Evidence of meeting #60 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was officer.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Steven Hoffman  Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Ian Culbert  Excutive Director, Canadian Public Health Association
Véronique Lalande  Spokesperson, Initiative de vigilance du Port de Québec
Daniel Therrien  Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Elizabeth Kingston  General Manager, Nunavut, North West Territories and Nunavut Chamber of Mines
Stephen Mooney  Director, Cold Climate Innovation Centre, Yukon College, Yukon Research Centre
Joel Kettner  Assistant Professor, College of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, As an Individual

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

I call to order meeting number 60 of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Before I get into orders of the day, I understand, Mr. Cullen, you just wanted to make note of something for members of the committee.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Thank you, Chair.

This is to give notice to the government that we'll be making notice of motion for the committee to request the Minister of State for Finance and the Minister of National Revenue to appear sometime around December 4. We're looking at that for the supplementary estimates that are assigned to this committee for review. We haven't yet slotted in a date for this, but it's something we're keen on.

We're going through those supplementary estimates right now, to be honest, to find out the different issues and topics. Those two ministers seem to be the most appropriate. Committee members will get notice, and maybe through Mr. Saxton and Mr. Keddy we can work on the ministers' schedules to see if that's possible.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

Colleagues, perhaps we can talk about this tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock, at our meeting then.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Okay.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Our orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, November 3, 2014, are to continue our study of Bill C-43, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014, and other measures.

We have seven witnesses, four with us here in Ottawa and three by video conference.

First of all, we have Professor Steven Hoffman. He's from the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. We have, from the Canadian Public Health Association, the executive director, Mr. Ian Culbert. From l’Initiative citoyenne de vigilance du Port de Québec, we have Véronique Lalande, la porte-parole. From the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, we have Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien.

By video conference, first of all we have from Nunavut Ms. Elizabeth Kingston. By video conference from Whitehorse, we have the director of the Cold Climate Innovation centre from Yukon College, Mr. Stephen Mooney. Also by video conference, from Winnipeg, Manitoba, we have Professor Joel Kettner from the University of Manitoba.

Welcome to all of you, both here in Ottawa and by video conference. You each have five minutes maximum for your opening statement, and then we'll have questions by members.

We'll start with Mr. Hoffman, please.

3:30 p.m.

Steven Hoffman Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you for inviting me to make submissions about Bill C-43 concerning changes to the Public Health Agency of Canada Act.

By way of background, I'm an assistant professor of law and director of the global strategy lab at the University of Ottawa. My research focuses on global health governance and institutional design.

Based on my research, it's clear that our chief public health officer needs an independent voice and the ability to speak scientific truth to members of the public and to those in power. This bill, in splitting the chief public health officer's role in two—one part technical, one part administrative—removes the little independence this position once offered. This bill achieves this effect by demoting the chief public health officer from his current deputy minister rank, by removing his direct line to the minister, by making him subservient to a bureaucratic agency president, and by eliminating reimbursement for his public activities.

Any loss of independence matters because it erodes the trust that we can all place in our chief public health officer of Canada. In reviewing this bill, it seems to me that we've forgotten the harsh lessons of SARS. It was just 11 years ago, in 2003, when the World Health Organization slapped Toronto with a travel advisory, costing that city $2 billion and 28,000 jobs. That's a lot of money and a lot of jobs. This loss was not because of the number of SARS cases. Singapore had a similar number. The loss was because the federal government did not have a trusted public health leader who could effectively coordinate with the provinces and communicate the outbreak status with other countries.

SARS shone a light on the hurdles that Canada's version of federalism places before effective pandemic responses. Significant changes followed, including the creation of the Public Health Agency of Canada and its chief public health officer. The big idea behind all of this was that we needed to build trust. Provinces and their public health departments needed a guarantee that the federal government's public health pronouncements were based on scientific principles, rather than political talking points. Unfortunately, this guarantee was never realized. The chief public health officer was made an officer of government instead of an officer of Parliament, thereby preventing him from exercising full independence, as our Auditor General or Privacy Commissioner would have. Let there be no doubt about this: in my mind that was a mistake.

