Health Committee on March 10th, 2009

[Dr. Albert Descoteaux]

I briefly mentioned inadequate infrastructure. To establish a level 2 containment laboratory, you have to buy the proper biological safety cabinets. If you do not have them, they will cost you $20,000. Where is that money going to come from? Building and maintaining a level 3 containment laboratory is extremely expensive. It must also be certified. As to all the administrative requirements, if the researcher does not look after it all himself, the university or institution has to hire people to do it. Those costs all add up, but nowhere does it say who is going to pay them.

I get a grant of $120,000 per year from the CIHR, but I do not know what portion of that grant will be used to take care of the requirements of the bill. Will it be 10%, 20%? I do not know. I cannot give you exact figures because we have not faced the situation yet. Whatever it is, I know that laboratory equipment is expensive and it is not at all clear how it is to be acquired and paid for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you so much.

I will now go to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.

Thanks to all of you for your very informative presentations.

I'm not sure that having this bill removed entirely and starting again is in the cards. Unless we hear from the government, we may be working within this legislation. I suppose that's something we can hope for and ask for, but if we can't start again, what's the next best way to approach your concerns? That's a general question to all of you.

More specifically, if we move to amend this bill to remove its application from level 2 pathogens, do we get to the crux of the problem you're raising? What other amendments would you recommend?

Maybe each one of you could answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Go ahead.

[Dr. Vivek Goel]

Sure. Certainly, to be fair to the Public Health Agency of Canada and the government consultations, they have issued a document on the draft regulatory framework. I think the concerns have been expressed.

The document starts by saying it's for discussion purposes only and it's not to be construed as being a policy statement. Then there are many words like “may” and “would” or “could”, as opposed to saying this is what the regulatory framework would actually look like.

First of all, if the legislation goes forward, we would like to be clear that as this gets developed, we will have an opportunity for--

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

Could I just stop you there for a second? When did you receive this draft regulatory framework?

[Dr. Vivek Goel]

I have a copy dated February 2, which I received this morning.

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

Has this committee ever received it? I've never heard of this, so this is--

[A voice]

I have a copy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Could I just answer that question?

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

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

It's on the website apparently.

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

One would have thought that the government, in presenting this legislation, would have given us all the relevant documents.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Apparently you can go to the website. Is that--

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

Well, that's fair enough, but it's not included officially from the representatives. It's unfortunate.

Go ahead. I'm sorry to interrupt you.

[Dr. Vivek Goel]

So certainly I think we'd like to have a commitment to be able to work together on this.

On the second point, I think my colleagues can speak to the removal. Clarity on what would actually be the framework for level 2 would be very significant. That's where quite a bit of the concerns are about the impact it's going to have on operations.

In terms of what's left, from our perspective, the other remaining area of concern is for levels 3 and 4. It's really level 3 that's of concern to everyone else because the only level 4 is the government lab in Winnipeg. We still have this conflation of biosafety and biosecurity, and measures for biosafety, which are obviously very significant and very important, are attached to a bill that criminalizes lack of compliance.

If someone working in the labs is not compliant with the legislation in a strictly biosafety framework, you try to work to improve people's quality and so on, but this legislation hits them over the head with the threat of criminal sanctions, including jail sentences. It's the criminalization of a set of activities that really supports laboratory practice, whether it's in clinical practice or in research.

The final piece is around the minister's authority to collect and share information. Again, within the bill as drafted, it allows the minister to define, in the minister's own opinion, whether the request is within the purposes of the act. There's no reasonable test applied. Then it allows for the sharing of that information with other parties, potentially including foreign governments, without the consent of the individual from whom that information is drawn.

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

I'd like Mr. Descoteaux to answer my question and add to it. I want to get a clear indication from everyone that, as a minimum, you would be in support of an amendment that would remove any application of this bill to level 2 pathogens. That's number one. Beyond that, are there other amendments? If we're working with this bill, what can we do to make it work?

[Dr. Albert Descoteaux]

Concerning the level 2 pathogens, if you consider the risks associated with working with these pathogens, the risks or the remote possibility that terrorists would use them to cause harm, and then you consider on the other hand the constraints--financial, etc.--on researchers working on level 2 pathogens, it's not worth it. The best solution is just to remove that list of pathogens from the bill.

Nobody disputes the fact that you need to protect people who work with level 3 and 4 pathogens. Just protect the people themselves, their co-workers, the people in the same building, and then the people outside the building. Nobody disputes that fact.

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

So completely remove the criminal sanctions under this bill?

[Dr. Albert Descoteaux]

Well, I think it's a bit exaggerated, but--

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

Do you think it's an overreaction or a way to create the facade of reacting to bioterrorist threats in the wake of 9/11, as opposed to a real solution? Some of the witnesses we've had have suggested that the real dangers, in fact, are these pathogens and toxins yet to be developed and that we don't even know what's out there and what could be done.

Given the fact that at the same time we're cutting back on research that might get us the answers to some of those questions, I'm just wondering if that's why. Or am I extrapolating too much here?

[Dr. Albert Descoteaux]

No, but if you look at the possible sentences and fines for not complying to specific rules.... If you work with a level 2 pathogen and you don't comply, you can be fined and go to jail. Compared to somebody who is caught drunk while driving, it's a clear imbalance between the potential impacts on the population. I think it's a bit exaggerated.

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

Michael, Alicia, or Don, do you have any comments?

[Dr. Michael Hynes]

The membership would be very happy to have level 2 pathogens removed from this act—at least for now—even if that reference were to be replaced by a statement that all work with pathogens should be subject to guidelines generated by PHAC. That would be fine in the act. We'd wait to see what those regulations were, and we'd consult with the agency. What we've been receiving in the form of these documents at information sessions looks fine to us, but they're full of “might”, “may”, and “probably”, and we don't know for sure.

So for now we'd be very happy with the removal of level 2 pathogens from the act, and maybe the addition of a clause that says that all work should be regulated by regulations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Professor Hynes.

We'll now go to Dr. Carrie.