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.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you.
Dr. Butler-Jones, are you in possession of the letter from the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport of British Columbia that went to Minister Aglukkaq?
5 p.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
I have a letter from both the deputy minister in British Columbia and the deputy minister in Ontario. I have responded to them. I have spoken to them personally about it. They're comfortable with our way forward.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Well, I'll make sure you receive a copy of this.
I don't want to get into a “he said, she said”, but I can tell you that the chief medical officer's office was very clear that they were not consulted during the course of Bill C-54, and--
5 p.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
Sorry; the chief medical officer's office from where?
5 p.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
Well, they're part of the Council of Chief Medical Officers in Canada. They were part of those consultations, specifically with all chief medical officers across the country, and our engagement in discussions and stuff. They will be part of the ongoing process.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Their record is that the consultation came out to Vancouver the day before this bill was tabled, in February of this year. Their experience was very clearly to not have been consulted, but to have been invited to an information session very recently.
I noted that you said you agreed with many of the comments you heard. Yet here we have a comment from the minister in British Columbia, as follows:
We agree that some regulation...is justified. However, the overly broad reach of this bill is such that we feel it should be either withdrawn or substantially amended by reducing the scope to address our concerns. It is not clear that regulation of this wide range of toxins and organisms will have public health protection benefits. ...our strong preference is that a new bill be considered which is collaboratively developed through consultations with the provinces and territories.
Clearly there's not an experience of consultation to date.
The minister goes on: “It's the province's view that the current bill carries a grave risk of, paradoxically, harming the public health management of pathogens.” Then she goes on to list some very specific concerns.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
And if it's not withdrawn, she gives very specific amendments to the bill.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Yes.
So there is a set of amendments here. I would like to have a response from your office to these specific amendments that have been proposed.
5:05 p.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
Obviously we'll do that. But I'm sorry, I'm at a loss here; I don't actually have that letter. I'd have seen, in the letter from the deputy minister and others in terms of issues--
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
This letter says, “My officials and experts at the B.C. Centre for Disease Control have reviewed this bill, and the following comments are based on that review.” I am sure I don't need to remind you or any of your officials that the B.C. Centre for Disease Control was at the lead of dealing with the SARS problem, is widely respected across the country, and is credited with how few mortalities we had in British Columbia compared with elsewhere. When that respected an organization gives this strong feedback, I believe it's incumbent on your organization to consult properly and include the views of the Province of British Columbia.
5:05 p.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
We will certainly follow up with them.
As I said, I've just had a conversation with the deputy minister of health, who was responsible for all of that. He's quite comfortable with where we're going, but wants to see--as does the deputy in Ontario, as do all the deputies, as do I--what it translates into in regulations.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
No, no, I hear you. As I said, that is a legislative decision as to how much in the regulation versus how much in the bill. I'm comfortable with however we wish to proceed with that.
We have been engaging; we have the Public Health Network in Canada, which includes the most senior public health officials from across the country, including expert groups, etc. This has been before those groups, has been before advisory groups in conversation and discussion, in the previous form of the act--
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
That's why I'm saying, with due respect, it's not productive for me to--
5:05 p.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
--and in the current act.
It's interesting that it needs to come at this point, but we will address them all.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you, Dr. Butler.
I just want to let everybody know that the letter will be distributed to the whole committee once it's translated. That way everyone will be aware of that particular letter.
Thank you very much for your answers--
5:05 p.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
I'm sorry, may I ask a question for clarification? Who was the letter addressed to?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you very much.
I just have a quick question, and perhaps it's my naïveté that leads me to ask this question. It seems to me that a lot of the concerns we've been hearing are the fact that we're beyond the trust-me mentality in these days, and people are not so much concerned about what the bill is doing or what we hope the bill will do, because I think everybody believes in biosecurity, safety, and so on. What they're concerned about is what's going to be in the regulations.
When I look at the document, the “Potential Program and Regulatory Framework”, dated February 2, I look at things that say “could involve”, “also likely”, “it is likely”, “could be a phase-in”, “no intention”, “could be”. Why can you not change some of the things in this document to be more definitive and address some of the questions and concerns people have? Would that not allay some of the fears?
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Infectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada
Yes, the language was used because it's proposed the stakeholders can give input into that document. There are certainly areas where, for sure, we're not going to require security clearance for risk group twos. That can definitely can be put in there, and I think that's reasonable and can be clarified.
The other areas were intentionally done so they give the stakeholders a chance, through our next two years of consultation, to mould it into something they can work with and is feasible. I think our intention was good in that we were wanting to not put this in concrete and black and white terms, so they are allowed to give input into it.
We're certainly happy to further clarify. We'll further reassure our intentions if some language changes are required. It is proposed only because we feel that document and its ensuing regulations and programs require a lot of input from stakeholders.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you.
I'll give the rest of my time to Mr. Uppal, if I have some.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Could we just talk about the cost of implementation for a minute, what this bill is going to cost laboratories, what their costs are going to be because of this bill?