But this bill takes us even further away from where we need to be. At least the original legislation gave the chief public health officer some independent powers to speak and be reimbursed for those public activities. This encouraged the provinces to buy into a nationally directed system. The removal of these limited independent powers is not helpful. On this basis, demotion and politicization of the chief public health officer is undoubtedly a wrong-headed move. With an Ebola outbreak raging in West Africa, it seems that this isn't the right time to be weakening our national public health infrastructure. This change would make us less prepared for Ebola and other diseases like it.

I understand that last week this committee heard contradicting testimony from the new chief public health officer. I understand he said that shrugging off managerial oversight of the agency would free him to focus on providing scientific advice. He might win back some of his time, but I think we all need to ask this question. After his demotion, will anybody be listening to him? Will his bureaucratic boss even allow him to speak?

Ultimately, if this change really must go forward, I would suggest two very small revisions that would lessen its harm.

The first is to add a provision granting scientific independence to the chief public health officer and legislatively allowing him to speak without political interference.

The second is to just drop section 258 that would remove the reimbursement for the chief public health officer in performing his public duties.

These two small changes would ensure that the chief public health officer could serve that interprovincial coordination function that was shown to be so important in SARS, and ultimately be trusted by all Canadians.

I would have suggested a third small revision, to maintain the chief public health officer's deputy minister rank, which is important for him to access federal decision-making tables, but I think I'm already pushing my luck by suggesting any changes at all.

Just to conclude, in coming here today my only hope is that we won't need another SARS or Ebola in Canada to make us realize the harm that the proposed changes would cause. I implore you to do whatever you can to minimize the bill's damage. We would all be less safe with these proposed changes, and we're all going to suffer the consequences if the committee allows them to pass.

Thank you.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you for your presentation.

We'll now hear from Mr. Culbert, please.

3:35 p.m.

Ian Culbert Excutive Director, Canadian Public Health Association

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the invitation to present to you today.

I would like to be clear, first and foremost, that my comments and those contained in our written brief are not intended as a reflection upon any current or former employees of the Public Health Agency of Canada. We have only the greatest respect for all of them.

It is the position of the Canadian Public Health Association that the chief public health officer should continue to be the deputy head of the Public Health Agency of Canada and continue to operate at the deputy minister level. As such, we recommend to this committee that the amendments to the Public Health Agency of Canada Act proposed in Bill C-43 be withdrawn and that the consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act also be withdrawn.

While we agree that there should be a division of roles and responsibilities between the administrative and professional sides of the agency, we feel strongly that the titular head of the agency must be a public health professional. The current structure was established based on the recommendations of the Naylor committee after the 2003 SARS outbreak. That committee was very specific in its recommendation that the agency should be headed by the CPHO and that the CPHO report directly to the federal Minister of Health. The Naylor committee reviewed the organizational structures in place for a number of different jurisdictions and felt that its recommendations represented the best option for Canada's national public health body.

In 2010 the position of executive vice-president and chief operating officer was created to provide administrative support to the CPHO. This change formally split the administrative and professional responsibilities of the CPHO while leaving the CPHO as the deputy head of the agency. Since that time that structure has served the agency and Canadians well.

Our concerns for the proposed amendments are as follows.

First, while the CPHO has the responsibility to promote and protect the health of Canadians, in the proposed structure the position would retain responsibility but have no authority to mobilize resources.

Second, the country's public health priorities must take precedence over bureaucratic priorities, but this does not preclude the executive vice-president and chief operating officer from being responsible for day-to-day operational and administrative duties.

Third, it is essential that the CPHO work closely with fellow deputy ministers at the federal and provincial/territorial levels. Under the current structure the CPHO has a seat at those tables by right of his or her position. Under the proposed amendments the CPHO could only be invited to those discussions, and only as an adviser so that he or she would not be taking part in the decision-making process.

