Evidence of meeting #10 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was labs.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Senior Biosafety Officer, Environmental Health and Safety, University of Toronto
I'm not responsible for production, but my background is science, and I look at it as that I have to understand the science part and I have to understand the regulation part and enforcement. I'm not the research for that, so I don't do bench work myself, no.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Okay.
You made a comment, Mr. Conlan, that if there was malicious intent, schedule 2 pathogens could be a problem. I've got a letter from the provincial minister of health in British Columbia, essentially describing many of the pathogens in schedule 2 as things that are ordinarily found on the body, in the ground, on animals. So my question is this. If there were malicious intent, would this new regulatory regime protect anyone, or prevent that malicious intent from taking place?
Principal Research Officer, National Research Council, As an Individual
Not as far as risk group two pathogens are concerned. My understanding is that it boils down to whether the federal government wishes to know what risk group two pathogens exist in laboratories in Canada and whereabouts in Canada those laboratories are based. It's that simple. For risk group two, that's all the information...if you do away with the security clearance, the only information you will gain from Bill C-11 is that you will know all of these labs and they will also come now under the microscope. All these labs are off the radar right now. Unless you import these organisms, you don't need to interact with the Public Health Agency of Canada or CFIA at all.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
But perhaps with the provincial regulatory bodies. That's one of the key concerns the provinces have: that this is an additional layer of regulatory burden. Presumably, Mr. Ghalami, you have that regulatory burden already and that's why you're saying this wouldn't make any change. But the provinces are concerned that there's now another regime.
When I read the act, I must admit that with respect to the comment that other than security clearances there wouldn't be any impact on the schedule 2, I see disclosure of information, licensing, registering, security clearances, inspection, enforcement, and so on. All looks to me in the bill to be covering the schedule 2 as well, even though the verbal description of what may be intended is different than that. It's woven throughout this bill. I think that's a concern as well.
Do you experience registering and requirements through the provincial regime for your labs, or perhaps that's not the case in Ontario, and just in British Columbia?
Senior Biosafety Officer, Environmental Health and Safety, University of Toronto
I will go back to my initial comment, and I said I 100% respect the bill and like the bill if two provisions aren't made. One is security. One is licensing. So those two are handled.
We do not report to provincial legislators or provincial enforcers, namely the minister of labour, in regard to our biologicals. It's the workplace. They do have the right to come and inspect at any given time they decide to, but they do not deal specifically with biologicals. They look at it as a workplace. So they need to make sure we abide by the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
But the Public Health Agency, their whole focus is biologicals. They don't care if a floor is this and that. They want to make sure you know what bug you're working with and you understand the consequence of using the wrong one or understand using the wrong biological safety cabinet. I challenge committee members to get scientists and ask them. There are four different types of biological safety cabinet. Ask the scientists which one you need to use when you have radioisotopes mixed with your biologicals. Half your scientists wouldn't know. Scientists are like kids in a candy store; they're focused on their work and their work only. The other stuff is not of that much interest to them, so we need someone to come and just enforce that part.
Conservative
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks very much to both our presenters.
It's been said here this afternoon that we've been hearing a totally different story. I'm not so sure we have. I think we heard concerns raised by other presenters who have been here, but I think when we pare down those concerns and we look at them methodically, I think the concerns have been over the inclusion of the level twos and they have been over the security factor that's in this bill, and I think that's exactly the same thing you're saying, Mr. Ghalami.
Senior Biosafety Officer, Environmental Health and Safety, University of Toronto
I strongly believe, personally and as an institution, and even agree that as an institution we told Public Health Agency of Canada that they're more than welcome to give us a blanket licence for risk group two. We will tell you what we have, where we have it, and what we do with it, just don't regulate every individual lab, because that would be onerous for scientists and this is not fair. We don't want to overkill our scientists with paperwork. And they have agreed, and they also have agreed with the security clearance. And as I mentioned in the first statement I made, if these two are lifted you don't have to do anything different, because that is the right practice that is required by the memorandum of understanding and that's what we do at work.
What the others say, unfortunately I can't talk on their behalf. I don't know their reasoning.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
No, and those were the two main things others have been expressing concern about and the things we've been trying to understand.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
On a point of order, for clarification, when you say “they have agreed”, does that mean that will be government amendments? What does “they have agreed” mean?
Senior Biosafety Officer, Environmental Health and Safety, University of Toronto
We were hoping that it will be in the bill when the next readings will come, in black and white, that these exclusions or these modifications have been changed. That was the understanding I was on, that it will come.
Conservative
Senior Biosafety Officer, Environmental Health and Safety, University of Toronto
With Health Canada, yes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Just one moment.
Dr. Butler-Jones, you wanted to mention something. Could you come to the table, please?
Dr. David Butler-Jones Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
Just very briefly on that point, members, the intent of this legislation is broad. It is in the regulatory and program framework that all of those issues will be dealt with. I think the committee has seen the draft regulatory framework that actually identifies these issues as we move forward. You'll have an opportunity with me later, so I'll leave it at that.
Conservative
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you.
I'm glad Dr. Butler-Jones has intervened here and made that statement, because another one of the concerns was the fact that other people did not feel that the regulations were developed to a stage where they had any firm idea as to which direction they were going. They felt they were left too open-ended at this point to be in agreement with them.
There was also concern raised about the fact that some people didn't feel they had been consulted. They felt they had been, perhaps, to an information session but not to a consultation. Yet both of you today have used the word “consultation”. Do you feel that you were consulted and listened to?
Principal Research Officer, National Research Council, As an Individual
Senior Biosafety Officer, Environmental Health and Safety, University of Toronto
For me, I will still wait to see what comes in the regulations on what comments we have made. Obviously if it's not in the bill, it comes in the regulations. I can't say yea or nay because we have not seen the regulations, so I can't make any comment on that.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I may leave some time before 4:30 p.m. for my other colleagues, if they have any questions.
I'd just like to come back to a comment that Mr. Ghalami made a little earlier. You stated that because universities that conduct research rely on grant money, they must follow certain safety rules.
Are you prepared to say that the explicit exclusion from the bill of all university research would not pose any kind of problem because universities are already subject to a number of stringent safety rules? If so, that would deflect some of the criticism and alleviate some of the concerns that have been expressed in the past few days.
Senior Biosafety Officer, Environmental Health and Safety, University of Toronto
Thank you, honourable member. That's a great question.
Obviously now I am the inspector. I have a biosafety officer who goes and inspects labs. If she has any problems, I go to inspect the lab. No one comes to check my work to see if I have done it right or wrong.
From a personal perspective, if the Public Health Agency of Canada doesn't come, my call goes. If the Public Health Agency of Canada comes, then you have another unbiased, second set of eyes that check your functions. We do get audited by the tri-council, but all they care about is making sure we have a system in place. They don't go and inspect labs. They're chartered accountants. They want to make sure you have all your paperwork in order and you have a system in place. So they check the entirety of your system, but they do not check the lab work at a hands-on level. As a biosafety officer, I would be more comfortable seeing someone qualified check my lab.
There was another comment we made as an institution, saying that we hope and request that the inspectors who are going to come to the labs have the same credentials or qualifications as we biosafety officers so that we do not deal with an individual who does not understand the scope of the stuff.
So far the Public Health Agency, I can confidently say, is one of the best regulators. They understand the scientific side as well, and I say it with pride. But the reality is that we don't know if it's going to be the inspectors or not. We hope that will be the case, and that they keep the legacy that when they send the inspectors, the inspectors would represent what they do currently.