Health Committee on June 4th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We'd like to call meeting number 59 of the Standing Committee on Health to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will have a briefing on possible regulatory changes. Today we are examining Bill C-42. We have some witnesses who will be able to help us with that.

At the end of the meeting, we'd like to carve off a little bit of time, perhaps a half hour or 20 minutes, in which we'd like to move on to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-42, if the committee is prepared to do that. We're hoping to get to that place at that time.

Before then, we have some witnesses with us. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Paul Haddow. Also, from the Department of Industry we have Alain Beaudoin. It's good to have both of you.

We'll also introduce those who are here to help out with the question and answer period. From the Department of Health we have Daniel Chaput, and from the Public Health Agency of Canada we have Dr. David Butler-Jones. From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, we have Emmy Verdun. It's good to have you with us.

With that, we will proceed with the presentations. We have two of them. We'll start with the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Paul Haddow, the floor is yours.

[Paul Haddow, Director General, International Affairs, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before you today.

My name is Paul Haddow and I am the Executive Director of the International Affairs Division of the Department of Public Safety of Canada.

We understand that at a previous meeting of the committee certain questions were raised and the issue of the security and prosperity partnership came up. There was a desire on the part of the committee to have more of a briefing on that issue because it formed a bit of the context for some of the discussions you were having on specific regulations.

Together with my colleague, Alain Beaudoin, at Industry Canada, we coordinate the security and prosperity pillars, as we call them, of the SPP. I am responsible for the security side of things, and within the security agenda there are a couple of areas of interest to the committee. Those are the areas of bio-protection, broadly speaking, as well as the issue of emergency preparedness and response.

I should point out that I will just provide the high-level briefing to give you some context, as we have the experts here on specific work in the various components of the SPP.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'll just provide a bit of background.

Soon after 9/11 there was an initiative undertaken by Canada and the United States called the smart border accord. It was an opportunity to address security issues with respect to customs and immigration primarily. It was spearheaded on the Canadian side by Deputy Prime Minister Manley, and on the American side by Governor Ridge, who subsequently became Secretary Ridge. Underneath this initiative, a number of issues were identified that needed to be addressed in the aftermath of 9/11. Both countries were embarking on a new approach to security issues, and it was thought that they should do it together to the extent possible, so they could achieve their security objectives in a way that allowed for a continued flow of low-risk people and goods.

This initiative in 2002 was highly successful, to the point that the remaining government departments were saying that they too had an agenda with the United States on these sorts of issues and that we should expand the smart border accord beyond customs and immigration issues to cover the full range of issues impinging on the border between Canada and the United States. As a result of that, Mr. Chairman, the three leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Waco, Texas, in March 2005 and established the security and prosperity partnership, which was essentially a much-expanded version of the smart border accord, and a trilateral version of the accord. So it was expanded in scope, and included the membership of Mexico. It was founded on three equally important pillars, those being security, prosperity, and quality of life.

Soon after that, Mr. Chairman, officials were tasked to put together a work program encompassing the scope envisaged by the three leaders. With respect to the security side, there are some ten working groups, encompassing everything from cargo security to passenger security, emergency preparedness, aviation security, bio-protection, and science and technology. This program encompasses about 15 departments across government.

In putting together a work program that would follow through on the vision provided by the three leaders at Waco, ministers met and officials developed a comprehensive work plan. Essentially, departments were asked what their pending issues were between Canada and the United States and between Canada and Mexico; that was the question we posed here in Canada. Various departments put forward their ideas of issues they wanted addressed or issues that weren't on the agenda, or issues they wanted treated more as priorities. Those activities, comprising over 300 initiatives across the various departments, were rolled up.

Then the next summit took place in Cancun, Mexico, in March of last year. The Government of Canada's position was that yes, the SPP was a success to the extent that it had gathered up a comprehensive work plan covering all the issues that people wanted to get addressed. But with between 300 and 400 activities, how could you prioritize that? So the idea was to bring some focus to this new, expanded agenda.