At the end of the day, rank matters and these amendments will essentially strip the position of CPHO of its current rank.

Our final and possibly most troubling concern is that the new model would give both the CPHO and the president of the agency direct access to the minister. In the unfortunate situation where agreement cannot be reached between the CPHO and the president, the minister could be faced with contradictory policy advice and left in the role of arbiter. This model is not considered good practice in a modern bureaucracy and should be avoided.

During a public health emergency such as a pandemic of H1N1 or Ebola, the importance of evidence-based advice from the CPHO is clear. This advice, however, is important at all times as Canadians are increasingly concerned about the sustainability of their publicly funded health care system. Public health has at its foundation the protection and improvement of health and well-being of Canadians and, as such, its policies, programs, and initiatives are focused on keeping people out of hospitals and doctors' offices. If the CPHO does not have the necessary authority to direct agency staff and marshal its resources, his or her advice may not be worth the paper on which it is written.

The structure of the agency with the CPHO at its helm has been effective for the first decade of its existence, and there is no clear evidence that the proposed changes are needed.

Thank you.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Ms. Lalande, you may go ahead. You have five minutes.

3:40 p.m.

Véronique Lalande Spokesperson, Initiative de vigilance du Port de Québec

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, for more than two years now, Initiative citoyenne de vigilance du Port de Québec has made it its mission to compile and distribute information on the environmental impacts of industrial activities at Quebec City's port. This is not a battle we chose; it was dropped on us, literally. What we did choose, however, was to come together as ordinary citizens to assert our most basic right: the right to raise our families in an environment where our health and quality of life are not at risk on a daily basis because one of our neighbours is unable to behave responsibly.

Today, we have more than 450 members, as well as 1,000 supporters, who are also involved in a variety of grassroots movements right across the country. We are united in our pursuit of one goal: requiring port authorities to dutifully respect their mandate of running a profitable operation while respecting the environment and surrounding communities. In response to all those who have all too often argued that ports, and thus the problem, are under federal jurisdiction, I have said time and time again what a tremendous step forward that would be, were it only true. The fact of the matter is that ports seem to be less and less under federal jurisdiction and more and more under self-control.

No doubt when Parliament created independent federal agencies to manage port sites and operations, its intention was to improve their management. Clearly, the powerful lobbies of the marine industry, and related mining and oil and gas industries have repeatedly argued that fewer restrictions and more authority are essential to develop a marine industry that will ultimately benefit all.

Although we do not deny that ports generate economic benefits, a number of studies have downplayed those benefits, especially when it comes to handling and bulk storage activities. It is also troubling to note that the costs to the community are never taken into account when the real benefit is being worked out. In my community, this particular legal framework has led to major environmental lapses, lapses that are still happening as we speak.

In Canada, the average amount of nickel in the ambient air is approximately 1 nanogram per cubic metre of air, and 2 nanograms is the level considered safe. In Limoilou, however, residents have, for years, been exposed to levels hovering around 52 nanograms, with event-driven peaks of 1,670 nanograms. Regardless, no one has been able to do anything about it, or wanted to.

Although we have worked tirelessly in the past few years to bring to light an environmental disgrace, measurable progress remains less than stellar. I should point out that, as we speak, the port facilities are emitting fugitive particulate made up of an assortment of toxic substances. These contaminants are emitted into the environment, affecting people's health and significantly diminishing the quality of life of thousands.

The level of nickel in the ambient air in my neighbourhood is always well above the threshold considered safe. Quebec City's port authority still refuses to acknowledge or assume its responsibilities, even though a major project to expand the Beauport terminal is about to get under way. Despite being the project proponent, the Quebec City port authority will be in charge of defining the criteria and environmental studies, overseeing the evaluation process and eventually issuing the necessary permits. Nevertheless, over the past two years, the ministers responsible have continued to tell us that the Quebec City port authority has complete authority, that it has the situation under control and that they have total confidence in the members of the port authority's administration.

