Finance Committee on Nov. 26th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Hsu.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

This committee has heard from experts who have told us how the Public Health Agency of Canada was created in response to Canada's experience with the SARS epidemic. These experts told us how the decision to make the chief public health officer a deputy head was a deliberate decision, so that he or she would have the necessary power and autonomy to work with the provinces to speak truth to power and effect change.

This division of Bill C-43 undoes some of that good work. It demotes the chief public health officer and reduces his or her authority, and ability to effect change. The Liberal Party believes that's a step in the wrong direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have Mr. Adler and then Mr. Saxton.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

We're not clear whether this amendment was intended to be directed at the proposed president or the chief public health officer.

The provisions in the Public Health Agency Act of Canada with respect to the CPHO's powers to communicate remain unchanged. This includes the CPHO's statutory authorities to communicate with governments, health organizations, and the public within Canada, and internationally on public health matters.

The chief public health officer reports directly to the minister and there is absolutely no interference whatsoever.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to follow up on Mr. Rankin's comments. First of all, it's reassuring to know that Mr. Rankin praises the current chief public health officer, which makes me wonder why he doesn't listen to him then, because when he was here before committee he very strongly supported these changes and was very much in favour of them. He said:

The president, as deputy head of the agency, will assume some of the management responsibilities currently assigned to the CPHO including accountabilities for finance, audit, evaluation, staffing, official languages, and access to information and privacy. These are all important functions requiring the attention of a senior leader. The changes proposed do not diminish the role of the chief public health officer, they enhance it. In essence, they associate internal management and capacity issues with a dedicated agency head and direction on public health issues with the CPHO. It makes good management sense and good public health sense to make these changes.

I would really encourage Mr. Rankin to consider the words of the chief public health officer when he decides how to vote on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I appreciate Mr. Saxton's comments and I agree entirely that we're fortunate in Canada to have a doctor of Dr. Taylor's calibre serving in this role. My concerns have nothing to do with the individual or his good faith. They has to do with the structure of this agency, what would be called in Ottawa parlance the machinery of government. We've heard a number of witnesses speak about just how wrong-headed that arrangement is. Mr. Culbert, for example, talked about having two individuals both giving advice to the minister; and it's bureaucracy 101, public admin 101, that you have one over the other. That's just one example.

To have an official of this importance being subordinate to a bureaucrat is also of great concern to so many people across the land who've looked at this. My concern is not with the individual; it's with the structure of this.

Mr. Adler says that the powers to communicate remain unchanged. In fact, they're nowhere to be found in the statute, so I don't accept that and I think we need clarity. I know from other situations, that, for example, the Information Commissioner of Canada does not have the power to speak out publicly to promote access to information. She's said many times she wanted that power; the silence didn't give it to her. I'm saying the same thing in this context, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, we'll go back to Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Finally, Mr. Rankin keeps saying he doesn't have a problem with the individual, he has a problem with the structure. So let's hear what the individual has to say about the structure. I quote:

It's a structure that works well for many provinces and territories, and for countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia. In fact, we've been moving this way as an agency for some time now and have, in fact, adopted this type of management structure since 2012. At that time we began to separate out the roles and responsibilities of the CPHO on an interim basis. My appointment as CPHO on September 24th of this year—the date of the agency's 10th anniversary—reflected the first step needed to move public health forward in Canada.

That, in fact, is the current chief public health officer, who Mr. Rankin has no problem with.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

He's an excellent doctor, Chair, but he doesn't necessarily—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Rankin, do you want to make a further point?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I think it speaks volumes that Dr. Kendall, a long-experienced chief medical health officer, advised on behalf of all provincial health officers, who were unanimous, not to proceed with the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We will go to the vote on clause 253.

(Clause 253 agreed to)

(On clause 254)

We'll go to clause 254. We have three amendments here: PV-10, PV-11, and NDP-4.

Ms. May, if you want to address yours separately or together, it's up to you.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think I'll do PV-10 and PV-11 together. They pick up very much on the points in the discussion that Murray Rankin and Andrew were just having.

