Luc Malo

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, I would like to finish my question about amounts. The minister seemed to be saying that the amounts in the study he himself ordered were excessive.

If independent analysts, people who are in no way involved in decision making and who examine a situation impartially and consider different parameters, looked in depth at the economic fabric, the environment, the quality and amount of land and the type of workers, in short, all the necessary parameters for a credible, relevant study, how did they arrive at such an amount? Would the minister not be inclined to go with what these independent experts came up with in their report?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, this answer is a step in the right direction. However, I will ask the minister a more specific question. His first offer to farmers was rather modest. There was $5 million for the long-term recovery plan over a three-year period. As the minister himself mentioned, the acreage is small and not suitable for extensive corn production. The soil will also remain contaminated for a number of years because the golden nematode does not just disappear but remains dormant in the soil for several decades.

We will have to review the issue of markets. New crops cannot be planted until good market studies have been conducted and without a certain amount of market preparation or without knowing all the other players and creating a niche. It becomes rather complicated. There is also the matter of reputation. The minister is certainly aware that, since the arrival of the golden nematode, the municipality of Saint-Amable, the farmers, nursery workers and horticulturalists of that area have been subject to prejudice. The situation requires a complete repositioning. The warehouses and machinery were suited to the production of potatoes. If they have to change crops, they will need a transition program over a longer period of time.

The minister ordered an independent study that set the transition period at 10 years. It established the amounts required for the complete restructuring of the regional agricultural economy at about $30 million or $31 million. The farmers are prepared to provide up to 20% of that amount.

I would like the minister to tell us if the new offer will respect these parameters, which prevent the use of existing standardized programs. The farmers of Saint-Amable are in an extraordinary situation.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, my thanks to all our colleagues for coming together this evening to take part in the debate in committee of the whole with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. I thank him also for his presence, and for taking part in this extremely important exercise. I hope that when I have finished all my questions I will still be in a good mood. I also hope that the answers he will give me will be satisfactory to the potato growers in my region, who have been waiting a long time for answers.

When the Canadian Food Inspection Agency came to their farms during the summer and fall of 2006, they were told to be cooperative and to work with the agency. They were told not to be apprehensive, because the agency was there to help them. They had hopes of a solution, despite the fact that on October 12, 2006, the area surrounding Saint-Amable was declared a regulated zone. They knew this had to be done and they accepted it gracefully, because they were well aware that the border needed to be reopened. They were wholehearted in their solidarity with all the other growers so that trade could continue.

Nevertheless, they suffered some setbacks, since things were not resolved right away. However, on November 22, 2006, the parliamentary secretary to the previous minister said that the problem facing the producers in Saint-Amable would be resolved. A year later, I had to raise the issue again. Once again, I had to ask questions. That time, the Secretary of State (Agriculture), who is now the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, told us, “Things are going well with the producers. We are talking and a plan is being implemented as we speak.” That was October 26, 2007.

The situation is still unresolved today. Potato producers in Saint-Amable are still wondering if anyone on the other side of the House is listening to them and if the government is going to do something. Since they are watching us on television at this time, I hope they will be able to hear the minister's answers.

The situation was not resolved and an election was called. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable said that it would be discussed among the ministers and that a resolution was not far off. We were told not to worry, that it would come. Once again, nothing happened. At the end of April, that is, a few days ago, when the minister announced his new agricultural policy in Sainte-Croix de Lotbinière, the hon. member for Jonquière—Alma, who is also the Minister of State (Agriculture), said that something would now be done. He said that by the end of May an agreement would be presented that would meet the producers' expectations.

I have a question for the minister. Will the producers really see a satisfactory agreement by the end of May?

[Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, April 30th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed somewhat incomprehensible, and my colleague is perfectly correct.

That is why we would have wished that the government, of its own accord, would withdraw this bill and do the proper homework. As I said at the start of my remarks, there was no urgency. The government itself mentioned that fact in its news release at the time the bill was introduced.

Therefore, why force the issue? We would be inclined to impugn the motives of the government simply because basic logic would insist that the real impact of the bill be identified and that the research carried out in all our laboratories can go forward. If, after promulgation of Bill C-11, there are additional costs to modify the laboratories, who will pay? The universities? The laboratories? The hospitals? We know very well there is no money. They have only the strict minimum to carry out the research that they have to do. How will they be able to continue? They will have to draw on their operating funds. They will be forced to reduce the number of teachers and the number of students who receive training in order to adapt their premises. This is an important question and we still do not have an answer.

