Evidence of meeting #48 for Health in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was conveyance.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Robert Clarke  Deputy Chief Public Health Officer, Infectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness, Public Health Agency of Canada
Dennis Brodie  Manager, Legislative and Regulatory Policy Group, Public Health Agency of Canada
Howard Njoo  Director General, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Public Health Agency of Canada
John Cuningham  Senior Counsel, Public Health Agency of Canada

5:10 p.m.

Director General, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Public Health Agency of Canada

Dr. Howard Njoo

Yes. It wouldn't be the minister, but certainly the quarantine officer making the assessment does have power under the Quarantine Act—

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

So do the provinces.

5:10 p.m.

Director General, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Public Health Agency of Canada

Dr. Howard Njoo

—to take the appropriate measures, which could be quarantining, or at least having all the other passengers assessed, as appropriate.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

Mr. Batters.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Batters Conservative Palliser, SK

Mr. Chair, it seems evident to me, from the testimony we've heard here today and from the information we've gleaned at this meeting, that originally the intention was to include ground transportation. However, and I think this is important, Canada led on this because of the SARS experience, but no one--the Governor in Council or whoever is responsible for making regulations--moved to pass regulations to include ground crossings.

I put this question before the committee, before all of us: Is it now for us as committee members to decide what is the existing risk level from the United States? Clearly when SARS came to this country--and I think this was the comment, although I forget the exact wording—the vast proportion came not from the United States. Does it now rest with this committee to decide this matter of policy, based on the risk level of the United States, on how practical this is? This is a policy decision that needs to be undertaken. It's a departure from the initial intention, but no one ever moved to bring these regulations forward.

I guess it falls to this committee now to make this very important decision, and I'd like the chair's guidance as to how that's going to happen.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

Well, it's going to happen, because as soon as the discussion is over, we'll put the question on whether we want to go clause by clause. We'll have to have that determination by the committee. If you have enough information and you're comfortable with that, we will go to clause-by-clause. If not, we'll get enough information until we are.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Batters Conservative Palliser, SK

Thank you.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

That takes us to the end of our list.

Now, do you have enough information, and are you prepared to go to clause-by-clause? We'll open the floor to that debate.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

In the discussions between what was passed in the fall and where we are today with these proposed amendments, can you tell us some of the people who...? Is this unanimous in the public health community, or would this committee be able to find witnesses, other than you as officials, who would speak to both sides of this issue?

If we were comfortable, we would just move on. The original consultation on the Quarantine Act with the community was very tiny--one meeting in Edmonton. Would we find that the public health community...?

I mean, this committee will make a decision. If we make a decision to go with it, do we end up with Richard Schabas and the whole world screaming at us tomorrow? Is it absolutely unanimous in the public health community that you don't need this dumb stuff on land conveyances, or are we in the middle of a mess?

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

Anybody want to tackle that?

5:15 p.m.

Deputy Chief Public Health Officer, Infectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness, Public Health Agency of Canada

Dr. Robert Clarke

I'll start.

Other federal departments--the Department of Justice, Transport Canada, Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Coast Guard--were consulted about these changes. So those consultations have been done on this amendment.

Maybe I'll turn this over to Howard.

5:15 p.m.

Director General, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Public Health Agency of Canada

Dr. Howard Njoo

Honourable member Bennett, the public health community is a small one. I know Dr. Schabas, and I know all the others. They're all my colleagues. I'm part of that community.

From the consultations and practical interactions we've had with our colleagues in the United States and other countries, public health officials responsible for their respective quarantine acts or equivalent in terms of control measures at the border, there is consensus, among the people I've spoken to, that from a risk management point of view, it's not practical, as you say, to look at the land conveyance issue but to focus on air and watercraft. That's why we're proceeding in this fashion.

In a sense, that's reflected in terms of the results of the revision of the International Health Regulations. Among the many people involved in those negotiations in Geneva, you obviously had official diplomats and so on. But underneath those people, the people who actually provided the practical advice were the public health officials from each of those countries--including me, for Canada. So we all came to the same place, at the end of the day, in terms of how we should be coordinating and collaborating in terms of control of infectious diseases.

So in terms of measures at respective borders, in terms of what is good risk management for how to deal with cases that are identified prior to arrival in Canada, this is the end result.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

That same community had been in favour of including land conveyances in the original bill. You then went to Geneva, to a meeting where there were people in the WHO who were fighting against healthy eating because of the sugar countries. I mean, this is a very political process--international health regulations. Then, the Canadians at the meeting said our law is too tough and we'll loosen it up in order to be with all of the other countries. You're saying the same people who wanted this in the original bill are now very comfortable taking it out?

5:15 p.m.

