Health Committee on March 12th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Malo, you're out of time.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis....

Order, Mr. Malo, order.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

—the student career that hold so dear is at issue here. The bill must be very clear on this score because they still have some concerns. In their view, the solution is not to give people carte blanche.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Malo, I'm calling you to order. I will not address you if you're going to be that rude. Please don't do that again.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

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

Do you want to answer that question first?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

It relates to human disease.

Theresa or Jane, do you want to pick that up?

[Jane Allain]

In reviewing the bill, it is important to check the definition provided of risk groups as well as the schedules containing the list of substances. It is clear that the bill refers to pathogens, that is things—I'm not a scientist, so I don't know what they are called— that can cause disease in a human.

In drawing up the lists of substances, the minister must refer to the schedules mentioned in clauses 1 and 7. If the schedule lists E. coli, then this is a reference only to substances that can cause disease in a human. Your interpretation could be off if you read only one clause. However, when you look at all of the clauses together, it's clear that the reference is solely to pathogens that can cause disease in a human.

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

The problem we're having is that this legislation is a pretty tough regulatory approach. What we're hearing from most of our witnesses is that some of the provisions may be good and necessary, and some are not. Almost all of the witnesses up to today have actually suggested that we find a way to ensure this act does not apply to the level two risk group. I'm wondering if you have a problem with an amendment that would actually add on page 5, in clause 7, after line 22 as part of the exemption clause “any activity involving a microorganism, nucleic acid, or protein that is listed in schedule 2”.

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

Let me step back in answering that question and explain the reason for having level two in there. There are a number of reasons for that.

I mentioned earlier H2N2. Currently the import regulations include level two. Transportation includes level two. So we already regulate level two at the import, export, and transportation levels. The issue is that we don't regulate it at either end. In other words, does this lab have the capacity to receive this organism? As I'm saying, the intent of the regulations is that we would regulate level two labs differently from level three and level four labs. So the regulation regime, the expectations, the security clearance, and all of those things would be different for level two from what they are for level three and level four, because they're risk-based.

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

The trouble for us and for the witnesses who have been before us is that we have to take your word. I may trust you, Dr. Butler-Jones, and believe you have integrity on the job, but you might not be there forever. The regulations are something that cabinet approves. We don't know how they may be changed by the political powers that may be.

So we're interested in making sure that as much as possible the concerns of these folks are reflected in this legislation. They say that the way it now sits, they're going to lose research and they're going to experience some of what happened in the States with the Patriot Act. Some of the witnesses remarked that MIT had lost researchers because of the restrictions. I think the last thing we want to do is lose the little bit of leeway we have in this country around innovative research. Wouldn't it be better to actually follow the U.K. model of having a registry, as opposed to taking this tougher regulatory licensing approach?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

I have two points. One I have spoken to and would speak more to is the issue we face, sometimes, with level two labs. It's not the universities I'm worried about. It's not the provincial laboratories I'm worried about. There are a large number of labs out there that don't have that same kind of discipline, scrutiny, oversight, and so on. For example, with respect to the recent H5 incident in Europe, the Europeans are asking us what means we have to ensure that we can find out what is where and what's been sent where so we can actually trace this stuff. Currently we have no authority to do that.

Where provincial acts exist, they tend to be about occupational health and safety and about quality, not about biosecurity or biosafety. So it is filling a gap. It will require extensive consultation, as I said before, to address these issues. It will also require close cooperation with the provinces and territories to make sure that we're complementary. We're even talking with them about joint kinds of regimes in terms of how we minimize the burden on facilities and minimize paperwork and ensure that we actually address these things effectively.

On the question of how much you'd like to be clear about the intent in the legislation, how you proceed with that is a decision of the committee. As I said earlier, people may trust me. They may trust the agency. They want to know where we're going. But there are provisions. We're required by the whole legislative process to ensure that we consult extensively throughout the regulatory development process, which is what we will do. We are committed to that. You see in the regulatory framework, in the statements today, what our intent is and what our plan is, which is on the record.

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

Would you have difficulty if we amended the bill to require the regulations to come back to this committee and Parliament for final approval?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

Quite honestly, I don't have an issue with what the government and the committee do to facilitate this process. This is important legislation. We want to see it happen, and we want to get, as quickly as possible, something that is effective and useful for everybody.

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

You seemed to reject my proposed amendment to delete level two from the effects of this act. Do you have other amendments you have in mind to address some of the concerns raised by some of the other medical scientists and researchers who came before our committee?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

There are ways—and this is something, again, for the committee to look at—to clearly signal the intent. I've said it, and not only in terms of the draft regulatory framework. If there is a willingness on the part of the committee and the government to look at wording that will make the intent clearer than it is now, personally, I have no issue with that. All the statements and concerns we have heard we understand. For the vast majority, I would agree with ensuring that we address them through the regulations. We had set out to do it through regulations. The question now is a legislative one: What fits in the act versus what fits in the regulations?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Dr. Butler-Jones.

