Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 5 - Evidence - February 5, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 5, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:43 p.m. to study the subject matter of the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, this evening, we are continuing our study of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.
[English]
In our first hour this evening we are pleased to welcome the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, Karen E. Shepherd. She is accompanied this evening by Gillian Cantello, Director of Registration and Client Services; and Johanne Blais, Special Financial Advisor to the Commissioner.
Ms. Shepherd, I understand you have a few introductory remarks. You have the floor now, and then we will get involved in questions and answers following that.
[Translation]
Karen E. Shepherd, Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada: Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss my mandate and the function of the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, as well as to provide an update on the Main Estimates for 2013-14.
I am joined by Gillian Cantello, Director of Registration and Client Services, and Johanne Blais, Special Financial Advisor.
[English]
In July 2008 the Lobbying Act created the position of Commissioner of Lobbying as an independent agent of Parliament. As commissioner I report annually to both houses of Parliament through my annual report.
My mandate is threefold: maintain a registry of lobbyists, develop and implement educational programs to foster awareness of the act, and ensure compliance with the act and the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.
[Translation]
Since I became commissioner, my office has been doing more with less. Even though my resources remained constant over the last few years, the impact of Budget 2010 meant that we had to absorb the impact of salary increases over three fiscal years. This created pressures on my budget.
Then, in Budget 2012, we were required to absorb a five-per-cent budget reduction. The recent announcement that budgets will be frozen for the next two fiscal years will once again put increased pressure on my ability to deliver my mandate.
[English]
The 2013-14 Main Estimates is $4.4 million. Of that amount, $4 million represents operating expenditures, including the salary envelope. The remaining $400,000 is for the employee benefits plan, which is a statutory vote. The salary envelope represents about 63 per cent of my budget. The remaining 37 per cent is for operating costs. I have a complement of 28 employees.
The first program activity I would like to talk about is the registration of lobbyists. This program maintains the online, public registry of lobbyists and provides guidance and support to registrants. The registry is the primary source of information on who is lobbying federal public office-holders and about which topics.
This year the priority for this program is to improve online tools for lobbyists.
[Translation]
The purpose of the second area of activity, the Education and Research Program, is to create awareness of the act's requirements and to foster compliance. My staff and I meet regularly with lobbyists, public office holders, parliamentarians, as well as with academics, to help them understand the act and the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.
[English]
My education and research priority for this year is to review the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct. A consultation process with stakeholders took place between September and December 2013. We received written submissions from a range of stakeholders. I plan to issue a report on the results of the consultation in the spring.
My office's third program is reviews and investigations. This program ensures the office meets its compliance and enforcement function under the act and the code. Since becoming commissioner, I have initiated more than 100 administrative reviews. I have tabled 10 reports on investigation in Parliament, finding that 12 lobbyists breached the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct. I made 11 referrals to the RCMP when I had reasonable grounds to believe that an offence had occurred.
[Translation]
In 2013, there was a historic first conviction for a breach under the Lobbying Act. An individual was fined $7,500 for failing to register his lobbying activities. The act provides me with the authority to prohibit an individual from lobbying for up to two years if convicted of an offence under the act. I decided in this case to prohibit the lobbyist from lobbying for a period of four months.
[English]
My priority for this program is to develop a more strategic approach to compliance verification. I will do this by conducting activities such as compliance audits and analyzing lobbying performed in various sectors of the economy.
Finally, internal services support the needs of programs and other corporate obligations of my organization. Approximately two thirds of the internal service budget is related to support services received from other government departments through memoranda of understanding. This strategy offers access to a broad range of affordable expertise, which I need to meet my accountabilities as department head.
[Translation]
I want to close by saying that I am proud of the work my office has done over the last few years. I have assembled a dedicated team of professionals and developed programs focused on the right priorities, which ensure transparency and accountability in lobbying. I look forward to answering your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much for that overview. Could I ask you to clarify a point before I go to the list of senators? You say you have the code and you have the act.
Ms. Shepherd: Yes.
The Chair: If someone is convicted of breaching any of provision of the act, you have the ability to prevent or prohibit that person from lobbying for up to two years. That's the act. What about the code?
Second, do you have any authority for monetary penalties?
Ms. Shepherd: Regarding whether I have the ability to prohibit anyone who breaches the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct, I do not. The code is a non-statutory document, so there are no fines or jail terms. After the completion of an investigation under the code, the act requires that I table a report on my investigation with my findings, conclusions and reasons for those conclusions. When you think that the reputation of a lobbyist is important, I think these reports actually carry sanctions in that way, in terms of the reputation being in a public report.
What was the other question?
The Chair: Monetary penalties.
Ms. Shepherd: I do not currently have the ability to issue monetary penalties.
The Chair: Neither under the act nor the code?
Ms. Shepherd: Neither under the act or the code.
[Translation]
The Chair: I will now turn the floor over to Senator Hervieux-Payette, of Quebec.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: How many lobbyists are registered with your office?
Ms. Shepherd: Approximately 5,000 lobbyists, including consultant lobbyists and lobbyists for non-profit organizations.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Although you have not published your report on the results of the consultation, may I ask whether anyone suggested that you charge lobbyists a fee to register with your office, so you could recover some of your costs?
Ms. Shepherd: Are you referring to the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: What I want to know is whether you currently charge lobbyists a fee to register.
Ms. Shepherd: No, nothing.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: If you charged each lobbyist $100 or $500, you could bring in the money you need to do your job and probably take your work even further.
Ms. Shepherd: Prior to 2005, we had the ability to charge lobbyists who registered by mail a fee. But since most lobbyists register online, we decided to stop charging a fee. Furthermore, the money collected went straight to the Receiver General, not to us, so it was more expensive for us to manage that component.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I do not expect that you will be given the authority to do so, but you do have the authority to recommend in your report to the government and other organizations such as the CRTC, that someone registering as a lobbyist is a member and should therefore pay a fee. I think that is one option that could help you in terms of education.
Sometimes, high-ranking employees will move to the private sector and work in a closely related field, so how do you detect when someone who is not registered is engaging in lobbying? If people are not registered, how do you find them?
Ms. Shepherd: By monitoring the media, and if we suspect something is amiss, we do further research to determine if someone is lobbying. Then, depending on what we find, we send out a warning letter informing the person of the legislation and requesting that they register in compliance with the act. Another way is through the complaints we receive from people.
Our education program has also allowed us to meet lobbyists who had not complied with the act and registered. Those are the various methods we use to find lobbyists who are not registered.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: When we meet with lobbyists in our office to discuss government policies, what would you say to the idea of us having to tell you that we were meeting with lobbyists if they were not on the registry? A check would have to be done, but it would not be up to us to do it. When people request meetings with me, I meet with them. But you could tell me that, from now on, I have to disclose the names of anyone who comes to meet with me about policies, pieces of legislation or other measures. And obviously, the same would apply to officials.
Would that not be better than you combing through the newspapers? After all, there must be people who are not on the media's radar.
Ms. Shepherd: As far as the people you meet with go, it is the lobbyist's responsibility to register him or herself. From time to time, public office holders will ask me what they can do. You can check the registry to see whether the lobbyist is compliant, but the other option is simply to ask the person requesting the meeting. You can ask them whether they are aware of the Lobbying Act, and if they say no, you can refer them to my office and we will explain the requirements of the act to them. If the person says they are aware of the act, you can ask them whether they are lobbying in compliance with the act. They might also be lobbyists who work for a non-profit organization and are therefore not required to register. That is the easiest way to find out, and many public office holders have started doing just that.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I have one last question. How do other countries in the OECD, G8 or G20 do things? Do they have registration policies? How does it work? Is it strictly lobbyists who register, or do those who meet with the lobbyists have to report the fact that they are meeting with lobbyists?
Ms. Shepherd: To my knowledge, it is the lobbyist's responsibility to be compliant. In one country whose name eludes me right now, the responsibility lies on both parties: the public office holder is responsible for checking that the lobbyist is registered. And I believe that is the only country like that.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Next I'll go to the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Smith from Quebec.
Senator L. Smith: As I listened to your presentation, I'm very impressed with, since becoming commissioner, 100 administrative reviews, 10 reports, 12 lobbyists breached the code of conduct, 11 referred to the RCMP.
Since 2007, when you started this evolution, could you walk us through what you learned? How has this evolved and what have been your key learning points in your position, since you came into office in 2007?
Ms. Shepherd: For me, aside from always stressing the importance of the legitimacy of the Lobbying Act, it is the fact that most lobbyists want to comply with the act and the code, which is why the education mandate is so important, because ensuring that those involved understand the rules leads to better compliance. With the administrative review, which is my fact-finding stage, only 10 per cent of those have ever been referred to the RCMP. To me, that is a sign where things have gotten that serious where I have to refer something to the RCMP for further processing.