Director General, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Public Health Agency of Canada

Dr. Howard Njoo

I guess it's a question of intent--whether it was wanted in the bill. I can just say as a public health official, notwithstanding the rest of the world, that my closest working relationship is with my counterparts' quarantine program in the United States. As we indicated earlier, the thinking on both sides was that this was not wanted. We wanted air and water.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

There's a difference between focus and exclusion in terms of where you put your resources. You can focus on those two, but the ability to deal with land is a big thing to give up, isn't it?

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

That's fine. I think your point is made, and I think we understand.

We'll go to Mr. Fletcher and then to Ms. Brown.

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Chair, this is indeed a technical bill, with changes that meet the mandate to protect Canadians. There is an international component, which the officials have raised, and we are certainly meeting and in fact exceeding that.

There seems to be some concern about the ground conveyances. In the spirit of trying to move this forward and to do it expeditiously, because this has been delayed under both governments, I wonder if the officials can alleviate any concerns this committee may have in dealing with the intent of the bill or the fact that the ground transportation isn't explicitly mentioned in the regulations. You've mentioned that this can be dealt with in an expeditious manner if it's an emergency or the risk profile changes and how important it is that this bill move forward in its current format.

If there were to be an amendment, which seems to be the suggestion, I'm not sure that the expertise exists.... We rely on the officials in many cases to provide the expertise on that.

I gather you are the experts from the government. You have presented us with the bill. I would humbly suggest that the committee accept the expert advice and move forward to pass the bill as soon as possible. I wonder if the members of the panel could agree or disagree and also explain why it is important that it is passed in this format.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Susan Kadis Liberal Thornhill, ON

Excuse me, Mr. Chair. I thought we were talking, ourselves, about debating the next way to proceed

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

Yes, we were. But Mrs. Bennett is asking questions as well. So if there are comments on that situation then I would allow an answer from the witnesses.

5:20 p.m.

Deputy Chief Public Health Officer, Infectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness, Public Health Agency of Canada

Dr. Robert Clarke

I think it's important to clarify that we're only talking about advance reporting. Land conveyances that are hitting the border still have to report if someone is sick. I think that's an important thing to keep in mind. It's not that we're abandoning reporting of illnesses in land conveyances. That's still there, and it will be there. It's the advanced reporting that's the difference.

Obviously with the way the world is changing with globalization and more movement of people, I think having the regulations in place, and these amendments, is really important. On a daily basis we're facing people coming into the country with various diseases. As I mentioned, our quarantine officers have to investigate situations about 20 times a month. This is not a small problem. I think moving this along would certainly help us to have the proper tools we need to do our job.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

Thank you.

Ms. Brown.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think from what I'm hearing on both sides of the table, I have to say I'm not ready to go to clause-by-clause.

Mr. Fletcher said that we have to lean on our officials, and I really believe that. But these are the same officials who brought us Bill C-12 and implied they could do it, and now we're hearing that they don't know how to do it or they don't have enough money to do what they brought to us themselves in Bill C-12.

So Mr. Fletcher was right: These are changes that meet the needs of the officials who don't seem to know how to do this or who maybe don't have enough money for more quarantine officers. If you're going to check people at a border and have a quarantine official, you can't have somebody driving from the Toronto airport to Windsor to look over people on a bus. Yet that's what they're telling us. There are only 30 locations. That means all the major international airports and the two main ports in the country. Is that good enough? I would question that.

We heard at the time from the CMA, the Canadian Medical Association, and now this thing has been in place for a while, at least at airports and ports, and I'd like to know what they have to say about the Quarantine Act and what they think about the safety.

The other thing, before I could possibly decide, Mr. Chair, is I need to know how many of those 266,000 people who enter our country come by land. What if it's more than half? I agree with Dr. Bennett: why would we give this up? This is not a technical amendment. It is a change in policy, and it therefore has to be dealt with much more seriously than would a technical amendment.

So, no, I'm not ready, and if you want, I'll make some suggestions for witnesses.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

Okay. Our time is just about gone, but I want to draw this to a conclusion, because I think we've exhausted the information we can draw from the witnesses.

We are now in a situation of having to decide whether we want to have more witnesses for more information or to prepare to go to clause-by-clause. My sense from perhaps both sides of the table--I'm not sure--is that we would like to bring some more information to the table before we go on with clause-by-clause. That's the consensus I sense, but I may be wrong.

Mr. Brown, I see your hand.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON

Mr. Chairman, I'm not in favour of ragging the puck on this. I appreciate the concerns Mr. Batters brought up, but at the same time, I'd suggest that we try to go through this.

I think one concern we have heard is that there have been attempts to get this through, but because of minority Parliaments we've been unable to. I'm not sure what witnesses we're going to hear from that would add to this. I think we've been presented information very thoroughly. If there are suggestions that can be raised about witnesses who have qualifications to speak on this very topic, who we haven't heard of, that would bring weight to this debate, and then we could certainly entertain that. But I haven't heard any references to a gap in who we're hearing from.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

I think we heard a couple from Ms. Brown in her last comments.

Ms. Beaumier.