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.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
One of the things the minister would like to do is to build consensus. Unfortunately, with these Bloc amendments, we've just received them now, so it's difficult to make a decision.
We do have some officials here. I was wondering if they could address this and give the committee some advice on their viewpoint.
Dr. Theresa Tam Director General, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Infectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada
As the parliamentary secretary has indicated, removing risk group 2 removes the whole essence and public health intent of the bill. As the agency and David Butler-Jones have stated, we believe in the importance of a national biosafety standard to ensure the safety of all Canadians. I'm an infectious disease specialist who also deals with laboratories, and some of these risk group 2 pathogens are clearly pathogenic, causing illnesses and sometimes death in humans, and they should be handled safely. I don't think there's any dispute about that, and I think we all agree that risk group 2 should be handled differently, but in a safe manner. I certainly do not believe that's necessarily happening now. We do have reports of specific laboratory-acquired infections, but there is no national reporting mechanism to actually capture these.
In public health, one of the key cornerstones is prevention, and while we haven't heard of an escape from a level 3 lab, or indeed a level 2 lab, we don't want to be waiting for an actual incident to happen before laying down what we believe are reasonable and feasible national standards to ensure it doesn't happen. By removing risk group 2, as the parliamentary secretary has said, you have removed our ability to know who has what pathogens, that is, the majority of pathogens in Canada. You have removed our ability to assess whether they have handled those pathogens in an appropriate manner, and whether the labs who think they're risk group 2 labs are indeed not handling certain pathogens they should not be handling under those conditions. We would not be able to have the information necessary to even measure laboratory-acquired infections, or their impacts. So by removing risk group 2, you would be removing a very large aspect of what we already currently do on the human pathogens importation regulations, where risk groups 2, 3, and 4 pathogens and their laboratories are already under the permits regime and under the required laboratory biosafety guidelines.
So we truly believe that by removing this we would not then have a national standard we could apply to all laboratories.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Madam Chair, I will try to respond to the parliamentary secretary's comments as calmly as possible, even though inside, I'm quite upset.
The parliamentary secretary has told us that the government wants to cooperate and that it did not receive our amendments until today. At the last committee meeting, Madam Chair, the Liberal and Bloc members were not engaged in the clause-by-clause study of the bill for a number of reasons, chiefly because we had not yet received an impact study. Madam Chair, questions had been raised by deans and by provincial governments, questions to which we had not yet received any answers.
If the government really wants to take a consensual approach, then I would ask the parliamentary secretary and all of my colleagues to suspend the clause-by-clause study, to obtain answers to these questions, to return here to discuss matters in a consensual manner and to refrain from moving forward too quickly.
That's my response to his comment that we are not adopting a consensual approach to our work.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
We have examined this extremely thoroughly. Sometimes some members haven't been able to attend, and they have missed maybe a little bit. But the fact of the matter is we've gone through everything very thoroughly, and today we're open for discussion, and we will in the end have a vote on this. Keep in mind, too, that the red flag that went up was that we as parliamentarians are responsible. If an incident happens, we have to have measures in place.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Madam Chair, let me just quickly say that wanting to adopt a consensual approach is not merely a pious wish and it is not the sole responsibility of one party. It is everyone's responsibility. When we move forward too quickly, we need to be aware that we are not taking a consensual approach to our work.
Conservative
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I was just going to reiterate what you stated. If we had an outbreak of listeriosis--which is in risk group 2--tomorrow, what would we do? We wouldn't be able to track it depending on where it came from. I mentioned earlier--and I believe the Liberals brought forward an amendment with the board, and I think everyone knows that we're okay with that. We're willing to work with that. We allowed the people who were going to be regulated to come to committee. That is very rare. We do try to build consensus, but sometimes you will have disagreements on things. Since the last meeting was delayed, there was no recommendation that we see further witnesses. We worked very hard over the weekend to fulfill the requirements to go to clause-by-clause today. I think we have handled all the issues that Monsieur Malo brought forward. I don't know if he's had an opportunity to look at all the different amendments to see where they're coming from. We do have a very tight schedule, and we do have a lot of work to do. I think if we are doing clause-by-clause today, if we could move through it with the debate.... And if we do have to vote, we do have to vote. We may not get consensus on everything.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
I just want to say in response to Mr. Malo that we certainly support his efforts here today. I don't have any problem with receiving amendments as we go through clause-by-clause. That's the normal way we do business around this committee. I know he's concerned that we didn't have a delay in proceedings. I voted against that suspension simply because I believed that we were at loggerheads, that we were at an impasse. The government wasn't budging, and we weren't getting any further in terms of how we could deal with level 2 pathogens.
