Evidence of meeting #20 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was compliance.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much. I like hearing cases in which a government agency doesn't spend its full budget. That's a good-news story—by my standards, anyway.
Madam Chair, those are all the questions I have. Thank you very much.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I know, but let me finish what I'm saying. Mr. Uppal has kindly given up some of his time, because we have some committee business that has to be done and a few issues we need to work through. I didn't want to keep the committee for extra time.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
I think this would be the choice of the committee, Madam Chair.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I'm about to do that, Dr. Bennett, if you would give me two minutes.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
No, we wanted to keep asking questions until 5:15. That was the consensus.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I know I did.
I want to say quite categorically that we have business to do that has to do with our witnesses and with our trip. At this time I'll ask for the will of the committee. We have ten minutes in which we could still ask questions, and I will be very tight on the time.
At the will of the committee, who would like to continue with questions? Three.
And who would like to go on with committee business? Four.
Can we try that again? I didn't see the hands. Who, as the will of the committee, would like to continue asking questions? Five.
Okay, we'll continue with questions, but I'm going to stop right on the dot at 5:15.
We will start with the same list of people.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON
Madam Chair, on a point of order, if we're continuing with questions, shouldn't it be the Conservative spot next?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
We have one more from the Conservative side. Who would like to go first?
Ms. McLeod.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'll direct this question to the PMPRB. You appeared before the health committee in the winter of 2009 regarding the supplementary estimates and indicated that similar to the additional funds awarded in the main estimates, a significant increase in the workload had produced a need for more funds. However, the main estimates for 2007-08 awarded the PMPRB almost $11.5 million, while the main estimates for 2006-07 only awarded $6.5 million, and you were then given an additional $4.5 million in the supplementary estimates.
So could you clarify this for me? The way I'm reading this is that perhaps rather than having a dramatic budget increase between the main and supplementary estimates, you have actually been relatively stable over time.
5:05 p.m.
Chairperson, Patented Medicine Prices Review Board
Yes, that's correct. We have been relatively stable.
The two reasons for our recent increase are the increased workload relating to compliance, and also the increased workload relating to this revision of our guidelines, which we hope is going to correct some of the compliance issues.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
So, indeed, in order for you to do your job appropriately according to the mandate of the PMPRB, you've required funding in the $10 million to $11 million range each year for the last few years then?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Okay, thank you. For some reason, it's something that really stood out.
I guess my next question will be for Sharon Watts. I remember the old days when WHMIS came out and everyone went for training, and you had your MSDS sheets and your product labelling. Can you tell us how things have dramatically changed since those days in terms of who's doing what and in terms of training? What's happened over these last 10 to 15 years in terms of what the process is?
5:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission
Thank you for the question.
In fact, it's been 20 years. It was in 1988—on October 31—that WHMIS first came into being, and that's when we were created as the commission to look at trade secrets.
I would say to you that not much has changed in terms of the fundamental system, which I think is a wonderful thing. The fundamental right of workers to know about the hazards they're working with and industry's right to protect their trade secrets have remained fundamental cornerstones of the WHMIS system.
What has changed is global harmonization--multinational companies and the need for Canada to keep up with what the other countries are doing. So in the last ten years we've been working with other countries—and domestically—in looking at the global harmonization of hazard classification, and have been inching forward towards bringing that to fruition and being able to incorporate those new harmonized standards into the new WHMIS standard. So of course, by extension, our commission will then adopt those WHMIS standards to apply to our claimants.
But other than that, I think technology, as with all things, has made everyone's job in compliance a little more challenging.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Ms. McLeod, do you want to continue—or Mr. Uppal, as you're back now after giving up your time?
Okay, go ahead, Ms. McLeod.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Then of course you have probably computerized your process for the whole....
May 12th, 2009 / 5:10 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission
Yes, we have. Certainly the advent of technology has very much helped our own ability to receive claims for exemption. It used to be only a paper process. I doubt if the committee will remember every detail of the regulations that we brought before you, but one of those provisions was to allow for the interactivity of claims for exemption to come forward in a computerized fashion, as long as we had security measures to back that up.
I guess the other wonderful thing that's happened is that we can reach out and touch our claimants, literally in seconds, because of our new website and the technology. It's challenging for us, because as soon as we've made a change or as soon as something happens on someone's claim, they're back to us in a second.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you, Ms. Watts. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'm trying to keep to the time.
Dr. Bennett.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Thank you very much.
Ms. Wilson, this committee has only seen one group of the regulations. I think it's chapter 8. By some people's analysis, there are a number of chapters that would not be subject to the present Supreme Court challenge.
Are you aware of regulations we could be receiving that in your analysis wouldn't be subject to the Supreme Court? Could you list the areas you think wouldn't be subject to the Supreme Court challenge, and could we see them? Are you already preparing for those you've seen? And if not, if you haven't seen them, is that the reason for the reduction in your funding?