Evidence of meeting #13 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Theresa Tam  Director General, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Infectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada
Jane Allain  General Counsel, Legal Services, Public Health Agency of Canada

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the committee.

I think today is going to be a very long day, because we're going through many clauses, with many amendments and many things to talk about.

I would ask you, with regard to any questions you have, to consult with the chair before you start speaking, because I would like to try to move through this as quickly as possible.

I would like to welcome Dr. Theresa Tam and Ms. Jane Allain, who are joining us today from the department. It's very much appreciated.

To begin, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, February 23, 2009, on Bill C-11, An Act to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins, we are now going to start clause-by-clause consideration.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble and clause 1 is postponed. The chair calls for clause 2 right now.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(On clause 3--Definitions)

On clause 3, we have three amendments from the Bloc. I am wondering how the committee would like to proceed. When we have a clause that has many amendments, what we can do is stand it, move on to the rest of the bill, and come back systematically to the clauses that need discussion about the amendments.

How would you like to proceed as a committee? Would you like to go through the whole bill and then come back to the clauses and amendments so we can discuss them?

Would you like to do it one by one? Yes? Then we'll do that. We don't want to confuse anybody.

On clause 3, we have three amendments. Would someone like to speak to BQ-1?

Monsieur Malo.

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

Madam Chair, you are going to tell me that it's always the people who are not there that get the blame, but before I talk about the amendment to clause 3, I would just like to say that after reading last week's testimony, I still have a number of questions about the scope of the bill. I'm quite surprised to see us move today to the clause-by-clause study phase and to learn that the government has quite simply decided not to propose any substantive amendments to the bill that would alleviate some of the concerns that were expressed. I'm surprised that the government did not take a step back and review the bill in light of the comments we received and the comments we are likely to hear in the coming days and weeks.

That said, Madam Chair, a vote was taken and I accept that it is time for the committee to move to the clause-by-clause study phase. That is what we will do. Of course, I will be proposing a number of amendments, as several of my colleagues will be doing as well, in an effort to address some of the witnesses' concerns. The proposed amendments to clause 3—in fact, the three amendments— are similar in that they call for the exclusion of the micro-organisms listed in schedule 2 from the definition of “human pathogen“, given that several witnesses have stated that risk group 2 pathogens should not be subject to the same rules as risk group 3 or risk group 4 pathogens. You will tell me that the government has attempted to put in place a number of safeguards further on in the bill to limit the scope of the bill in terms of criminal implications.

However, strictly from the standpoint of risk, because I do think BillC-11 has far more to do with evaluating risk and the implications and consequences of imposing this legislative framework and especially the upcoming regulatory framework the scope of which is still unknown, it is important the any reference to risk group 2 pathogens be removed from the definition, given that— and we heard this from the witnesses—there are costs associated with this reference. There are implications for education, the evolution of knowledge, the exchange of scientific information and the development of research. I did not hear any evidence convincing me that all micro-organisms that are or that could be present or could be present should be included in the definition of “human pathogen“. Further on in the bill, we see that the minister has certain regulatory authority to add certain types of micro-organisms to the list of substances in the schedules.

In my opinion, Madam Chair. . .

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Monsieur Malo, excuse me for a moment. Would you like to formally move your motion, then?

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

Absolutely. I will move all three motions at the same time, because all three call for excluding risk group 2 micro-organisms from the definition of “human pathogen“.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

You can only move one amendment at a time.

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

That's fine.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

With your preliminaries, if you wouldn't mind moving the emotion...or motion, rather--that was a Freudian slip--and then speaking to it, that would be very much appreciated.

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

I don't think I was that emotional, Madam Chair. As you will have noted, I remained relatively calm.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

You were. You were very good.

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

As you requested, I move that the committee examine the first proposed amendment which bears the reference number 3730579.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you, Monsieur Malo.

We don't need a seconder. This is now open for discussion and debate.

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

Would you like me to repeat what I said, Madam Chair, because we were not—

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Oh, that's fine. It's okay to have a few comments before you move the motion. That's fine.

Dr. Carrie.

March 31st, 2009 / 3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank my honourable colleague for the suggestion.

He brought up issues of criminality, and he mentioned level 2 as a different risk. I'd like to mention, respectfully, that when you started clause-by-clause, there was a suggestion and a government amendment for the second “Whereas” clause, which I think would take into account his problem with level 2.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

That is in the preamble. We'll get back to it. We have to go through clause-by-clause before we can get back to that specifically.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Could I make note that I think that amendment would take into account his issue or problem with level 2?

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Absolutely.

Dr. Duncan.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

I'd like to thank my honourable colleague for his comments.

I do want to raise something. I know we heard a lot about level 2s and removing them completely. I think there are some level 2s that we need to be concerned about. I think it might be worth having a scientific advisory group, one who knows this material, make those decisions. I would hate to...because some level 2s can be tampered with. It's an issue of biosecurity.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Ms. McLeod, and then Dr. Carrie.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I listened to and carefully assimilated all the information over the last few weeks. I believe that within the regulations we can really differentiate, and I think we need to, within the regulations, differentiate.

We have things that talk about an advisory panel; it's in an amendment. We have things that talk about how we're going make these regulations different. I think we should just be moving forward and keeping risk group 2 in, but clearly differentiating them as we go through.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you.

Dr. Carrie.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Thank you, Madam Chair.

By removing risk 2, it basically prevents the government from knowing which labs possess certain risk group 2 pathogens. It hinders the government's ability to trace the agents. The amendments that would like to take this out will basically gut a really important part of the intention of the bill.

I think it's very important that we keep the level 2 in. If an amendment brought forward in the future talks about an advisory committee, I think that would handle the concerns.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Are there any other comments before our vote?

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I intend to support the Bloc's amendment. It seems that it is the only thing we can do to honour the wishes of most of the witnesses who testified before the committee. We heard from a number of witnesses that the inclusion of these pathogens in the Criminal Code could potentially cause major problems for researchers and scientists.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you.

Dr. Carrie.