Senator L. Smith: If I understand what you're saying, over a period of time has there been this constant compliance that you've seen within lobbying, or has there been a growth of people trying to manipulate the system?
Ms. Shepherd: From my experience, most lobbyists want to comply with the act. We have actually had in previous years what we call voluntary disclosure, where lobbyists are coming to us and saying we didn't know we needed to register, or we didn't appreciate the act, or they were getting confused between the designated public office-holder and whether meetings needed to be reported, and therefore were filing monthly communication reports late.
The honourable senator was asking me how we sometimes find out. It's because individuals are actually coming to us.
Senator L. Smith: Following on from Senator Hervieux-Payette, when you compare our capacity to oversee lobbying to foreign countries, how do we stand with our policy in execution versus some of the foreign countries that you deal with? As you see it, is there a pecking order within other countries in terms of sophistication, execution, et cetera? Could you give us some background?
Ms. Shepherd: This question gives me a chance to actually brag about the Canadian model. The OECD has 10 principles that talk about ensuring transparency and integrity in lobbying. Canada, with its no more than two decades, meets all of them clearly. That is why we're often sought out by countries at various stages to talk about our experience and to gain advice from us as to how we've been administering the act and how it has changed over the last couple of decades.
In terms of ranking, I'm not sure there is a ranking per se. I think some of it comes from countries that have had more expertise. The U.S. is another one that has had a long history of lobbying legislation but unlike the Canadian model, which focuses more on relationships, the American model tends to focus a lot more on the money aspect when it comes to lobbying.
Senator L. Smith: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: The Main Estimates show a 4.4 —per-cent decrease in 2013-14 over 2012-13. Looking at the programs, we see that the Registration of Lobbyists program budget dropped rather significantly, 28 per cent, in fact, and the budget for the Education and Research program also dropped quite a bit, 15 per cent. Internal services funding, however has gone up by 12 per cent.
Could you explain those variations and tell us why funding for the registration program dropped so significantly while the internal services budget increased?
Ms. Shepherd: My budget for 2012 was cut by 5 per cent. In order to fulfill my mandate, I decided that the Registration of Lobbyists program would absorb that reduction. I hired a management analyst to reduce our dependence on consultants.
I put off the development of registration activities and am now focusing on maintaining the LRS.
I think I can explain the 28 per cent. The 5-per-cent reduction came off the overall budget. It indeed reflects the 28 per cent, but the difference is due to the 5-per-cent reduction in the Registration of Lobbyists program.
Senator Bellemare: How were you able to deal with the registration of lobbyists? Did you cut costs? Were there fewer lobbyists registering?
Johanne Blais, Special Financial Advisor to the Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada: No. Our office is made up of directorates, and they do not line up with the programs. The reviews and investigations program does not fully line up with the investigations directorate.
Every year, the commissioner sets priorities, and more money may be allocated to a certain program. For instance, in 2013-14, we carried out consultations on the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct, so more money was allocated to that program in 2013-14.
Senator Bellemare: Does that fall under internal services?
Ms. Blais: No, it comes under the Education and Research program and partly under internal services. Each directorate is not perfectly aligned with a program. And the differences are attributable to the weight given to the commissioner's priorities. There will always be some variation between programs from year to year.
Senator Bellemare: Will there be decreases in the next budget as well?
Ms. Blais: I will let the commissioner answer that.
Ms. Shepherd: I hope not. With the budget coming up, it was announced that budgets would be frozen for a few years, and that will have an impact. I will have to examine my plans and priorities. I cannot make staffing cuts.
The Chair: Budgets will be frozen for two years, is that correct? What do you do about the salary increases? Will you have to find the money in the overall budget that is frozen?
Ms. Shepherd: Yes. It started in 2013-14. I really had a deficit in my salary budget. I had to take money out of our salary budget to cover the deficit. The freeze may still have an impact on the budget, because if I have to allocate non- salary funds to salaries, it will affect the plans and priorities I can pursue.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: I want to continue to follow up on this registration of lobbyists. You have 5,000. Has that increased greatly every year since 2008?
Ms. Shepherd: It has actually remained fairly stable since 2008. I think there was a feeling at one point that there might be a chill factor because of some of the changes. The number of lobbyists has remained fairly stable, around the 5,000 mark, every year. Lobbyists have come in and out of the system, which you would expect depending on the lobbying they are doing. They will deregister and new ones will come in, but overall that 5,000 has remained fairly stable.
Senator Callbeck: Prior to your office being set up, did you say a fee was charged?
Ms. Shepherd: The office came into existence in 2008. Prior to 2005 there was a fee if you filed by paper, which I believe was $150. Most companies were filing online. The couple of companies that I could remember that gave papers one day, you can imagine a fairly large corporation can easily afford $150. When you think about the work my staff would have to do to input that information, it didn't make sense. I forget when the $150 actually came in. It was not reflective of what it actually costs, given the individuals who had to process the claim and given the money was going to the Receiver General. It was decided to remove that particular fee.
Actually, when you look at the principles of the Lobbying Act, the fourth principle says there shouldn't be anything in place that affects the registry of this legitimate activity. I'm paraphrasing a bit. To me, $150 — instead, we should be encouraging lobbyists to register. It wasn't about the administrative fee.
Senator Callbeck: So why should there be a fee?
Ms. Shepherd: I personally don't think there should be a fee.
Senator Callbeck: Why?
Ms. Shepherd: Why? Because to me, the objective of the act is to get lobbyists to register. There shouldn't be things that might be seen as a deterrence.
Senator Callbeck: Well, that could be said for a lot of things.
What about other OECD countries? Are you aware of any that charge a fee?
Ms. Shepherd: I can say that some of my provincial colleagues have fees. Some of them are looking at removing them, though. To be honest, I can't remember if they're all charging internationally or not.
Senator Callbeck: Under the estimates here, it has been pointed out that the amount of money you are going to receive is 28 per cent less. The explanation we heard is that every year, the commissioner sets different priorities, and obviously you were doing something last year with the registration of lobbyists that isn't going to be done this year. Can you explain what that is?
Ms. Shepherd: Actually, my budget was reduced by 5 per cent. The reference level was reduced by 5 per cent. The 28 per cent number, as I understand it, looks like it is being calculated on the total budget. The 5 per cent cut is impacting the registration of the lobbyist program.
Ms. Blais: Five per cent on the total operating budget was cut, and then you are referring to the 28 per cent reduction within the program right now?
Senator Callbeck: Yes.
Ms. Blais: I think Ms. Shepherd misunderstood and was reversing the amount.
Ms. Shepherd: Sorry. Thank you.
Senator Callbeck: I guess what I'm asking is, if it's 28 per cent less money, what are you not going to be doing this year under that division, registration of lobbyists, that you were doing last year?
Ms. Shepherd: How I'm absorbing the overall cut in my budget in that program is that I'm now in maintenance mode, where I used to be doing maintenance and developmental work. New features of the registration system are being deferred.
But I'm comfortable with the fact that at this point developmental things will be deferred because the system that we have in place is quite robust. Since it came in in 2008, we have been putting roughly 400,000 to 450,000 in place, which has allowed the system to stand.
In the future at some point, I'm concerned about that because of IT advancements, but right now the system is sound.
Senator Callbeck: May I have another question?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: It is regarding the Report on Plans and Priorities. On page 2, you announce in the coming year that you will prepare the introduction of possible amendments to the Lobbying Act, which were considered by the government in response to the recommendations that were tabled by committee. I'm not sure what committee. It was probably a standing committee in the House of Commons.
I'm wondering what you are going to come forth with in amendments to the act.
Ms. Shepherd: Well, during the review of the Lobbying Act, which was in 2011-12, I appeared a couple times before the committee and I did a paper on my experience administering the act for five years. There were nine recommendations that I submitted to the committee at that time. After listening to me and to others, the committee submitted to the government 11 recommendations, and the government had various responses to those recommendations.
If senators would like, I could go through what I actually recommended. Most of the recommendations were to increase transparency in lobbying activities.
Senator Callbeck: What are you recommending, then, for amendments of the 11 recommendations? Are you just recommending so many?
Ms. Shepherd: Well, the way the process worked is I submitted nine recommendations, which the committee took into consideration along with other recommendations that they heard. They took a good number of the recommendations I had, and they came up with their list of 11, some of which were the same as mine.
The government has indicated that they support two of the recommendations put forward by the committee. They agree with the intent of seven of them, and I think they are studying the other three at this point.
Senator Callbeck: So amendments are going to be made for only two right now?