Like many communities around the country, we, as residents, have lost almost all trust in our port authority. Rightfully, we are calling on the government to tighten up the framework governing all port authorities to put an end to these lapses once and for all. And yet, the amendments to the Canada Marine Act currently being considered are intended to increase, yet again, the powers held by port authorities.

In conclusion, I must remind you that the first duty of elected representatives is, as I see it, to protect society's most vulnerable and ensure that everyone has the right to live in a safe environment. I urge you to consider the message that rewarding a delinquent industry with more powers would send to thousands of men, women and children who live close to port facilities and lack the industry's resources to plead their case. You would be telling them that, regardless of the consequences, it is acceptable to exclude certain industries from the proper legislative regime, favouring a specific regulatory framework for the sake of the bottom line. You would be telling them that it is absolutely fine for an organization to regulate itself, overseeing the enforcement of the very laws that are supposed to govern it. Not only that, but you would be telling them that ports are entities outside space and time, devoid of any ties to the communities they call home, and therefore, it is appropriate for the Canada Marine Act to be the only applicable legislation.

I humbly ask that you reconsider the proposed amendments in favour of measures that would subject Canada's 18 port authorities to stricter control, transparency and accountability.

Thank you.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you for your presentation.

Mr. Therrien, you may go ahead.

3:45 p.m.

Daniel Therrien Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for the invitation to present my views on the possible privacy implications of Part IV of Bill C-43. I have provided written submissions on various parts of the bill and would like to summarize my comments for you today.

With respect to division 17, which contains amendments to the DNA Identification Act, I agree that society is well served by intensifying humanitarian efforts to locate missing persons and identify human remains.

Creating a DNA databank is a reasonable way of achieving these objectives. However, I have some reservations about the extent to which the bill permits the cross matching of the proposed new indices for these humanitarian purposes with the existing crime scene index, or CSI, and convicted offender index, or COI, which serve law enforcement purposes.

When families provide the personal effects of the missing person or their own biological samples, they are doing so to find their missing loved one or to achieve a sense of closure. While the bill recognizes that the profiles of relatives can only be compared to the missing persons and human remains indices for these purposes, the profiles of missing persons should likewise be similarly restricted and not linked to the CSI and COI to serve law enforcement purposes.

If, however, the profiles of missing persons are to be matched against the CSI or COI, and any resulting matches to be used for law enforcement purposes, the relative who provided the personal effects of the missing person should be informed of, and consent to, this matching.

I am also concerned about provisions that would increase information sharing with foreign states. This again involves the cross matching of missing persons profiles with domestic and foreign crime scene profiles, potentially leading to the investigation of an offence in a foreign state that may not be one under Canadian law.

I would therefore recommend that these provisions to increase such sharing be removed from the bill.

Regarding division 24 concerning amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the temporary foreign worker program, I'm primarily concerned with expanded use and sharing of the social insurance number, or SIN, and enhanced authority for information sharing with the provinces. While it is appropriate for Employment and Social Development Canada to use the SIN for employment-related purposes, the bill is vague on the specifics of how the SIN will be handled, and it is not clear whether the SIN could be collected and shared beyond the employment context.

I would wish to be consulted on the content of the regulations, which will include details on the use of the SIN and enhanced authority to share information with provincial governments. I would also recommend that any SIN-related privacy issues be identified in comprehensive privacy impact assessments, and that any associated privacy risks be mitigated to the extent possible.

In terms of divisions 6, 10, and 11, in my view there do not appear to be significant privacy issues of concern raised in these sections. Indeed, one amendment would allow the CRTC to impose conditions to protect the privacy of persons using those services on persons who provide telecommunications services, other than Canadian carriers. I view this as a positive move from a privacy perspective.

Finally, divisions 9, 18, 27, and 28 appear to implicate some personal information. However, it is not evident that they raise any significant privacy issues.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll now go to Ms. Kingston, please, for your five-minute presentation.

