Bill C-11 (Historical)

Human Pathogens and Toxins Act

An Act to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins

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.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Hyer, you're not answering my question. My question was very direct: what amendments, what changes would you be willing to accept on Bill C-311 today to get consensus around this table? You've provided urgency, so what changes would you be willing to make?

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very encouraging that we have an advisory panel for the bill. We recently passed Bill C-11, which is around biosafety and biosecurity. At that time, we also called for a scientific advisory group, experts in the field who would have the best judgment to suggest which viruses and bacteria belonged in what schedules. Having the advisory panel go forward on this bill will allow the experts to continue this good work.

On her second point, yes, Canadians are very interested in labelling. Recent studies suggested 90% to 95% would like to see labelling and right to know.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Bill C-11--

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

This is very much in keeping with the amendment that we had to Bill C-11. We believe that the people of Canada deserve to know that the minister is getting the best possible advice, but also what that advice is. We are hoping that we will be able to do the same thing again. This is a bill that is expected to reflect the most recent science, and we want the minister to have very good advice, but the people of Canada need to know what advice the minister gets. Sometimes ministers can't do exactly what the science says, but at least the politics stays separate from the science.

I understand from the briefing last night that because this bill is housed in Health Canada instead of in the Public Health Agency of Canada, which already has an advisory committee policy, the officials may want to add some language concerning reimbursement and these kinds of things, because that doesn't exist right now at Health Canada. But the gist of the bill is the same as that of Bill C-11. The implementation of the amendment may need to be enhanced a little bit based on making sure that it happens.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Chair, you will be familiar with this proposal. It is somewhat along the lines of the motion that we passed to amend Bill C-11. It allows for parts of this bill that require regulations to come back to the House and to the Senate. So it gives a chance to the health committee, if the House so chooses, to further scrutinize the parts of this bill that are left for very specific drafting and regulatory efforts.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. It's again my pleasure to be here with you.

l'm here today to address the health portfolio's main estimates for this fiscal year, which represent an increase of approximately $236 million.

I also want to talk about how our spending and legislative priorities support a stronger focus on the federal role in the health and well-being of Canadians. In particular, this year's main estimates include investments supporting stronger product safety, further recruitment of new health researchers, and better health outcomes for first nations and Inuit.

But before I go any further, I want to address our response to the H1N1 flu virus.

For the better part of a month, public health officials in Canada and throughout the world have been monitoring the development of this virus and responding according to the level of risk. Thankfully, the impact on Canada has been relatively mild so far, but let me be clear: we cannot afford to let our guard down. H1N1 is a new strain of influenza. As a result, we can't be sure of the next turn it will take, so we will stay vigilant and be ready to respond as necessary.

Canadians can take comfort in the fact that we have a well-informed, well-supported, and well-developed pandemic preparedness plan. We will continue working with the provinces, the territories, and international partners, as well as learning from the data we have collected and the research we conduct at the National Microbiology Laboratory.

As precautions, we issued a travel warning advising against non-essential travel to Mexico, stationed more quarantine officers at Canadian airports that receive direct flights from Mexico, and distributed health alert notices to travellers--over 1.5 million a week.

I also want to highlight the achievements of researchers at the National Microbiology Lab who made an important discovery last week by sequencing the genome of Mexican and Canadian samples of this virus, essentially decoding its genetic makeup. This discovery has provided important information for researchers around the world. With this knowledge, we were able to eliminate genetic mutation as a possible reason for why the virus has apparently hit Mexico harder than Canada. Identifying the nature and composition of this virus will also help with vaccine development.

Health Canada experts are working with a vaccine manufacturer on the initial steps toward developing a vaccine. However, it is internationally acknowledged that producing a safe and effective vaccine could take up to six months. It is imperative that we balance the need for speed with quality and safety. In the meantime, should the situation dictate, we have safe and effective anti-viral stockpiles at the ready.

Madam Chair, let me say that so long as this situation persists, we will remain vigilant. As we have from day one, we will keep Canadians well-informed and well-advised as important details emerge. We are constantly considering the effectiveness of everything we do so we can make adjustments and continue to provide the leadership Canadians need and deserve. Providing leadership in protecting the health of Canadians against infectious disease is a key federal health responsibility. It is one we are committed to fulfilling.