That was done in Cancun, where the leaders selected a small number of priorities in the security area. They included developing a pandemic plan for North America, for strengthening the cooperation and coordination in the area of emergency preparedness and response, and to continue to do work on making borders within North America smarter in the sense of achieving the same level of security, but in a way that encouraged the flow of trusted goods and travellers.

My colleague Monsieur Beaudoin will speak on the priorities in the prosperity area.

I should point out, in concluding, Mr. Chairman, that unlike the NAFTA, for example, the SPP is not a treaty. It's not a formal international agreement. It's essentially a work plan developed by the three countries, and this initiative has the benefit of the attention of the three leaders every year, so it's given a priority at the highest level. But the work plan itself is developed bottom up, from various departments.

I've mentioned there are ten working groups on the security side. Each of those working groups has their own consultative mechanisms. So, for example, I know that CFIA and Health Canada, when they put together the program for bio-protection, consulted extensively with their normal stakeholder groups and provinces, and that was replicated--different styles, etc.--across the various working groups.

As we look forward, we want to maintain a set of priorities that reflect Canada's objectives. I think it's fair to say that had it not been for the SPP we would not have had a North American pandemic plan in place. We would have had a plan for Canada, a plan for the United States, and a plan for Mexico, but the idea of explicitly connecting those plans between Canada and the United States, and between the United States and Mexico, recognizing the borders, I think that would not have happened had there not been an SPP. So that's an example of the kinds of bottom-up benefits that this initiative brings to the agenda of the Government of Canada.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll leave it at that. Any questions would be welcomed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

We have one more presenter before we go into the questioning, and I'm sure people listening perhaps will be wondering why we are talking about security and prosperity partnerships on the Quarantine Act. It's because we had some questions with regard to how this might or might not impact this piece of legislation, but also we had one day on the possible regulatory changes--pesticides and so on. So that's why we brought you in today, to be able to answer all of the questions on both those fronts. I just wanted to make everyone clear on that.

We will continue. Alain Beaudoin, the floor is yours.

[Alain Beaudoin, Director General, Innovation Partnerships Branch, Department of Industry]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. My name is Alain Beaudoin and it is my pleasure to be here today to talk to you about the Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America.

I am the Director General of the Innovation Partnerships Branch at Industry Canada. One of my responsibilities is to coordinate the prosperity agenda for the government.

Before proceeding, I would like to say that I appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade on May 10 to speak about the Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America. The remarks I am going to make today are essentially the same as those I made to that committee. I believe you have a copy of my remarks, for reference.

First, I will give a little background, because I do not want to repeat what my colleague Mr. Haddow has said. The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, the SPP, was launched in March of 2005 as a trilateral mechanism to strengthen North American competitiveness and enhance the security and quality of life of the citizens of the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing.

In Canada, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has the mandate to manage our North American relationship, of which the SPP is one component. The Minister of Public Safety leads on the security agenda, and the Minister of Industry is responsible for the prosperity agenda.

While respecting the sovereignty and unique heritage, culture and laws of each country, the prosperity agenda of the SPP seeks to enhance the competitive position of North American industries in the global marketplace. It also aims to provide greater economic opportunities, while maintaining high standards of health and safety. To this end, the United States, Mexico and Canada work together with stakeholders to strengthen competitiveness, reduce the cost of trade and enhance the quality of life.

Because of its trilateral nature, the SPP is a complex mechanism. It is implemented through the activities of the trilateral working groups that are responsible for outreach with a variety of stakeholders within each country. The prosperity agenda is composed of nine trilateral working groups in key sectors of economic activity: e-commerce and information and communication technologies; energy; environment; financial services; food and agriculture; health; manufactured goods and sectoral and regional competitiveness; movement of goods; and finally, transportation.

With input from stakeholders, working groups have agreed to work on a number of bilateral and trilateral initiatives to advance the prosperity agenda. All these initiatives have been made public. If you have not already done so, I invite you to look at the SPP website. It provides detailed work plans and documents the progress achieved so far in implementing these initiatives. Briefly, this is how the SPP works. Now the question is how Canada can benefit from it.