3:50 p.m.

Elizabeth Kingston General Manager, Nunavut, North West Territories and Nunavut Chamber of Mines

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines thank you for the invitation to speak to you today in relation to Bill C-43.

The Chamber of Mines is the industry association and leading advocate for responsible and sustainable mineral exploration and development in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. We support the merging of CHARS and the Canadian Polar Commission as an appropriate efficiency measure that will assist in achieving the goals of the northern strategy.

We are eager to do our part to support this institution and help shape Canada's future through the advancement of Arctic science. The chamber could be a helpful broker in identifying those of our members who might be interested in partnering with the science and technology program to advance new knowledge creation in areas of mutual priority.

We have been a member of the CHARS advisory panel since 2011 and we're pleased to participate in the development of the science and technology blueprint. During its development we recommended that CHARS' research priorities focus on three key areas that affect our industry. The first is marine shipping. Virtually all new mines in the Arctic regions of Nunavut and the NWT will rely on marine shipping. We believe that new research in this area will show that responsible marine shipping is not harmful to the environment.

We like to think our industry helped Canada set a leadership role in Arctic shipping back in the 1970s when Canada joined with industry to support Arctic mining and marine shipping development. At that time the federal government took an 18% ownership share in the Nanisivik mine, supplying transportation and community infrastructure for the most northerly mining operation in Canadian history. It was that government that invested in the technological creation of the world's most advanced ice-breaking cargo ship, the MVArctic, to service the Nanisivik and Polaris mines.

It is that MVArctic technology that was the foundation of the latest advancement in Canadian Arctic marine shipping, the much larger and more sophisticated MV Nunavik, which recently successfully took a load of mineral concentrate from Arctic Quebec through the Northwest Passage to China. We hope that CHARS' work will help remove barriers to mining development, the goal being that years from now we will have determined that marine shipping to support mining is not environmentally significant.

Our second key area of interest is improved community health. We would like to see research with appropriate indicators that provide scientific evidence to support mining's contributions to healthier communities. Training and capacity building that has arisen from the CHARS project in and of itself supports resource development. For example the Nunavut Arctic College has developed an environmental technologies foundations program primarily to develop technicians for CHARS. However, some of these future potential graduates could also consider environmental management positions with mining projects.

Science literacy amongst the public is another mutual objective. With active research programs under way in the north involving community participation, it is more likely that the general public will have a greater knowledge of scientific methods and be better able to understand the assessment and monitoring results of mining projects.

A third key research priority for our industry involves improving baseline wildlife data for environmental assessment. CHARS has an important role in supporting our advancing potential mines in filling the gaps in knowledge in environmental data. This data, particularly with respect to marine and terrestrial wildlife, will assist resource development companies in completing their environmental studies.

To conclude, we are pleased with a number of the legislative changes proposed by Bill C-43 in division 3, part 4, and expect they will be an incentive for increased mineral investment in the north. The chamber looks forward to future dialogue with the federal government as the CHARS institute is established.

That concludes my presentation. Thank you.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll now go to Mr. Mooney, please.

3:55 p.m.

Stephen Mooney Director, Cold Climate Innovation Centre, Yukon College, Yukon Research Centre

Thank you for inviting me today to share my perspective, opportunities, and interests regarding the Canadian High Arctic research station.

The Yukon Research Centre, located at Yukon College in Whitehorse, Yukon, is Canada's largest research and innovation facility north of 60. The YRC provides a broad array of programs and services with multi-year public and private financing. The Yukon Research Centre is a partner of CHARS now and is poised to be a key partner of CHARS well into the future.

The YRC integrates itself into all aspects of the pursuit of resources and sustainable development in the Yukon and the Arctic region. We are involved in information communication technology, mining, alternative energies, food security, cold climate housing construction, industrial applications, transportation systems, permafrost engineering, waste reduction, and synthetic fuels. ln essence, the YRC initiative can be pursued in a manner that improves the health and well-being of people who deliver northern economies.

