THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 12, 2021
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met by videoconference this day at 4 p.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 of Part 4 of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.
Senator Chantal Petitclerc (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Happy Wednesday to all. I am Chantal Petitclerc, senator from Quebec, and it is my pleasure and privilege to chair this committee.
We are conducting this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology today by videoconference. Before we begin, I would like to make a few useful suggestions to help us have a productive and efficient meeting.
[English]
First, I would ask you to keep your microphones muted at all times unless you are recognized by name by the chair and you will be responsible for turning your microphones on and off during the meeting. Please wait until you are recognized by name. I will also ask the senators to use the raise hand feature. Before you speak, please pause for a few seconds just to let the audio signal catch up to you.
[Translation]
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please report it to the chair or the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue. Should you have other types of technical challenges, please contact the clerk. Do not forget the technical assistance number you have been provided with.
[English]
Please note that we might need to suspend during these times if we have some challenges, as we, of course, need to ensure that all members are able to participate fully.
Finally, I want to remind all of us that Zoom screens should not be copied, recorded or photographed.
[Translation]
Without further ado, I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are taking part in today’s meeting. With us are Senator R. Black; Senator Bovey; Senator Frum; Senator Dasko; Senator Forest-Niesing; Senator Kutcher; Senator Manning; Senator Moncion; Senator Mégie; Senator Moodie; and Senator Omidvar.
Thank you for being with us, dear colleagues. As you know, we are starting a very busy week for this committee.
[English]
In May 2021, 11 divisions of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget, were referred to this committee for a pre-study. Today, this committee plans to study Divisions 21, 22, 24, 28 and 29. We will hear from relevant federal departments, agencies and bodies.
Before we begin, I wish to advise you that Senator Frum will be filling in for Senator Poirier in her duty as deputy chair on an acting basis.
[Translation]
Thank you very much, Senator Frum, for being with us today.
[English]
Our first panel is on Divisions 21 and 29, which deal with changes to the Social Security Tribunal and authorizations for the Minister of Labour to collect and use social insurance numbers. I would like to introduce our witnesses for today.
[Translation]
With us today, from Employment and Social Development Canada, we have Ms. Frances McCormick, Executive Director, Labour Program; Mr. Charles Philippe Rochon, Senior Analyst, Labour Program; Ms. Lorraine Pelot, Director General, Income Security and Social Development Branch; and Ms. Tara Belanger Zahab, Director, Income Security and Social Development Branch.
We will first hear opening remarks from Ms. McCormick and Ms. Pelot. I don’t know which of you was going to speak first, but I’ll give you the floor.
[English]
Lorraine Pelot, Director General, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: I can start since I’m here for Division 21. Good afternoon, senators.
Division 21 is meant to bring changes to the Social Security Tribunal, which was created in 2012 and became operational in April 2013 as a single-window, independent tribunal to replace four separate administrative tribunals that made decisions on appeals for benefit claims under the Employment Insurance and income security programs. Income security programs include the Canada Pension Plan as well as the Canada Pension Plan disability and Old Age Security.
In August 2019, the government committed to introduce legislation to reform the Social Security Tribunal and make the appeals process for income security programs more client-centric, faster, easier to navigate and more responsive to the needs of Canadians.
The substantive changes to the Department of Employment and Social Development Act regarding the appeals processes for income security will be undertaken pursuant to the 2021 Budget Implementation Act changes and are expected to be implemented 12 months after Royal Assent.
The most important legislative amendments are designed to introduce a de novo model for second-level income security appeals within the Social Security Tribunal, where new evidence is allowed, with a new and final decision on benefits eligibility. It will also streamline and simplify the overall income security recourse processes. It will provide the chair of the Social Security Tribunal with the authority to make rules of procedure to govern how the Social Security Tribunal functions. Following legislation, regulations would be created to include allowing the choice of form of hearing for appellants and authorizing all parties to request that all or part of a hearing be held in private.
These changes are particularly important for persons with disabilities since CPP disability appeals represent about 80% of the volume of appeals in the income security stream at the Social Security Tribunal.
I’ll stop there.
The Chair: Thank you.
Frances McCormick, Executive Director, Labour Program, Employment and Social Development Canada: It’s a pleasure to be here this afternoon.
We’re here to speak to you today about Part 4, Division 29. This is an amendment to the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to authorize the Minister of Labour to collect and use a person’s Social Insurance Number.
The purpose of this amendment is to support the modernization of services within the Labour Program so that Canadians who receive these services from the Labour Program of Employment and Social Development Canada have a particular focus on digital capacity. This includes new systems that we’re introducing that allow federally regulated employers and employees to file reports and complaints of a protected nature electronically. The submission of these files must occur behind a protected environment, such as the My Service Canada Account, which uses the Social Insurance Number as a mandatory identifier to register and use the platform.
The SIN would also be used, for example, to correctly identify employees who are entitled to unpaid wages or particular benefits and ensure that these amounts are being paid accurately and to the right person. This is particularly important to locate employees who otherwise could not be found.
