Evidence of meeting #86 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was health.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:35 p.m.
Director, Special Benefits, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development
Yes, that's it.
Parents always have the right to return to work earlier, but as soon as they have chosen an option, it is this maximum number of weeks and that replacement rate that is granted, and that does not change. It is 55% or 33%.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
If parents decide to return to work earlier, they will receive 33% rather than 55%. In the end, they lose out.
5:35 p.m.
Director, Special Benefits, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development
If they made this choice at the start of the benefits, yes.
I need to mention two things about the return to work. Depending on the particular circumstances of the family, the parent may be able to defer the benefits until later, but during the benefit period. If a parent returns to work not on a full-time basis, but on a temporary one, the parent can work during a benefit period.
We have a pilot project. Unfortunately, I am going to switch to English.
While working while on claim, they are able to retain some portion of their EI benefits, depending on how much they make in that period. Then if they stop working, they may continue to receive their EI parental benefits.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
If this committee were to amend the bill before it so that people could change their decision, would it be more difficult and complex to administer? On the administrative side, would it be much more complex or, instead, relatively simple?
5:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
I would say in response that it would be complex. That would certainly be thinking about it from, perhaps, a service delivery perspective. However, I think there's another really important stakeholder here beyond the parents, and that's the employer.
In terms of the consultations that were undertaken before moving forward with this, one of the things that we really heard from stakeholders was some concern by one particular group about a longer duration of parental leave and benefits, but also particularly the importance to them of some degree of certainty about when the employee would be returning. Certainly, if that employee were making changes to their period of leave, it could create difficulties for the employer staffing positions behind that person on parental leave. Given the sort of feedback we heard, I believe that is not necessarily something that would be well received by some groups.
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you for your answer.
The way I see things, it comes back to trading four quarters for a dollar. Parents have the choice of more weeks at 33% or regular weeks at 55%. Ultimately, they receive the same amount, but it was spread over a longer period.
Do you really see this as an important benefit for parents, or is it rather a modest adjustment or, as the saying goes, trading four quarters for a dollar?
5:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
I think I would leave it to others to judge the significance of the change. I know we have heard from parents who welcome the ability to take leave and benefits over a longer period of time, so they might be able to reach a period of having access to affordable child care.
If you think more broadly about stakeholder reaction to the budget announcement, they've been very positive with respect to caregiving but it has been more mixed with respect to the parental changes. Some stakeholders have said that living on a 33% replacement rate is expected to be difficult and they don't necessarily see that as a good choice for many families.
I should add, though, that one element of the EI program, which is the EI family supplement, will continue to apply over that extended period of 18 months. In the case of a low-income family, they would receive a top-up not only over the 12 months but over the full 18 months, if they choose that option.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Ron Liepert
All right. I don't have any other questioners, so thank you very much.
We will move to division 15, dealing with agreements under the Minister of Transport.
Welcome to Marie-Hélène Lévesque, who's the executive director of cost recovery, and Mary O'Connor, who is legal counsel.
I'll turn it over to you for an opening statement.
5:40 p.m.
Marie-Hélène Lévesque Executive Director, Cost Recovery, Department of Transport
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Division 15 pertains to the amendments to four acts under the purview of the Minister of Transport: the Aeronautics Act, the Navigation Protection Act, the Railway Safety Act, and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. Collectively these amendments will allow the Minister of Transport to enter into service level agreements, or contracts, with industry organizations for activities in the aviation, navigation infrastructure, and rail and marine transportation sectors.
The amendments proposed here do not create new fees. They do not raise existing fees either. These amendments give the Minister of Transport the ability to sign contracts for services with organizations and users of Transport Canada's services. These amendments will also allow the Minister of Transport to spend the funds received from such an agreement in one fiscal year or in the next one. This is in recognition of the fact that service level agreements will be signed in respect of work that is likely complex and time-consuming and done in the span of more than one fiscal year.
That, Mr. Chair, concludes my opening remarks.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you.
Does anybody have any questions on part 4, division 15, on agreements under the Minister of Transport?