Not only did Perry Kendall speak on behalf of my own home province of British Columbia as the medical officer for British Columbia, in making his points he stated he was speaking on behalf of all provincial health officers.

Another very prominent Victoria resident, Dr. Trevor Hancock, who is a senior scholar at the School of Public Health and Social Policy, wrote in The Globe and Mail that “The importance of a medical officer of health being an independent officer was established in the 19th century”. If we want 21st century legislation, I don't think we have to reach back to before the beginning of the 19th century and make our public health officer report through, and only through, a senior bureaucrat.

What my amendments attempt to do is to allow for what the Conservative administration says it wants to do, which is to remove administrative burdens from the chief medical officer, but allow that chief public health officer to remain independent and to remain free and empowered to speak on public health issues.

In the first amendment, PV-10, we amend proposed section 5.1 by replacing line 2 so that the president of the agency is to be appointed not by the Governor in Council but by the chief public health officer. That way the chief public health officer would remain in supremacy in relation to the president, who's there to do the administrative work.

If I flip to PV-11 to make sure that works—because it is being presented at the same time—the amendment replaces lines found in proposed section 5.2 with the purpose of ensuring that the president of the agency is the chief executive officer of the agency, full-stop, and is not deputy head of department, not a deputy minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much Ms. May.

We'll move to the vote first of all on PV-10.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll move to PV-11. Shall PV-11 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will move to NDP-4. Is there further discussion?

Mr. Rankin, please.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The objective of this is to enhance and confirm the independence of the chief public health officer. The amendment would be to say on page 391 after line 9:

5.4 (1) No person shall interfere with the President in the performance of his or her powers, duties or functions under this Act, including in particular the determination of evidence-based public health priorities for the Agency, the provision of health advice to the public and unfettered access to the public and media.

We define “interference” in proposed subsection 5.4(2) as including “political interference or retribution”.

The objective is to clarify the independence of the agency and the president who speaks on its behalf.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Is there further discussion?

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Having heard the comments from some of my Conservative colleagues earlier and from Mr. Hsu, this seeks to clarify exactly what everybody has talked about, which is that independent voice. It's incredibly straightforward. It seems to achieve that objective in a most transparent way.

When we're talking about what that voice is talking about—the epidemics or outbreaks or things of public concern—having that clear independent voice absent of any potential political interference would seem like a very important thing.

I congratulate my colleague on the clarity of his amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I'll go to Mr. Adler on this.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to repeat what I said before since it went over so well the first time.

We're not clear that this amendment was intended to be directed at the proposed president or the chief public health officer. The provisions in the Public Health Agency of Canada Act with respect to the CPHO's powers to communicate remain unchanged. This includes the CPHO's statutory authority to communicate with government's health organizations and the public within Canada, internationally, or on public health issues. The CPHO reports directly to the minister and there is absolutely no interference whatsoever.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Adler.

We'll go to the vote on amendment NDP-4.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 254 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

(On clause 255)

We have two amendments here: PV-12 and NDP-5.

For your information, colleagues, there's a line conflict in amendment NDP-5 with amendment PV-12. If the committee passes PV-12, NDP-5 cannot be moved.

We will go to PV-12, and we'll go to Ms. May, please.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, this is an attempt to amend the legislation in a way that will allow the chief public health officer of Canada to be independent and be free to speak as required to set the course that's required for someone who fills this position of great responsibility of the chief public health officer.

I know I'm not a member of this committee, but I sure would have wished to have known what Dr. David Butler-Jones, our chief public health officer from 2004 to 2014, would have thought of this amendment. I know what the current appointee thinks, but I think we would have been well served to find out what our first chief public health officer would have thought of seeing the position emasculated in this way.

My amendment PV-12 would ensure the inverse of what I attempted to do under proposed section 5.2. Under clause 255, proposed subsection 6(1), I would replace the words denigrating the chief public health officer to a mere officer of the agency to confirm that the chief public health officer is deputy head of the agency, with the rank and status of a deputy head of department.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. May.

We'll go then to the vote on amendment PV-12.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will move to amendment NDP-5. Mr. Rankin.