Health Committee on March 31st, 2009

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

With respect to all my colleagues, I think we're drifting a little in our conversation, and we're talking about an amendment. Once we get through this first amendment, then the rest of the process should move smoothly. At the end of the day, it is about inclusion or exclusion of risk group 2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

Monsieur Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to come back to the comment made by certain members—including yourself, Madam Chair—to the effect that we could be responsible for some unfortunate incidents that might occur. It is clear to all of the witnesses and to colleagues seated at this table that the safety of the public is our main focus.

Draft legislation, Bill C-54, was tabled during the previous Parliament. Since then, there has been time to do some impact assessments. These would have helped us to determine either that the bill would be damaging to the research, university and scientific community or conversely, that there was no cause for concern, that everything would be fine and that there would be no brain drain as we saw happen in the United States because here, we were going to take a different approach.

However, it is clear that such studies would have proved invaluable to avoid our heading off in many different directions. The concerns that were expressed could have been addressed. When we had our first briefing with the Agency when Bill C-11 was tabled, we were told that consultations had taken place, that everyone was satisfied and that there was no cause for concern. However, as we started to hear from witnesses, concerns were voiced by many different parties.

Madam Chair, the crux of the problem is the fact the government has chosen to focus more on criminal provisions and on putting in place parameters and regulations, insisting that people will be reassured by this. However, the reality is that hundreds of research facilities, universities and hospitals that do research are today asking themselves what will happen to them once Bill C-11 is adopted.

As parliamentarians and as a responsible committee, we should have taken their concerns into account during our study of the bill. It is unfortunate that today, as we proceed with the clause-by-clause study, we are not in a position to reassure the vast majority of the witnesses who came here to testify. That is what saddens me the most today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Okay, thank you, Mr. Malo.

I am going to urge members to state their opinions. Let's not be repetitive, because we could be here till next June. So could we all be mindful of that?

We will go to the vote now. All in favour of amendment BQ-1, raise your hands, please. All against?

(Amendment negatived)

I would like to ask the committee to apply this vote to amendments BQ-2 and BQ-3, because they are very, very similar. Are you in favour of applying the vote to the other two BQ amendments?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

(Clause 3 agreed to)

(On clause 4--Excluded)

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

We also have amendment BQ-4 to clause 4.

Would someone like to speak to it?

The only thing about this particular amendment is that I have concerns about its admissibility. It could be beyond the scope of the bill. So I would turn to the officials.

Would you mind commenting on amendment BQ-4 to clause 4? The concern is its admissibility.

[Dr. Theresa Tam]

The bill seeks to establish a national standard for biosafety and biosecurity, and that means all laboratories, be they private, provincial, research or academic. Having just received this amendment, the way I read it is that it would not be in line with the intent of the national standards approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I would like to rule this particular one out of order because of the reasons the officials cited.

If you would like to make a comment on it before I do that, Mr. Malo, please go right ahead.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Absolutely, Madam Chair. I will also be asking for a ruling on whether or not this amendment is in order.

In light of the testimony given, it is clear that the bill could overstep the existing constitutional framework. Some witnesses questioned whether this was so. We received opinions and comments from different provincial governments. As legislators, we have the authority and the duty to taken these comments into account when framing this legislation.

Essentially, this is the aim of the proposed amendment to clause 4 which would exclude from the scope of the act activities carried out in any facility regulated, operated or funded by a province. In so doing, we would be dispelling a number of legitimate concerns raised by researchers in particular who operate university labs, as well as by the provinces that are involved in—and we have written proof of this fact—in a number of regulatory and oversight activities. Basically, that is the aim of this proposed amendment.

Madam Chair, I respectfully request that you ask my committee colleagues whether or not they deem this amendment to be in order and whether they wish to consider it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Right now, to be quite honest with you, Monsieur Malo, I am going to rule it out of order, and if you do disagree with my ruling, you can appeal that. Based on what the officials said, and based on the fact that that's what I feel very strongly about, it is out of order. I consulted with the clerks prior to this discussion today and I consulted with other people as well, and they too were concerned about it. I never spoke to the officials. So I am going to rule it out of order, and as I say, you can appeal it.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Madam Chair, officials from the Public Health Agency of Canada were asked whether, in their opinion, the scope of the bill went beyond constitutional agreements. They were clearly of the opinion that the content of the bill fully respected the jurisdictions of the various levels of government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Madam Chair, like me, you listened to the testimony of the various witnesses and read the opinions issued by the provincial governments. As I see it, in order to maintain constitutional order, it is important to allow the provinces to exercise their full legislative authority and influence over institutions that fall within their jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I understand what you're saying, Monsieur Malo, but my ruling has been made, so there is no debate. If you disagree with it, you can appeal it.

We shall carry on.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Yes, but you asked whether I wanted to appeal your ruling and that's what I'm doing. I'm doing what you asked.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Monsieur Malo.

(Clauses 4 to 6 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 7--Controlled activities)

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

We will pause on clause 7. There is an amendment from the NDP. I ask you to move your amendment, first of all.

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

Yes, and you should notice that it's the new NDP-1 that was circulated separate from the package, the longer one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Yes, the separate sheet that you have is the new amendment. Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. You won't be moving the other one. This is the only one you need to move. Could you move that and then make comment, please?

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

I move this amendment. Do you want me to read it out? I'll move it and then speak to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Just move it and then speak to it. People can read it.

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

I'm moving that clause 7 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 5 the following:

(c) any activity involving a micro-organism, nucleic acid or protein that falls into Risk Group 2, if the person who conducts the activity provides the following elements to the Minister, and informs the Minister of any changes thereto:

(i) the location of the places where the activity is conducted, the name of the micro-organism, nucleic acid or protein involved in the activity, and the name of a contact person, and

(ii) a signed document certifying that the activity is conducted in accordance with the Laboratory Biosafety Guidelines of the Public Health Agency of Canada.

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

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

This is a further attempt to actually carve out level 2 pathogens, but to do it in accordance with some of the concerns raised by my colleagues, like the parliamentary secretary and others, about the need to have some sort of a regulatory framework around level 2 pathogens and toxins.

This really eliminates level 2 pathogens from the prohibition list if they meet--and it requires them to meet--certain very specific requirements, such as ensuring they are part of a licensing regime or registry so that all information about the activity and the labs is known, and so that they are in accordance with the regulatory framework that we have all received from the department. I refer to the human pathogens and toxins act, Bill C-11, the potential treatment of facilities with risk group 2 human pathogens under the program and regulatory framework.

I'm proposing this because I think a safe and effective regulatory framework for level 2 pathogens is necessary, and what I've proposed is something that will not discourage or impede research and patient care. I think it meets the concerns expressed by the witnesses that there needs to be significantly different treatment of level 2 pathogens, but that they not be left just to regulations, that we don't just give a blank cheque for the government to deal with them as they would wish.

I believe it's in line with the Public Health Agency of Canada's treatment of level 2, as outlined in its most recent framework document, which I've just mentioned. I think it's consistent with Director General Theresa Tam's remarks, as recently as March 26, when she said:

The made-in-Canada solution, this Bill C-11 and the program thereafter, is to establish biosafety and biosecurity and to protect Canadians from pathogens. It's important for us to know who holds pathogens, whether they are in risk group 2 or not. All we want to do is to know that when institutions, organizations, and laboratories hold pathogens, we actually know who these people are and that they are handling things in a safe manner, according to laboratory biosafety guidelines.

She goes on to say:

Now, for risk group 2, for the most part, we are not asking for security clearance, because we do not believe they are a bioterrorism risk.

I think this accomplishes everything we've talked about and everything we heard from the witnesses.