PACC Committee Report

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has the honour to present its

SIXTEENTH REPORT

The Standing Committee on Public Accounts has considered Chapter 24 of the December 2000 Report of the Auditor General of Canada (Federal Health and Safety Regulatory Programs) and has agreed to report the following:

INTRODUCTION

Canadians depend on the federal government to develop, implement, and enforce effective health and safety regulations. This activity touches not only on the health of Canadians, but on the country’s economy and security. The cost to taxpayers for supporting this service — approximately $1.2 billion annually — reflects its importance.

Recent events, however, have raised doubts about the current capacity of all levels of government to create and maintain an adequate regulatory environment to ensure a reasonable level of health and safety for their citizens. Concerns have also surfaced about whether or not Canadians are receiving value for money from these programs. Consequently, an audit of federal health and safety regulatory programs by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada was particularly timely.

Because of the importance and significant cost of health and safety regulatory programs, the Committee met on 30 October 2001 to review the findings obtained by the audit. Mr. Alan Gilmore, Principal, and Mr. Douglas Timmins, Assistant Auditor General, appeared on behalf of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Mr. George Redling, Assistant Secretary, Regulatory Affairs and Orders in Council, represented the Privy Council Office. Ms. Janet Milne, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services Group, and Mr. Gordon Chapman, Executive Director, Regulatory/Inspection Secretariat, represented Transport Canada. Ms. Diane Gorman, Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Products and Food Branch, appeared on behalf of Health Canada.

OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In his December 2000 Report to the House of Commons, the former Auditor General (Mr. Denis Desautels) included the results of a series of audits whose theme was protecting health and safety. These audits dealt with federal food inspection programs (Chapter 25), Health Canada’s regulatory regime for biologics (Chapter 26), and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s regulation of power reactors (Chapter 27). Chapter 24, the first in the series, presented the results of a broad audit of federal health and safety regulatory programs, establishing the context within which the subsequently audited programs could be better understood.

The federal government’s major health and safety regulatory programs are administered by a variety of government organizations (Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada, Environment Canada, Transport Canada, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the National Energy Board). Between them, these entities administer approximately 85 Acts and 250 regulations. In fiscal year 1999-2000, expenditures on health and safety regulatory programs amounted to about $1.2 billion. Approximately 12,000 employees were involved in the development, implementation, or enforcement of these programs.

The objective of the government’s regulatory policy is to promote the design and implementation of effective regulatory programs. In turn, the broad objective of federal health and safety regulatory programs is to proactively protect Canadians from risks to health and safety. Yet despite clear central objectives, vast effort, and considerable expenditure, past audits have consistently found many instances in which regulatory authorities have not met the expectations of the government’s regulatory policy. The results of the series of audits reported in the December 2000 Report found some areas of improvement, but confirmed the continued existence of this overall trend. The former Auditor General concluded that the structure and implementation of health and safety regulatory programs need improvement and require government-wide action.

Since 1999, responsibility for the government’s regulatory policy has been in the hands of the Regulatory Affairs and Orders in Council Secretariat at the Privy Council Office. The primary task of the Secretariat’s Regulatory Affairs Division is to support the Special Committee of Cabinet that reviews regulations. It also provides analysis, briefing and strategic advice on departmental and agency regulatory proposals, and supports the government’s regulatory reform and research agendas. In 1999-2000, the Division had 12 full-time employees and a budget of about $1.23 million.

The Privy Council Office’s response to the audit was positive but without firm commitment. In its reply to the audit at the end of the report, the Office did not refer directly to any of the Auditor General’s 13 recommendations.

Ten months later, at the Committee hearing, Mr. Redling referred to the audit report as “another useful review.” When asked if the Privy Council Office had an action plan to deal with the Auditor General’s recommendations, he answered that he thought that the answer was yes. He did not give further details. No action plan was provided to the Committee, no reference was made to specific actions — planned or underway — to deal with any of the recommendations, and no commitment was made to provide an action plan at some later date. This is clearly not sufficient in light of the importance of this issue and the time that has elapsed since the audit report was tabled. The Committee endorses the Auditor General’s recommendations and would like to see a plan for their implementation. The Committee therefore recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 1

That the Privy Council Office submit an action plan to the Committee in response to the recommendations contained in Chapter 24 of the December 2000 Report of the Auditor General of Canada. This action plan must make specific reference to each of the recommendations, contain target implementation dates, and be submitted no later than30 June2002.