The government is asking us today to vote on a bill without knowing its impact. That is not right and it makes no sense.

As parliamentarians, we assume certain responsibilities when we vote on a bill in this House. We cannot be expected to vote in good faith when we do not know the consequences. As I said previously, the consequences could be very serious. One witness told us there had been a brain drain from the United States precisely because of certain fears. They were afraid they could unintentionally cause damage that would be considered criminal.

[Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, April 30th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I will simply read what Professor Greg Matlashewski told us:

We have 350 undergraduate students in microbiology and immunology at McGill. We teach them how to use level 2 pathogens. The way this bill is written we couldn't teach them any longer.

Before we enact a bill, we have to be sure that these kinds of things cannot happen. We have to reassure our researchers. As I said just now, Professor Matlashewski came to see us right at the end of the process and he still had a number of concerns.

My colleague was also right when he told us that the provinces will be completely excluded from any form of consultation, when those provinces have hospitals and universities doing these kinds of cutting-edge research and these institutions are under the constitutional jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

In my opinion, while the government tells us about its openness, about how it respects the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, this bill, the way it is written, clearly seems to us to be taking a different path. As I said, the government likes to say things, but when it comes time to do something and make sure that all of the stakeholders are properly heard and will be able to carry out their responsibilities as properly as possible, it stops listening and it does not do what elementary logic would dictate.

[Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, April 30th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I find it very regrettable that our colleagues from the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party would vote on legislation without first making sure that it is constitutionally sound.

The hon. member is right to say that there is too much reliance on regulations, but he also suggested that not everyone need be consulted. Without necessarily consulting with everybody, I would guess that those who will have to work with the legislation day in and day out should be consulted. Efforts must be made to ensure that they can do so properly as well as give courses in support of science. We in this place boast about Canada having the best researchers and promising students. It would be a shame to pull the rug out from under them, thus preventing them from doing their jobs. That is what the NDP is doing by refusing to hear these witnesses.

At the very end of the committee stage, there were still people telling us that it made no sense. Why was a decision not made to go through things thoroughly and check them over before putting them in the regulations? I have no idea when these regulations will appear, and the legislation will not be enforced for another four or five years. Why not make sure that these people have been heard and that they are satisfied? I think that this would show a minimum level of respect for these people who, day in and day out, work at ensuring that Quebec and Canada are at the leading edge of technology and that we benefit in our daily lives from the greatest advances in science and technology.

[Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, April 30th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to speak at third reading of Bill C-11, An Act to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins.

At second reading, the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the principle of this bill. It is obvious that public health and safety are everyone's concern. However, as was even admitted by the government, in announcing the introduction of Bill C-54, the ancestor of this Bill C-11, the Minister of Health 's press release explained that the risk to Canadians from human pathogens and toxins used in laboratories is low.

There are also other laws, an anti-terrorism law and others, which could house some of the provisions of Bill C-11. It is, for example, obvious that a malicious intent in releasing toxic and dangerous products into the environment would be covered already by a number of laws. Offenders would be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. There was therefore no reason to stir everyone up and trample over all those who wanted to see changes to the legislation in favour of greater mutual respect. The provinces were muzzled and not properly listened to. Neither were the researchers and scientists.

Yet those very researchers and scientists are the ones who will have to live with the consequences of Bill C-11. I will quote, if I may, from what Peter Singer, director and professor of medicine at the University Health Network and University of Toronto, told us in committee in connection with this bill:

It lowers the background noise of what's happening in laboratories so the signal of aberrant activity can stand out better. But we also need the help of the thousands of scientists in those laboratories, very few of whom, if any, intend to misuse human pathogens, to make sure that 99.99% constitute a network of vigilance to bring that signal to the attention of authorities. Because biosecurity is achieved by winning the scientists' hearts and minds, not through legislative compulsion but by fostering a scientific culture of awareness and responsibility, it's extremely important to have them on side.

That is what the government did not try to do before moving forward. It did not try to get laboratory researchers on board. It did not try to win them over and obtain their unconditional support. When the government raises the spectre of bioterrorist attacks and mentions laboratory workers in the bill, they just might think that they are being branded as potential terrorists. Calling people names and insulting them is not a good way to win them over.

