Evidence of meeting #208 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was payment.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Director General, Legislative and Oversight Management, Department of Transport
If a group files a claim, the process of publishing in the Gazette applies, as does the Statutory Instruments Act.
The Statutory Instruments Act doesn't apply in the case of an individual entity. In those circumstances, the department and the minister may publish the information on our website, for example. The process is completely transparent. The matter may be raised in the Gazette, but the established authorities have a constant degree of flexibility under our present legislation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Are there any other questions?
I have just one. I attended the Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance meeting this morning. I'm certain they would be satisfied with electronic submissions at some of the border points.
How much co-operation is there in terms of determining the regulatory changes that are needed, and how much coordination is there with those on the American side?
Director General, Legislative and Oversight Management, Department of Transport
It's a great question. In our approach to modernizing our regulations and our service suite, harmonization where appropriate is certainly of the essence.
Susan, do you want to add to that?
Susan Archer
Is your question regarding how much we've consulted with Americans on these provisions?
It's along the same lines, as Sylvain mentioned, as regulatory harmonization co-operation efforts. Through the Regulatory Cooperation Council and other fora we work very closely with our American friends in developing our regulations and looking for harmonization.
They are aware of these provisions, and we've gone from there.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I think it's key, especially at all the border points on the 49th parallel. The more harmonization we have, the faster.... Seconds mean a difference when you're trying to move commercial or truck traffic across those borders, so that would be great.
Are there any other questions from members?
Thank you for that, folks.
Next is the Pest Control Products Act, subdivision J.
Mr. Flint.
Jason Flint Director General, Policy, Communications and Regulatory Affairs Directorate, Department of Health
Mr. Chair, clauses 217 to 219 propose changes to improve efficiency and remove some duplication in the Pest Control Products Act.
Just as a background, pesticides in Canada are regulated by Health Canada to protect health and the environment. Products undergo a pre-market scientific risk assessment before being authorized. Once registered, products are subject to cyclical re-evaluations. They're also subject to special reviews if new information comes to light about a registered product.
The issue revolves around the Pest Control Products Act, which requires a special review to be conducted every time another OECD member country removes all uses of a pest control product for health or environmental reasons. The way this is written, it can result in multiple reviews of the same issue having to be conducted, often at the same time.
The amendment proposed would allow Health Canada to combine multiple reviews into one special review, or to examine the issue as part of an ongoing special review or re-evaluation, provided it could be incorporated early enough in the review process to allow for a scientific assessment and consultation on the decision, or in some cases, not to conduct a review at all, if the basis of the foreign decision had already been considered previously by Health Canada and there was no new information.
In summary, this should provide some savings for both government and industry, if we can remove the requirement to do these duplicate special reviews.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
In what instances is a special review initiated?
If certain countries decide to remove a product from their market, is that the only condition for a new special review to be conducted?
Director General, Policy, Communications and Regulatory Affairs Directorate, Department of Health
Currently, a special review is triggered any time an OECD country removes all uses. Normally, if for any other reason we do a special review, there is a requirement that we have concerns that the health or environmental risks of a product were no longer acceptable.
This would apply if we get information in any way other than from a registrant company, or if it were provided as part of data from a province, or even if someone requested a special review. Any member of the public can request a special review. For those situations, we are required to actually initiate a special review to address that issue of concern, because we have a concern.
With respect to this particular provision for an OECD country, that test doesn't apply. There isn't that same test of there being a concern, so we have to initiate multiple special reviews, potentially, to address the same concern, which can come back.
Since 2013, we've done about 48 special reviews, 34 of which were for foreign decisions, the majority of which we had already addressed under other reviews or other decisions. The provisions that we're looking to get here would allow us to, in part, deal with that duplicative situation.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
My question concerns the discretion granted to the minister to decide not to initiate a special review where he or she determines that no new information would emerge from it. Could the minister simply refuse to conduct a new review of certain products, such as pesticides? Can you confirm that information first?
Director General, Policy, Communications and Regulatory Affairs Directorate, Department of Health
Yes. The minister would have discretion to decide whether there was other information on which to base his or her decision.
Currently, we have to look at a foreign decision. We have to look at the basis of that foreign decision. That wouldn't change. We would still need to do that. It would just be understanding that there was no additional information considered by the foreign government that we hadn't already considered in our own decision or we were not already considering in a decision that we had ongoing.
It doesn't change the requirement for us to look at these decisions and determine what the basis is. It just allows us to see that there is nothing new that this foreign government has looked at. Therefore, we wouldn't have to initiate another special review, because we've already considered all of the information, or we are considering the information in an ongoing review.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I see.
Will those decisions by the minister be made public or will they be made behind closed doors such that we wouldn't hear about them?
Director General, Policy, Communications and Regulatory Affairs Directorate, Department of Health
We will be looking at making the information public. As I indicated earlier, there will be a consultation on any major decision we make. If we're doing a special review, we would be consulting on the decision and making sure that people had an opportunity to comment on those decisions.
If there are other foreign decisions where we are trying to say, “No, we've already considered it somewhere else”, we would make public the results of our decision with regard to those foreign decisions.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
You talk about costs to the government and industry. Do you mean that, when a new special review is conducted, the businesses concerned will pay the costs associated with it?