Ms. Shepherd: At this point, I'm not sure where the government will come out when they decide to table the Lobbying Act. They have said that in terms of the committee's 11 recommendations they were asked to comment on, they outright supported two and they agreed with the intent of seven of them and they were doing more research. Where they will come out, I'm not sure. Before pronouncing on three of them, they were giving them further study.
Senator Callbeck: You don't know exactly what is going to be coming?
Ms. Shepherd: That's correct.
Senator Callbeck: Okay.
The Chair: Those nine or 11 recommendations for amendments to the act that were sent to the government, are they on your website? Can we have access to those?
Ms. Shepherd: Well, the report that I submitted to Parliament, including my nine recommendations, is on my website. I believe that the others are public in terms of the government's and the committee's response, but if it would facilitate this committee at all, I would be pleased to send them to you.
The Chair: It is always helpful if we could see those because we will probably be asked to look at whatever amendments the government decides to make, and if we can have the recommendations beforehand, that is helpful.
Ms. Shepherd: They are public, but I would be pleased to send them to the committee after my appearance.
The Chair: Thank you. If you send them to the clerk, they will get circulated.
Ms. Shepherd: I will do that.
Senator Callbeck: Which committee was it?
Ms. Shepherd: It was the Ethics Committee.
Senator Seth: Thank you. I see in the Main Estimates of 2013 and 2014 that your office claims that the commissioner and her staff continue to define and implement the education outreach program to foster a better understanding of the requirements of the Lobbying Act and the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct. How you are going to make this happen? What will be the strategy for ensuring compliance?
Ms. Shepherd: On the enforcement side?
Senator Seth: You have claimed that your staff continues to define and implement the education outreach program to foster a better understanding of the requirements for the Lobbying Act and the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.
My question is: How are you going to make that happen? What is your strategy for ensuring this compliance?
Ms. Shepherd: With education, to ensure better compliance, one of the things we do even on the registration side is webinars with new lobbyists so that they better understand the rules of compliance. We continue to do outreach activities, face-to-face meetings with lobbyists and others who are interested in the Lobbying Act, such as public office- holders.
We also continue to improve things on the website because the website is the best way to reach a vast number of people — for example when I did the consultations. For efficiency as well, when you are a lean organization, it reaches quite a large number of people. We saw that even when we improved our search features, we had 175,000 people searching the website, so we will continue to use the website as much as possible.
Senator Seth: Do you see any obstacle in sharing this compliance?
Ms. Shepherd: I don't see any obstacles, per se. When we are targeting outreach, for example, when speaking to public office-holders and to the deputy minister community — especially when I'm talking to the most lobbied departments — they're the best conduits for getting the information out to their departments and helping to target activities.
Sometimes you are just trying to determine the best way, where are the different groups. When we're looking at improving the compliance verification activities, part of the reason for doing that is that we can see if there are gaps and find ways to educate a particular group that may not be registering because they're not aware of the requirements of the act.
That's what we're doing. It is just finding different ways to figure out which groups or sectors are not aware of the act because the best way to ensure compliance is to understand that the individuals understand the rules.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Good evening, Ms. Shepherd. You said that 5,000 lobbyists had signed up for the registry, but how do you define those lobbyists? Does the act or code set out a general definition?
Ms. Shepherd: There are three types of lobbyists: hired lobbyists who lobby for other organizations or clients; lobbyists who work for companies, called in-house lobbyists for corporations; and those who work for non-profit entities, called in-house lobbyists for organizations. Those are the three types of lobbyists.
Senator Chaput: When they are filling out the registration, do they have to indicate the type of lobbying they do?
Ms. Shepherd: They must first indicate whether they are in-house lobbyists or not. They have to provide a lot of information. For instance, a hired lobbyist has to give details on their client and the lobbying techniques they will use, including whether they will communicate in writing or in person and whether they will arrange informal meetings.
There are other considerations for in-house lobbyists; they must specify their duties.
Senator Chaput: Are they allowed to work anywhere in the country or just in one province?
Ms. Shepherd: If I understood your question correctly, it is possible for a lobbyist to be registered in three or four provinces. In Ontario, for example, a person can sign up for the federal registry if they are lobbying federal public office holders. But if they are lobbying a public office holder in one or more provinces, they have to register with my counterpart in Ontario, say. As far as municipalities are concerned, each one has lobbying legislation. It is possible for the same person to be registered in many places.
Senator Chaput: If a parliamentarian leaves their job and wants to take up lobbying, do they have to wait a certain period of time before engaging in lobbying activities?
Ms. Shepherd: Since you are a designated public office holder, you cannot engage in any lobbying for five years. If you want to lobby a federal public office holder, you have to be an in-house lobbyist. You cannot be a lobbyist for a non-profit organization, but you can work for an organization whose total lobbying duties take up less than 20 per cent of your personal time. You can, however, engage in lobbying at the provincial and municipal levels.
Senator Chaput: That was my next question. So I could lobby in my province and I would not have to wait the five years.
Ms. Shepherd: Correct.
Senator Chaput: And I would be compliant with all the rules.
Ms. Shepherd: Exactly. I made a mistake and I would like to correct it, if I may. Hired lobbyists are not in-house lobbyists; they are consultant lobbyists. Lobbyists who work for companies are in-house lobbyists.
Senator Chaput: If the lobbyist is hired by a province or a company, say, are they considered an in-house lobbyist?
Ms. Shepherd: No. A consultant lobbyist, or lobbyiste-conseil in French, lobbies on behalf of clients. An in-house corporate lobbyist is a lobbyist for a corporation, and an in-house organization lobbyist works for a non-profit organization.
Senator Chaput: Do the three types of lobbyists have to follow the same rules, or do the rules differ by type?
Ms. Shepherd: Most are the same. A consultant lobbyist has to be registered whether they are being paid to arrange a meeting between a public office holder and their client or win a contract. There is a big difference between the two.
Senator Chaput: It is clearer now. Thank you.
Ms. Shepherd: I apologize for the confusion.
[English]
The Chair: I am glad we got that sorted out. Senator Neufeld used to be a member of this committee, and it is good to have you back. He is from Charlie Lake, British Columbia.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you. It is good to be back. Some of the questions I had were answered, but you said it is pretty consistent that 5,000 lobbyists are registered. What would be the yearly turnover? Do they have to register every year, or once they're registered, they're registered? And secondly, what is the percentage of turnover, ones that quit lobbying and other ones that register?
Ms. Shepherd: Regarding the percentage of takeover, to be honest, senator, I don't have that information. On your other question about registering every year, a consultant lobbyist has to register per undertaking. This is why you may have one lobbyist with 10 different registrations because they have different clients. Some may come in or out because they're registering for a particular project, when the project is finished. That goes for in-house lobbyists who may be lobbying to get a government grant, and once they have the grant, they deregister.
Senator Neufeld: Okay.
Ms. Shepherd: That is what that would explain. If the lobbyists make any changes to the registration — for example, they want to add another government department or the senior officer for an in-house changes — they have till the fifteenth of the next month to update their registration.
Senator Neufeld: Okay. With that information, I think you would be able to tell me the top three departments that are lobbied.
Ms. Shepherd: We do have it. I guess it depends on whether you mean government institutions. Industry Canada is one of the most-lobbied government departments. We'll get that right away.
The Chair: Finance probably gets a lot of visits, too.
Ms. Shepherd: In terms of government institutions, the top three would be House of Commons, Industry Canada and the Prime Minister's Office. Finance Canada comes in fourth.
The Chair: You don't count his consultations and pre-budget consultations. He meets with half a million people.
Ms. Shepherd: I have an interpretation bulletin that talks about the process of consultations. If the consultations are done in public, those are not consultations that would require specific reporting.
The Chair: So it's not really lobbying.
Ms. Shepherd: Do you want to go over the Senate?
Senator Neufeld: I don't think we're on there.
Ms. Shepherd: You are, actually. I think you're sixth.
Senator Neufeld: I'll look at that later. They have to register and let you know who they are and what they're going to lobby. You talked about non-profit. Can you tell me how many U.S.-based non-profits are registered with you?
Ms. Shepherd: I couldn't tell you now, but we could find out in a search and I could report back to the committee. I don't have that answer now.
Senator Neufeld: Could you add to that what departments they lobby?
Ms. Shepherd: We could do that.
Senator Neufeld: That would be very interesting.
I notice in your notes you say that you made 11 referrals to the RCMP when you had reasonable grounds to believe that an offence had occurred. What kind of an offence is that? Is that just not registering? What kind of an offence would it be?
