Health Committee on Nov. 6th, 2012

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Chairperson, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I want to register my deep concern about how this is being rushed through. Basically, we have an hour and 15 minutes to hear witnesses, go through a significant portion of a bill that relates to our committee, discuss what we're going to do, and presumably get something back to the finance committee. It's really a sham of a public process that is taking place here.

These are significant changes. I know it's being presented as though they were just administrative, but the more one looks at this—and of course we haven't had a lot of time to look at it, but the more one does look at it—one can see that there's a bigger picture emerging that is basically a shift of delegation and authority from independent bodies to the minister's office. It's being done under the guise of administration, possibly cost saving, but it does raise serious questions. This is just one small piece of a much bigger puzzle that's taking place.

I make those remarks as my preface to the questions.

Presumably when this was set up in 1988, as you've told us, Ms. McDonald, it was interlocking federal, provincial and territorial legislation. It seems to me that there were likely some reasons that it was construed to be an arm's-length, stand-alone independent agency with its governors and so on.

As I understand it, this change that is taking place allegedly is administrative. Basically the appointments were done before through governor in council, so they were public. It's not clear now that these people will be appointed by the minister, whether or not it will be public, what the criteria will be. We need to get an answer to that.

There's also a lot of concern that previously the commission could instigate independent boards to hear appeals. Now we know that the minister can designate any individual as the chief appeal officer and that the individuals on the appeal boards will have to be suggested by whom? The minister. It seems to me that there's a very conflicting relationship here from what we had, which was an independent board set up by legislation with the provinces, to now a very cozy situation. In fact, one could argue that having a stand-alone commission meant there was some independence from—yes, you're correct—a very complex organization, Health Canada. My concern is that now this will be completely buried and nobody will ever know what's going on because it's so much under the control of the minister's office.

I wonder if you could respond to those concerns and tell me whether or not any consultation has taken place with the provinces and the territories on these changes in Bill C-45. We know that they were very much a part of the process. What consultation has taken place? Now that this body is completely terminated and put under the control of the minister, what do the provinces and the territories have to say about that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Ms. McDonald, do you want to take that question?

[Suzy McDonald]

Thank you very much for the question.

I'm going to break it down into pieces. I think there was a question around the council and how that will operate. There was a question around the independence of the boards, and a question around consultation. There was your first question of why it was set up as an independent commission and why it would no longer be required to be a stand-alone agency.

Again, back in 1988, when WHMIS was established—I wasn't around at the time—there was, I think, a fair amount of concern from industry around how confidential business information would be handled and whether or not Health Canada or another department, I think it was consumer and corporate affairs at the time under the labour program, had the ability to keep that information separate and safe. I think there were also issues around how industry could ensure that the appeals process was being kept separate.

I'll leave it at that, and if you have other questions, I can come back to you with further background on it.

With regard to the new ministerial advisory council, Health Canada has a public document on external advisory bodies that sets out our policy for how external advisory bodies are handled. We would be establishing the council using those same criteria, but very much based on what currently exists in the current council. I think both Shannon and Rita have indicated that the legislation indicates that the membership would be made up of the same kinds of representation. Again, we'd look for nominations to those councils. The council members themselves would vote on the chair, as they currently do under the current council.

One change with respect to the council is that currently the council's ability to provide information is limited to specific issues such as advice on the appeals process, advice on fees. Within the scope of the legislation, we're indicating that the new ministerial advisory council could provide information or advice on any aspect of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act. There's a bit of a change in the scope in terms of their ability to provide wider advice.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

That could have been done under the commission. If there was an interest to have a broader consultation with the minister or the department, that could have happened under the existing structure, I'm sure.

[Suzy McDonald]

Presumably so, but I'm laying out the changes as they are in the new act, right?

With regard to the independence of the boards, I think you raise an important question. Let's start with the designation of the screening officer. The designation of the screening officer within the current council is done by the president of the council. Essentially, the screening officer is a CO-3 in the current organization, so actually an employee within the commission. While the new legislation indicates that the screening officer would be appointed by the minister, the screening officer would remain an employee within the Department of Health who acts as that screening officer.

With regard to the independence of the boards themselves, currently boards are set up with representative groups who are able to put forward nominations of who from those representative groups should be appointed, or are able to be appointed to boards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I'm sorry, Ms. McDonald. We're over time and we're short of time, so I'll have to leave it there for right now. We'll go to Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm going to say a few things and allow Ms. McDonald to continue. We heard earlier misinformation being spread about what these changes mean, and I think we've figured out where it came from. I would like Ms. McDonald to correct it on the record.