The government did not conduct a proper impact study to understand the consequences of Bill C-11. We asked public officials whether proper impact studies had been conducted, and from the comments we heard in the committee, we discovered that the government did hold information sessions, but did not take a more thorough look at researchers' criticisms and concerns.

There would have been time to do it. We tend to forget that, according to the government's timeline, this bill will not be implemented for another four or five years. Instead of acting blindly, without a solid, credible foundation, the government should have acted responsibly by conducting an impact study and holding proper consultations with all stakeholders, including researchers, the provinces, and private health labs. That would have been the right thing to do.

Mr. Raymond Tellier appeared before the committee, and he raised a very important point. He said that, after a similar law was passed in the United States, there was a brain drain. Before going ahead with this bill, it would have been very useful to know how it might affect people working as researchers and teachers, those who pass on their knowledge to future researchers and Ph.D.s. On that basis alone, it would have been nice to have had more information.

Just before proceeding to a clause-by-clause study in committee, we heard from witnesses who told us that they were still not happy. For example, we heard from Professor Greg Matlashewski of McGill University's department of microbiology and immunology. He said:

The bill will mean very little without real regulations within it, as far as I'm concerned. I think there's a real danger in passing this bill without having the regulations, because I've seen some of the amendments, and these amendments have not changed the bill substantially.

He was not satisfied with the amendments because, in his opinion, they were still not specific enough about the consequences to carrying out his job, which is very important and useful in developing new procedures and new medications and for advancing science.

Mr. Albert Descoteaux, a professor at the Institut Armand-Frappier, Institut national de la recherche scientifique, voiced his concerns about HIV:

Bill C-11 would destroy all the financial commitments from government in the fight against AIDS. Paradoxically, that remains a federal government priority. I would really like that considered when you decide your position on Bill C-11.

Unfortunately, not enough consideration was given to that point by our NDP, Liberal and Conservative colleagues. In fact, they decided to move forward and adopt this bill even before knowing its impact, especially on AIDS research.

Mr. Descoteaux continued:

If the goal of lawmakers is to promote public health and safety in the area of micro-organisms and to protect Canadians from potential bioterrorist attacks, Bill C-11 is not the solution. I feel that the bill could well create havoc by establishing a repressive system that lumps all micro-organisms together, whereas the vast majority of them pose no problem at all for people's health and safety.

And what about his comments? They want to forget them, ignore them, and pretend that Dr. Descoteaux said nothing. It is deplorable that members of other political parties would act this way when, as I stated earlier, there was no reason to expedite this bill, as the government had said in a press release.

We also proposed an amendment, at report stage, asking that the provinces be consulted before the schedules were amended.

When they came to discuss the proposed amendments with us, public officials told us clearly that the provinces would not be consulted before the drafting of these amendments. The experts and researchers were from research labs and the federal government. This whole exercise completely ignored the skills that we have in the public service of Quebec and of the provinces.

The Bloc Québécois' amendment sought to consult Quebec and the provinces, before amending the schedules, that is before adding a pathogen or changing its classification. This was to ensure that the impact of any change would be known and adequately evaluated by the government.

The committee heard the concerns clearly expressed by members from all parties and from the various provinces. The Conservative member for Sarnia—Lambton told us about the fears of the Ontario legislature, while the member for Vancouver Quadra spoke eloquently and vigorously about the very legitimate concerns of the B.C. government, since she served as a minister in that provincial legislature.

However, we did not get any answer, despite the fact that Conservative and Liberal members raised the legitimate concerns of the Ontario and British Columbia legislatures, and despite the fact that the member for Vancouver Quadra spoke eloquently, asked many questions and demanded answers.

Indeed, despite all this, she and her Liberal Party colleagues decided to support the government in its will to rush Bill C-11 through. This is rather unusual. It is puzzling to see members from this House, who heard, understood and then conveyed the fears expressed by provincial legislatures, end up ignoring them and rejecting the legitimate expectations of the provinces.

We learned, in the presentations made to the committee by the members for Sarnia—Lambton and Vancouver Quadra, that they were already exercising—as regards safety, security and the monitoring of laboratories—a number of responsibilities related to constitutional requirements that come under Quebec and the provinces.