As well, this measure will allow a shift from current paper-based processes that we have in some of our program areas, which can be time-consuming, cumbersome, inefficient and prone to errors to a remote or more robust system based on modern technology — again, the digital capacity. This would expedite the resolution of complaints and allow for more timely and targeted enforcement activities within the labour program.
I’ll stop there, and I’m happy to take any questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much for those opening remarks. We will begin, as per usual, with our Deputy Chairs Bovey and Frum.
Senator Bovey: I thank the witnesses for being with us and for filling in some of the detail. It is much appreciated.
As my colleagues know, I’m one who believes in consultation. In that regard, Ms. Pelot, I want to ask you if the changes in Division 21 were the result of consultation with clients and with sectors it affects. If so, what were the conclusions of those consultations? How did they influence the amendments in the bill?
Ms. Pelot: Thank you, Senator Bovey.
Following a 2016 report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the government committed to undertake a review of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada and its functioning and processes. A third party was hired the following year, in 2017, to conduct a review and submit a report that provided options for improving the appeals processes. The government then pulled together consultation groups and had further consultation with groups specifically about the proposed changes recommended by the third party. As a result of those consultations, the resulting improvements that have been suggested through the Budget Implementation Act were taken. There was a number of opportunities for input provided to the recommendations that are being brought forward.
Senator Bovey: Those consultations were outside government or within the bureaucracy?
Ms. Pelot: No, they were outside government with stakeholders.
Senator Bovey: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Maybe just to make sure, Ms. Pelot, did those consultations focus or have some specific groups of representing persons with disabilities? Is that what I’m understanding?
Ms. Pelot: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you for this.
Senator Bovey: There are so many people asking questions that I will defer. I was really concerned about the consultative process, both with people of disabilities and people without disabilities. I thank you.
Senator Frum: My question is also for Ms. Pelot. Regarding the changes to the Social Security Tribunal, you noted in your remarks that 80% of the appeals that come in are related to those applying for CPP disability. Can you explain why the numbers are so heavily skewed to those applying for disability benefits? Is there something broken with this program that is causing so many requests for reconsideration?
Ms. Pelot: Thank you for the question.
In terms of the income security appeals, that includes OAS and CPP retirement benefits. Those two benefits are reasonably straightforward benefits to decide on eligibility. I’m not an expert in those areas, but they are fairly simple and straightforward benefits. The Canada Pension Plan disability benefit is much more complex to adjudicate and render a decision. It requires a number of factors that lead to people not being happy with the decision they receive if their benefit is denied.
Senator Frum: Can you amplify for us once more how you think these amendments will address that problem?
Ms. Pelot: The amendments have taken into consideration the particular situation of the appellants. For example, the stakeholders requested a de novo system, a new hearing at the second level of appeal at the Social Security Tribunal. As an example, the current system is one in which there is a new hearing at the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal, but, currently, to get to the Appeal Division, it’s very narrow and legalistic grounds that you must reach to get leave to appeal and then to bring the hearing before the appeal division. As a result of the input provided by stakeholders, appellants will now have a second chance to have their case heard and a decision made.
This is particularly important in cases with Canada Pension Plan Disability because the medical evidence is shifting, often evolving over time. Not only is a person’s medical condition perhaps changing, but they may over time be getting more input from medical practitioners, diagnostic tests, et cetera. The additional time that will be permitted for these appellants will benefit and give more time to people to collect new evidence related to their medical condition and their ability to function in an occupation.
Senator Frum: Thank you.
Senator R. Black: I think you have just answered the question, but I will ask it again just to be clear. Can you explain the reasoning behind moving to a de novo model for appeals, as you have outlined? Specifically, what were the issues with the existing format? Will this move to a de novo model address these issues? I think you have told us yes, but I want to be clear.
Ms. Pelot: Thank you, senator.
The recommendation to proceed to a de novo for the appeal division level of the Social Security Tribunal came out of the consultations with stakeholders. Part of the concern expressed was that the current system is overly legalistic and difficult for appellants to understand, particularly at the appeal division where leave to appeal is granted on very legalistic grounds, such as an error of law. Very few people were able to meet that bar and have their case heard by the appeal division. It’s a very legalistic requirement that meant appellants who did not have help getting through the system would have a hard time doing so on their own without assistance, especially legal assistance.
The new de novo approach retains a leave to appeal, but with this approach, leave to appeal is simply whether you have an arguable case and new evidence to present. Once you have reached that, you would then be eligible for a de novo hearing, which is a completely new hearing on all the evidence.
Senator R. Black: Thank you for that clarification.
Ms. McCormick, Division 29 outlines the shift to the digital collection of social insurance numbers to enforce and administer the act, among other things. Currently, this collection is done the old-fashioned way: writing things on paper. I would like to know the costs associated with transferring this program from the existing paper model to a modernized digital equivalent. Are there cost-saving measures? Further, regarding digital security and privacy, what security measures are being put in place to ensure the new digital collection of social insurance numbers is secure and protected?
Ms. McCormick: Thank you for the question.