Director General, Policy, Communications and Regulatory Affairs Directorate, Department of Health
The companies are not charged individual fees for the special reviews or re-evaluations. There is an annual regulatory charge that applies to cover these types of costs. However, whenever a special review is initiated, the companies that register their product are contacted and informed that the special review is going on, in case they have additional information that we should also be considering. We also contact the provinces to see if they have additional information that should be considered as part of our special review.
There can be additional costs for both ourselves to do these reviews, to publicly propose decisions, consult on them and publish final decisions, in addition to potential costs for provinces and/or the registrants if they are looking to have additional information provided to us.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Basically, this change would prevent unnecessary duplication from countries whose system we have a great deal of trust in. That's basically the bottom line.
Will it do anything to get rid of the backlog on the re-evaluations?
Director General, Policy, Communications and Regulatory Affairs Directorate, Department of Health
It will provide some relief, although it will not have a significant effect on the backlog. The backlog situation for re-evaluations is more significant than could be seen in the savings from this particular change.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
It's not the answer I wanted to hear, but it's the one that's there. That's what I figured.
The other thing that I know some people will be wondering about is whether this will in any way impact negatively the oversight of pesticides in terms of health concerns or whatever.
Director General, Policy, Communications and Regulatory Affairs Directorate, Department of Health
No, it should not have any negative impact. As I indicated earlier, we're still going to have to be looking at foreign decisions. We're still going to have to make sure that we've considered all new information if concerns arise. Therefore, it should have no negative impact on health or environmental protection in regard to pesticides.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That's it for me on that.
Does anybody else have questions?
Thanks to Ms. Evans and Mr. Flint.
On subdivision K, the Quarantine Act, we'll hear from Ms. Evans.
Cindy Evans Director General, Centre for Biosecurity, Public Health Agency of Canada
Mr. Chair, I'll speak to subdivision K, as well as subdivision L, given their similarities.
The proposed legislative amendment to the Quarantine Act and to the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act would streamline the regulatory process under both acts by repealing the requirement for the Minister of Health to table proposed regulations before both Houses of Parliament prior to making new or updated regulations. This will allow the minister to proceed through the standard Governor in Council process, including prepublication and public consultation in the Canada Gazette. New or updated regulations under both of these acts would continue to comply with the cabinet directive on regulations.
The proposed amendments would put the Public Health Agency of Canada on level footing with other Canadian regulators and we will be more responsive to stakeholder needs for nimble, agile regulations that are kept up to date by facilitating the removal of outdated or ineffective regulations that may not be adequately protecting the public health and safety or may hinder innovation and economic growth.
Our ability to have up-to-date regulations will be a benefit for the Canadian public, for the travel and transportation sectors, and for the biotech and medical resource sectors.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Are there any questions?
Cindy, it's a quiet bunch at the moment. It must be simple and straightforward.
With that, thank you to all of you for dealing with all those subsections.
We're moving to part 4, divisions 13 and 14. We'll start with division 13 and hear from Ms. Wiebe, the director general of air policy, and from Mr. Reble on the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act.
Ms. Wiebe, the floor is yours.
Sara Wiebe Director General, Air Policy, Department of Transport
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon.
Mr. Reble and I are here to speak to the committee today about the proposed amendments to the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act.
As a bit of background, the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act authorizes the Minister of Transport to issue one or more undertakings to Canadian aviation industry participants to provide coverage for aviation war risks that is consistent with commercial coverage, in circumstances where commercial coverage is not practically available.
These amendments amend the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, or AIIA as we refer to it, to authorize the Minister of Transport to undertake to indemnify, first, Nav Canada for acts or omissions it commits in accordance with an instruction given under an agreement entered into between Nav Canada and Her Majesty respecting the provision of air navigation services to the Department of National Defence, and second, any beneficiary under an insurance policy held by an aviation industry participant.
In the case of Nav Canada's provision of service to the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Forces, the provision of an indemnity will, at minimum, be dependent on the signing of an agreement between Nav Canada and the Government of Canada that outlines what services will be provided to the Canadian Forces. These services will further the government's national defence mandate, not Nav Canada's civil air navigation services mandate. It has therefore been determined that it is appropriate for the government to assume responsibility for liabilities that may arise from actions taken by Nav Canada on the instruction of the federal government pursuant to such an agreement.
The intent of this act is to ensure commercial equivalent aviation war risk coverage is available to Canadian aviation industry participants if it is not practically available through commercial markets. As the act is currently drafted, beneficiaries named under a policy held by a participant can only receive funds through that participant. They cannot be paid directly. This is not consistent with commercial practice.
The amendments will ensure that, for example, if the participant becomes bankrupt, the beneficiary will still receive any indemnity that may be owing, through the government's indemnity. In both cases, the amendments will authorize, not guarantee or require, an indemnity to the relevant aviation industry participants or their beneficiaries. In either case, the decision whether to provide an indemnity will be subject to a determination by the Minister of Transport.
The government, led by Transport Canada, negotiated with Nav Canada an indemnity for their support of the Department of National Defence in December 2018. Should the two parties deem it appropriate to replace this indemnity with an indemnity under this act, Transport Canada would work with Nav Canada to negotiate the terms of that new indemnity.
I'm ready to answer any questions that the committee might have.