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

6:10 p.m.

Director General, Ecosystems and Oceans Science Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

David Gillis

Certainly the sense we have developed over the last few years is that the industries that we currently collaborate with in the established group of projects that we keep going with relief funding are generally in support of continuing. In our general dialogue with the industry, we also hear that it would appreciate having a better basis for collaboration with the department on science issues and management issues, although I'm speaking from the science point of view.

So we believe there is general support for this.

6:10 p.m.

Manager, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Nigel Harrison

This is a tool for the minister to use. It's not automatic, and there certainly would be consultations. Once this is in place, we'd be developing directives to frame the new authority and ensure the proper balance between private and public funding.

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC

When you talk about consultation, is it with smaller fishers or with the industry in general?

6:10 p.m.

Manager, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Nigel Harrison

I think that because what we'd be talking about is pretty much based on a small fisher group, a group that we would want to be using the quota for this sort of a project and why we would be entering into an agreement, you would consult with the group and talk about the best use of this as an appropriate action.

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you for being with us here tonight. I appreciate the information.

We will ask officials for division 19, the Food and Drugs Act, to come forward.

Welcome to our committee tonight. We'd ask you to give an overview of division 19, and then we'll have questions from members.

Mr. Lee, please.

May 17th, 2012 / 6:10 p.m.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Division 19 has two major changes to the Food and Drugs Act that are fairly narrow in scope. The first relates to how Health Canada will tell the system what is or is not a prescription drug. The second relates to food and food safety.

If you go to clause 413, that's where the prescription measure begins. What we're looking at here is that Health Canada will do a scientific assessment when a drug comes in and will measure whether a drug needs to be sold under prescription or not. That science is meant to remain stable. We use very long-standing criteria to make that assessment. We're intending to make the change as a result of the following. Beyond the science, it takes quite a long time to reflect a change to the regulatory schedule, which we now call schedule F. So we want to eliminate that long time to reflect the scientific decision.

The tool allows the minister to create a list of what were formerly schedule F drugs. That list is then incorporated by reference to proposed section 29.2. To make sure that works in a very transparent way, you'll see measures ensuring that no one is held accountable in terms of compliance unless that list is accessible.

The changes to food would also follow the same pattern. So we're looking at a set of decisions that Health Canada has to make on issues like food additives, for example, or a substance used in a food. There's a scientific assessment made before that substance is allowed to be used by manufacturers. The instrument would allow the minister to make a new housing for that rule through a ministerial regulation and incorporate a list of substances. So it would eliminate the very long time it now takes to express the scientific finding in a regulation. So we can move away from taking something like citric acid in peaches rather than pears and going through a whole regulatory amendment.

Following the marketing authorization sections, there is also a more general incorporation by reference to provision in proposed subsection 30.5. This would create the same agility except around issues like contaminants. So it would allow the minister to incorporate by reference a list of contaminants that should not be in something like fish or other products, for example.

Again, the premarket science is intended to remain the same. The efficiencies are gained through the administrative lists, and we think there's also a safety gain to be made in this system since it moves important antimicrobials and other food safety measures into the system faster.

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much for that overview.

We'll have members' questions, with Ms. Nash first.

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Thank you for being here this evening.

So now we're moving from fish allocation to the Food and Drugs Act. So we're broadening our scope here quite considerably.

You are officials from the Department of Health, and just so I understand the amendments that are being proposed, is it correct that this section grants the Minister of Health the power to exempt products from the regulatory process? Is that what this change is?

6:15 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

We would not characterize it in that way. The minister is doing the same scientific process as always. There is no exemption from a compound either on the drug side or the food side going through the same scientific rigour. All that is changing is how that is expressed, and in fact it just goes on a list that's again incorporated by law, has the force of law, but it doesn't go through a whole regulatory amendment.

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

So the substance would be going through the regulatory process, but in the meantime the minister can issue an exemption, a temporary exemption, because eventually it will get through the scientific process. Does that describe what's happening?

6:15 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

No, this instrument does not give the minister that ability.

In fact, there was an interim marketing authorization set of provisions that was introduced earlier into the Food and Drugs Act with the same aim, to make it more efficient, but those sunsetted after two years. Looking back, they did not get us to the efficiency we were looking for. So there is no fast-tracking in this process in terms of the scientific assessment. What we're carving back on is the amount of time it takes to express, after the scientific assessment, in the rule.

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

So the scientific assessment takes place, and that determines if a product is safe, yes or no?

6:15 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

Correct.

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Or a food or an additive is safe, yes or no?

6:15 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.

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

And then the regulations that would follow would put that into the force of law.

So what would this temporary exemption, let's call it, or list, do differently? It speeds up the process, but is there any less protection for people because of this change? I assume if regulations are going to be in place, they're there for a reason. If they are not in place at a given point in time, what is the impact of that?

6:15 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

Again, these are still regulations that are being made. They will still have the force of law.

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

They will when they come into force, eventually.

6:15 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. So the safety part comes in the scientific assessment. You're looking at an individual compound. Is it toxic? How will Canadians be exposed to it? That is done, again, through a very well known, well established process. We then have to make a rule after that through a regulatory package. This can take many years. So if we think about an antimicrobial that could help out with food safety, after we're very satisfied on the science, there's this delay of sometimes up to two or three years, waiting for it to go out into the market.

This is a very difficult situation. Similarly, if we were going to delist something from the regulatory tables, even if we had determined it's not safe, we would have to make a regulatory amendment and that is not a very agile process.

So there's no eliminating safety. In fact, it's all still there.

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

No, I got that point from you, but what I'm trying to understand is presumably if there are going to be regulations, there's a purpose for the regulations, and if the product is going ahead after the scientific review, on a list, before the regulations are in place, what is the impact? I presume regulations serve a purpose. Not having regulations must mean something, and I'm just asking you whether it means something would not be enforced in a certain way. What would be the impact of not having regulations there?

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

We're quite satisfied that there would be no change in the protection elements of this. The expression in a regulatory table.... If you look at the food and drug regulations, it's a very thick piece—

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Forgive us, but we're the finance committee—

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

Yes, of course. It's a very thick document and it's full of tables that you will look at. Those tables will look the same in the administrative list. The administrative list will also have the same force of law. So if you're looking at the website, you will see no material difference in those that have to follow those rules, and again, the science in behind it is exactly the same.

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Okay.

Thank you.

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Glover, please.