Ms. Shepherd: The files I have referred to the RCMP, in large part, have dealt with those who had not registered. One of the files that I referred to the RCMP — and I can say that because there was a report and investigation of it — was of an individual who was a designated public office-holder who tried to arrange a meeting with the Prime Minister's Office while they were subject to the five-year prohibition.
That's an interesting case, because this individual couldn't register if they wanted to. We would have refused them because they would have been breaching the five-year prohibition. That's a different one than I had referred to the RCMP. I actually did a report on it on my website.
Senator Neufeld: Of the 11 referrals you have made, there has been one charge. What's happening with the other 10? Are they just waiting? Have the RCMP decided not to charge?
Ms. Shepherd: Of the eleven that I referred, three are with the RCMP, and I've done reports to Parliament on four of them. When the RCMP decides not to proceed, I look at the file again to determine whether I have sufficient information to continue with a code of conduct investigation. Four of those have led to reports to Parliament. One is ongoing, and I ceased the remaining.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I wanted to know more about the kinds of things people do wrong. From what I understand, at least, there are those who have tried — But do you have examples of specific offences other than the one you just mentioned?
Ms. Shepherd: As far as the files I referred to the RCMP go, I covered those. But in terms of my investigation reports to Parliament, most of the cases involve individuals who did not register correctly. They should have been registered if they were not because the code of conduct applied. That is why I can say they were in breach of the code. Two of the reports pertain to lobbyists who, although properly registered, had, in my estimation, put a public office holder in a conflict of interest situation. They were fundraising while simultaneously lobbying the department where their office was located, putting the department in an apparent conflict of interest.
[English]
Senator Bellemare: So you go into those details when you investigate?
Ms. Shepherd: Yes.
The Chair: Who prepares the statistics of how many visited the Minister of Finance and how many visited Industry? Who compiles that?
Ms. Shepherd: That's one of the things that anyone is able to do by going to our website. Last year we made it a lot easier to search any of the things that a lobbyist is required to declare in their registration.
For example, now it's quite possible for someone who is interested to do a search and come up with a list of designated public office-holders and what they're lobbying on, for example. All of these things can be searched on the registry.
The Chair: It's one thing to register to lobby for the F-35 aircraft that we were hoping might be considered by National Defence, but whether you actually went and visited is another question, isn't it? Is that on there? There's a second actual visit, and how many times you actually visited? Is that on your website?
Ms. Shepherd: Well, it is if it's captured through the monthly communication reports, because the monthly communication reports capture those oral and arranged meetings by the lobbyist.
The Chair: Interesting. Thank you very much.
Honourable senators are indebted to you for the work that you do to maintain the integrity of our system. Honourable senators, we have had the Commissioner, as well as Ms. Cantello and Ms. Blais. We thank each of you for being here.
[Translation]
Senator Larry W. Smith (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, this evening, we are continuing our study of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.
[English]
In our second hour this evening, we are pleased to welcome officials from the Public Health Agency of Canada: Dr. Gregory Taylor, Deputy Chief Public Health Officer; Sylvain Segard, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Planning and International Affairs Branch; and Carlo Beaudoin, Chief Financial Officer.
Dr. Taylor, I understand you have some opening comments to share with us.
Dr. Gregory Taylor, Deputy Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada: Yes, I do.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for your presence tonight.
[Translation]
Dr. Taylor: Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the Public Health Agency's Main Estimates and activities for 2013-14.
Given the length of time since our last appearance, we appreciate being here this evening. With me today at the table are Sylvain Segard, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister of our Strategic Policy, Planning and International Affairs Branch, and Carlo Beaudoin, our Chief Financial Officer.
Our agency branch heads are also in the room to provide further program details should they be required. The agency's main objective is to empower Canadians to improve their health. We have three core business lines: health promotion and disease prevention; public health infrastructure, and health security.
[English]
Under our first business line, health promotion and disease prevention, the agency works to improve health outcomes for Canadians by promoting positive mental, social and physical health for all ages and by enabling the development of healthy communities. This includes activities related to the prevention and control of both chronic and infectious diseases, mental health and injury prevention. The agency works closely with provinces and territories on these matters.
In its programming, the agency often considers vulnerable or at-risk populations. For example, Aboriginal and northern populations continue to experience significantly higher rates of chronic and infectious diseases than other Canadians.
The agency has a number of grants and contributions programs that are aimed at addressing risk factors such as Aboriginal Head Start, Canada Prenatal Nutrition Program, and Community Action Plan for Children, which help to ensure that vulnerable children in Canada have the healthiest possible start in life.
With respect to infectious disease prevention and control, the agency takes concerted actions to make Canada less vulnerable to the impacts of infectious diseases by providing prevention, treatment and control advice through the development of guidelines and other expert advice documents; providing outbreak management and surge capacity; and housing laboratory, science and technology expertise and services.
Chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart diseases, cancers and respiratory diseases are among the most common, costly and preventable health problems in Canada and globally. The agency provides leadership in health promotion and undertakes programs designed to help Canadians stay healthy, reduce their risks for developing chronic disease, and prevent disease progression for those living with chronic diseases, while also reducing pressure on health care systems.
In addition to its traditional tools of surveillance data, expert advice and clinical guidelines, recently the agency has turned to innovative public-private partnerships intended to encourage multi-sectoral and sustainable attention to some of our most complex public health challenges. For example, we have entered into partnership with Air Miles and the YMCA to encourage physical activity.
Public health infrastructure, which is our second business line, enables Canada to detect and respond to public health trends and threats. The agency's leadership in public health science, surveillance and research provides a solid foundation for public health in Canada.
Surveillance is one of the agency's core functions. The collection, analysis, interpretation and targeted dissemination of high-quality data related to diseases and public health threats is essential to guiding effective decision making and public health action. We work very closely with provincial, territorial and regional health authorities in this area.
As a science-based organization, the agency maintains a strong and credible foundation of science and research that directly informs policy and programs and makes an important contribution to the work of public health partners in Canada and abroad. The agency's National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg is the only Level 4 lab in Canada, meaning it is able to work with the world's most dangerous pathogens.
Under our third business line, the agency plays an important role in ensuring public health security through emergency preparedness and response, border health security and the regulation of pathogens and toxins.
The agency is responsible for responding to public health emergencies involving natural and human-induced disasters, including infectious disease outbreaks such as pandemic influenza. Some of you will remember that the agency was established as a response to SARS.
As part of this responsibility, the agency manages the health portfolio's emergency operations centre, which serves as the hub for the coordination of response activities to significant public health events.
Mr. Chair, through our efforts we're confident that we're protecting Canadians and empowering them to improve their health. In order to continue meeting our goals in these areas, within our Main Estimates for 2013-14, the agency was authorized to spend $579.2 million. This represents a net decrease of $37.2 million over the 2012-13 Main Estimates. The savings were achieved primarily through efficiency measures identified as part of the Budget 2012 Spending Review. Other savings came from sunsetting programs or adjustments to spending.
With respect to Main Estimates, I'll briefly touch on the significant increases and decreases, that is, if they amount to more than $5 million, but we will be happy to discuss all spending of interest to you this evening. I'll begin with decreases.
One example is the cost for completing construction of the new JC Wilt Infectious Diseases Research Centre in Winnipeg, which amounted to a $6.1-million decrease, reflecting its anticipated completion. This new research centre is an exciting development that will strengthen Canada's global leadership in infectious disease research and laboratory and training capacity.
The short-term replenishment of Canada's National Antiviral Stockpile also adjusted our spending by $11.1 million. This stockpile of influenza medications contributes to Canada's pandemic preparedness. Antivirals are drugs used for the prevention and early treatment of viruses like influenza. In this case, a decrease in the three-year spending to replenish this stockpile was expected this year.
Mr. Chair, agency funding increases in the 2013-14 Main Estimates were threefold. First, we received a transfer from Health Canada for the International Health Grants Program and assessed contribution to the Pan American Health Organization, totalling $15.2 million. This program allows the government to participate in a number of international fora to strengthen bilateral and multilateral relationships in public health.
Second, we received a funding increase for the collective bargaining agreement for $5.4 million. This is part of routine business and negotiations with Treasury Board Secretariat.
Finally, I would like to add that we received an additional $3.8 million to support the installation of automated external defibrillators and associated training in recreational hockey arenas across Canada. This was an agency commitment announced by the Prime Minister in April, in collaboration with the Heart and Stroke Foundation.
Mr. Chair and honourable senators, the agency has moved steadily to implement its commitments for this fiscal year.
[Translation]
As we move into the years ahead, our efforts will be guided by a sound commitment to leadership, innovation and action in public health.
I believe that our Main Estimates reflect a robust organization that continues to make progress in implementing that commitment.
