Health Committee on March 24th, 2009

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

We're hopeful that perhaps the deliberations of this committee, and any amendments that come, might actually address those concerns in terms of clarity of intent. That is the concern of the province: to make sure that we do what we said we would do in the development of the regulations.

There is a comfort. I've talked to, for example, both deputy ministers, the chief medical officer, the deputy chief medical officer, ADMs, etc., in B.C. They are comfortable with the way forward. I've done this with other provinces as well. I do not anticipate any challenge from the provinces on this legislation. I think everyone I've talked to shares my view, which is that as long as we address things in the way we said we'd address them, they're comfortable with it.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

We have a strongly worded letter from British Columbia--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I'm sorry, your time is up, but I believe--

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

It is a letter to which I responded, and we've been in conversation since the letter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Time is up, but I believe Ms. Gibson had a comment. Please be quick, because we're out of time.

[Elaine Gibson]

I wanted to point out that a challenge on the basis of division of powers need not come from one of the provinces. It can come from anyone adversely affected by this act. It could come from a laboratory, for instance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

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

I would like to address the issue of concerns by the provinces. In addition to Ontario and B.C., I've been in conversation with Manitoba, and there are very strong concerns coming from that province. These concerns are very recent and so have not yet been addressed. In fact, I understand they will be documenting their concerns and forwarding them to...somewhere.

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

They have raised concerns. I had breakfast with Joel on Saturday and we talked through all these issues.

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

The questions and the concerns are all similar for all of us. They're worried about additional costs being imposed on their own governments, duplication of services, unnecessary licensing of labs already regulated by a province, no provision in the bill for equivalency, delays in lab work, and so on.

You're saying now that this is just posturing by the provinces so that they can get their issues addressed in the regulations.

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

It's not a matter of posturing. I think these are legitimate questions and concerns. These are positions that they're putting forward. Early on in this process the decision was made that we would deal with them in regulation initially. This committee will deal with items that they might want to include in the act to make the intention, etc., clearer. But what I am saying is that with each of them who I've talked to, each who we've engaged with, the comfort level with the assurances is...but they still want to see those addressed, so they're putting them in writing to ensure that it's on the record.

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

There are two issues we're dealing with here. One that we're trying to grapple with as a committee is how much do we leave in terms of regulations and when do we thereby abdicate our responsibility as legislators in ensuring accountability of the government. You're saying there will be amendments forthcoming that might address some of these concerns, and we'll wait and see later today or tomorrow, I presume. Secondly, on top of that, the regulations will be sensitive to provincial concerns, for which we have really no control.

I guess we're really hoping that the legislative changes will be satisfactory to the provinces, because that's our only way of measuring reaction and how we go forward.

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

Thank you.

As you say, there are two aspects to that. One is whatever comes forward from this committee in terms of amendments, and we'll see. Certainly as an agency we are at your...whatever. Our intent is the agency outcome, and if legislative changes will assist that, that's great.

In terms of the regulations, again, our plan is pretty clear in terms of transparency, and we'll address those things with the provinces, and there'll be many opportunities. I'd be happy--even during the regulatory phase--to have further conversations with the committee, on the wish of the committee, on the intent, the process, and the content of regulations as they develop. I'm certainly quite open to that.

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

I have one more question, Madam Chair, on something my colleague Carol Hughes has mentioned to me a few times, and it's a legitimate one, and that is what are the cost implications from this bill for the federal government, and what kind of security or inspection regime is envisaged? Is it now budgeted for, or what is the cost associated with additional inspectors?

[Dr. Theresa Tam]

In terms of the cost to the federal government, which includes security clearance and licence issuance, so there's no cost to the labs, the budget was provided for in Budget 2008. The envelope, if you like, is $37 million with certainly ongoing funding beyond the initial years. The initial years will cost more in terms of the establishment of the program itself--

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

Is it $37 million over five years?

[Dr. Theresa Tam]

Over four years. And then it's ongoing.

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

Although, as I understood that budget line in the 2008 budget, it was meant to cover the entire surveillance requirements for all proposed legislation, so Bill C-11, Bill C-6, the old Bill C-52 and the old Bill C-51, all of which require significant oversight provisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, we're over time.

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

So my question is $37 million over four years for all of those provisions might not reflect the accurate cost to make this work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Tam.

[Dr. Theresa Tam]

The $37 million is only with respect to this particular legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Madam Chair, my first question is to Roland Leitner. I would ask him to comment.

It's well known that risk group 2 pathogens, such as salmonella, listeria, and staphylococcus, occur commonly in the environment, for example, in raw meat in the grocery store. Yet we don't worry to a great extent about that. Could you comment on why we should have a greater concern or anxiety about these micro-organisms in the laboratory?

[Roland Leitner]

I have to disagree with you. We do worry about chicken contaminated with salmonella, and certainly the people who get sick do worry about it.

One of the major differences in laboratory environments versus level 2 organisms in the environment is that you take those level 2 organisms, you grow them, you concentrate them, so you have many more organisms per volume. You would also engage in laboratory practices where, for instance, you aerosolize those materials so they become an inhalation hazard. You do all those things in the laboratory environment that you would usually not do at home when you have those materials.

Does that answer your question?