of potential violations under the Privacy Act and whether there should be an indication that the person would have the right to appeal to the federal court, which is not currently permitted under the Privacy Act.
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Madam Speaker, these were certainly questions that were raised in committee. It is our understanding that we received a letter from the Privacy Commissioner and that conversations are ongoing with the government to address those concerns.
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member for Etobicoke North on bioterrorism. She mentioned that bioterrorism was a real potential threat in Canada and I wonder if she could elaborate as to the extent of that threat.
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Madam Speaker, bioterrorism is a real threat. I will give a recent example. In October 2001, letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to American news media offices and to senators. The letters killed five people and infected twenty others. Broad public health measures were implemented to treat thousands who were potentially exposed and the decontamination of buildings and post offices took years. The total cost to the United States was more than $1 billion.
We certainly need to be vigilant about bioterrorism. Diseases we would be concerned about, for example, are anthrax and plague, to name two.
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Madam Speaker, I am rising to speak at third reading of Bill C-11, An Act to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins.
At second reading, the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the principle of this bill. It is obvious that public health and safety are everyone's concern. However, as was even admitted by the government, in announcing the introduction of Bill C-54, the ancestor of this Bill C-11, the Minister of Health 's press release explained that the risk to Canadians from human pathogens and toxins used in laboratories is low.
There are also other laws, an anti-terrorism law and others, which could house some of the provisions of Bill C-11. It is, for example, obvious that a malicious intent in releasing toxic and dangerous products into the environment would be covered already by a number of laws. Offenders would be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. There was therefore no reason to stir everyone up and trample over all those who wanted to see changes to the legislation in favour of greater mutual respect. The provinces were muzzled and not properly listened to. Neither were the researchers and scientists.
Yet those very researchers and scientists are the ones who will have to live with the consequences of Bill C-11. I will quote, if I may, from what Peter Singer, director and professor of medicine at the University Health Network and University of Toronto, told us in committee in connection with this bill:
It lowers the background noise of what's happening in laboratories so the signal of aberrant activity can stand out better. But we also need the help of the thousands of scientists in those laboratories, very few of whom, if any, intend to misuse human pathogens, to make sure that 99.99% constitute a network of vigilance to bring that signal to the attention of authorities. Because biosecurity is achieved by winning the scientists' hearts and minds, not through legislative compulsion but by fostering a scientific culture of awareness and responsibility, it's extremely important to have them on side.
That is what the government did not try to do before moving forward. It did not try to get laboratory researchers on board. It did not try to win them over and obtain their unconditional support. When the government raises the spectre of bioterrorist attacks and mentions laboratory workers in the bill, they just might think that they are being branded as potential terrorists. Calling people names and insulting them is not a good way to win them over.
The government did not conduct a proper impact study to understand the consequences of Bill C-11. We asked public officials whether proper impact studies had been conducted, and from the comments we heard in the committee, we discovered that the government did hold information sessions, but did not take a more thorough look at researchers' criticisms and concerns.
There would have been time to do it. We tend to forget that, according to the government's timeline, this bill will not be implemented for another four or five years. Instead of acting blindly, without a solid, credible foundation, the government should have acted responsibly by conducting an impact study and holding proper consultations with all stakeholders, including researchers, the provinces, and private health labs. That would have been the right thing to do.
Mr. Raymond Tellier appeared before the committee, and he raised a very important point. He said that, after a similar law was passed in the United States, there was a brain drain. Before going ahead with this bill, it would have been very useful to know how it might affect people working as researchers and teachers, those who pass on their knowledge to future researchers and Ph.D.s. On that basis alone, it would have been nice to have had more information.
Just before proceeding to a clause-by-clause study in committee, we heard from witnesses who told us that they were still not happy. For example, we heard from Professor Greg Matlashewski of McGill University's department of microbiology and immunology. He said:
The bill will mean very little without real regulations within it, as far as I'm concerned. I think there's a real danger in passing this bill without having the regulations, because I've seen some of the amendments, and these amendments have not changed the bill substantially.
He was not satisfied with the amendments because, in his opinion, they were still not specific enough about the consequences to carrying out his job, which is very important and useful in developing new procedures and new medications and for advancing science.
Mr. Albert Descoteaux, a professor at the Institut Armand-Frappier, Institut national de la recherche scientifique, voiced his concerns about HIV:
Bill C-11 would destroy all the financial commitments from government in the fight against AIDS. Paradoxically, that remains a federal government priority. I would really like that considered when you decide your position on Bill C-11.
Unfortunately, not enough consideration was given to that point by our NDP, Liberal and Conservative colleagues. In fact, they decided to move forward and adopt this bill even before knowing its impact, especially on AIDS research.
