Health Committee on March 10th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Ms. Sarabia.

[Dr. Alicia Sarabia]

I would still prefer to see regulations first that address all of those issues--because they span a real breadth of different areas that affect the labs operationally--before having legislation go out. Then we could work on the regulations in partnership with PHAC.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Within the legislation, if we're talking about having a clause that defines it, level 2 is very different from levels 3 and 4, and it will be X, X, and X.

[Dr. Alicia Sarabia]

There would be lots of different specific points throughout the legislation that would refer to level 2 and how it was different from levels 3 and 4. It's not just inventory; it's authorization of folks coming into labs and maintaining lists of people who come in and out of labs. Pretty well throughout all of it you could have a question that would pertain to level 2, so you'd have to make exceptions throughout the course of the legislation. They could be minor points, but the breadth would be significant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you very much, Ms. McLeod.

Monsieur Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to pick up on Ms. McLeod's comments. Everyone here agrees that the spirit of the bill is good and the remarks in the House reflected that. All the witnesses said the same thing. Dr. Sarabia said that the important thing was the balance between safety and research. I think that everyone can agree on that.

However, all the witnesses say that they are fundamentally afraid about the way in which the bill will affect their work. My colleagues on this side and I think so too, and so does Dr. Bennett. Dr. Descoteaux even talked about training. If years of work can be wiped out for want of trained staff, that is serious.

At this stage, we have no answers. I think that Dr. Bennett's suggestion is important. The government should go back and do its homework, consult, and propose amendments that would address the fears of our witnesses, the researchers and the people in the trenches. The government should come up with a preliminary regulatory framework so that these people know exactly what is intended.

What do our witnesses think of that way of going about it? If the government were to propose amendments designed to allay all your fears, including removing all the pathogens in group 2, would that be sufficient? If you had before you a regulatory framework that you could comment on before this committee delivers its verdict on the bill and returns it to the House, would that be a positive move on the government's part?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Descoteaux.

[Dr. Albert Descoteaux]

Indeed. I do not like the word “pathogens“ because, often, micro-organisms living in some nook or cranny in the environment suddenly find themselves inside a human being and cause disease. Using the term “micro-organism“ is better than saying “pathogen“ all the time. Removing level 2 micro-organisms from the bill would be a good step forward. It would also be a good idea to consult people who are working with level 3 and level 4 micro-organisms to make sure that they no longer have any problems.

Consulting the people in the trenches is the most important thing to do. We have to be sure that all aspects of microbiology in Canada, whether it is training staff, research, and so on, are not affected negatively by this bill. But the bill still has its good points: its aim is to protect people from potentially lethal micro-organisms.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

You have another minute.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Go on, Dr. Descoteaux. You say that you do not like the use of the term “pathogen“. So perhaps the bill should be amended to reflect that. You said that the micro-organisms have been classified in a way that you find arbitrary.

Why were they classified like that?

[Dr. Albert Descoteaux]

For example, no one has satisfactorily explained why Leishmania, which everyone in the world, including in Canada, considers to be a level 2 micro-organism, suddenly found itself on the level 3 list.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Somewhere in the schedules, should there be the reasons why all these micro-organisms have been classified in one place rather than another?

[Dr. Albert Descoteaux]

Actually, there already is a classification in Canada. In the Health Canada web site—I do not know exactly where—all micro-organisms are described. It tells whether each is a bacterium, a protozoan, a fungus or a virus. It says what family they belong to, what pathology they can cause, the containment level needed when working with them, and so on. The bill changes some things with no justification at all and this is why I used the word arbitrary. Show me evidence to the contrary and I will stop saying arbitrary. Without that evidence, it is arbitrary in my books.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Dr. Descoteaux.

We'll now go to Mrs. Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much to each of our presenters for being here today. I'm not really sure where we're going with this.

Dr. Sarabia, you applauded the focus on biosafety and biosecurity and said it's very important to strike a balance so we can still advance diagnostic research and allow it to continue unimpeded.

I think you also said information sessions were held by the Public Health Agency, but none of the details were definitive at that time; it was just leave them until later. Is that a fair assessment of the information sessions?

[Dr. Alicia Sarabia]

I wasn't at the last information session because notice of it was given days before it happened.

At the first information session last year, more specific details were made known to us that were not reflected in the amendment of the legislation the second time around. I think we were asked if we felt more comfortable after the session. It made me feel more comfortable, but the issue is still that the legislation remains high-level, and it's sort of like buying a car without taking a test drive. You don't really know how it's going to work out in real life. That makes us uncomfortable.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I understand you had some concerns that medical professionals who would have to collect a sample of the human pathogen or toxin for diagnostic testing could be held responsible under this bill. That has been removed.

[Dr. Alicia Sarabia]

I didn't raise that.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

You didn't have that as a concern?

[Dr. Alicia Sarabia]

No, because it clearly states somewhere that specimen collection is exempted.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Someone else stated that information sessions were held, but they didn't think there were consultations. I don't remember which one of you said that. Was it you, Dr. Goel? Can you elaborate on that?

[Dr. Vivek Goel]

Certainly. Again, as Dr. Sarabia has noted, first of all, for the last round, the notice period was very short. I think it was a matter of days before people in Toronto were told there was a session in Toronto. It consisted of a presentation, and even the Public Health Agency of Canada has characterized them as information sessions. Questions and concerns were raised from the floor and the response was that those issues would be dealt with in regulations. Consultations, in my mind, would be more of a dialogue where we would be looking at specific aspects of the document and the regulatory framework.

I think it's a good document. It's in the right direction. I wouldn't say it's there yet. I think we'd like to have that dialogue. I think the suggestion about having a formal committee—a formal process—built into the legislation that would require some form of consultative committee as the regulations were developed or amended would be a very positive step, as would a phase-in period. Start with the level 3s and 4s and continue with this process.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Do you see this is a bill that could move forward with some of those changes in it that you've just outlined?

[Dr. Vivek Goel]

I think certainly the sorts of things we've heard, if we had that kind of commitment, from our perspective, would comfort us a lot more. As Dr. Bennett raised earlier, I think the commitment to work with the provinces, because many of the issues being addressed here do cut into areas of provincial responsibility, and the cost implications.... We talked a lot about research and the impact on research, but there's also an impact on the provision of diagnostic services.