Evidence of meeting #8 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was regulations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Director and Professor of Medicine, University Health Network and University of Toronto, McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health
Along the lines I just mentioned, sure.
Director and Professor of Medicine, University Health Network and University of Toronto, McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health
Yes.
Conservative
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thanks to all the scientists for being here this afternoon to give us a perspective that is a little different from what we have already heard.
Dr. Ouellette, from what you say, the research community was not really consulted. There was just an information session.
Dr. Matlashewski, you tell us that, in the scientific community, there are still a huge number of questions and a huge fear that laboratory activities will be reduced or compromised.
Assuming that what the Public Health Agency of Canada tells us is true, that the regulatory framework is going to be constructed after extensive consultation and that all stakeholders are going to be met with and reassured, and considering what we know about these consultations and what has been done in the past, I wonder whether you would not consider that only real solution is to completely remove all mention of Level 2 pathogens from the bill. The regulations could then be prepared quicker and more precisely. You explained that Level 2 human pathogens are in no way comparable to Level 3 and 4 pathogens.
Marc Ouellette
That is certainly the case as regards the risk for the community. If a person is sick with a Level 2 or Level 3 pathogen, he can still die. But it is not the same thing.
I was not consulted about Bill C-54, nor were any of the colleagues I know. But we were informed. The member of Parliament for our constituency, the former member, that is—Luc Harvey, from the Conservative Party—was also very active. He arranged for us to visit the offices of the Public Health Agency of Canada. He came to the Université Laval to discuss the matter. He was surprised that we were shocked.
This is great now! We are being consulted on Bill C-11. I understand that the consultation is going to continue. Everyone is in favour of making the public safer. Some practices already exist and have proved their worth. If we can improve them, can have a framework, so much the better. Do we feel reassured that Health Canada tells us that there is now going to be a regulatory framework that is going to weaken the law, change it, or express it differently? We are people of good will. If we are asked for our opinions and our efforts so that the law is as proactive as possible, we will participate.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
So do you agree with Dr. Singer's proposal that the regulatory framework should be established not only by bureaucrats but also by the scientific community, by stakeholders in the area? An independent committee with a proper mandate?
Greg Matlashewski
Mr. Malo, I agree for group 2. Group 2 should not be included in this bill. It would cause too many problems.
It would be easiest and I think would solve a lot of the problems if we didn't impose group 2 on this bill.
I would say that over 90% of the research done in Canada in microbiology and immunology involves working specifically with level 2, not level 3. Removing level 2 would not put Canadians at any greater risk than they face now. Canadians are well protected with what is already present. Keeping level 2 in this bill will certainly slow research in this country and slow our ability to compete internationally and our ability to attract biotechnology and major industries like Merck pharmaceuticals.
Merck is coming to Montreal because of the expertise we have in Montreal, not because they think it's a good place to live. We have the University of Montreal, we have McGill University, we have Laval University, and we have some of the best microbiologists in the world. Merck is going to come to join us because we are that. I am convinced that keeping group 2 will slow down our economic development and ability to work in this area.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
As a researcher at McGill, were you consulted about Bill C-54? Were you able to express these very legitimate fears about the content of the bill?
Professor, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, McGill University
We weren't really...or at least I'm not aware of consultation with McGill University before the bill was written. I think we were shown the bill after it was written, but I think if we were approached before it was written, we would have had input at that point, certainly.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Were the fears that you expressed today, very legitimate fears, I repeat, made known to the Public Health Agency of Canada before today? They have representatives in the room at the moment.
Marc Ouellette
Absolutely. In fact, when Bill C-54 was introduced, one of the first things we did—as a research community—was to start a letter-writing and e-mail campaign. Representatives of the agency were very proactive. They came to see us and explained the bill. We presented our concerns about the bill and then it died on the Order Paper. The present bill C-11 is a reincarnation of Bill C-54. In broad terms, I feel it is the same, except with regard to a pathogen that was Level 3 and is now Level 2. We lobbied hard on that because it was plainly a mistake. Yes, we let our concerns be known.
We all arrived here today at the same time and we talked for almost half an hour. Everything they said made a lot of sense.
Conservative
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Given the dialogue we're having, I think it would be wonderful if somehow we could get the department reps at the table with you and could have an exchange on what they think about what you said and could go back and forth. I'm a little—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, they will be at the table in about 10 minutes, so let's continue with this group.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
It would be good to have Dr. Plummer and Dr. Tam right here now, and we could do some back-and-forth.
Let me ask this, first of all. According to the minister's documents, consultations were held in September 2007 about this area. Were you consulted in September 2007?
They went on to suggest that there was no opposition expressed, although some issues were raised around implementation.
You can't remember any consultations?
Professor, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, McGill University
I wasn't consulted in September 2007.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I guess you're raising the whole question of what the right balance is in this legislation. While I hear what you're saying in terms of not wanting to impede research, I think we're struggling as members of Parliament, and the public is struggling with the need for health protection.
These days we're dealing with a lot of level 1 or level 2 issues that are causing death. Listeriosis is a good example of this: that's on the list of level 1, I believe. E. coli has caused numerous deaths and illnesses. I think the department is probably listening to a bit of that and struggling with how to provide that kind of balance.
I think the first priority has to be the protection of health and well-being. Secondly, do not impede research. I can imagine you're going to get an earful from the drug companies; they want as few restrictions as possible. We, and you as academics, have to be very vigilant about that balance, and give us your best advice.
In her presentation the other day, Dr. Tam said that the program and regulatory framework around this legislation tends to be less stringent for those individuals who are handling less dangerous human pathogens and toxins and more stringent of those handling the most dangerous. She gives the example of security screening not required for people working with risk group 2 human pathogens.
Are you saying that's not true or that there are other restrictions that cause a problem? How would you in fact balance health protection versus innovative research?
Professor, Laval University
As I said, just as you've been saying, we've heard the same message from the Public Health Agency, and we were quite pleased by what we heard. We were asked to give our opinion about what was written, and what is written is not what you're saying.
Can I just come back to listeriosis, Walkerton, SARS, clostridium difficile?
Professor, Laval University
Yes, all these things are infectious diseases that will happen all the time, despite the tightest regulation that one can have. This is how we handled the pathogens. Listeriosis had nothing to do with handling the pathogen. It had to do with not carefully cleaning the meat plants. SARS was an infectious disease from Asia that was not spotted maybe as rapidly as possible in Toronto. This is an infectious disease; this is public health. It has nothing to do with the manipulation by itself of the pathogen. How the manipulation of a pathogen will help is if we can do research about this, where we may have improved diagnostics, improved treatment for those diseases.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I appreciate your explanation. I'm going to look forward to the response from some of the Public Health Agency folks in the department.
Mr. Singer, you might want to comment on this as well, as I'm really interested in your comments around bioterrorism. A concern I've raised in the past is what would appear to me as a lack of coordination within the federal government. With all the people who should be ready in case of a bioterrorist attack, how do we get that coordination and that preparedness?