As you know, our government has pledged to improve our ability to meet another key federal health responsibility. l'm referring to our commitment to modernize our safety system for consumer, food, and health products. Some of the essential changes we seek are represented in Bill C-6, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. This is important legislation that will bring our consumer product safety regime in line with the realities of today's global economy.

Of course, amendments to the Food and Drugs Act remain part of our food and consumer safety action plan, but for now, I want to thank the members on this committee for your careful review of Bill C-6.

I also want to thank you for your thoughtful input on Bill C-11, the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act. That legislation has been improved, thanks to the work of this committee. The bill will increase biosafety and security at Canadian labs that work with human pathogens and toxins. Please allow me to thank all members for their efforts in putting forward important changes to this bill at committee.

I join all of you in hoping for the quick passage of Bill C-6 and Bill C-11 through the Senate, towards gaining royal assent. The sooner this happens, the sooner the health of Canadians will be better protected.

Of course, research is essential in finding new ways of protecting and improving Canadians' health. It is for this reason that our government is providing further support to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. This government is committed to supporting innovation and research.

Budget 2009, or Canada's economic action plan, contains some $5.1 billion in science investments. With respect to health research since 2006, CIHR has benefited from $117.2 million in permanent budget increases and a further $154.6 million in time-limited, targeted funding, supporting priorities such as pandemic preparedness. Furthermore, I'm proud to say that this year's main estimates include greater investments in scholarship programs designed to recruit and develop the health research stars of tomorrow.

And Budget 2009 commits even more.

In the past, CIHR-funded research has led to improvements in cancer treatment, cardiac care, and patient safety. As a result, l'm confident that the investments we're making today to attract new talent will lead to significant health improvements in the future.

This year's main estimates also include new investments for better first nations and Inuit health--today.

As I said in my opening remarks, we're dedicated to sharpening our focus on federal responsibilities. Among the most important objectives within my portfolio is ensuring the availability of health care services for first nations and Inuit.

Today, health disparities between aboriginal communities and the rest of Canada are apparent, and it's our goal to reduce them. As a result, these main estimates invest more than $200 million for core first nations and Inuit health programs, services, and infrastructure to better meet front-line demands.

Indeed, these investments represent a clear focus on federal responsibility, one of my portfolio's primary objectives since 2006. And future decisions will continue to be made along these lines.

Accordingly, this same approach was taken during the health portfolio's strategic review process. In February, I know, members of this committee had questions regarding this, and my officials and I are committed to discussing details with you today. Across the portfolio, Health Canada, the Public Health Agency, and CIHR carefully reviewed their programs to ensure their efficiency and effectiveness. The goal was to reallocate funding to better meet Canadians' needs.

In doing so, officials were asked to propose ways for making programs and services more effective and efficient, to focus on providing programs that are consistent with federal roles and responsibilities, and to align federal activities with the needs and priorities of Canadians. The portfolio will realize the following savings: $44.6 million in 2009-10, $61.7 million in 2010-11, and $108.4 million in 2011-12.

Additionally in February, some committee members feared there would be cuts to important aboriginal and women's health programs. l'm happy to say that these fears were unfounded. In fact, the reinvestments we were able to make will improve our ability to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

For example, Budget 2009 included $35 million over three years to CIHR through the Canada graduate scholarships program to support future research stars, $440 million for first nations and Inuit health care and infrastructure, and $500 million to accelerate the use of electronic health records in Canada, which will lead to higher-quality, more effective health care. These are important investments that are in line with the priorities of Canadians.

In conclusion, I want to take a moment to salute my officials and all employees who have worked so hard in responding to the challenge of the H1N1 flu virus. I also want to thank our partners, both internationally and within Canada, for their ongoing collaboration.

Let me also thank the committee for your work, past, present, and future, and I look forward to the observations that will come from your study on health human resources as well as from the new subcommittee that will study the impact of neurological disease.

As we take further actions to sharpen the focus on the federal role in health, I look forward to your ideas. Thank you, also, for accepting my invitation to visit Nunavut later this month. In my February appearance before this committee, I said that our vision needs to extend north of 60 if we want to be truly national.

This will represent the first time in history that the health committee has visited my home territory, so I thank you for accepting my invitation to broaden our perspective to account for the full vastness of the country we all love so much.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

The House resumed from May 4 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.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks for the presentation. It was very clear. It's hard to boil down a complex act into some clear information like that, and I appreciate that. Also, I appreciate the intent of the act. Of course we want to make sure that children are not ingesting harmful substances in toys, so it's the right thing to do.

