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

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Do you have some comment, Dr. Carrie?

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Madam Chair, because of the changes in this amendment, I would respectfully ask if we could have our officials comment on this.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Yes.

Dr. Tam or Ms. Allain.

4:15 p.m.

Jane Allain General Counsel, Legal Services, Public Health Agency of Canada

By putting it in clause 7, it would essentially remove the licensing aspects of the bill with regard to risk group 2. That would also remove the ability to require information under clauses 38 and 39 of the bill, as the minister may only require information from an applicant, a licence holder, or a biological safety officer.

It would also remove the requirement to have biological safety officers under clause 36 of the bill, and it would remove all of the licensing regime for risk group 2 holders, so that would basically be clauses 18 to 35 inclusive.

There would also be no requirement to report on inadvertent releases under clause 12 of the bill, no requirement to report on lab-acquired infections as set out in clause 13 of the bill, and no requirement to report on missing or stolen human pathogens, as set out in clause 14 of the bill. That's just from a quick review, because we had not seen it before.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you.

Do we have any more comments or discussion on this?

Ms. Murray.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

It seems consistent with what the department has put forward as the basic purpose of including risk group 2—that is, to know where those pathogens are. Is that not the case?

4:15 p.m.

Director General, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Infectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada

Dr. Theresa Tam

Jane Allain has tried to explain what this could exclude.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

I understood.

4:15 p.m.

Director General, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Infectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada

Dr. Theresa Tam

While we believe there should be less stringent applications for laboratories handling risk group 2, by inserting this piece, you'll have other impacts such as not having to report inadvertent release or thefts from the lab. I think it's very important for us not to remove some of the other key elements. We believe we can address it, and we told the provinces, territories, and other stakeholders that the licensing requirements for risk group 2 would be less stringent. I would caution against suddenly inserting a piece that could have a domino effect on some of the other sections, including the significant ones that Ms. Jane Allain has tabled. Having it in the regulations allows for more consultation than having it inserted into the body of the bill.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you.

Is there further discussion?

Monsieur Malo.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to come back to what Ms. Murray was saying.

I still have the impression—perhaps the mistaken impression—that the Agency's goal where risk group 2 pathogens and micro-organisms are concerned was to find out where these substances were located and to have some basic information.

I commend Ms. Wasylycia-Leis on her initiative. This amendment would to some extent limit the scope of the bill with respect to risk group 2 pathogens while ensuring at the same time that the Agency's goal is met. Ms. Tam's response to Ms. Murray's question suggests to me that the Agency is not interested in merely knowing where risk group 2 micro-organisms may be located and whether the activity complies or not with the guidelines. The Agency wants more than that.

Am I right?

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Dr. Tam, would you like to comment on what Mr. Malo just said?

4:20 p.m.

Director General, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Infectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada

Dr. Theresa Tam

I don't think I have major information to add to what I've just said, bearing in mind that the biosafety officers and others have indicated that the key piece they do not want to see for risk group 2 is security clearance. We hope this will be further addressed later on. The specifics of the licensing requirements are best handled in the regulations.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB

I have another comment about why I think this makes sense, as well as a question to the officials. In the previous discussions, we heard that imported pathogens must meet the biosafety standards that we now have, and your hope was to ensure that all pathogens, imported or not, were treated the same way and placed on a level playing field. So what I proposed was to do just that. It would put them on the same level playing field. So I don't understand the concern about responding to spills or theft of level 2 pathogens or toxins.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

That's a question directed to either member of our panel today.

Ms. Allain, would you like to answer?

4:20 p.m.

General Counsel, Legal Services, Public Health Agency of Canada

Jane Allain

I would say that under the current importation regulation the person still is required to obtain a permit and is still required to fill in detailed information about that. That's the mechanism by which the agency maintains a certain kind of oversight and control over the importation. The amendment, as you propose it, is that it would not be a permit or a licensing scheme whatsoever; you're exempting them from that. It's a mere attestation.

It's difficult to assess the full implications of that amendment. There might be other consequences for the inspection authorities as well, which are set out elsewhere in the act. We'd have to look at that more carefully to see whether or not we could continue to inspect. Because of the way this provision was designed, it was designed to deal with all of risk group 2, so there could be much more significant ramifications than simply an attestation that they are following the biosafety guidelines.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Dr. Carrie, and then Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

I was just wondering if we could clarify this, because the stakeholders did say they wanted consultation. If we put this in the legislation, it kind of boxes us in. What you're suggesting is that by doing it the way it's written now, it would allow more consultation on the regulations with the stakeholders.

4:20 p.m.

Director General, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Infectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada

Dr. Theresa Tam

Yes. Paradoxically, I think, by putting specifics in the bill we're not allowing the consultation process to unfold in terms of the development of the regulations. We also know that individual laboratories sometimes have very specific variations and nuances that we need to take into account when we are actually looking at the licence for a specific facility. We certainly believe that the consultation approach to the regulations is the way to go.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Thank you.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB

With respect to the suggestion that imported pathogens need a higher standard than what I'm suggesting, it seems to me that with the amendment, especially parts (i) and (ii) under (c), we in fact are requiring what's equivalent to a permit by demanding “the location of the places where the activity is conducted”, the name of every organism, and the name of a contact person who is clearly registered.

Secondly, although you say it's somewhat doubtful as to.... I think you expressed the term “unsure” about the signed document. But in effect are you getting a clear statement from each player in this field that they're in agreement with the laboratory biosafety guidelines, which is basically the bottom line that the department said had to be met? So still I guess I'm no more assured or no more.... Any further clarification from the department that this doesn't meet with all the concerns that were raised by the witnesses and is in line with what the department says it wants to accomplish....

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Did you want to make further comment, or have you said pretty well everything you have to say on this issue?

4:25 p.m.

Director General, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Infectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada

Dr. Theresa Tam

I think what we preliminarily read into part (ii) of (c) is a sort of form of self-attestation. The current human pathogen importation regulation actually sets out in some detail specific requirements in terms of information provided, which is not detailed in this particular section. Also, it will not allow for a specific objective look at whether someone is following the laboratory biosafety guidelines and is relying solely on self-attestation.