Mr. Descoteaux continued:
If the goal of lawmakers is to promote public health and safety in the area of micro-organisms and to protect Canadians from potential bioterrorist attacks, Bill C-11 is not the solution. I feel that the bill could well create havoc by establishing a repressive system that lumps all micro-organisms together, whereas the vast majority of them pose no problem at all for people's health and safety.
And what about his comments? They want to forget them, ignore them, and pretend that Dr. Descoteaux said nothing. It is deplorable that members of other political parties would act this way when, as I stated earlier, there was no reason to expedite this bill, as the government had said in a press release.
We also proposed an amendment, at report stage, asking that the provinces be consulted before the schedules were amended.
When they came to discuss the proposed amendments with us, public officials told us clearly that the provinces would not be consulted before the drafting of these amendments. The experts and researchers were from research labs and the federal government. This whole exercise completely ignored the skills that we have in the public service of Quebec and of the provinces.
The Bloc Québécois' amendment sought to consult Quebec and the provinces, before amending the schedules, that is before adding a pathogen or changing its classification. This was to ensure that the impact of any change would be known and adequately evaluated by the government.
The committee heard the concerns clearly expressed by members from all parties and from the various provinces. The Conservative member for Sarnia—Lambton told us about the fears of the Ontario legislature, while the member for Vancouver Quadra spoke eloquently and vigorously about the very legitimate concerns of the B.C. government, since she served as a minister in that provincial legislature.
However, we did not get any answer, despite the fact that Conservative and Liberal members raised the legitimate concerns of the Ontario and British Columbia legislatures, and despite the fact that the member for Vancouver Quadra spoke eloquently, asked many questions and demanded answers.
Indeed, despite all this, she and her Liberal Party colleagues decided to support the government in its will to rush Bill C-11 through. This is rather unusual. It is puzzling to see members from this House, who heard, understood and then conveyed the fears expressed by provincial legislatures, end up ignoring them and rejecting the legitimate expectations of the provinces.
We learned, in the presentations made to the committee by the members for Sarnia—Lambton and Vancouver Quadra, that they were already exercising—as regards safety, security and the monitoring of laboratories—a number of responsibilities related to constitutional requirements that come under Quebec and the provinces.
Talking about the constitutionality of the bill, the committee heard an expert who told us that, in her opinion, there was every reason to believe that some provisions in Bill C-11 were unconstitutional. It is a very serious matter when, after the committee heard an expert express concerns regarding this issue, the government decides to use its prerogative to legislate criminal law, ignores those recommendations and moves forward nevertheless.
I would now like to read a letter addressed to the Minister of Health, on April 6, 2009, by the Quebec health minister, Dr. Yves Bolduc.
Dear Mr. Minister,
I am writing to you today to express the Quebec government's serious concerns about Bill C-11, the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, which is currently being examined by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. The Quebec government notes that the measures proposed in the bill would have serious repercussions on the organization of medical laboratory services and medical diagnostic services, which are provided by Quebec’s health care system and which come under Quebec's jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Government of Quebec is calling on the federal government to reconsider its approach to ensuring the biosafety and biosecurity of human pathogens and toxins, rather than pursuing the parliamentary work currently underway. It is important that that approach better reflect the respective roles of both levels of government in this matter.
Yours truly,
This letter went completely unheeded. The NDP, the Liberals and the Conservatives all ignored the remarks made by the Quebec Minister of Health, these very wise remarks calling for a review of all the provisions of the bill, rather than pursuing the committee's examination, in order to ensure that it respects the jurisdictions of both levels of government.
When the Standing Committee on Health was doing its clause-by-clause review of Bill C-11, I had proposed an amendment whereby the bill would not apply to any facility regulated, operated or funded by a province.
You can object, shout, ask questions and insist that your home province's fears be taken seriously, as the member for Vancouver Quadra did in committee, but you have to do more than just that.
I find it deplorable that this member did not do what should be done in such a situation and ask the government, as I am doing, to take a step back and consider all the facts when making a decision about a bill like Bill C-11.
Are we going to have to go through the same thing with Bill C-11 that we went through with the Assisted Human Reproduction Act? The Government of Quebec, with the support of other provincial legislatures, applied to the court to rule on the act's constitutionality.
The public should not have to pay for lawyers and judges to examine the constitutionality of legislation. I believe that, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to make sure, before we introduce or vote on a bill, that it complies fully with the Constitution.
The Quebec Court of Appeal ruled that the Assisted Human Reproduction Act is unconstitutional. Now, I am sad to see—
The Acting Speaker Denise Savoie
The time allotted to the hon. member has expired. We will now proceed to questions and comments.
The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Madam Speaker, I will give the member an opportunity to finish his sentence when he comments of this.