Talking about the constitutionality of the bill, the committee heard an expert who told us that, in her opinion, there was every reason to believe that some provisions in Bill C-11 were unconstitutional. It is a very serious matter when, after the committee heard an expert express concerns regarding this issue, the government decides to use its prerogative to legislate criminal law, ignores those recommendations and moves forward nevertheless.

I would now like to read a letter addressed to the Minister of Health, on April 6, 2009, by the Quebec health minister, Dr. Yves Bolduc.

Dear Mr. Minister,

I am writing to you today to express the Quebec government's serious concerns about Bill C-11, the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, which is currently being examined by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. The Quebec government notes that the measures proposed in the bill would have serious repercussions on the organization of medical laboratory services and medical diagnostic services, which are provided by Quebec’s health care system and which come under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Government of Quebec is calling on the federal government to reconsider its approach to ensuring the biosafety and biosecurity of human pathogens and toxins, rather than pursuing the parliamentary work currently underway. It is important that that approach better reflect the respective roles of both levels of government in this matter.

Yours truly,

This letter went completely unheeded. The NDP, the Liberals and the Conservatives all ignored the remarks made by the Quebec Minister of Health, these very wise remarks calling for a review of all the provisions of the bill, rather than pursuing the committee's examination, in order to ensure that it respects the jurisdictions of both levels of government.

When the Standing Committee on Health was doing its clause-by-clause review of Bill C-11, I had proposed an amendment whereby the bill would not apply to any facility regulated, operated or funded by a province.

You can object, shout, ask questions and insist that your home province's fears be taken seriously, as the member for Vancouver Quadra did in committee, but you have to do more than just that.

I find it deplorable that this member did not do what should be done in such a situation and ask the government, as I am doing, to take a step back and consider all the facts when making a decision about a bill like Bill C-11.

Are we going to have to go through the same thing with Bill C-11 that we went through with the Assisted Human Reproduction Act? The Government of Quebec, with the support of other provincial legislatures, applied to the court to rule on the act's constitutionality.

The public should not have to pay for lawyers and judges to examine the constitutionality of legislation. I believe that, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to make sure, before we introduce or vote on a bill, that it complies fully with the Constitution.

The Quebec Court of Appeal ruled that the Assisted Human Reproduction Act is unconstitutional. Now, I am sad to see—

[Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, April 30th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister's parliamentary secretary.

He said that in our study of the bill in committee, we heard from various stakeholders directly affected by Bill C-11. He also seemed to be saying that the amendments he read met the demands and expectations of those very stakeholders, that is, the researchers who work daily with the micro-organisms targeted by this bill, specifically group 2 micro-organisms.

However, although the various researchers were aware of the amendments, how can he explain the fact that, on the last day of consultations with them, before clause by clause study began, the researchers still had reasonable, legitimate, well-founded fears lingering in their minds? How can he explain the fact that the government nonetheless decided to go ahead with the clause by clause study knowing that those particular stakeholders were dissatisfied with the final product?

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleague to refer to what I said.

The Auditor General recognized the problem in 2006. It is now nearly May 2009, and this is the first time this bill has come before the House. As the saying goes, the members opposite were asleep at the wheel. The Liberals did not do any better, however. The Auditor General discovered these shortcomings in 2006, and they were in power shortly before the study was conducted. As such, both the Liberals and the Conservatives have dragged their heels when it comes to making sure that products on store shelves are safe.

However, now that we know about it, we have to act quickly. That is why I am asking all of my colleagues to move this bill through second reading and to ensure that the committee's review will be both efficient and effective so that we can take a thorough look at all of the bill's consequences. We have to make sure that, if and when it is adopted, the government will do everything in its power to make sure that the legislation has all the teeth it needs to ensure that consumers no longer have to worry as they have recently.

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for his very good question.

It is the kind of question that we will have to put to knowledgeable individuals when we study this element in committee. It is important to know where and how officials will be checking imported products to ensure that they are completely safe for people.

Bill C-6 makes importers and manufacturers responsible for product safety. That is important because they are ultimately accountable for making sure that the products they put on store shelves are safe. That being said, because we want more control over the process through Bill C-6, we must make sure, very early on in the process, that the products that end up on our store shelves are safe.