Hello.
Well, the first thing I want to underscore is that, as you probably no doubt know, health is not a distinct head of power enumerated in our Constitution Act, and essentially you have to look at other heads of power to see how it fits in. There are several heads of power that support federal legislation in relation to health. Ms. Gibson is correct that we are primarily relying on our criminal law power for Parliament to enact Bill C-11.
Criminal law power used by Parliament can be valid health-related legislation provided that it addresses a valid criminal law purpose, such as the protection of public health. We believe that Bill C-11 does so by trying to criminalize certain behaviours dealing with human pathogens and toxins. It's backed by both a prohibition and a penalty. And Bill C-11 does have various prohibitions in clauses 6, 7, and 8 of its statute, and the penalties are set out in clauses 53 to 58.
Parliament has used criminal law power to enact various legislation that is somewhat similar in the way this specific bill is designed, and these various pieces of legislation have been supported and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is an example, as well as the Food and Drugs Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and the tobacco products control act.
The other thing I would like to underscore as well is that the penalties found in Bill C-11 are quite similar in scope to others that we received and modelled against, to a certain extent, such as the Quarantine Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
With regard to the charter provisions, the Minister of Justice has the responsibility under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act to always ensure that bills that are tabled in Parliament have had a charter review. As a result, when the Department of Justice looks at legislation as our clients are developing them through the policy development as well as the actual drafting, we do look at those provisions and ensure that it's charter compliant. We look at things like the search and seizure provisions to ensure they are compliant with section 8 of the charter. I can assure you that such a review was done by the Department of Justice for this piece of legislation, and in fact the inspection powers are quite similar to other pieces of legislation that currently exist, whether it's the Hazardous Products Act or the Quarantine Act.
With regard to the privacy concerns, the other aspect I wanted to underscore is that the agency is still bound by the Privacy Act and the requirements that are imposed by the Privacy Act, which, as I mentioned before, include the minimal collection as well as the minimal disclosure principles, and the department will have to comply with those provisions as it develops its regulations. In fact, for the disclosure of documentation to a foreign body, there is a requirement to get written assurances that they will maintain the confidentiality of that information. So that protection does exist in this legislation.
Those were the main points I wanted to underscore on the constitutional aspects as well as the charter.
With regard to the Governor in Council making regulations, it is in fact a delegation from Parliament to the executive, as Ms. Gibson has indicated. But I would not say it's done in secrecy. In fact, there is quite an extensive requirement for the department to go out and consult, to prepublish their regulations as they will be developing them, and then to reply back in terms of the consultation process. That's in the Canadian gazetting process, and the department has indicated quite clearly that it intends to follow that model.