Thank you for your time. We will be happy to take your questions.
[English]
I want to add that from the invitation I understood you are quite interested in talking directly to our ADMs, so I will do my best to refer any technical or content questions to them. We have all three of them to answer any of your questions tonight.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Taylor. Maybe following up on your suggestion, in the documentation that we have received we have numbers. Is Mr. Beaudoin your financial officer?
Can you give us an overview of these numbers that we've received so that we understand the budget and where the budget is going? We have had a net decrease in the write-up by Dr. Taylor of $37.2 million, but then we had received $15.2 million for the International Health Grants Program and another $5.4 million and another $3.8 million. Are those offset?
Would you give us an overview of the finance? And then there's a lot of material that the rest of our senators probably would like to get into in terms of their questioning.
Carlo Beaudoin, Chief Financial Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada: In terms of our Main Estimates you've seen that we have $579 million in total appropriations. That includes both the sum of our existing appropriation plus the adjustments, which were the increases and decreases to which Dr. Taylor referred. It's divided into four program activity areas. Of that, $133 million is to public health infrastructure, and the $15 million for International Health Grants was related to public health infrastructure. That's where that funding went, as well as a decrease in that activity from the previous year for the JC Wilt Infectious Diseases Research Centre.
Our health promotion and disease prevention has $308 million this year in our Main Estimates. There are various increases and decreases there. The majority of them relate to the economic action plan; about $28 million of that is economic action plan.
In the area of health security, our Main Estimates have $47 million. The primary reduction there was a reduction of $11 million for the National Antiviral Stockpile that Dr. Taylor referred to, and of course we have had some internal services. We have $90 million. That was a reduction. Most of the reductions to the internal services related to the economic action plan and a restructuring of our back office and sharing of services with Health Canada. We have moved to a shared partnership with Health Canada for all of our corporate functions.
The Deputy Chair: Do you have enough funding to deliver on your mandate?
Mr. Beaudoin: I believe we have enough funding to deliver on our mandate. What you'll find is that most of the reductions that were made related to streamlining of administrative functions, reduction in travel and reduction in administration, and we've restructured most of our administrative offices. I believe we have enough to deliver on our mandate.
The Deputy Chair: The question we always ask is what about your staff cutbacks? How many people have been affected by any of these reductions?
Mr. Beaudoin: There were 300 people affected in the organization as a result of these reductions.
The Deputy Chair: What is the total number of people in the organization?
Mr. Beaudoin: We have 2,500 people in the organization after the reductions.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: It is quite timely that we are meeting with you this evening because, at our last meeting, those of us on the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology were discussing an issue that had to do with your agency, but I do not see any mention of it in the financial documents. I am referring to the abuse and misuse of prescription drugs.
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology is currently examining the issue. We have met with many witnesses, and all of them have told us this is a major public health problem. As senators, we are listening to what they have to say and we are really getting the sense that the problem is so big it is systemic. The abuse and misuse of medication is so widespread that it is affecting public health and possibly even the mortality rate.
We were told that it was tied to a whole host of factors. Physicians prescribe drugs, which people want so they can get better quickly. There is an information void; people are pharmacist shopping. And everyone we meet with is coming to the same conclusion: more data is needed. As I understand it, your organization collects data and a federal agency has to be the one to deal with that.
Has your agency been made aware of this problem? What is your take on the scope of the problem? Is it worth allocating money to the issue? Perhaps you already have. I would like to hear what you have to say on the matter.
[English]
Dr. Taylor: I can address that. I was involved personally in the minister's round tables on prescription drug abuse in Toronto a couple of weeks ago. The agency has not been fully engaged in this issue. The exception to that is the take- back-your-drugs day. We were engaged to try to help Health Canada, who promoted that and had the local public health people involved with that.
The point we tried to make at the round table is that it's a very big issue and it's not just about doctors prescribing too many drugs and their being abused. The point I tried to make is the love affair that Canadians have with drugs. From the moment children are born they're exposed to drugs. We train our young mothers that when your child had a bit of a fever, give them some Tylenol. In fact, when I was practising, we used to advise prior to immunization to take some Tylenol just in case they had a fever.
Given that kind of sea of drugs that we're living in, I don't think it's as simple as just doing that. What we try to encourage is a much more community development health promotion approach, where the agency has a big role to play in that — a big role in trying to address the determinants of health. I think the determinants of health equally affect those folks who have problems with that. For instance, our understanding is that Aboriginal groups have large areas of that and that's directly related to the determinants of health. We are going to be more fully engaged.
On the question about data, the minister asked me that as well. I think we have enough data to take action. If I recall, the data we have suggested that 400 people a year in Ontario alone were dying from drug-related overdoses or drug-related prescription drug abuse. I believe 25 per cent of youth between 15 and 24 years of age had used them, and out of that, 20 per cent — which translates to 5 per cent of all of our youth in that age group — have a prescription drug abuse problem. Those are big numbers.
Where we need data is from the best interventions and where we can best intervene to help targeted approaches, but I think the agency has a lot to bring to this. We have started to be engaged.
Again, like I said, the health promotion effects are where we can provide the most help, as well as the linkages. We're engaged with the public health doctors and agencies across the country to link in from their perspective as well.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Does that mean you would revisit budget allocations if you decided to examine the problem in the future?
[English]
Dr. Taylor: That's a hard one to answer. Currently for health promotion, we focus on children, youth, adults and groups, particularly some of the Aboriginal groups. That health promotion doesn't have to be changed at all. It is like healthy families and some of the family violence work we're doing doesn't have to be changed; this can be included. Ultimately, as the agency figures out what its role will be more specifically, that may change and we may need to look at different sources of funding. At this point in time, I think it fits very nicely with the general approach and health promotion we're doing now.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: You have given me some reassurance.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: If I am not mistaken, a large-scale study was done on the increased amounts of salt in prepared foods and recommendations were issued.
A package of smoked meat, for example, contains 1,500 milligrams of sodium. I am at a loss as to why no agency or department is engaging in discussions that could lead to more reasonable amounts of sodium in prepared foods.
What is more, I still cannot see why cereals in Canada contain more sugar than they do in the United States. Diabetics have a lot of trouble finding cereals on the market with acceptable sugar levels.
When will all food packaging list ingredients and nutritional value in a standardized and consistent format? You either have to be a Ph.D. or carry around a computer to be able to compare, two, three or four products because the information is not presented in a consistent way; the quantities vary and so forth. I thought you were responsible for ensuring that the public receives consistent information across the board.
We cannot ask every Canadian to do that. A lot of people read food labels, but it is hard to compare products because the proportions vary from product to product.
Where do you stand on this whole issue of salt, sugar and standardization, and when are you going to take action?
[English]
Dr. Taylor: Excellent question. Certainly those are big public health implications you have mentioned.
We share this role with Health Canada. The levels of salt and labelling of foods is a Health Canada responsibility. We work closely with the Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion.
In terms of cereals and sugars, we have the lead for diabetes, and it is an extremely important issue with our diabetes folks and obesity. Some of the work we have been doing focuses on healthy living, increased physical activity, adequate nutrition and making sure that there's a wide variety of foods, which is some of the health promotion work we do.
But Health Canada has the lead for the two areas, in particular the salt and the labelling. Perhaps some of my ADM colleagues have something to add.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Thousands of people die each year from this problem.
Kim Elmslie, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada:
Good evening and thank you for that important question. I just want to reiterate what Dr. Taylor indicated about the work that Health Canada is doing in this area and the work that we do to support the development of the evidence base around the types of nutritious foods that are required.
Also, I wanted to draw to your attention to the fact that because of the partnership work we're doing with pharmacists, for example, across the country, we have put in place a specific tool called CANRISK. I hope you around the table have heard of CANRISK. It is an education tool for Canadians that they can access in their pharmacies to determine their risk of diabetes. Once they have gone through the tool, they can then speak to their pharmacist about the kinds of things you are referring to with regard to changes in lifestyle behaviours, better nutrition and better physical activity so that they reduce their risk of developing diabetes.
From a public health perspective, a great deal of our role is working with our partners to develop those kinds of tools so that Canadians are better informed and know about their own risks so that they can take action and can support their families in taking action in prevention of diseases like type 2 diabetes.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Walk down the supermarket aisle, and Canada does not have that many supermarkets; in fact, there are fewer and fewer of them. There are a few widespread American chains and a few Canadian ones. There are not even that many manufacturers, so it would not be hard for the government to do something. Once you have talked to Kellogg's, there are not that many others left. Some 90 per cent of products have excessive amounts of sugar; that leaves just 10 per cent. There are easily 40 kinds of cereal on the shelf, which means consumers have to read the nutrition tables on 40 cereal boxes, and when they switch supermarkets, they are not in the same place.