A recent example is our resources and sustainable development for the Arctic program, or ReSDA. This program looks at the social economy of northern communities to find ways to ensure that a larger share of the benefits of resource development in the Arctic stay in the region with fewer costs to northern communities.

For the past 14 years, the YRC's Northern Climate ExChange has been a leader in the north, building the capacity of northern communities to identify risks associated with a changing climate and to help prepare for those risks. Several rural communities in the Yukon have benefited from these reports related to climate change, and the city council of Whitehorse has adapted these findings within their community development plan.

Four years ago, under my leadership, Cold Climate Innovation, CCI, was established through the financial support of the Yukon government's economic development branch. We are focused on the development, commercialization, and export of sustainable cold climate technologies and related solutions for northern regions around the world. The CCI supports the partnership among applied scientific researchers, industry, and government dedicated to addressing cold climate and technology issues affecting northerners. The mandate of the CCI is to stimulate economic development in the Yukon through cold climate innovation and technology. We focus on these two statements to build an economy in the north, by the north, and for the north.

I've come to understand that the CCI business model and the innovation sector that I represent today do not fit into the traditional or standard definition of economic development in the Yukon. In building the CCI, I've come to believe that innovation is the biggest opportunity space in the northern economies.

Over the last two years, the YRC has offered support to CHARS through four separate initiatives, including the following. Using our proven methodology to conduct a community energy audit in Yukon communities, the YRC conducted and completed a comprehensive baseline on the energy usage within Cambridge Bay. Now CHARS has a baseline of energy usage for the community that will allow comparative measurements into the future.

Other initiatives include new techniques for wind power installation in remote communities, wind and solar monitoring, and also a very important heat recovery ventilation, HRV, study that will place up to 10 HRVs from three Canadian manufacturers in various communities in Canada's north. Six of these 10 HRVs are presently installed in homes in Cambridge Bay. The project goal is to develop the specifications for the most effective and efficient HRV and challenge Canadian HRV manufacturers to build the best-of-class HRV. These HRVs will be used in the new CHARS residential facilities and sold globally.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

You have one minute remaining.

3:55 p.m.

Director, Cold Climate Innovation Centre, Yukon College, Yukon Research Centre

Stephen Mooney

Thank you.

I also want to commend the numerous CHARS staff members I've dealt with over the last four years. Starting with the minister and his support staff in Ottawa and going on to the hard-working staff on the ground in Cambridge Bay, each and every person I've worked with has been professional and has demonstrated their passion to deliver the CHARS mandate. I would like to share a story with you that exemplifies this.

I was recently on a flight from Vancouver to Whitehorse and sat next to a man from Cambridge Bay who told me that he was impressed with the CHARS team during the community consultation process. He then went on to say that the CHARS blueprint was showing an exercise room and a daycare built within the facility. Then he questioned why CHARS would build this, since the community had an exercise room in the recreation centre, and that a daycare already existed. He was later impressed to see that these two items were removed from the design. They thanked him for bringing the suggestion forward, and told him that his suggestion was appreciated and it was a great way for CHARS employees to become more engaged as community members.

I've also learned that the new—

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Could I just ask you to conclude, please, sir?

4 p.m.

Director, Cold Climate Innovation Centre, Yukon College, Yukon Research Centre

Stephen Mooney

In closing, I want to share that the YRC can help showcase Canadian expertise and collaborate in the exchange of tools and technologies with other northerners in circumpolar communities, and that innovation is the opportunity space that is the untapped northern economies.

The YRC is here to help make CHARS successful by delivering on every project we participate in, and we look forward to our continued partnership.

Thank you. Masi Cho.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much for that presentation.

We'll now go to Professor Kettner, please.

4 p.m.

Dr. Joel Kettner Assistant Professor, College of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, As an Individual

Hello, Mr. Chairman, and thank you.