As you know, key factors have fundamentally challenged the way global firms, including Canadian businesses, operate. Low-cost telecommunication systems and transportation and the availability of low-wage skilled workers in other parts of the world continue to profoundly transform business activities into global supply chains. There are advantages to this transformation. Even small and medium-sized businesses that use supply chain integration and technology can expect significant cost reductions in quality and time to market, but North American businesses are feeling intense pressure to remain competitive. While Canada is one of the most prosperous countries in the world, our prosperity depends in large part on our ability to access international markets. To remain prosperous, it is essential that Canadian businesses adapt accordingly and be able to deal with issues of supply chain management, such as seamless logistics. For Canada, these issues culminate at our border with the U.S.

It is common knowledge that nearly $2 billion is traded each day between Canada and the U.S. Our economies are highly integrated and increasingly work in a seamless fashion. About 34% of our bilateral trade is intra-firm, and over 77% is intra-industry. This has led to the emergence of integrated and globally competitive commercial platforms fundamentally rooted in North America.

This is where the SPP can be instrumental. The SPP aims to enhance and encourage continued prosperous trade between North American countries while ensuring security. The SPP is but one part of Canada's positive and productive relationship with the governments of the United States and Mexico. The SPP is a non-binding partnership. It seeks to find practical solutions to concrete issues. It is one mechanism to ensure a strong relationship with our NAFTA partners and is not intended to duplicate or replicate existing mechanisms. As such, the SPP is not intended as a replacement for NAFTA, nor is it intended to serve as an alternative to existing trade negotiation mechanisms.

At their last meeting in March 2006, the three leaders of Canada, the United States, and Mexico agreed to focus on five priorities to advance the SPP and ensure tangible results. The five priorities are strengthening competitiveness, emergency management coordination, cooperation on avian and human pandemic influenza planning, energy security, and ensuring smart secure borders.

This renewed focus reaffirmed the leaders' commitment to advance a positive agenda for North America.

Achieving regulatory alignment within North America is one of the most important contributions to strengthening competitiveness. Through enhanced cooperation under the SPP, Canada, the U.S. and Mexico seek to make their regulations more compatible to reduce costs, by eliminating duplication and redundancies, and minimize barriers to trade. This is being achieved while ensuring continued high standards for health and safety, and protecting our environment.

The leaders also agreed to create the North American Competitiveness Council, to provide governments with advice and recommendations on ways to improve competitiveness.

To build on this agenda, on February 23, Ministers Bernier, Day and MacKay met with their American and Mexican counterparts here in Ottawa. They reviewed progress on the five priorities in advance of this year's leaders' summit, currently scheduled for August 2007.

Ministers also received the report of the North American Competitiveness Council, which was released publicly. This report made 51 recommendations in three areas: border-crossing facilitation, standards and regulatory cooperation, and energy integration.

In conclusion, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America has been conceived as a step-by-step, practical approach to improve the way governments work together to enhance competitiveness, ensure our security and quality of life. All of this takes time and continued commitment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move on to the question and answer part of the meeting.

We'll start with Ms. Bonnie Brown.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, gentlemen.

As the chair said at the beginning of the meeting, he and the government are hoping to lead this meeting into clause-by-clause of a bill that the government would like to get through this committee and back to the House as quickly as possible. I guess whether we do that or not will somewhat depend upon your answers.

I was quite struck, Mr. Haddow, by your statement that this is a bottoms-up process. While I can understand that administratively within the bureaucracy you asked the people who worked for the government to identify those issues they thought needed resolution, and therefore they came up with the original ideas, I don't think they were given a choice as to whether or not to participate, because, as you also said, this is a priority at the highest level of the government. It seems to me they were told this was going to happen and then asked could they please identify the issues they would like to see resolved. When the direction comes from the top, I don't think there's any choice for bureaucrats to participate or not, so I'm sure they all worked like beavers to come up with these 300 issues.

Mr. Beaudoin, you talked about one of the goals being an improved quality of life, but how can you possibly deliver that when quality of life is defined differently in the United States, in Canada, and in Mexico? You just have to look at the goals of the three countries and you can see that quality of life is measured differently depending on where you live.