I agree with him to the extent that too much discretion has been left to the government in the act's regulations. We see this with governments in general. However, an hour ago we were discussing Bill C-6, and that was a criticism of it as well. The government is getting too much leeway and putting too much into regulations. I would prefer as few regulations as possible to any bill. We should pin legislation down. Regulation should be incorporated into bills and there should be as little reliance on regulations as possible. To that extent, I agree with the member.
In terms of consultation issues, consultation is very important but it is impossible to consult with everybody. A decision has to be made at some point, although a bill should be done right. There is no harm in delaying a bill for a period of time to allow people have their say and to proceed after as much consultation as possible.
I want to give the member the opportunity to respond to that and finish his thoughts.
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Madam Speaker, I find it very regrettable that our colleagues from the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party would vote on legislation without first making sure that it is constitutionally sound.
The hon. member is right to say that there is too much reliance on regulations, but he also suggested that not everyone need be consulted. Without necessarily consulting with everybody, I would guess that those who will have to work with the legislation day in and day out should be consulted. Efforts must be made to ensure that they can do so properly as well as give courses in support of science. We in this place boast about Canada having the best researchers and promising students. It would be a shame to pull the rug out from under them, thus preventing them from doing their jobs. That is what the NDP is doing by refusing to hear these witnesses.
At the very end of the committee stage, there were still people telling us that it made no sense. Why was a decision not made to go through things thoroughly and check them over before putting them in the regulations? I have no idea when these regulations will appear, and the legislation will not be enforced for another four or five years. Why not make sure that these people have been heard and that they are satisfied? I think that this would show a minimum level of respect for these people who, day in and day out, work at ensuring that Quebec and Canada are at the leading edge of technology and that we benefit in our daily lives from the greatest advances in science and technology.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins, be read the third time and passed.
Luc Desnoyers Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes for presenting arguments on this matter with conviction, passion and clarity. The arguments regarding consultation show that researchers, scientists and the provinces are being flatly ignored. My colleague also read a letter from Mr. Bolduc in Quebec. Without an impact study having been done on this, how can the opposition parties support this bill so easily?
I would like my colleague to tell us about what the repercussions might be for education, for health services buildings, for health care and for the research and development industry.
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
I will simply read what Professor Greg Matlashewski told us:
We have 350 undergraduate students in microbiology and immunology at McGill. We teach them how to use level 2 pathogens. The way this bill is written we couldn't teach them any longer.
Before we enact a bill, we have to be sure that these kinds of things cannot happen. We have to reassure our researchers. As I said just now, Professor Matlashewski came to see us right at the end of the process and he still had a number of concerns.
My colleague was also right when he told us that the provinces will be completely excluded from any form of consultation, when those provinces have hospitals and universities doing these kinds of cutting-edge research and these institutions are under the constitutional jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.
In my opinion, while the government tells us about its openness, about how it respects the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, this bill, the way it is written, clearly seems to us to be taking a different path. As I said, the government likes to say things, but when it comes time to do something and make sure that all of the stakeholders are properly heard and will be able to carry out their responsibilities as properly as possible, it stops listening and it does not do what elementary logic would dictate.
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
Madam Speaker, we know that in committee the Bloc Québécois raised certain questions with officials on the possible repercussions of the bill. According to the responses from the government, there was no impact study concerning Bill C-11.
So, how can we discuss a bill when we do not even know where we are going in terms of the bill? No regulations have been linked with this bill; instead, that is to be done after its adoption.
Is it not unthinkable to establish regulations after adopting a bill? We have no idea what regulations will be attached to the bill.
I would like to know my colleague’s opinion on that point.
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Madam Speaker, it is indeed somewhat incomprehensible, and my colleague is perfectly correct.
That is why we would have wished that the government, of its own accord, would withdraw this bill and do the proper homework. As I said at the start of my remarks, there was no urgency. The government itself mentioned that fact in its news release at the time the bill was introduced.
Therefore, why force the issue? We would be inclined to impugn the motives of the government simply because basic logic would insist that the real impact of the bill be identified and that the research carried out in all our laboratories can go forward. If, after promulgation of Bill C-11, there are additional costs to modify the laboratories, who will pay? The universities? The laboratories? The hospitals? We know very well there is no money. They have only the strict minimum to carry out the research that they have to do. How will they be able to continue? They will have to draw on their operating funds. They will be forced to reduce the number of teachers and the number of students who receive training in order to adapt their premises. This is an important question and we still do not have an answer.
The government is asking us today to vote on a bill without knowing its impact. That is not right and it makes no sense.
As parliamentarians, we assume certain responsibilities when we vote on a bill in this House. We cannot be expected to vote in good faith when we do not know the consequences. As I said previously, the consequences could be very serious. One witness told us there had been a brain drain from the United States precisely because of certain fears. They were afraid they could unintentionally cause damage that would be considered criminal.