I'll very briefly say thank you for the opportunity to present at this hearing. I'm going to speak as an individual, although I'm affiliated with the university and with other organizations that I won't take the time to describe at this moment. I'm going to speak mostly from my experience as a provincial chief public health officer in Manitoba, which I was for 12 years, and from my work in public health in general.

I'm going to approach the changes proposed to the Public Health Agency of Canada Act from the perspective of how I think they might have impacts on the effectiveness of the chief public health officer in particular, but more broadly on the ability of the Public Health Agency of Canada to fulfill its roles and mission. I think many important points have been raised by previous witnesses, and I look forward to the question and answer period, where we can go into more of those in some detail.

I believe there are pros and cons in these changes, so I'm going to go through what I think are the most important ones, and I'm going to frame it on what I'm going to call “six functions” of the chief public health officer. I will look at each one and how they may be affected by the way the act is written now, and with the changes that have been proposed.

The first function is that of adviser to the minister, and of course in this case it's the Minister of Health. The old act specified that the role was to assist the minister and to be “the lead health professional” within the Government of Canada. I believe that has not changed. Specifically, there is now a clause that says the role is to advise the minister and in addition the president—this is the new role—of the Public Health Agency and that it should be “on a scientific basis”. I think it could be a good thing to have made that more clear, because that is the role of the chief public health officer with respect to government, particularly through the minister to the government.

The second function is that of communicator to the public, a very important role that others have spoken about, because the act allows the chief public health officer to prepare and publish a report on any issue related to public health. That has not changed. I do not believe that the ability of the chief public health officer to communicate to the public freely and without direction by the minister—or now by the president of the agency, as proposed—should be changed. I certainly hope that it isn't changed. I'm also hopeful that the interpretation of “reports” is broad, and that includes all communications to the public and to anyone else that the chief public health officer feels he or she needs to communicate with.

With regard to the leadership of the agency itself, I think there are many models that exist across this country in the provinces and also around the world and, frankly, I'm not sure which is the best. However, I don't think this model that's being proposed necessarily diminishes the ability of the chief public health officer to continue to provide advice to government and also to influence the leadership and decisions in a collaborative way with the lead administrator, who has the deputy head status. As I think was pointed out, if the two of them can't figure it out together, they must have it resolved by the minister. That's actually the way it goes in public health departments of governments anyway, because in the act, as is the case in most provinces, it is the minister who is really responsible for government public health practice. That's I think mostly as it should be, because the political decisions that are most important in public health need to be made by elected officials and their governments.

As far as collaborating with other chief public health officers goes, I think that being a deputy minister potentially could be—and has been—a difficulty there, because other chief public health officers are not at that level. The ability to be equal collaborators and then bring advice through the conference of deputy ministers to the ministers in a collaborative way can be limited by having one of them designated as a deputy minister. Also, my observation and experience, without reference to individuals, is that being at the deputy minister level makes it even more difficult to speak freely and independently to the public.

Finally, I would like to just say this about the act itself. Where it needs most strengthening, or at least most use, is to recognize that regulations can be brought in to collect and analyze data across the country that so far has not been used. The agency itself has not had the power to coordinate and collect information, when needed, on a national basis to deal with a national issue.

I'll make one last point around the capacity of the chief public health officer within the agency. Whether this is written into the law or just understood as policy, I think it's very important for there to be a strong office for the chief public health officer, with a deputy chief officer and a staff including research assistants, communications people, and others who can ensure that those functions of the chief public health officer are preserved, no matter what.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll now move to members' questions.

We'll start with Mr. Cullen. You have seven minutes, please.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, thank you to our witnesses.

I think we should all agree, as committee members, that this outrageous headline in The Hill Times about our chair at the committee should read, “The Most Friendly Person to Meet With on the Hill” because he's meeting with everybody, apparently. We are all shamed, as committee members, that we don't meet with as many constituents and lobby groups as our—

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

I will send more of them to your office.