My colleague said this is being run by the minister's office. I think it's very clear that it will be run by the bureaucracy without the political side of things. You mentioned the appointments that are pretty much going to continue being done the way they are. I think the provinces, territories and stakeholders are the ones who put forward these nominations.

You mentioned, too, when we heard that things are going to be restricted, you're actually saying they will be expanded with the new things.

I was wondering if you could continue. I know you were interrupted, but I would like to hear what you have to say to correct the record.

[Suzy McDonald]

Taking a step back again, to reiterate, the chief screening officer is delegated within the statute and the functions and duties under the act don't change, of course. Again, they would be designated. An employee within the new directorate would be designated to take on that role.

With regard to the nomination of the chair of the appeal board—I think that's where I was—the jurisdiction in which the appeal takes place nominates the chair, so lieutenant governors in council for an appeal under the Hazardous Products Act, and the minister of labour for appeals under the Canada Labour Code. The chair of that independent committee or appeals board then selects two other members, and again, those come from nominations from representative organizations. Industry or suppliers would be able to put forward nominations for people to sit on appeal boards, as would workers be able to put forward nominations for people to sit on those appeal boards.

Those three folks form the appeal board. The appeal board remains independent from the Minister of Health. Yes, certainly the department could make representation at an appeal board, but the appeal board is an independent body and it remains an independent body under this act.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Good. Thank you very much.

I'll continue on with some questions. Ms. Coombs, I very much appreciate your being here and giving us input, correcting the record on a lot of misinformation that's out there.

You are actually one of the board members of HMIRC, right?

[Shannon Coombs]

Yes, I am.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

You're on the board. Do you think Canadians will be as protected as before?

[Shannon Coombs]

Absolutely. We don't see anything changing in the current processes. The officials who are working at HMIRC will become Health Canada officials. We can see the continuation of the day-to-day work with respect to the review of the confidential business information, ensuring that worker health and safety is protected as well.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Excellent. My understanding is, and I think Rita brought it up, there actually is an opportunity now, by making these changes, to have enhanced communication through amalgamation so that things will be not only more efficient and cost-effective, but we also might get better communication.

One of the things I heard, though, is that there were concerns about confidential business information. Maybe Ms. Coombs or another witness could comment. Do you think the confidential business information will be maintained and the appeals process will remain as it was before?

[Shannon Coombs]

Absolutely. We don't see anything changing really other than an address, and resources being saved due to the backroom approach they're taking at Health Canada, with sharing resources for human resources and for the financial people. We see it as status quo, a continuation of the very rigorous process they currently have in place.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Ms. Coshan, do you have any comments on that?

[Rita Coshan]

I would agree. Yes, it is an administrative change. The process is still in place. These are changes that would be necessary to move this into a government ministry. When you read the amendments, they basically describe the same processes and functions that are in place.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Do I have a little bit of time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

You do. You have three minutes.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Okay, good.

Ms. McDonald, as far as the responsibilities and the functions of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission are concerned, will those change as they're transferred to Health Canada?

[Suzy McDonald]

No. The intention is that the roles and the functions of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, as they transfer to Health Canada, will remain the same. I think folks have indicated before that the one benefit of that change is they are going to be consolidated with the group that runs the national office of WHMIS, the group that already has responsibility within the Department of Health for setting out the criteria and the requirements for protecting worker health and safety.

Again, what HMIRC does within that broader program is confidential business information only.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Excellent. You're talking about bringing things together. I understand that Health Canada and the commissioner are working together to make sure the transition is as seamless as possible for both staff and stakeholders. We are doing this and there is going to be a cost savings and decreased duplication.

I was wondering if you could explain for the committee how the changes will prevent duplication of back office duties.

[Suzy McDonald]

Sure. I believe Shannon mentioned it briefly.

Essentially as a stand-alone agency, there is a whole set of requirements that need to be met, including annual reporting requirements under the Financial Administration Act, and other pieces of legislation. In addition, there's a requirement to have full-time human resources help, full-time communications help, full-time financial help.

The plan would be to move the staff from the commission into a directorate within Health Canada. We would then use the services that already exist for the healthy environment and consumer safety branch to provide communication support and financial support and all of the corporate level support that is required. I think the savings are really a result of what's been referred to as backroom operations. Again, none of the technical expertise is being touched at all in this kind of transfer. It really is administrative savings.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

That sounds like something we should have done a long time ago.

Do I have a couple more minutes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

You have about 30 seconds.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I'll ask a real quick one, then. What's Health Canada doing to make the transition as smooth as possible for staff and stakeholders?