You also said that your website documents progress. Progress according to whom? If in fact the 300 issues that have been identified and the work plans that have been developed to deal with those issues are all coming out of the bureaucracy, how do you know that Canadians will think it's progress?

It seems to me this thing is rather circular. The bureaucrats identify it, they develop a work plan, and if they get their own way it's called progress. Seeing as we really don't know what's going on and no one ever comes before us to describe the latest initiative, the latest issue, the latest work plan, and the latest result, then how are the people of Canada to know that this is truly progress and will improve or enhance their quality of life, or indeed improve their security?

The other thing--

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

On that, I think I should make clear to the committee that our mandate is health. When you answer those questions, as I'm sure the questioner was referring to the health side of that, we don't want to broaden it out into anything beyond that.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I'm challenging the basic premises because they both spoke rather generally and made some rather broad statements that I am challenging as maybe not being quite as true as it seems to them.

I'm sure you mean everything you say, and from your perspective of being in charge of it I'm sure it's a big success, but I'm trying to share with you our point of view as we represent the people of Canada.

Maybe they'd like to answer that before we move into details.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Yes, particularly on the health side of it.

[Paul Haddow]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Starting between Canada and the United States, the two leaders of Canada and the United States in 2002 made a decision.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Yes, I know the history.

[Paul Haddow]

And in 2005 that decision was reconfirmed and expanded by the two original leaders to include another leader.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Yes, I know that.

[Paul Haddow]

All I'm saying is that's the top-down part, but in making that decision they essentially said they needed to have a program of activities to advance the prosperity and security and quality of life, and they turned to their varied bureaucracies and asked them to develop that program. The bureaucrats did that; that's what we do. So that's the bottom-up part.

I don't see a contradiction there. Leaders lead, and bureaucrats serve.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Yes, but usually the people have a right to approve what's going on or not. If their legislators are not informed on a regular basis as to the changes being proposed, the people are left out of the loop.

[Paul Haddow]

I guess in terms of consulting with Canadians, focusing on the health part, Health Canada and CFIA, in developing their set of initiatives, consulted extensively with their normal stakeholder community. They asked that stakeholder community what their issues were with the United States, what their issues were with Mexico, what they would like to see addressed. Based on those consultations they developed a program of work for the health and food safety part of the agenda, and that's where it came from. They didn't make it up. So there were consultations with Canadians.

With respect to the question of appearing before this and other committees to keep members more fully informed, that's something, obviously, we're more than willing to do.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I have another question that's more on health.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

And just to let the witnesses know--we have with us the Department of Health, the Public Health Agency, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency--they can feel free to answer any of the questions at the same time.

Go ahead.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Did Mr. Beaudoin want to answer?

[Alain Beaudoin]

I have nothing else to add.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Usually, in this setting, it means you accept my interpretation of your remarks. Is that right?

[Alain Beaudoin]

No, I would say that I endorse what my colleague just said in answer to your question.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Are either of you aware of any changes that have been made in which the United States has been changing its regulations to be identical to ours?

[Daniel Chaput, Associate Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health]

On the health side, again, related specifically to food, I'm not aware of these types of changes. At the same time, if I may come back to your initial comment, that's possible. I think under one of the working groups that Mr. Haddow was talking about, the food and agriculture working group, through our consultations we have identified key initiatives of interest to the Canadian public having to do with developing common approaches for risk management in the production of fresh fruit and vegetables, with a focus mainly on pathogen reduction for those foods that are potential vectors for food-borne diseases. I think this is timely, given recent events. That's an example of an initiative under the SPP.

But at this point we're not at all at a stage of making any changes to regulations or anything. We're basically at the stage of comparing approaches in the three countries, identifying differences where there are differences, and where appropriate trying to remove the differences. What is very important is that we will not remove these differences if it's going to impact negatively on health. If we were to make any regulatory changes, then I guess we would have to go through the Canadian regulatory process, which involves significant consultation from the time when the issue is identified, to the development of options, to the final gazetting process.

So that's a bit of an overview on the outside.

Thank you.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Is it your understanding that the goal is to have regulations that are seamless--in other words, that all three countries have the same regulations? Is that your understanding of the goal of these working groups?