I have, I guess, four questions, and maybe I'll just lay them all out and the right person to answer can answer them.

One question is, could you outline for us the consultation with stakeholders and provinces and territories that was undertaken in drafting this policy and legislative direction? We have had major concerns for Bill C-11, and we need to assure ourselves.

As well, what, if any, are the implications for information privacy under the act that you're putting forward?

What feedback did you get from stakeholders and the public after having put Bill C-52 essentially in front of the public previously, and was that incorporated into changes?

I'm curious as to what would be the incremental departmental capacity that would be needed to do the information management, the inspectors, the compliance and enforcement of this bill. Do you have an assessment of the extra staff that you'll need and the cost that will be resulting from that?

Human Pathogens and Toxins Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pretty sure that I cannot make a motion during questions and comments. I thank the member for the chance, or at least the gesture.

I can say that I am not here to put blame on anybody. I am here, as a member of this place, to suggest that there may be a problem with this bill. There are a few ways to handle it, as I indicated. Let me review them.

Number one is to make a motion to send the bill back to committee with specific reference to clauses 38, 67, and any other clauses that flow from those, for the health committee to hear the appropriate witnesses, to remediate the bill as necessary and to return it to the House.

The second thing would be simply to defeat this bill and make the government come back with another bill that has the changes in it.

The third thing is to pass the bill with the potential or alleged flaws in it and let it go to the Senate. Then the Senate will have an opportunity to review these matters in some detail, and it will send the bill back to us and we will probably have to send it back for consideration at the health committee anyway.

The most expeditious way to find out whether we have a serious problem is to send it back to committee. If anybody would like the letters, I would be happy to provide them. I am asking hon. members to rise in their place to debate Bill C-11 and make the motion to revert it to committee. I know my Liberal colleagues would be prepared to support that.

At this point we need members to review the information, look at the options we have and try to find the best manner in which the House of Commons can dispose of an important health bill.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday when this bill was last debated, I asked a question of one of the hon. members about the privacy implications that are included in the bill on human pathogens and toxins. I was not quite sure whether I got a full answer but I did ask what the disposition of the concerns were with regard to privacy. The indication was that there was a letter from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner responding to a couple of points.

That letter was written on March 11 and was sent to the chair of the Standing Committee on Health. To make a long story short, it appears that the health committee had arranged its affairs in order to look at the health implications of Bill C-11.

In Bill C-11, in clause 38(1) and some ancillary matters to do with the Privacy Act the Privacy Commissioner had indicated an interest to appear before the committee to discuss the concerns with the committee. In addition to the letter of March 11, there is a letter dated March 30. I may want to table both of them. In the letter, the Privacy Commissioner's office laid out the process it went through. There was some consultation with that office. They met with officials. They did not receive a privacy impact assessment. That is a critical element that is required to do a proper assessment of whether or not the activities related to the Privacy Act are going to be handled in a matter which is appropriate and also in a manner which does not conflict with other areas of the privacy legislation.

In going through these, the Privacy Commissioner's office had a couple of suggestions right off the bat, for instance, including the word “reasonableness”. It says, “the minister has the authority to order private personal information and confidential business information to be disclosed without limit and without any conditions, simply to order it to be”. That raised some concern in my mind. The Privacy Commissioner indicated there probably should be the normal wording that there was a test of reasonableness, that the minister should have reasonable cause to believe that this information was vital to the administration of the act.

That change was made. In fact, based on the written input of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, an amendment was made by the government at committee.

There was a subsequent letter, and a few other changes were proposed.

The reason I am rising is not with concern related to the health aspects, the safeguards that are being proposed in the bill to ensure the safety and security of human pathogens and toxins and those who have access to, custody of, or responsibility for them. My concerns relate to how this piece of legislation impacts on privacy rights of Canadians.

The member for Eglinton—Lawrence gave a wonderful speech last Thursday. Members may want to consult it to see more detail about the concerns that have been raised. I think that would be a very good place to start. I will not repeat the points made there, but the argument was made very clearly that there were some holes.