So when I hear you say we have to educate the public, I think you are dreaming in technicolour. It is up to the government to take the lead.
On the salt issue, it was the government that conducted and paid for the study, and no measures have been taken yet. In the meantime, thousands of Canadians are dying every year from problems related to high blood pressure. And sugar, obviously, is tied to diabetes and obesity.
Mr. Chair, I would strongly support a public health action plan. I would love to see money going to prime time ads, during hockey games and such, telling people they are killing themselves little by little. This is a problem that affects everyone. It is not true that each individual will understand what they need to. Prevention is one of your core functions, and the industry has very few players.
What steps have you taken in terms of the industry to make sure that the products people consume are safe for their health?
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Maybe before you answer that, this is a segue to follow. I'm listening to the question, and my understanding of it is who is in charge of making sure there's consistency of labelling so that the consumer gets the exact facts and there's consistency amongst the producers? As Senator Hervieux-Payette said, there are not a great number of manufacturers; this is an industry that has three or four big players. Could you help us there, Dr. Taylor?
Dr. Taylor: Sure. My understanding is that that is Health Canada's role. I agree with you; I have a hard time interpreting the labels myself, and I would think of myself as a relatively sophisticated consumer.
My understanding of Health Canada's role is that they've committed to simplifying. We'll need to confirm directly with Health Canada on that, but that's their job.
It is interesting to note, though, I used to manage the cardiovascular file a million years ago before Ms. Elmslie started looking after it. At that time, when salt was a big issue, Campbell's Soup Company in particular was quietly reducing their salt content. They didn't advertise it; they were doing it as trying to be good corporate citizens on their own, which is quite interesting. I have lost track of where they are now, but I think manufacturers are quite aware.
Many manufacturers are coming up with healthier foods, healthier choices, reduced salt and reduced fat, and they're labelling it as such. I'm not making an advertisement for any large multinational chain, but some of them have identified. The Heart and Stroke Foundation would work with them to help with heart healthy choices with their little heart check. There are a variety of interventions, and the NGOs are interested in this and have been for quite some time. Back to the question on the labelling, that's a Health Canada responsibility.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Just a short comment. Why do they have to reduce? We have cans of Campbell's with 250 milligrams per can, and it used to be 500 milligrams. I follow all that. I don't buy much soup in a can — I make it myself — but it comes from the United States; it doesn't come from us. It is the same thing with the reduction of sugar. There's no reason in the world why we have a higher level of sugar for the same cereal sold by Kellogg's in Canada than what they have in the United States. In the United States, they have about one third less sugar.
No matter who is responsible, three organizations are working together: Health Canada, your group and CFIA. You should have a common approach to all these things.
The Deputy Chair: Is there any way you might be able to give us some form of response to the question of the issue of leadership with industry? Besides having these individual groups that will work directly with them, if you folks are in charge strategically of this particular effort, could you send us a simple overview or plan of who does what?
Dr. Taylor: Absolutely. Delighted to do that.
The Deputy Chair: If you could give that to our clerk, that would be fantastic.
Dr. Taylor: We certainly can. We can consult and make sure our Health Canada and CFIA colleagues are on the same page. We will put this into the response if that makes sense.
The Deputy Chair: That would be great. I apologize, Ms. Elmslie; your role is exactly what? As the temporary chair I should have been asking you the question.
Ms. Elmslie: I'm the Acting Deputy Minister of the Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention Branch in the Public Health Agency.
The Deputy Chair: That's a mouthful. Congratulations. I think we have someone who may need medical attention. Senator Ataullahjan, are you okay?
Senator Ataullahjan: Yes. I want to stay. I have an important question I would like to ask.
The Deputy Chair: You have a question.
Senator Ataullahjan: She has me on the list.
The Deputy Chair: We have you on the list. You are up.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you. Listening to the news yesterday, which is in line with what Senator Hervieux- Payette said, they were saying that the new research is showing that sugar triples the risk of heart attacks, but there are no set guidelines. What is too much sugar?
For someone like me, I think most of us have a problem reading what is on the back of a package. You get to the third line and you say, ``I don't know what they're talking about.''
Can it be simplified? We need definite guidelines: This is too much sugar and this is not too much sugar, if there is such a thing.
Dr. Taylor: I saw that report with interest as well. Having managed the cardiovascular disease file, I was quite amazed to see that.
For the guidelines to simplification, the best place to look is Canada's Food Guide. Again, that comes from Health Canada, and we work with them on that. That's an attempt to simplify to promote certain types of food. Certainly with diabetics, you suggest and encourage them to avoid all kinds of high-sugar foods. Canada's Food Guide has a pictorial representation. The intent is to simplify it and choose from the various groups in the guide itself.
We can include that as part of the response as well, and I'm sure you have seen Canada's Food Guide; they intended to simplify it so it is easy for Canadians to understand. It tells you how to measure portion sizes, what you can put in your palm, et cetera. Certainly it doesn't recommend high-sugar things, like chocolate cakes, et cetera.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: You see such health-conscious senators. I'm getting a little upset I ate too much chocolate cake at supper tonight. Go ahead, senator.
Senator Ataullahjan: When you were speaking in your presentation, you said that you consider at risk the Aboriginal and northern populations and that they continue to experience high rates of chronic infectious diseases. The thing that interests me, because of the work that I do with the IPU and worldwide with maternal and infant health, is the state of Aboriginal maternal health.
Dr. Taylor: We have a couple of programs to support Aboriginal maternal health. I should ask Ms. Elmslie to give some specifics in that area. That falls in her area. There are a couple of programs we have been working on for quite some time.
Ms. Elmslie: Thank you for the question. We have a number of programs in the Public Health Agency that are focused on helping vulnerable children and at-risk families become healthier and maintain good health.
In particular, the Community Action Program for Children that we administer has been running since the early 1990s, and it is focused on helping vulnerable families in a whole variety of different ways, the practical way of good nutrition for children, developing positive relationships, resilience to support positive mental health and well-being.
All of these programs are based on the premise that if you start early and you give kids the best possible start in life, then over the life course they're going to experience good mental and physical health, and hopefully the rates of chronic diseases will go down.
The Community Action Program for Children is one of our large programs. The Canada Prenatal Nutrition Program is another one, complementary to the Community Action Program.
And our Aboriginal Head Start in Urban and Northern Communities is another program we administer and is shown through evaluations to be a very effective way of giving children a good start in life, getting them ready for school.
We are quite pleased to see the positive evaluations coming out of these programs because they are long-standing and they're developed and delivered in communities, and we believe that communities are the best place to know what's required for their populations. There is no one-size-fits-all.
When we travel across the country and visit these programs, we can see how they're adapting to the particular circumstances and cultures in which they are delivered. The group of children's programs is an important part, and the basis for what we're doing.
I would also like to point to work we're doing under our innovation strategy, which is designed to help communities develop new ways of promoting good health and preventing disease in their communities.
For example, right now, the focus is on mental health promotion and healthy weights, helping children and their families achieve a healthy weight across the life course.
These programs start to connect because they start to identify the most effective practices. Our objective is to say if we can identify effective practices in one context, it provides an opportunity for us to help scale them up in other communities, and so that's the premise behind the work that we're doing through those programs.
The Deputy Chair: How do you measure the effectiveness? And when you compare a program you had since the 1990s and it continues to exist today, have you tracked it? Do you have numbers, and have you been able to give statistics that the average Canadian can understand?
Ms. Elmslie: We do evaluations of the programs; we collect data and track over time how the programs are doing. Right now we're working on improvements to our performance measures. We want to get a lot better at understanding precisely what within these programs are the things that are working and get better at measuring them. While we have evaluation evidence and some specifics, we need more to understand better and to use those numbers so that we can improve the programs and help others start to incorporate these programs into their systems.
The Deputy Chair: Dr. Taylor, looking at the Community Action Program for Children, the prenatal program and your Aboriginal Head Start program, if you had a summary, even one-page with some numbers, to give the committee feedback, it would be helpful to see the level of sophistication you have. Without the proper feedback systems, it's really hard to understand exactly where you're at.
Dr. Taylor: Absolutely delighted to do that. Just to emphasize what Ms. Elmslie is saying, our evaluation is that the Aboriginal Head Starts have been highly successful and really do make a difference in the lives of Aboriginal children. We're delighted to put that together for you.
Senator Neufeld: I've been here for only five years, but I can totally relate to the questions about salt and sugar. I can remember those questions being asked when I first arrived. It's only five years, but I'm not sure there's been any change.
If we're serious about preventing disease, at least the information I read, these are two bad products in huge quantities in almost all of our food.