I think what we're all saying is not to leave this area out completely. We had tried some suggestions, and the witnesses made some suggestions about having a separate process developed around level 2 pathogens. In fact, some reference was made to the United States, which is actually reviewing the whole treatment of all levels, particularly level 2. So that wouldn't be that unusual.
I think it would be terribly unfortunate for anyone here--either you, Madam Chairperson or the parliamentary secretary--to engage in any kind of scare tactics by saying that if we don't include level 2, we're going to be responsible for some dangerous outbreak, and that if something should happen, it's all going to be our fault. Let's be clear about what's going on here. What would happen now is what has been happening for years. They're tracked; they're dealt with, and we have lots of mechanisms for actually dealing with outbreaks of listeriosis. The problem is really on the government side with respect to the whole Canadian Food Inspection Agency in its handling of that issue. That's where some of the problems lie, and not so much in terms of how labs are licensed and how level 2 pathogens and toxins are monitored. No one is denying the need, at some point, to get on with a regulatory scheme for these pathogens, but we're saying, as we heard from all the witnesses, that they don't belong in the Criminal Code and they don't belong in this framework. They belong in a separate undertaking, and that's what we're trying to do.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I just want to say that I do respectfully disagree. If there is an outbreak and it is traced back to one of these labs, I do think we are responsible for that. If we look at the purpose of the bill, it is “to establish a safety and security regime to protect the health and safety of the public against the risks posed by human pathogens and toxins”.
It's my belief that the public would not be served if we do not have--
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
This is the whole idea and the purpose of the legislation, because there is a gap. We've had experts here to state that when they're imported we do have a mechanism for the importation, but once we have a domestic situation, there is no way to tell how these are moved in between--
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I have a point of order, Madam Chair. Could I get clarification from someone around the table on how this legislation would have prevented the 20 or so people who died as a result of the listeriosis outbreak at Maple Leaf, and on why the government is refusing to tighten up procedures at the CFIA? Are we looking at a paper-tracing regulatory scheme, as opposed to a proactive precautionary principle, when it comes to people's health and well-being?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I don't think that's actually a point of order, but maybe we could have Dr. Carrie respond.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I don't think it is, either. I was using listeriosis as an example, and the example is not applicable to this legislation.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
I'm a bit taken aback at the comment that we would be responsible for an outbreak like the listeria outbreak if we were to not accept these amendments. I wonder whether that means that the member, Dr. Carrie, takes personal responsibility for those 20 deaths, given that his government, in their deregulation, had reduced the reporting from those plants to government.
I would also like to comment that I don't consider myself to be a specialist in biosafety and security, so I have been drawing heavily on the experience and the communication from the lead people, like the provincial health officer in British Columbia. I am pleased that as a result of our repeated reminders...the Province of British Columbia and other jurisdictions and labs were concerned about the bill as it was presented to us, and there have been amendments proposed by government. I have a letter from the provincial Minister of Healthy Living and Sport that states that she is comfortable with the approach and with the written assurances about the consultations that will take place during the regulations.
I believe most of my earlier concerns have been acted on. That's why I would support going forward in this clause-by-clause, and I no longer believe that we need to hold off on this and have it rewritten.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I'd like to echo what my colleague has said. I would like to move on. As we proceed today, though, our focus has to be on public health, on biosafety, and on biosecurity. I want to stress that there are some things in schedule 2 that could become a biosecurity risk. If we stick to scientific principles, it is standard operating procedure to have a scientific advisory group. With due respect to everyone, we do not have the expertise to make those decisions.