In fact, subsequent to the March 11 letter, based on which some government amendments were made, the letter dated March 30 I think was written on same day the committee did its clause-by-clause study and passed the bill and sent it back to the House. I did not get a chance even to read this letter, for the members' edification, and I am pretty sure that the members probably received or at least were advised of the letter of March 11. I am pretty sure, also, that when the members voted on the bill clause by clause they were not even aware of the March 30 letter.

That raises a very significant problem with regard to the manner in which the committee conducted its affairs. The members of the committee were not apprised of relevant information to do with that on a matter which did not even have a witness before it for them to even make the necessary enquiries. This raises some concerns about whether or not that committee discharged its responsibilities in a fashion which is expected by the House. That is a matter the committee members may want to review as a committee.

It also raises the issue that should the other items incorporated in the letter of March 30 from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner raise substantive items, and I believe they are substantive, it puts us in a situation where, very quickly, somebody had to decide whether we do something about this. There are a couple of ways to deal with it. One way would be to make a motion to send this bill back to the health committee. That process requires that we identify the specific clause or clauses for reconsideration. I am prepared to do that, but I am not sure whether it would get the support of the House because the details are not there. For all the members having to deal with this, the details are not there.

I hope the government members, the government House leader and the government whip will consider the options. One is to send the bill back to committee to hear a witness who knows what he or she is talking about when it comes to protecting the privacy rights of Canadians. The second option would be to say that we do not have much choice, and if we cannot send it back to committee, we will have to either defeat the bill or pass it. I think it is unlikely that the members will want to defeat this bill. It is an important bill in that we are dealing with health implications here.

However, in my view, there are some changes that are necessary with regard to the Privacy Act implications. A privacy impact assessment was not, and has not been, provided to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to enable it to give an informed opinion on whether or not the scope and the intent of the content of the legislation as it stands now are compatible with our obligations to protect privacy rights.

In the absence of the option of defeating the bill, I would suggest we have to pass it. That means this bill would go to the Senate. There is no doubt in my mind that the Senate does good work on legislation review. The Senate would look at the speeches of the day. It would look at the speech given by the member for Eglinton—Lawrence and see that some very serious questions have been raised. The member quoted extensively from both letters. If that is the case, it is my view that the problems in Bill C-11 as they currently exist are such that the Senate may have no choice but to make amendments to the bill and send it back to the House. Then we could send it back to committee for the committee to hear a witness and to fix the bill and then bring it back to the House and go through the process. It would be much more extensive.

I am calling out right now, in the middle of my speech, to the government House leader, to the whip, to the health critic, to the parliamentary secretary and to the Minister of Health to have a quick look at the situation. If they agree that this is the best opportunity for us to repair this bill, then a motion should come forward by a member speaking to this bill at this time to send the bill back to committee with regard to clause 38 and the clauses to which it relates. That is the reason I am rising, to ask the government to quickly consider the options before us.

I think the fastest route is to revert to committee to look at the matters, to consult with the Privacy Commissioner, not by exchanging a letter but by having representatives from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner appear.

It is a very substantive portion of this bill. It means that disclosure of personal information and confidential business information, not only of a person who has access or custody or responsibilities for human toxins or pathogens, the bill is so broad it could also lead to the disclosure of information about the person's family members. On top of this, the bill also allows this information to be shared with foreign governments.

One of the key issues the commissioner raised in this letter was what she termed “anonymize” the information about those who have custody or access or responsibilities related to human pathogens or toxins. That would mean instead of having the person's name disclosed to those it is necessary to disclose to so that we have the tools necessary to properly administer Bill C-11, it would not put on the record tes person's name, personal information, family's information, confidential business information or anything else it would dig up without explanation, limits or conditions on the minister.

The reason it just twigged with me is that I happen to be the chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The Privacy Act comes under my committee's purview. We meet with the the Privacy Commissioner regularly. We are now working on some quick fixes to the Privacy Act, because it has not been touched in over 25 years.

These are important issues, and if we allow another bill to compromise the privacy rights of Canadians and effectively undermine the intent of the Privacy Act, then we have a ripple effect. It is not right.

I want to highlight a couple of things in the letter of March 30, which I do not believe the committee members even saw. It was sent directly to the chair of the committee. It would have been very difficult to have it go through the process of going through the parliamentary secretary and the government officials for health, maybe even the health minister, and then to distribute it to the committee members, who are entitled to get copies of all correspondence related to the matter before them.