I appreciate that you say, well, that's Health Canada. You know what, health promotion and disease prevention, $308 million. Your budget.
I would really like to see someone take a lead on those kinds of things and actually deal with that issue. I think it's serious and it's something that really probably is a lot simpler to do than some of the other things that you folks deal with.
I know you said you would work with Health Canada and find out, but it is not happening. As far as I'm concerned, and most Canadians, there has been no reduction. We're over-sugared and over-salted compared to even our U.S. counterparts, and whether they're at the right level or not, I don't know. You would know better than I do.
Anyhow, to get to one of my questions dealing with chronic diseases, diabetes and heart diseases, cancers and respiratory diseases are among the most common costly and preventable health problems in Canada and globally. This agency provides leadership in health promotion and undertakes programs designed to help Canadians stay healthy and reduce their risks.
I've had heart problems and, thank goodness for our health care system, I'm okay. When I go see my doctor in Vancouver, an excellent doctor, I don't see anything around that says ``Public Health Agency of Canada.'' Can you tell me a little bit about how you help those programs? I'm not saying you don't do it, but other than just saying you do it, can you demonstrate to me where I can see something tangible, I can touch something that says, ``Yes, I can see that $308 million actually being spent in some way that helps''?
I should also tell you I'm from the North. I'm not north of 60, but I'm from the North, so I have some questions about the North afterwards.
Dr. Taylor: Let me start. It is a good thing Ms. Elmslie is here as well because that's in her area.
We don't tend to focus at the clinical level of a heart specialist; we tend to try to come back and look at a coordinated approach and try to put the risk factors together.
One thing, for example, is obesity. We've done a lot of work on obesity, in particular childhood obesity. There is a federal-provincial-territorial agreement for a focus on childhood obesity because that can prevent diabetes. If you have heart disease, if you keep your weight down it's easier on your heart, and it reduces the risks of arthritis. It reduces a number of different diseases.
That $300 million, when you stretch it out across Canada, isn't much per Canadian. We try to look at what's the biggest impact for all Canadians, and working with our provincial and territorial partners. That's why we mentioned the F-P-T platforms, because when we work with them they can get at even more Canadians and move the message out.
So you might not see the stuff directly in his office when you're going for treatment, but certainly the work we do is pervasive across the country.
Ms. Elmslie, do you want to talk a little about those areas?
Ms. Elmslie: I would love to. This is a really important question you're raising for the population and the health of our country, absolutely.
As Dr. Taylor said, from a public health perspective, we're looking to prevent chronic diseases. So we moved back to what are the risk factors for chronic disease and how can we most effectively support professional organizations, our stakeholders and partners across the country in helping Canadians stay healthy?
We know what the four main risk factors are for those costly and preventable chronic diseases: They are unhealthy eating, physical inactivity, smoking and the harmful use of alcohol.
Those four risk factors are causing the lion's share of chronic disease we're seeing. Of course, in that basket we know we're dealing with a major overweight and obesity problem in our country, like other developed countries, but I would also say many developing countries are also in that boat.
We are leveraging partnerships with others, including the private sector, to say that if we work together, if we pool our resources and assets, we can extend our reach and impact. So we all bring our assets to the table; we all bring our expertise to the table.
From our perspective, we're public health experts; we bring that to the table and say, ``Here's what the evidence tells us about what we've got to do in prevention,'' and then we start to design programs that allow us to do more in prevention.
The fact that Canadians are talking about ways they can make themselves more healthy, the fact that there's a huge interest and motivation among Canadians to do more individually and collectively are signs that clearly awareness is being raised; people are thinking about their communities and how they can make a difference in the health of their communities.
Some of the things that we do very tangibly are to work with community-based organizations and help them put in place programs that support information, but also that support programs to help people stay healthy. You'll see the kinds of things that Dr. Taylor mentioned in his opening remarks: partnerships with Air Miles, partnerships with insurance companies, partnerships with the Y and Boys & Girls Clubs of Canada. These are all places where, at very early ages and throughout the life course, people learn about living healthy lifestyles and they start to adopt those changes into their everyday lives. Those are the kinds of things we're working on with communities.
Dr. Taylor: If I could add to that, one of the other core functions we do, which you may not see, is surveillance. We're collecting disease information from across the country, putting together reports and giving it out to the provinces and territories and professionals. On capacity building, we work with the provinces and territories to help build their capacity so they can actually do a better job there, as well as some of the knowledge translation work we do in terms of guidance for treatments, guidance for prevention.
The last point I wanted to make is that, as Ms. Elmslie alluded to, we really try to focus upstream. From a personal perspective, I used to do family practice and I used to see the folks who treat the folks. I finally figured out that my patients would rather not get sick at all than have really good treatment. That was one of the main drivers for me personally to go into public health. Our focus is really upstream.
If we can keep you away from needing to see that doctor for your heart disease we've succeeded, and that's our focus. We certainly do assist, obviously, because the things that keep a person healthy before are equally important once the person has heart disease — for example, if they keep their weight down and they keep physically active. This again gets into the big focus being physical activity, best food nutrition and healthy communities. Sometimes defining that healthy community seems a little vague, but we can give you very specific examples.
We work with the WHO for the Age-friendly Cities and Communities, for example. I think age-friendly communities are equally applicable to regular-aged Canadians in terms of equal accessibility, good places to walk, benches where you can sit down, et cetera. On behalf of the WHO, we certify towns and communities across the country as having an age-friendly community status.
Senator Callbeck: I want to ask a different question that hasn't been brought up. It refers to page II-287. It's the grant that goes to graduate students to increase professional capacity and training levels. I see that's been cut since last year by about 55 per cent. Why is that?
Dr. Taylor: There was no uptake of that. In this particular area, we had these grants for a few years and there wasn't uptake or interest in that. So that was part of the reason that when the draft came we actually reduced the expenditures there because there wasn't the interest and it didn't seem to be making a difference. The initial thinking was that this would influence more students to go into those areas, but the evaluation said that it wasn't doing that, and we couldn't give the money away because it was a grant.
Senator Callbeck: What areas was it for?
Dr. Taylor: It was for master's degrees in public health, in particular; it was focusing on PhDs in public health. What we did do that was successful was create a number of research chairs across the country with CIHR. That seemed to work nicely and was creating a capacity focus on public health, but the grant for scholarships and bursaries was not working well.
Senator Callbeck: And you really promoted it?
Dr. Taylor: Yes, we did. I used to manage this file a few years ago. We had calls with the directors of the master's degree programs. They were vaguely interested, but they really weren't particularly interested and we couldn't get at the students. So, after several years of working with the grants, the uptake was very small.
Senator Callbeck: How much was the grant per student? How did that work?
Dr. Taylor: I don't have the numbers with me, but they varied in amounts. We can get back with the exact numbers.
We even tried to support years of training to encourage more people to go in, and that didn't work, either. It is amazing. At the same time, a whole bunch of new Master of Public Health schools sprang up across Canada. You can't prove this, but the thinking is that the energy and the need were already there. People were already enthused and the bursaries and grants didn't make any difference because the schools were already established. I think we now have 15 or 16 different Master of Public Health programs across the country. It's amazing.
Senator Callbeck: I find that strange.
On the same page, under ``Contributions to individuals and organizations to support health promotion projects,'' you've given some examples of programs. Now, I would think that figure would be increasing, but I see that in two years it has gone down 20 per cent.
Mr. Beaudoin: If you look at the same page, at the very top, under the grants, you will see that the grants are $17 million, but we only spent $2 million. We receive our money as grants, but we convert it to contributions, so a lot of that $17 million gets converted into contributions for the contributions to individuals and organizations to support and promote public health projects. Some of it also goes into supporting our contribution to the Federal Initiative on HIV/ AIDS. A lot of the grant money that's at the top gets converted annually. There haven't been any significant reductions to those budgets. It's simply an annual transfer that we do as we get fewer and more contributions.
Senator Callbeck: There is really no change.
In your opening comments, doctor, you mentioned the program where you had to install automatic external defibrillators in recreational hockey arenas. How does that work?
Dr. Taylor: How do defibrillators work?
Senator Callbeck: No, how does a rural rink get access to that?
Dr. Taylor: I will refer that to Ms. Elmslie. Her area is responsible for putting those out.
Ms. Elmslie: The program is administered by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. That program will receive requests from recreational hockey arenas across the country. They're promoting the availability of AEDs. Arenas will then apply to the Heart and Stroke Foundation and say they would like to have an AED installed in their arena, and then Heart and Stroke Foundation will proceed to do that but also, very important, will ensure that training is provided to those who would most likely be using the AED. It's very connected not only to the device being put in the hockey arena but the training as well.
