Health Committee on March 31st, 2009

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

Given some of the concerns we heard about which law we're following and the whole influence of the Patriot Act, have you thought at all about adding the words “Canadian law”, or would you consider that?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Could we have the officials address that? I never thought of that.

[Jane Allain]

This is essentially to require that if you disclose to a third party and that third party is required to disclose the information and is required because they have a court warrant or some other disposition, they have to comply with it. There is no extraterritorial application of the Canadian law. The law is in Canada.

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

To seek further clarification, we have had cases in other areas where Canadian companies have been obligated to disclose information because of the Patriot Act. Are we sure that's not the case here, and shouldn't we try to deal with that situation and prevent it from happening?

[Jane Allain]

I'm not sure I understand your point. The requirement here is to try to ensure that if someone has entered into an assurance with the federal government when we disclose the information, if they're required by law to disclose it, they could be allowed to disclose it. So again it would be a court order or another statutory provision. That's the intent, essentially. It's not to look at the Patriot Act application, if there is such an application on Canadian soil.

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

Are you absolutely confident that there is no way this section or any part of this act could be seen to condone the supremacy of the Patriot Act over any aspect of Canadian activity in this area? We've seen in the case of the financial sector where, because of the fluidity of our border, personal information of Canadians can be disclosed or has been disclosed without being subject to reprimand or efforts to curtail that activity from Canadians or the Canadian government.

[Jane Allain]

I can only restate what I've just stated. The purpose of this is to address the concerns that the Privacy Commissioner had with regard to the privacy aspects of this particular provision. It is a standard clause that exists elsewhere, in other pieces of federal legislation.

Our intent is to strengthen the privacy protections by saying that if it's required to be disclosed by force of law, whether there's another statutory provision that would allow it or a court order would allow it, in those circumstances the person could disclose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Could we please go to the vote now?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 39 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 40 to 52 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 53--General)

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Carrie, on clause 53, G-5.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

This is to address some of the things that Monsieur Malo brought forward at the beginning. It's to create lesser penalties for offences under the act or regulations related to risk group 2, including no provision for a prison sentence for most offences involving risk group 2 human pathogens.

The amendment, in clause 53, would read:

(a) in the case of a contravention with respect to a human pathogen that falls into Risk Group 2,

(i) for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $50,000; and

(ii) for a subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $250,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three months, or to both; and

(b) in all other cases,

--and it continues on.

Stakeholders voiced strong opinions that facilities with risk group 2 human pathogens should be treated more leniently than risk groups 3 and 4. This amendment should look after that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Monsieur Malo.

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

Madam Chair, since the parliamentary secretary to the minister is inquiring, I'd like to make a few important comments. Various researchers have testified that the imposition of criminal sanctions could potentially label as criminals researchers who work in the lab to advance our knowledge of science and to educate and train our future researchers.

As far as they are concerned—and I read this again last week—this new provision will alter their relationship with the world, with Parliament and with the government. The status of these individuals is now being changed.

When Agency officials drafted this amendment, were they aware that scientists might not look favourably upon the notion that their activities could possibly be deemed criminal?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Who would like to take that, Dr. Tam or Ms. Allain?

[Jane Allain]

When a department moves to impose criminal sanctions under a specific act, basically it looks at the sanctions provided for in comparable acts. It compares penalties and offences in an effort to enforce the act's provisions in a coherent manner. The aim is to look at the impact of the offence and to determine the gravity of that offence. In order to assess the risk, one must look at the penalty and match it to the offence.

Differences are also important. Penalties exist to encourage people to uphold the law. We looked at a number of health and safety provisions. Pursuant to the Food and Drug Act, an offence punishable on summary conviction carries a fine of $50,000 and six months in jail. In the case of the sale of food that can harm people's health, of hazardous products, conviction under the act carries a fine of $100,000 and six months of imprisonment. Failure to comply with an order from a quarantine officer carries a fine of $200,000 and six months of imprisonment.

SInce my notes are in English, I will now switch to that language.

For the Health of Animals Act, contravention of the act or the regulation has a summary conviction offence of $50,000 or imprisonment of six months. It goes up to an indictment of $250,000 or two years. If there's a contravention of the Plant Protection Act or regulation, for summary conviction it's $50,000 or six months in jail. By way of indictment, it's $250,000 or two years in jail.

I would underscore as well that both under the Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Act a person simply possessing or disposing of an animal that was imported into the country in violation of the act or regulations faces a possible maximum penalty of $50,000 and jail. So we believe this amendment is consistent with those other statutes and sets the same type of threshold as well as a means of deterrence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Can we go to the vote now?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 53 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 54 and 55 agreed to)

(On clause 56--Contravention of subsection 7(1) or 18(7))

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

We have amendment G-6.

Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

This is basically a consequential amendment because of clause 53. We'd like to add, in clause 56, after “every person who contravenes subsection 7(1) or 18(7), the following:

with respect to a human pathogen that falls into Risk Group 3 or Risk Group 4 or a toxin is guilty of an offence

If there are any questions, I would recommend we have the officials speak to this because it is quite technical.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

If there are any questions, we can do that.

First of all, I think there's quite a good understanding of this, but I want to ask the committee if everyone is in favour of voting on this amendment right now.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 56 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 57 and 58 agreed to)

(On clause 59--Defence)

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

We have amendment G-7.

Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

This would be the same thing, a consequential amendment.

It would amend clause 59, paragraph (a), by replacing, in line 37 and 38, “contravention of section 17 and subsection 41(6)” with the following:

contravention of subsection 7(1), section 17 and subsection 41(6);

And it would replace paragraph 59(b) with:

section 55;

(Amendment agreed to )

(Clause 59 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 60 to 65 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 66--Regulations)

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

We have amendment G-8.

Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

This relates to the “Whereas” clause in the front. What we'd like to do is make explicit that the regulatory regime will treat risk group 2 human pathogens less stringently than risk group 3 and risk group 4 agents in subclause 66(1), relating to the ministerial regulatory authorities.

The amendment would add, after line 25 on page 30, the following:

(1.1) In making regulations, the Governor in Council shall take into account the varying levels of risk posed by human pathogens--determined by whether they fall into Risk Group 2, Risk Group 3 or Risk Group 4--and those posed by toxins.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 66 as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Now we move to the new clause 66.1. We have two amendments there.

On NDP-2, would you please move that motion, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis?