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.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
That's good. Thank you.
I'll call the vote on amendment NDP-1 on clause 4.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to)
(On clause 9--Addition of items--toxins)
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
We have two amendments to clause 9. Who would like to speak to amendment Liberal-1? I would ask that you move the amendment right away so we can discuss it.
Dr. Bennett.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Madam Chair, I think this has been well discussed.
I move amendment Liberal-1, which says that the minister would have to consult an advisory committee and that the advice to the minister would be transparent.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Is there any discussion on that? Are we ready for the vote?
(Amendment agreed to)
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
The amendment reads as follows:
(4) The Minister shall, before amending the schedules referred to in this section, conduct and publish the results of a risk assessment, consult the provinces and respond to their observations.
This is in keeping with the spirit of the amendment proposed by Ms. Bennett but in addition, it would give observers and people affected by the bill an opportunity to comment.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Monsieur Malo makes a very good point. Because we've already passed the previous ones, would you have any objection to adding this as subclause 9(6)?
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Because I have now hogged subclauses 9(4) and 9(5). They're not available.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
It all goes together very nicely. This should be renumbered as new subclause 9(6), if we could.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Fine. I'm happy to see that committee members are in a such a cooperative mood.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Is that perfect, très bon? Great.
Is there any discussion on new subclause 9(6)?
Dr. Carrie.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Could I please have the opinion of our officials? This is new to me.
4:35 p.m.
Director General, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Infectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada
Yes, this is new language that we haven't seen.
The Liberal amendment proposed by Dr. Bennett is in line with what we are going to do in terms of establishing a scientific-based committee to ensure transparency in the process. I think the language in terms of Monsieur Malo's proposed amendment speaks to consulting the provinces.
I think the schedules, and how we deal with them, should definitely be science-based. That would be our intent. There may certainly be scientists who reside in those provinces and territories, and maybe there are provincial and territorial government scientists who will be included, but I think the advisory committee should be a scientific advisory committee.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
To clarify, then, Dr. Tam, this does not fit with new subclauses 9(4) and (5) for those reasons? Is that what you're saying? It's not scientific, it's provincial-based, rather than...?
Perhaps you could clarify.
4:40 p.m.
Director General, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Infectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada
The way I read it, there is no scientific basis to this particular amendment.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
I have a question for Dr. Tam.
Judging from what you've just told us, the only way to apply or administer the provisions of this bill and to weigh its implications is to look at things from a scientific standpoint. The economy, the law or the field of education are not at issue here. Should these considerations be excluded from the consultation process?
4:40 p.m.
Director General, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Infectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada
We agree on an in-depth consultation process and that it should include a number of stakeholders. The provinces and territories make up a very specific and important aspect of the consultations. In addition, there is a need for science-based advice, as required, to inform the schedules or the laboratory biosafety guidelines.
I think a scientific advisory committee is complementary to the consultation process. We certainly do know that a number of decisions are made based on complex considerations of a number of factors. In the end, I think a sound scientific base and a transparent process are important, but the consultations will be as we laid out, with our stakeholders in terms of the consultation strategy.