Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 12th, 2007

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

What are the main thrusts?

[Morris Rosenberg]

It is about operational planning and a budget management framework. We want a better coordination of branches at the departmental level. In addition, the branches are making great efforts to achieve this. I could ask my colleagues who are present here, that is the assistant deputy ministers of each branch, to give you some more details on what is being done in their branch.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I am afraid that we do not have the time. How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You have one minute.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Time flies when you are having fun, doesn't it?

I understand that you said that you want to improve your transparency. Am I right?

[Morris Rosenberg]

Yes. For example, last year we followed a process on the Cox-2 inhibitors, namely Vioxx, Celebrex and other such drugs. A group of experts was created to investigate the matter. Up to then, it was customary to have experts discuss matters among themselves and then make recommendations to the department. We opted for a model that already exists in the United States, in the Food and Drug Administration. The public was invited to voice its opinions.

Even if such opinions are not strictly scientific, we thought that it was important to gather the comments of people who have used these drugs. Therefore, we tried to be more open and to consult the public.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you.

[Le président, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rodriguez.

Mr. Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr. Rosenberg, I heard your comments and I am comparing them to what the Auditor General said in her report. There seem to be a few contradictory points. You stated that your safety record was among the best in the world, according to international standards. On the contrary, the Auditor General's report indicates that we cannot be sure, beyond doubt, that the Canadian public is entirely protected.

Ms. Fraser's report mentions that with regard to the additional funds requested for the Product Safety Program, the program managers said that their inability to assume these responsibilities might have an impact on the health and safety of Canadians. Elsewhere in the Auditor General's report, there are some statements to the same effect, namely that the funds do not seem to be allocated to well-defined objectives. Nevertheless, you are telling us that your record is one of the best in the world. This seems contradictory, to say the least.

[Morris Rosenberg]

I will try to answer, but I might have to ask one of my colleagues to elaborate on my answer afterward.

Yes, I agree that we can improve our planning and funding system, and we are doing that. No doubt, we can do better. However, let us take some examples. If we look at the results, we have

fewer safety-related drug product withdrawals

than in the United States, for instance.

This shows that we are doing something right. The regulations for hazardous products are different from those that apply to drugs. For drugs, there is a pre-approval system. This means that a drug cannot be put on the market before Health Canada has reviewed it.

Regarding hazardous products, things are different. Products are put on the market, and then all kinds of methods are applied, like cyclical inspections, the monitoring of complaints and communicating with regulatory agencies in other countries, to prevent the importation of dangerous products.

Our relations with producers are very important for us, and I think that their interests are quite similar to those of the government. They do not want to produce or import hazardous products, because they can incur civil or criminal liability. If we notice that there is a problem with a product, we notify them. Most of them do what they have to do. They do not market the product or they withdraw it.

Thus, we are already using all kinds of methods. We are not starting from scratch. As Ms. Fraser said in her report, improvements can surely be made.

Let me ask Ms. Fletcher, the Assistant Deputy Minister, to continue.

[Susan Fletcher, Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health]

The only thing that I want to add is that besides the regulatory measures that we...

With your permission, I will continue in English.

In addition to the regulatory measures we have for compliance with our regulations, we also measure public awareness of hazardous products and public knowledge of difficulties that products have had in the past, and what they should be aware of in purchasing products. So it's a partnership, if you will, with the public buying consumer products, and us ensuring that the products on the market are as safe as they can be for consumers.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Ms. Fraser, could you tell us if your audit of Health Canada was due to a request made by the committee, or was it a routine audit?

[Sheila Fraser]

No, it began with our audit of the Medical Devices Program. Exhibit 8.6 shows that we analyzed the program's funding. I think that the report states that it was in the year 2003-2004. If you look at the table, you will see that there is core funding of $2 million and that there was also a reallocation of $4 million, which means that there was no longer any core funding, because the other funds were taken from revenue or from special initiatives. Consequently, the regulatory program was left without any core funding. This was cause for concern. I said that I would like the department to review the way in which funds are allocated to regulatory programs within the department.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Nevertheless, your report raises safety and health issues with regard to certain programs. The funding is not always consistent with specific objectives, performance indicators.

Personally, are you worried?

[Sheila Fraser]

Honestly, I am not worried. The report states that the department is unable to determine the type and level of activities that it deems necessary for regulatory programs. This is not an evaluation issue, but we expect the department to be able to demonstrate this to us and to keep subsequent allocations of funds in line with its evaluation.

As Mr. Rosenberg said—and it is written in the report—the department does risk assessments and focuses on the areas with higher risks. Generally—and the department says that it agrees with this—we expect to have reference data on the types of activity involved in certain programs, and that the allocation of funds be done accordingly.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, I am finished.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Merci beaucoup, monsieur Laforest.

Mr. Sweet.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rosenberg, how long have you been a deputy minister of this department?

[Morris Rosenberg]

It's been since December 2004.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Was your department involved in the recategorization of the 23,000 chemicals prior to 1994?

[Morris Rosenberg]

Yes. Those were the toxic chemicals.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I was at a meeting just this morning, and it should be noted that you have a reputation worldwide. In fact, the European Union and the United States both praised you for being on target by last September on this.

[Morris Rosenberg]

Those were Susan Fletcher's people.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Great. Congratulations on that.

However--

[Voices]

Oh, oh!