Health Committee on March 10th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you so much, Dr. Goel.

We'll now go to Ms. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you so much for coming, for your comments, and for your insight.

I'd like to know if this sums up the discussion we've had. I think the initial feeling was that we need legislation around biosafety. However, over the last few days of consultation some real concerns have been brought forward, and I'll try to elucidate them.

There would be challenges regarding duplication, particularly with the provinces. Security clearances--how long they will take, their cost, and what that means in terms of workload. There is the issue of privacy, as well as taking a really close look in particular at the schedules and if we've categorized things correctly. I'm wondering if I'm missing anything. We'll add that to the list. What's clearly come out today is consultation.

I might like to suggest that if the government is willing, we can go back. There would be more consultation and then perhaps new amendments proposed, along with regulations, before coming back to committee.

I'd be grateful for your comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Who would like to take that one on? Okay, Dr. Sarabia.

[Dr. Alicia Sarabia]

I think we've already demonstrated that we would be in agreement with that. It would just allow us to agree to something more explicit.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Have I missed anything in the concerns you've brought forth today?

[Dr. Michael Hynes]

One point might be that this is always going to be subject to whatever regulations the Public Health Agency comes up with, and those are going to change from time to time in response to different challenges. I think you need to build into this bill that those changes will always be after adequate consultation. I think there is a risk of pushing panic buttons due to political events or whatever happens in the world that leads to a very rapid change in regulations that could be extremely detrimental. Built into the act, there should be something saying that any new generation of regulations should involve extensive consultation with the community.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I think Dr. Goel wanted to make comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Goel, you wanted to make a comment.

[Dr. Vivek Goel]

To answer Dr. Duncan's question, the list is certainly quite comprehensive. The one other area that I would suggest also be examined is the impact on costs, both for research organizations as well as diagnostic labs.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

[Dr. Alicia Sarabia]

We understand the security clearances apply to level 3 and level 4 personnel, but even in the level 2 labs, my understanding is that explicit lists of folks coming in and out of labs will be required. That would be quite a challenge for many facilities to manage.

There was another term. The way of describing it was giving folks authority to come into the lab, which is not the same as maintaining specific lists with names. If we could consider changing the wording around that, it would be helpful.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

Can I ask a question on how the split we're making between level 2 and level 3 compares to what's happening in the U.K. and the United States?

[Dr. Don Low]

It's pretty similar. Again, you have to be careful whether it's biosecurity or biosafety. A level 3 organism like microbacteria in tuberculosis is a biosafety issue; it's not a bioterrorism/biosecurity issue.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

It's a biosafety issue. How does it compare with the U.S. and the U.K.?

[Dr. Don Low]

It's probably pretty equivalent.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Are there any changes?

[Dr. Don Low]

I wouldn't be able to answer that.

[Dr. Alicia Sarabia]

If I could speak to the point I was making about organisms within one risk group like level 3, perhaps they need to be treated differently if biosecurity is the big concern. MTB, the agent of tuberculosis, is not the biosecurity threat that bacillus anthracis, the agent of anthrax would be. So drilling down on that kind of differentiation might be....

It's hard, I'm sure, to put that into legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Dr. Sarabia.

We'll now go to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

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

Thank you very much.

Why do you think they brought forward this proposed Bill C-11?

[Dr. Don Low]

It might have been a post-9/11 concern, and as a result of the Patriot Act in the U.S.

I think there was also a concern after SARS, that we really didn't know what labs had the virus and where they were in the country. The concerns were raised that we really weren't tracking pathogens that do pose a threat. We saw in Asia, in laboratories working with this SARS organism in particular, where there were accidents that occurred and the virus was released into the community.

There is good intent here. I think everybody agrees with that. It's the lack of consultation.

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

I think it was Michael, or Dr. Goel, who said the U.S. is experiencing the problems you've identified that could happen here, which is research not being carried out that is necessary and important but too restrictive under this kind of approach.

Is it possible there's another agenda here, that is, part of the whole continental integration approach between Canada and the United States to harmonize at certain levels and use 9/11 as the excuse to do that and to perhaps control the research in a certain area for national security purposes?

I'm trying to understand the reasons for all this. We've had no incidents. No one talks about serious problems, other than lack of coordination between labs and different standards and levels. We haven't had a huge issue. This came out of the blue for the committee and the academic community, and there are lots of concerns.

I am trying to understand. What happens if we try to get the government to pull it back or slow it down or whatever? What is the real motive behind it all? Does anybody have any understanding of this?

[Dr. Michael Hynes]

I was surprised to learn in the documents from the information sessions that there were lots of laboratories in the country that are not compliant, or we don't know if they're compliant with the guidelines on biosafety that the university and government researchers have to adhere to if they want to get funding. That is a legitimate concern. It makes sense to have legislation that makes this uniform across the country, whether you are a small industry, a big industry, or doing diagnostics or government research.

There should be rules. There is a potential hazard, certainly of level 3 and level 4, and possibly level 2 organisms. The rules should be the same for everybody. Legislation that addresses that is worthwhile.

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

Okay.

Albert, did you want to add something?

[Dr. Albert Descoteaux]

I agree with what Dr. Hynes just said.