In this case the assistant privacy commissioner actually signed the letter, thanking the committee for including some of the suggestions they had. They said there seemed to be a preliminary exchange of emails between the Public Health Agency of Canada and some of their officials. That was in May 2008. It was almost a year ago that they were talking about this. The privacy officials, the Privacy Commissioner, and Dr. Butler's agency, the PHAC, were aware of this.

It causes me great concern. If the Ministry of Health and the Public Health Agency of Canada, the PHAC, were aware of these items, these concerns on the Privacy Act, and still put forward a bill to the House of Commons that did not take into account the substantive concerns that the Privacy Commissioner had, it causes me grave concern. Somehow the system failed the House of Commons. Or, there is a reason. I am not going to speculate on whether someone wanted to pass by the input of the office of the Privacy Commissioner or pass by the prior consultations from almost a year ago with the Public Health Agency of Canada.

This is serious. Something has gone wrong in the operation of the committee, in the drafting of legislation, in the circulation of correspondence, and in the assessment, getting a privacy impact assessment so that the Privacy Commissioner could actually do the job.

It does say, “...we did not have many details and did not receive materials other than what was then Bill C-54, at that time”. That was the bill from the last Parliament.

That is all they received. How could we expect the Privacy Commissioner to do her job when there is no consultation and no communication with her on this bill specifically, until afterwards, where someone somehow picks up on a couple of items?

This involves two acts. One is the Privacy Act, which has the oversight with regard to the government departments, but also there is the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act; it is referred to as PIPEDA. These two acts together are related, and they are involved in this matter. It is not straightforward.

The letter goes on to say:

We recognize that the intent of the legislation is to deal with the personal information of laboratory workers; however, we still have concerns that there is nothing in the Bill to restrict the collection of ancillary personal information, such as patient information.

We are getting into areas that are so sensitive.

Another ancillary collection could be personal information about a laboratory worker's family members, should they come into contact with a regulated pathogen or toxin. As well, we are aware of the potential for function creep and would therefore prefer to limit the collection of personal information.

It goes on to say:

We look forward to these issues being addressed in the privacy risk assessment work to come.

They still have not received the privacy impact assessment. That is the tool, the approach in which we look at the implications to the Privacy Act of any legislation that touches on it. There is a protocol to go through here. It is the way we do our business, because Lord knows that members of Parliament cannot be experts in every statute we have responsibility for.

We have a responsibility to make sure that the work is done. We second the responsibility for the detailed knowledge, the day-to-day knowledge, to the people who work on it in the departments, in the agencies, we have established to do this.

But the matter has not come forward. It did not come forward to the committee. It did not come forward to the House. It was not disclosed by the parliamentary secretary in his speech. It was not disclosed by the minister at any point. No release. No information. We have done a very, very poor job as the House. It is a reflection on all of us.

However, we now have an opportunity. We have identified a potential problem here. It may be nothing. I may be wrong, but the Privacy Commissioner does not think so.

I believe the best course of action is to remedy the concerns that have been raised in the letter of March 30 by the commissioner, to ensure we learn from this example, to ensure that legislation, before it is signed off by all of the cabinet, that members did their due diligence. Did they check off on every piece of information? We have the formal checklist. Are they representing that this is constitutional, that it does not contradict any other laws of Canada, that it follows the model or the protocols we have established to make sure our bills and statutes work?

We also have a grave concern about the regulations. Bill C-11 requires substantive regulations. But if there is no consultation on the bill, I am not sure we will see any consultation related to privacy when the regulations are drafted and gazetted and promulgated.

One of the other areas is clause 67. It says that this may “diminish controls over personal information”. I guess that is the point of all this.

Having said that, I would like the unanimous consent of the House to table photocopies of both letters to the chair of the Standing Committee on Health: one dated March 11, one dated March 30, both in relation to Bill C-11.

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House resumed from April 30 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.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is important that we have this debate today on Bill C-11, An Act to—allegedly—promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins.

There is a paradox right in the title the government has given this bill. This government is talking about the safety of pathogens, and yet in a media release dated April 29, 2008, when Bill C-54, the predecessor of Bill C-11, was introduced, the Minister of Health at the time said: “The risk to Canadians posed by the presence of human pathogens and toxins in labs is low .”

In 2008 they were saying that the risk to the public was relatively low. And now the government is introducing a bill to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins, as if there were numerous risks.

