Thank you.
Monsieur Malo.
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.
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.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Since the beginning of this study, since this bill was first introduced, the views we have heard most have been from people from the department. Today, we have heard from three researchers, three professors in the field. What we have learned today is quite new. We have learned that it is possible to preserve the spirit of the bill and what it tries to do while still removing everything to do with Level 2. I have not heard you make a sufficiently strong case that, if Level 2 is removed, problems will be caused and that the spirit and the goals of the bill will not be preserved. I would like to hear your response to that subject, amongst others.
Professor Matlashewski told us that it would slow down research, delay breakthroughs, and prevent our researchers and our industry from being on the cutting edge of technology and meeting the needs of an industry that wants to set itself up here. I would like to hear your response. It is a problem if keeping Level 2 in the bill prevents us from doing our job properly.
There is another problem. I am sure that you are going to tell us that everything can be settled in the regulations. I would like to know if you are aware that you are asking us, as parliamentarians and a community of scientists working in laboratories, to leave everything to you.
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Infectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada
I'd like to answer that by saying that there's assurance that the program is based on the current human pathogens importation regulations. In fact, these labs are already doing this, and it has not stopped them from doing research or innovation. We're trying to level the playing field by having all the other labs that are not importing being brought up to the same standard as these labs that are already importing.
If you remove risk group 2, what you're dealing with is that we are going to probably have to keep the importation regulations—which have risk group 2 in them—as is, and then you're going to have an unlevel playing field, of those who are acquiring things domestically versus those who are acquiring pathogens from abroad. SARS is a domestic pathogen at this point, for example.
So really, it is built on a current regulation.
The other concerns are about security clearance. We're saying you don't need it for level 2, and you can have people accompany specific scientists working at level 3, if their security clearance has not already gone through. There are inventory issues that people want to discuss, and cost implications, and those are the specifics we cannot necessarily work through until the programmatic details are in place. That's why it's much easier to deal with those in regulations than to specify them in the bill itself.
5:20 p.m.
General Counsel, Legal Services, Public Health Agency of Canada
The only thing that I would add to Dr. Tam's remarks, is that, under clause 33(b) of the bill, if the person is accompanied and supervised by a person who holds a security clearance, work can go on. It is explicitly written into the bill. The other details of level of risk and who has to be subject to security will apply only to Levels 3 and 4. The concept of being accompanied is in the bill.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you very much. I have one quick question.
I'm very worried about leaving so much to regulations. I'm worried on behalf of the academics who are here today and who have raised concerns. I hear you try to answer them, but I still think we need some other way to assure them that their concerns will be addressed.
But I'm also worried about the lack of control over regulations in the face of what some of big pharma might be looking to do under the rubric of this legislation. I don't think we've had any representation from big pharma come to our committee wanting to present. That makes me very nervous. They think the bill's great, and I think there's a concern. I'm not sure whether you've had consultations with them, but to leave things this wide open sure makes me uneasy.
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Infectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada
Jane might be able to speak to why it's important to have the bill have the higher powers in terms of being nimble in circumstances where you really do have to act very fast in the interest of public safety or public health.
In terms of the pharmaceuticals, they were certainly involved in consultations. In Quebec, for instance, the GSK and others were at some of these sessions. It is true they have not voiced any concerns with this current bill. I think all of them already import pathogens, for example, already under current regulation, and they have not voiced specific concerns to us. But it would be interesting, for sure, to hear from some of these areas.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I want to thank you so very much, and a special thank you goes to our guests. You've come back twice, and I certainly appreciate your insightful comments. I think our committee has really benefited from your presence here. Bon voyage back to Winnipeg and other parts where you're going.
The committee is dismissed.