Evidence of meeting #61 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was transfer.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Glenn Campbell  Director, International Policy and Analysis Division , Department of Finance
Gilles Moreau  Director General, National Compensation, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Department of Public Safety
Jonathan Roy  Senior Policy Analyst, Social Policy, Health, Justice, Culture, Department of Finance
Daniel MacDonald  Chief, Federal-Provincial Relations Division, CHT/CST and Northern Policy, Department of Finance
John Davies  Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety
Darryl Hirsch  Senior Policy Analyst, Intelligence Policy and Coordination, Department of Public Safety
Nigel Harrison  Manager, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
David Gillis  Director General, Ecosystems and Oceans Science Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
David Lee  Director, Office of Legislative and Regulatory Modernization; Policy, Planning and International Affairs Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Samuel Godefroy  Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Alwyn Child  Director General, Program Development and Guidance Directorate, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Annette Nicholson  Secretary and General Counsel, International Development Research Centre (IDRC)
Lenore Duff  Senior Director, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Dominique La Salle  Director General, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Nathalie Martel  Director, Old Age Security Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Bruno Rodrigue  Chief, Social policy, Income Security, Department of Finance
Annette Vermaeten  Director, Task Force, Special Projects, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Eileen Boyd  Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel, Privy Council Office
Neil Bouwer  Vice-President, Policy and Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Lynn Tassé  Director, Canada Gazette, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Gerard Peets  Senior Director, Strategy and Planning Directorate, Department of Industry
Patricia Brady  Director, Investment, Insolvency, Competition and Corporate Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
Andy Lalonde  Manager, Preclearance, Canada Border Services Agency, Department of Public Safety
Lynn Hemmings  Senior Chief, Payments, Payments and Pensions, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Just to be very clear, my understanding is that there will be no changes to the scientific review and assessment process as a result of anything that is being suggested here, and the same degree of scrutiny and rigour will be maintained so that Canadians can be assured that health and safety will not be compromised.

Is that a clear, accurate statement?

6:20 p.m.

Director, Office of Legislative and Regulatory Modernization; Policy, Planning and International Affairs Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health

David Lee

That is completely correct.

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB

Okay, so no suggestion of exemptions by the opposition, etc., no wording can spin it around to being something else. There is absolutely no change to those effects, given these regulations.

However, the stakeholders have in fact said they're having some problems moving forward. I want you to give us an example of what stakeholders have told you that require that this come into force, which I think set out to reduce duplication, reduce red tape, eliminate the long delays.

If you could give us a concrete example of what stakeholders are seeing as an impediment to moving forward, that might help others to understand.

May 17th, 2012 / 6:20 p.m.

Dr. Samuel Godefroy Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health

Thank you, honourable member, for the question.

I can give an example in the area of food additives with regard to the amount of time that actually can be taken after the scientific assessment has been completed and essentially the substance to be added to foods is deemed to be safe. The example I'm going to use is for an antimicrobial substance, which is a substance that is aimed to either inhibit or delay the growth of harmful bacteria in food.

After our scientists have assessed this substance, deemed it to be acceptable, and identified the conditions for its safe use, it can take up to 36 months of regulatory work and changes—meaning amendments essentially, the drafting of the regulations and so on—before that substance essentially could be given access to the Canadian market.

Those changes are essentially aimed to reduce that period. The scientific assessment is still the same, with the same rigour and the same scrutiny. Once the recommendation of the substance that is deemed to be safe is granted essentially a safe bill, if you will, after that it could reduce that period to as little as six months to enable the access to market.

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB

So it's cutting red tape, very much in line with the red tape commission's efforts that Ms. McLeod took part in. It sounds like a fairly straightforward measure to just reduce red tape, cut red tape, reduce delays, and move forward.

But the decisions, and the decision making-process, aren't affected at all by this.

6:20 p.m.

Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health

Dr. Samuel Godefroy

No, it's correct; essentially there is no change to the scientific decision-making process whatsoever.

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB

Thank you.

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Brison, please.

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Thank you very much for being here today.

How many Health Canada scientists were dedicated to undertaking scientific review and assessment of food safety particularly between 2006 and 2011?

6:25 p.m.

Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health

Dr. Samuel Godefroy

I do not have that figure right now, but essentially we could table that information before the committee.

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Will there be any changes in that number as a result of this decision?

6:25 p.m.

Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health

Dr. Samuel Godefroy

The changes that are in fact proposed here are not accounted for as part of the deficit reduction action plan, so there are no changes to the budgets allocated to the evaluation of substances.

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

But the deficit reduction plan you've referenced will have an effect on the number of scientists engaged in food safety from Health Canada.

6:25 p.m.

Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health

Dr. Samuel Godefroy

The department has identified a number of efficiency gains related to the overall operations of the department, and there will be changes overall to the food program as a result of that.

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

The decision that this change reflects goes back to around 2007, does it? Was that the genesis of this?

6:25 p.m.

Director, Office of Legislative and Regulatory Modernization; Policy, Planning and International Affairs Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health

David Lee

It was much earlier than that, recognizing that what we're changing is a very old regulatory structure. Some of it is about 50 years old, and possibly older. There have been pressures on the time it takes, following scientific review, to just reflect a regulatory amendment.

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

So just to reassure us, the result of this provision—division 19 of this budget implementation bill—will not reduce the number of health scientists in Health Canada undertaking scientific review and assessment? I just want to confirm that.

6:25 p.m.

Director, Office of Legislative and Regulatory Modernization; Policy, Planning and International Affairs Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health

David Lee

This is quite narrow—it speaks only to the regulation-making process conducted by others.

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

So it's a streamlining process that ought to shorten the time required without risking safety?

6:25 p.m.

Director, Office of Legislative and Regulatory Modernization; Policy, Planning and International Affairs Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health

David Lee

That's correct.

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Thank you.

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much.

Do any other members wish to take the floor? Apparently not.

We want to thank you for being with us here tonight. We appreciate your comments and your responses to our questions.

We will move on to division 20, the Government Employees Compensation Act. We'll bring those officials forward.

Welcome to our committee, Mr. Child. We look forward to any opening remarks you may have. Then we'll have questions for you.

6:25 p.m.

Alwyn Child Director General, Program Development and Guidance Directorate, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Division 20 proposes one significant change to the Government Employees Compensation Act that will allow prescribed entities to be subrogated to the rights of employees to pursue claims against third parties.

The current legislation was enacted in 1918. It provides benefits to employees of the federal public service, most crown corporations, and agencies if they are injured in the workplace as a result of accidents or occupational diseases. When an employee sustains an injury in the course of employment that's attributable to a third party, the employee may either pursue the third party or allow the federal government to do so. The amendment here proposes to grant the authority to pursue the third-party claims to prescribed crown corporations or other bodies. That's essentially the change that's being proposed. There are two other bits: the first essentially says that the employee must make a choice; the second says that once the election is made it is final.

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much for that.

We'll go to questions from members.

No questions?

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB

No.