We'll now go to Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Just to follow up on Judy's line of questioning, some of the people said we should get rid of level two, but I think they based their objections on a belief that the security was going to be a problem for them. Even Mr. Ghalami said today that if we could get rid of that security requirement....

You mentioned that there is no intent to do what these previous witnesses thought you were going to do, so I see that there has been a misunderstanding among the witnesses we had before.

I want to talk to you a little bit about how the stakeholders have been engaged. My understanding was that you had sessions in Saskatoon, Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Halifax, Toronto, Vancouver, Guelph, and Calgary. Over 2,700 e-mails were sent out. You held up something, Dr. Butler-Jones, about your list. How many pages is that? What do you have?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

It is 62 pages.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

You have 62 pages, and there is more than one person on each page. When they say that they weren't consulted, is it possible that maybe they missed stuff in e-mails? Can you give us an idea? They are saying that they weren't. Obviously, you have given evidence that you did a pretty good job of getting it out. So how do you account for the disconnect?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

I'll let Theresa speak to the sessions.

The only thing I want to say is that I really appreciate all the input. At the bottom line, we want to get this right, in any legislation, in anything we do. To be effective, we have to be transparent. We have to be collaborative as an agency. Public health respects no borders. So at whatever point it comes into the process, when we're told, “Oh, you haven't thought about this,” I'm quite happy to hear that.

That said, we've also had all these discussions, etc., over time, and some of it is placing down markers. In other words, as in Judy's question, let's make sure it is clear what we're saying here and what we plan to do. As to whether you do it in the act, in the regulations, in the consultations, or in the related documents, that's a bit of a judgment call, from my perspective, as long as we get there.

I'm quite happy to hear all of this, even if some of the people we've already had conversations with have left the conversation saying “I'm fine with that”, and then come back. They have a second thought, as we often do, or they hear from someone else and then rumours start. So we address that input then.

I'm quite happy to have it come forward at any time, because it's better to address it. We're taking account of all this, including the deliberations of this committee, and we will make sure that we address that in the best way possible.

Theresa can speak to it, if you wish.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I just have one more thing to throw in there.

Dr. Bennett had a legitimate concern. She said that B.C. and Ontario were upset. Obviously you did consult the provinces. When did you first find out there was upset in Ontario?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

The questions are ones that were raised and we were paying attention to and planning to do through regulation. I was a bit surprised to see it then reflected as if we'd never had the conversations or had never dealt with the issues they've raised or planned to deal with them. But that happens.

I've spoken with both the deputy minister in Ontario and the deputy minister in B.C. They're quite comfortable with the way forward. But all of them will say, “We want to see the regulations. We want to be engaged in the development of the regulations.” And I say yes.

Because they know me by reputation and personally in terms of how we've worked during the past, they're comfortable with that. But again, not everybody is in that position.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

We heard earlier from Dr. Conlan. He's a gentleman who engages U.S. labs. We heard a concern that because of the new regulations in the States, labs actually got shut down. He said this bill is not as onerous as the American one.

Do you foresee that there will be a problem on this side of the border with job losses or something along those lines, careers being lost, if we implement it as it is?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

For me, it's hard to imagine that it would.

We have the only level four lab in the country. Everybody has to have a security clearance, everybody who is working with level four pathogens.

In terms of level three pathogens, again it depends on what the community decides are important enough to include as regulated pathogens. If they are important enough to require a security clearance, there are many other bugs that people can work on in the meantime without a security clearance. So I don't anticipate that kind of issue.

Theresa, do you want to add to that?

[Theresa Tam, Director General, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Infectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada]

I think it was always intended to treat risk group two differently than risk groups three and four.

I just want to address that. We did listen to stakeholders, and we did adjust the bill in light of stakeholder input.

On the security clearance, it's actually quite an interesting piece. Originally we had, in clause 33, concerning security clearances, all risk group three and risk group four. The language was adjusted so that it was for select pathogens and toxins, because we wanted to have the flexibility for risk group three so that we might not have to include all of them. But now it is being read as, “Well, are you including risk group two?”

It was really because we heard that even putting risk groups three and four didn't give the flexibility, so through consultation in the regulations it would allow some flexibility to only determine select risk group three.

We also heard from them about the issue of students and others needing security clearance, and we actually included in clause 33 allowance for a complement of individuals who do not have security clearance in the labs. The intent is not to have security clearance for risk group two. The intent of that sentence was actually to give more flexibility to be more specific on specific pathogens. Whilst doing that, then, obviously some people found that the intent for risk group two isn't evident. But that was the intent.

If there are issues with the wording, we have actually made some changes because of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you very much, Dr. Tam.

I'll now go to Ms. Murray.