Thank you very much.
I think we do want to see a to-and-fro in terms of the improvements that have been suggested by the government amendments, but also in terms of the lingering concerns, particularly those related to regulations.
I noticed that in his letter, Dr. Goel says that as much as he welcomes the amendments, any further means of ensuring transparency on the process around the development and approval of these regulations would be helpful. I would like to know from the Public Health Agency of Canada whether there's a way that process could be committed to within the bill. Then I would also like them to speak to the NDP amendment around bringing the regulations back to committee.
I wasn't sure whether the officials had seen the comments in response to the amendments by Elaine Gibson, because you wouldn't have seen her original testimony when the amendments were drafted. I will read it in to the record:
The Bill is improved in that the amendments clarify that there are different standards for Risk Group 2 in terms of security screening, regulations, and penalties. However, licenses will still be required for those using Risk Group 2 pathogens/toxins, it appears.
It addresses only minimally my concern that so much of the workings of this Act are being left over to be included in regulations as opposed to in the legislation itself. This is significant and ties in to concerns of the scientific community.
It doesn't address my concern regarding the constitutionality of including Risk Group 2 in that this appears more regulatory than criminal, and if so it may fall under provincial property and civil rights powers and not federal power over criminal law.
A number of concerns regarding privacy voiced [by] both the federal Privacy Commissioner and me have not been addressed--need for information to be in as de-identified a form as required for the purpose; need for adding the standard of 'reasonably required' in many of the more intrusive search and seizure powers. Also the Privacy Commissioner argued that a Privacy Impact Assessment needs to be conducted.
Could you respond to not only what the witnesses have said, but also to these concerns from two of the previous detractors?