So what does the bill that is before us do? First, it makes the guidelines that have been presented by the Public Health Agency of Canada mandatory. Second, it makes it mandatory that licences be obtained for regulated activities, so that existing pathogens can be monitored, to determine where they are and to know who has them. Third, it institutes a scheme of offences and penalties.

We are not opposed to oversight of these pathogens. That is a basic principle: the risk has to be managed, we have to ensure that the precautionary principle can be applied, of course.

In reality, however, what impact would the implementation of this bill have? It would create operating methods in workplaces like universities, research centres, clinics and hospitals. It seems clear to me that these sites are under Quebec’s authority. And today we have a federal government that would use the Criminal Code to get directly involved in how our hospitals and clinics operate, in the name of criminal law.

As I said, the precautionary principle must be applied, of course, but at the same time, the federal government has to understand where its authority to act begins and where it has to end.

We on this side of the House are not the only ones who think the government is going too far. This is an excerpt from a letter written on April 6, 2009, which makes it very recent, barely three weeks ago, by the Minister of Health of Quebec, Yves Bolduc, to the federal Minister of Health, concerning Bill C-11:

Quebec notes that the measures proposed in the bill would have a significant impact on the organization of medical laboratory and diagnostic services, which are normal services within Quebec's health system. However, these services fall under the jurisdiction of the government of Quebec.

Health Minister Yves Bolduc wrote further:

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.

This is a letter dated April 6, which the federal health minister has received. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Health, who merely tried to get the government side to approve an amendment to ensure that the provinces would be consulted during the development of the regulations, got a resounding no for an answer.

Not only did the minister not deign to withdraw her bill but the members of the government party and some opposition members refused, I firmly believe, to make sure that at least those concerned by the application of it, that is the Government of Quebec, the hospitals and research centres, were consulted. It was a categorical no. The federal government is trying to use the terrorist threat in order to meddle in areas of provincial jurisdiction. That is the reality.

The federal government has all the tools it needs to handle pathogens of this kind. It can do so under the Terrorism Act. At least three countries have done so. The United Kingdom decided to take action under its terrorism act to regulate pathogens of this kind. But the government refuses to use the legislative tools at its disposal. It decided to go further and meddle directly in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

There is clearly a constitutional problem with the bill. This is not the first time this has happened. The government already used its power to legislate in the area of criminal law to make some laboratory biosafety guidelines obligatory through the issuing of licences. However, the bill exceeds the federal jurisdiction, as happened as well in the case of the federal bill on assisted reproduction, among others.

On June 19, 2008, the Quebec Court of Appeal handed down a judgment in the reference from the Government of Quebec on the constitutionality of sections 8 to 19, 40 to 53, 60, 61 and 68 of the Assisted Reproduction Act. The Court of Appeal stated that the sections in question exceeded the authority of the Parliament of Canada under the Constitution Act, 1867. In short, the judges said that the basic, overriding purpose of the part of the act that was challenged was to protect health and not to right a wrong. The provisions that were challenged could therefore not qualify as pertaining to criminal law under the Constitution Act, 1867.

There are precedents, therefore, for the federal government trying to use its power to legislate in the area of criminal law to introduce bills concerning health that are obviously outside its jurisdiction. Workplaces, universities, clinics and hospitals are clearly provincial jurisdictions.

We would have hoped today that the government would listen to reason at the stage the bill is at and withdraw Bill C-11, as requested by the Quebec health minister.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, something strikes me about Bill C-11. The federal government once again is using its power to legislate in criminal law to impose regulations in provincial areas of jurisdiction. We often see that in the tax area. Here is my question. Is it not unfair for Quebec and the other provinces that the federal government uses the principles of criminal law and the Criminal Code to impose regulations in areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as laboratories, hospitals and research centres? Should we not rely instead on the Anti-terrorism Act, as it is done in Australia, for example?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague for Laval how the different provinces and the Quebec nation react to Bill C-11.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, much has been said in my able colleagues’ remarks and mine on Bill C-11.

I would like to know whether the hon. member feels a renewed sovereignist commitment when she sees the federal government interfering, with a bill like Bill C-11?

As my colleague from Alfred-Pellan said, we have seen this happen in the issue of tax harmonization, and in other issues like cuts in scientific research and so many other issues over the years.

Does my colleague feel a renewed commitment to sovereignty every time she sees this kind of interference and incompetence on the part of the federal government?