As I'm hearing none, you're really going to get off easy, Ms. Lévesque and Ms. O'Connor. It was a good job you waited for this moment.
5:40 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you both.
We're turning to division 16, the Food and Drugs Act, with witnesses from Health Canada.
From health products and food branch of Health Canada, we have David Lee, executive adviser to the assistant deputy minister, assistant deputy minister's office; Ms. Minto-Saaed, director, strategic planning and accountability division, resource management and operations; Mr. Morgan, director general, policy planning and international affairs directorate; and Mr. Trehearne, director general, resource management and operations directorate.
Welcome to you all.
Part 4, division 16 is yours to behold.
May 9th, 2017 / 5:45 p.m.
Deryck Trehearne Director General, Resource Management and Operations Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Thank you very much. We're happy to be here today.
As with our counterparts from Transport Canada, our proposal touches on user fees primarily, and the minister's authorities under which to set them.
As you know, Health Canada regulates the safety, efficacy, and quality of drugs and medical devices in Canada in both pre-market and post-market regulatory space and has been doing so for quite a long time. Since about the mid-1990s we've been charging user fees for those functions to subsidize the cost to taxpayers of the regulatory costs.
Today our proposal is requesting a revised authority for the Minister of Health to move the fees out from under the FAA, where they refer to the food and drugs regulations, and move them directly under the Food and Drugs Act, and to modify certain parts of the Food and Drugs Act to make that a better instrument to do so.
Essentially, this is not going to raise fees. It requires that we consult with all our stakeholders and continue to apply all the Statutory Instruments Act requirements as well, but it will set a comprehensive policy frame under the Food and Drugs Act under which we can charge user fees, and it will do it in a streamlined fashion.
Currently, under the GIC full regulatory process, it can take anywhere from two to four years to update a fee, so we're envisioning a more agile and globally comparable user fee regime wherein we can do those updates probably within 12 to 15 months.
That's part 4 of division 16 of the budget implementation act.
It also allows for an exemption from the renamed User Fees Act, which is the Service Fees Act, which our colleagues from the Treasury Board Secretariat are going to speak to and which we support wholeheartedly. Under the proposed framework, the Minister of Health will keep, as I said, all the accountability and transparency principles, including the requirement to consult stakeholders, performance penalties, and small- and medium-enterprise mitigation, and we believe there's no impact on the provinces and territories or on Canadians directly because the fees apply largely to industry, and the pass-through is minimal to non-existent.
I'll stop right there, and take your questions.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
If I heard you correctly, there's no change to fees in any of this?
5:45 p.m.
Director General, Resource Management and Operations Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
When we go to reset the fees, pursuant to consultation and everything else, it allows us to do it under the Food and Drugs Act.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
5:45 p.m.
Director General, Resource Management and Operations Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
It's to modify the Food and Drugs Act itself, the instrument under which we're doing the changes.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
Wouldn't you modify the legislation that you're modifying without bringing it here? I'm just having trouble understanding why it's part of a budget bill.
5:45 p.m.
Director General, Resource Management and Operations Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
The Food and Drugs Act has elements in it that allow you to charge fees, but it's not a comprehensive instrument to do that. What we're doing is modifying it slightly to allow us to have a more robust fee-setting instrument and then to go and charge fees.
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you.
I just want to confirm one point. As I understand from the foregoing, the minister may change or adjust costs without consulting industry stakeholders. Is that correct? Under the proposed amendments, could the minister really change the fees without consulting anyone?
5:45 p.m.
Director General, Resource Management and Operations Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
If I understand correctly, as I said before, we're just adjusting the instrument. Before changing or adjusting fees, whatever they may be—
we would consult all our stakeholders. There's a requirement to do that and it's in the legislation. The FDA says, thou shalt consult your stakeholders on this before updating any fee.
We currently have fees, as you know, and we've had them for about 22 years. They've only been updated once in those 22 years. The last consultation was in 2011, pursuant to a full consultation. It was also presented here as well.