The persistence of shortcomings in health and safety regulatory programs is frustrating and worrisome given their significance. A complex regulatory environment, rapid technological and scientific change, and the scarcity of resources provide some answers, but they are far from satisfactory in themselves. Another answer may lie in the way in which the government is organized to manage the area of health and safety regulations.

As indicated, the administration of health and safety regulatory programs is spread across several departments, an agency, a board, and a commission. Each of these is responsible within its area of jurisdiction. Overall direction, coordination, and scrutiny of these programs are not altogether evident.

The Regulatory Affairs Division is not involved in the areas in which improvement is most needed. It is not involved, for example, in interdepartmental and multi-jurisdictional coordination at a time when there is an increased need for it. As the Auditor General pointed out, collaborative arrangements between the federal government, provincial governments, and other partners have grown, heightening the need for credible performance measurement and reporting, accountability, and transparent processes. Within the federal government, good interdepartmental coordination is required in regulatory matters but is limited by departments’ inability to compel other departments to act. The kind of central agency direction needed to accomplish this is absent.

Furthermore, it is noteworthy that all but two of the Auditor General’s recommendations are addressed to the federal government yet it is far from certain who would be responsible for implementing them. Mr. Timmins partly touched on this issue when he raised the question of who would be responsible for ensuring action is taken on a sectoral basis rather than by each agency on its own. The hearing did not produce an answer to this key question.

Mr. Redling testified that an integrated risk-management framework and a legal risk-management strategy had been put in place to help departments deal with issues raised by the audit. However, he also stated that it would be up to the departments themselves to determine how to apply the frameworks and monitor the results. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that no single entity at the centre of government is responsible for, or capable of, monitoring the implementation of health and safety regulatory programs or for effecting many of the changes the former Auditor General has called for.

The Committee believes that the government must develop government-wide capacity to address the issues raised by the audit. With its small staff, modest budget, and focus on policy making rather than policy implementation, the Privy Council Office’s Regulatory Affairs Division does not represent the capacity the government needs. The Committee therefore recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 2

That the government establish a regulatory affairs office reporting to the Clerk of the Privy Council.

RECOMMENDATION 3

That the regulatory affairs office be given the mandate and resources to effectively:

• Coordinate the design, delivery and funding of health and safety regulatory programs across government;
  




• Coordinate interdepartmental and intergovernmental initiatives in health and safety regulatory programs;
  
  

• Make improvements to the structure and implementation of health and safety regulatory programs across government;
  
  

• Provide assistance to government departments and agencies in the delivery of health and safety regulatory programs in the form of training, advice, and information on best practices;
  
  

• Develop and implement effective surveillance systems, databases and risk assessment methodologies for health and safety regulatory programs;
  
  

• Work with departments and agencies to create appropriate indicators to measure performance in delivering health and safety regulatory programs;
  
  

• Monitor departmental performance reports to Parliament to ensure that information on health and safety regulatory programs is accurate, relevant and timely;
  
  

• Conduct regular evaluations of health and safety regulatory programs based on an evaluation framework, and make the results available to Parliament in a timely manner; and
  
  

• Table an annual report to Parliament on the overall effectiveness of health and safety regulatory programs that includes an assessment of financial and human resources that are available to such programs. This report must include input from all departments and agencies involved in the delivery of health and safety programs and should be tabled concurrently with departmental performance reports.

CONCLUSION

Protecting the health and safety of Canadians is a complex endeavour involving many individuals and organizations in both the public and private sectors. The federal government’s role is to create regulatory programs that can strike an appropriate balance between the needs of all the participants and Canadians who benefit from the protections the programs provide. This is not an easy task and the audit shows that the government is facing numerous challenges in meeting the objectives it has established. Recent events have underscored the importance of sound health and safety programs; resolution of these challenges has become more urgent.

The audit report offers a comprehensive, detailed assessment of the environment in which such programs operate, the difficulties they face, and the gaps that must be filled. This diagnosis is followed by a series of recommendations, which, if implemented, should resolve many of the shortcomings evident in the current regulatory approach. The Committee is disappointed that these recommendations have not been met with a timely, well-planned and comprehensive response. The Committee now fully expects prompt action to ensure that Canadians receive the health and safety regulatory programs that they need.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee requests that the Government table a comprehensive response to this report.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting Nos. 29 and 39) is tabled.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN WILLIAMS, M.P.

Chair