Finance Committee on Nov. 24th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

But I don't know how the government could be any more clear in its language:

The Chief Public Health Officer shall provide the Minister and the President with public health advice that is developed on a scientific basis.

I mean unless we're in some kind of a language game, I take legislation at its word. It seems to be that is saying that the chief public health officer shall provide advice on a scientific basis directly to the Minister of Health, which seems to address your concern. I know it doesn't go far enough, in terms of being an officer of Parliament. I take that point, but in terms of this, I'm not sure how this doesn't address your concern.

[Steven Hoffman]

The reality is that the chief public health officer would be reporting to an agency president; so, yes, I guess, the legislation says that advice would be transmitted to the minister, but there's—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. But how's the reality different from what the legislation says?

[Steven Hoffman]

It's because the chief public health officer's performance is based on that agency president. If the president is the one responsible for the agency, it means that the advice will be filtered. There's no mechanism for others outside of government to trust it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

But where does it say that the advice will be filtered? Like, where are you getting this from?

Again, it says:

(1.1) The Chief Public Health Officer shall provide the Minister

—not “the Minister filtered advice” or “shall provide the President advice, who shall then provide the Minister advice”, but “shall provide the Minister”, first, before “the President”—

and the President with public health advice that is developed on a scientific basis.

So where are you getting this that it's filtered or that it's somehow not being provided directly to the minister?

[Steven Hoffman]

Well, I hope that's what ends up happening. My concern, as a law professor, is that there is the opportunity for the filtering to happen.

Again, it's not just the federal government where this matters, it's other actors. If the chief public health officer in the future is told by the agency president that they can't speak on this—for example, the visa restrictions that have recently happened—or they can't speak on other issues, then it becomes a matter of trust. That trust is important not just at the federal level but among the provinces as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have the Public Health Agency of Canada website open here. You're saying that the chief public health officer has been told he's not allowed to speak on certain matters?

[Ian Culbert]

I think the silence on the visa restrictions issue, on which countries around the world and the World Health Organization have criticized Canada, is deafening.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

He was told not to speak on those matters?

[Steven Hoffman]

Oh, I'm not sure, but it seems that many other health professionals, they're all going...and they're all criticizing it, so....

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

But I think in a previous round you said that the chief public health officer is not able to make statements. If that's true, that's a very serious situation. So is that true? Do you know that to be true, or do you not know that to be true?

[Steven Hoffman]

What I mean is that under this legislation there is the opportunity for that to happen, and when looking at recent events, it appears that it may be the case. I don't have first-hand knowledge of what the minister has advised the chief public health officer.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

I just want to clarify another point. I think Professor Kettner said it's a Governor in Council appointment in terms of who is the chief public health officer.

Mr. Culbert, I think you shook your head to indicate that this is not correct. Is that your understanding, that it's a Governor in Council appointment?

[Ian Culbert]

I was incorrect to shake my head. It was my initial reaction, quite honestly. When I reviewed the legislation, I saw that hasn't changed. It is still an order in council appointment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

I hope that clarifies some of the matters and I hope some of your concerns are addressed. I think perhaps we'll follow up with the chief public health officer to get his further reaction. When he was before the committee, I was very direct in my questions and he was very direct back, saying that he wanted to lessen his administrative load, that this made sense, and that this was something he asked for so that he could focus more on providing scientific advice directly to the minister. I thought he argued his case very well.

Professor Kettner, did you want to have a final word on that matter?

[Dr. Joel Kettner]

You know, the way the law is written, I don't know that it increases or decreases the ability of the chief public health officer to speak frankly to the minister or to the public or to their colleagues. I know from experience as a chief public health officer that there may be all sorts of pressures to limit what you decide to say publicly, or what you decide to share or can share about confidential advice to the minister. I think those are important issues for Canadians and governments to always be aware of, and to support the ability of the chief public health officer to do that.

Having said that, as I said earlier, I do not see in this change of legislation either an easing or a worsening of that ability. I think those are other issues that need to be addressed. But I don't see, in this legislation, that this is going to be clear.

The main issue that I think is important is that if not having direct control over the agency in terms of its budget and administration leads to a lessening of resources for the chief public health officer to carry out these functions, that's a problem. But according to the law, the chief public health officer can publicly say to his or her colleagues, or to anybody, what his or her concerns are. I hope that power will still be exercised if necessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Colleagues, I think we have time for three five-minute rounds.

We will now come back to Mr. Caron and Mr. Côté.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to go back to Ms. Lalande's comments.

I am actually very happy about your answer. You do not want to shut down the Port of Quebec, but you would like to see more transparency and accountability from port authorities in general, including the Port of Quebec authorities.

[Véronique Lalande]

Our citizens' initiative is not about being against something. All we want is a healthier urban environment.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Okay.

The bill contains elements that grant more powers to port authorities. The Port of Quebec, which is an independent entity, is unable to meet the community needs regarding a specific environmental situation.

What kind of a role should the federal government play? What should the legislation stipulate to enable the federal government to force port authorities to meet their obligations toward communities in the surrounding areas?

[Véronique Lalande]

There are a number of elements to consider.

When the October 26 incident took place, I was told that, since the port came under federal jurisdiction, nothing could be done. I called the federal authority, and I was told that the air contamination at my home clearly came under provincial jurisdiction.

I then wondered whether I was the only person to realize what a huge gap separates the two sides. On the one hand, the entity managing the territory and the activity taking place there does not have access to the data on the impact of those activities. On the other hand, the entity that has jurisdiction over the territory and should deal with the repercussions on the population does not have access to the source data.

Port authorities have to meet the highest standards, as stipulated in the Canada Marine Act. We do not think they should have the right to choose. The law should clearly indicate that port authorities have an obligation to respect three levels of legislation—federal, provincial and municipal, when applicable. That would already be a major step ahead.

For years, the Quebec Port Authority wanted to increase the tonnage capacity. That capacity went from tens of thousands of tonnes to 33 million tonnes without any questions being asked. We are going through this in our region, and so are the constituents of Fraser Valley, Sept-Îles, Belledune and Halifax.

Marine activities are booming, especially those with an environmental impact—in other words, those related to bulk product handling. Those activities should be managed by a higher authority and not by independent entities that have a mandate to ensure sound management, but that we do not think have an objective to protect the population.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Côté, go ahead.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Lalande, you work with representatives of provincial and municipal organizations within advisory committees. You see how the Port of Quebec reports on its activities. Certain objectives were set in terms of transparency, and the Port of Quebec authorities agreed with them, at least initially.

How open has the Port of Quebec been toward those committees?

[Véronique Lalande]

Actions speak louder than words.

I can give you an example. The Port of Quebec became involved in an extensive process that was supposed to provide it with environmental certification thanks to the adoption of a sustainable development plan. Its representatives told to trust them because they had learned from their mistakes. However, here's what we noted last time we looked at the sustainable development plan.

Aside from the creation of a position related to sustainable development, the Port of Quebec committed to follow all other recommendations for summer and fall 2014. The port authority was supposed to publish all the information, such as the tonnage handled to which we had access until Statistics Canada stopped documenting this data in 2011. The official oversight committee must have access to that primary information on the quantity of products handled. Yet it is impossible to obtain that information, even though the port authority committed to a sustainable development process.

Once again, I like what I am hearing, but I am waiting for concrete action.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Okay.

In the early 1980s, an independent federal agency held public hearings to study a Port of Quebec expansion project. Among the proposed solutions were measures to mitigate dust particle emissions, which were already widespread at the time.