Installations are beginning. The Heart and Stroke Foundation is telling us they've received over 30 applications. It just started this fall and will now run over the course of the next few years. They're promoting it so then arenas ask them to come and put one in.
Senator Callbeck: Can any arena ask for that?
Ms. Elmslie: Yes, they can. Priority clearly goes to arenas that do not currently have an AED. The priority is given to those, and then as the program rolls out, once that first tier is dealt with, consideration is given to perhaps putting another AED in an arena that's particularly large. It will roll out in that kind of fashion.
Senator Callbeck: How many will $3.8 million cover?
Ms. Elmslie: It's $10 million over four years so $3.8 million in 2013-14.
A needs assessment has been done, so that money will enable us to put AEDs in all recreational hockey arenas across the country, recognizing that some already have them, so clearly we won't be going into those arenas. The objective is to have an AED in every recreational hockey arena in the country in three years.
The Deputy Chair: We have a long list. I will get you on the second round.
Senator Seth: I wanted to continue along that line. The replenishment of Canada's National Antiviral Stockpile also adjusted spending by $11.1 million. This stockpile of medications contributes to Canada's pandemic preparedness.
First, are we confident that Canada's National Antiviral Stockpile is healthy? Second, is Canada prepared for an outbreak of the H1N1 flu, or virus, or pandemic flu? How are we doing? Third, how often are these stockpiles reviewed? When we have cut down this money, how will this work? How will we achieve this goal?
Dr. Taylor: I'm going to ask another ADM, Dr. Theresa Tam, if she will join me. This is in her area of expertise. She's in charge of our Health Security Infrastructure Branch and knows about this stuff.
The money goes down because that was a replenishment of the antiviral stockpile. We have two stockpiles. We have the National Antiviral Stockpile and an emergency stockpile, which is federal. The National Antiviral Stockpile is held by the provinces and territories. They used that during the pandemic of 2009, and the expenditure was to cost share — the feds cost shared at 60 per cent, I believe. They spent 40 per cent and they chose to replenish their stockpiles. We didn't spend all that — and that offer runs out the end of this fiscal year — because provinces and territories each chose a different percentage to keep of their population. It varies, and I will ask Dr. Tam what the highs and lows are.
Dr. Theresa Tam, Branch Head, Health Security Infrastructure Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada: Some provinces cover over 20 per cent of their population, but some provinces have chosen to cover around 5 per cent of the population. Given their ability, the federal government also maintains a federal stockpile to provide a surge capacity. The agency maintains that, in the event that some provinces may run out and we then come in behind them. Basically, the federal government has maintained enough antivirals to back fill. In the last pandemic of H1N1, we only utilized the tip of the iceberg of Canada's stockpile. At this point in time we are confident that we have a plentiful supply.
Medications are changing, as are technology and the environment, so we have to reassess it over future years. We have new medications potentially coming on board. Antivirals are actually getting cheaper over time, as their patents are running out and their shelf life is getting longer, so they're being extended. All these factors will come into play as we begin to maintain the stockpiles over the next years.
Dr. Taylor: We are very well prepared for a pandemic for a variety of reasons. We have our antiviral stockpiles maintained and kept. We have a long-year contract with GlaxoSmithKline to produce the pandemic vaccine, which is different from the seasonal vaccine. We have excellent capacity in the provinces and territories, NML, the National Microbiology Laboratory, has been teaching and helping the rest of the provinces so their labs are able to detect it. If you noticed those last two viruses, the ones that made it into Canada were detected very quickly because of some of the technologies that the provinces have.
In fact, I didn't even know this until this year: When we do the tests we actually don't use the virus. There's a global arrangement amongst countries that they upload the full genomic sequencing, and then we download that from the Internet and build the test based on that. We have the test without actually having the virus. I think Canada is very well prepared for the next pandemic — if and when.
Senator Seth: How long do you take to prepare this vaccine? Suppose something new comes along.
Dr. Taylor: The estimates are three to four months for the vaccine. They have to identify the strain, what type of virus it is, the specifics, develop a seeds train, and that's a stock. They have to do some clinical trials to make sure it works, and then they go into mass production. My understanding is it's around four to six months.
Senator Seth: That's a pretty long time.
Dr. Taylor: That's where the antivirals are in place. The first line of defence is antivirals, washing your hands and staying home when you're sick. Those are the social isolation techniques. Your point is exactly why we have a stockpile until the vaccine gets ready. The vaccine is still the most effective and most efficient way to prevent people from getting ill.
The Deputy Chair: We're running out of time. We have two more people, and then we're going to have some quick questions that we would ask you to write us back on. We have four other people in round two and we have eight minutes left. It's a fascinating subject, so let's get on with it.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: You can send the answer in writing if we run short on time. My question is about preventing and detecting food-borne illness outbreaks, resulting from tainted meat, shrimp, lettuce, what have you. That initiative falls on three partners: the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada. And each organization receives its own budget.
I want to understand what your role and responsibilities are. How do you work with the other two organizations? Who looks after prevention? Who looks after inspections? Who comes up with the criteria and who does the follow-up? Basically, I would like an overview of how the process works, in other words, how we handle food safety in Canada.
[English]
Dr. Taylor: We can put it in writing because there are details, but, very quickly, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has to do with inspecting it with foods. They are the ones who look and test the food samples.
We get involved when there's disease in humans. Our role is preventing disease in humans. Health Canada gets involved with some of the policies, and they do the technical risk assessment for a food recall. That's the very brief one.
We work very closely with those organizations in lockstep. None of us go out ahead without the other with those foodborne outbreaks. We have written protocols to the provinces and territories and we have communications protocols within the three organizations. I am delighted to provide that. It's quite complicated, but it has worked very well and continues to work well.
The Deputy Chair: If you would do it in précis form for our clerk that would be outstanding.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: This is for Dr. Taylor. Senator Hervieux-Payette talked about what a hard time people with diabetes have in the supermarket, and she is right. I am diabetic, and, as a family, we have finally figured out how to make meals that work for us. The problem, however, lies with restaurant food, and that is where you need to come in. I have my little food guide with me, and I have to use it for my sugars and fats. And here, in Ottawa, on Parliament Hill, the only things I am able to have right now are soda crackers and tomato juice. I have no other options. If I had eaten the meal they served tonight, my sugar level would have hit 14 per cent or 15 per cent, but it is supposed to be around 7 per cent at this time. The problem on the restaurant front is urgent: they feed us whatever they want and tell us all kinds of lies to make us believe the food is not bad for us. In fact, the opposite is true. And I am not the only Canadian who has to carry around their guide with them. When will the government start to care about the food restaurants are serving us?
[English]
Dr. Taylor: Excellent question. I share your concerns.
That gets into regulation of the food industry, which regulation is a Health Canada responsibility. If they wanted to go that way we would certainly support them with research to support them from a public health perspective, but regulating the food industry is something that you would have to ask Health Canada.
The Deputy Chair: We're down to the final four. We'll have rapid-fire questions on which we hope you could write some quick responses to us.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: My question is about Supplementary Estimates (B). You requested additional funding. The items with additional funding include operating expenditures — for which the proposed authorities to date total $368 million, versus $329 million in the Main Estimates — and statutory items.
How do you explain those increases? Is the money for programs? Where is it? It is not for contributions and grants; it is for operating expenditures.
Dr. Taylor: We can provide you with an answer in writing.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: A written response would be good because we're running out of time.
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Callbeck asked about grants. My understanding is that you had a hard time finding students who were doing master's degrees in public health. As the mother of someone who is doing a PhD in public health from the University of Alberta, I constantly see her looking around to see where she can get financing. I find that very hard to believe.
Dr. Taylor: I was equally amazed. I managed the program for several years, and I thought we had done something wrong. When we talked to the program directors, the uptake, for some reason, wasn't there and the evaluation confirmed that. It was striking. I don't know what to say.
The Deputy Chair: Obviously, this was an excellent presentation. We thank you very much and we thank all of your associates, some who did not get an opportunity to participate directly. We should have you back sooner as opposed to later because there are a variety of subjects that we didn't get into. I feel bad for Mr. Segard; being in an international area, he could have talked to us about relationships with other countries and groups, which would have been fascinating to increase our ability to understand the portrait. We will keep notes. We will have a lot of information that you'll send us.
On behalf the whole group, we would like to thank you very much for your participation tonight.
Dr. Taylor: My pleasure. Thanks for the opportunity. We'd be delighted to come back anytime. We have lots more activities we're doing. I always appreciate the discussions. They are actually great and stimulating, and there are a few more areas we need to pay more attention to, so thank you so much.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)