Currently, there is a program underway, a project called the Integrated Labour System that has been ongoing for a number of years. Part of that project or one of the pieces of the project is the platform for the online complaint form. We don’t necessarily have an isolated cost just for the collection of the SIN because that’s all part of the online complaint form, which will be ready about a year from now. We can get those numbers for you in terms of the time of build to the time we actually go to launch.
With respect to privacy, of course, any authorities under the Privacy Act or the Department of Employment and Social Development Act will be respected. There are provisions in place within the system to ensure that only those who have authority to access — so those within the labour program — can access the information, with the right security level, of course. Then, people will be trained on all of the other security requirements, in terms of storage, transmission, et cetera, and those must be respected.
Senator R. Black: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: I have one question for each of our witnesses. The first one is for Ms. Pelot, and it concerns Division 21. I would like to know to what extent the pandemic has had an impact on the implementation of the changes to the Social Security Tribunal.
Ms. Pelot: Thank you for the question, senator. Indeed, I believe that the pandemic has delayed the changes. We were waiting for an opportunity to make legislative changes, but the pandemic and the focus on the pandemic created a delay. However, there were improvements to the Social Security Tribunal appeal system that were not dependent on legislative changes, and these improvements continue to this day.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Ms. McCormick, you referred to Division 29 when you gave an answer to the question asked by my colleague Senator R. Black. Given the importance of information security, we know that the Social Insurance Number is information that we must protect. We are deterred from circulating it. Obviously, everyone has a responsibility to protect that information.
You talked about the mechanisms in place to ensure that this information is only accessible by authorized persons. Have you developed a plan in response to hacking? We have all seen through the media that this kind of plot can have devastating effects. Do you have a plan in place, and if so, can you give us the details?
[English]
Ms. McCormick: Thank you for the question.
In terms of the plan, we are working closely with our IT colleagues in terms of securing the system itself and the data within that system. This includes determining whether it’s a business continuity plan and ensuring that the appropriate measures are taken so there is no phishing or hacking of this system. The system is built behind MS Dynamics, which is a government-approved case-management system that other programs are using as well.
In the event that there is a breach, there are measures in place with our security office in terms of the information that needs to be escalated to the appropriate officials to ensure that the situation is dealt with in a rapid manner.
I am aware that we have quite a robust security system, because we do have, for example, Employment Insurance and Canada Pension Plan, which are behind the My Service Canada Account, well protected within that portal. Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you both for being with us today. Your time is much appreciated.
I have only one question. What review or evaluation processes have you put in place to ensure that the changes that you are going to make will resolve the problems that they were supposed to address and not inadvertently create new ones?
Ms. Pelot: Thank you, senator.
The changes to the Social Security Tribunal, or SST, include some that they have implemented at their end, which includes client consultation on a regular basis, through groups of consultations and surveys of clients, which they already have implemented following many of the hearings. The changes come along with committed results around improving the timeliness and the client-centric nature of the changes. The surveys and the groups that are consulted by the Social Security Tribunal provide input on the client side, and we have numbers regarding inventories, processing times and service standards that the Social Security Tribunal collects. Finally, the new legislation requires that the chair of the tribunal prepare a report to the minister of ESDC regarding performance on a yearly basis.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
I want to follow up on the line of questioning that was pursued earlier with respect to the appeal process. First of all, when you speak about consultations, Madame Pelot, you are referring to the KPMG report. Is that right?
Ms. Pelot: Yes, the KPMG report, and then it was followed by consultations with stakeholders.
Senator Dasko: Okay, thank you.
One of the goals of the KPMG report and other goals that led to the change was to streamline the process. When I look at the way evidence is now going to be taken in at the appeal level, that’s actually quite different from our normal court system in which evidence is presented at a lower level. Evidence is not presented at the appeal level. You go to appeal only on matters of law or other technical matters, and you don’t take in evidence at the appeal level.
What you’re doing here is you’re taking in evidence at two levels, so the way I see it, it doesn’t actually streamline the system. In fact, it makes it more complicated because people are going to be presenting evidence at two levels. I don’t necessarily think that is fair. It does not enhance fairness for people to have to go through two levels. It would seem to me to be expanding more processes that don’t seem to be too helpful.
I’m wondering, why is it that you didn’t specify more specifically what kind of evidence could be brought in at the appeal level? Because what you’re doing is just opening the door to making the general level much less useful. Everyone is going to want to take their appeals and the lower level is going to be much less important. The upper level is going to be where everyone is going to want to go. So you’re actually just expanding the administration of the program, which is precisely the opposite of streamlining.
I hope I’m articulating this well enough. Why didn’t you specify a little bit more exactly the kind of evidence — it’s not just new evidence. Why is it that you’ve taken this approach? To me, it doesn’t really seem that it’s going to promote fairness, which would seem to be the goal, and efficiency, of course.
Ms. Pelot: Thank you, senator. I think you raise some good points about the streamlining.
What we heard from stakeholders during the consultations was very much around — I’ll back it up a moment. Prior to the creation of the Social Security Tribunal, when there were the four other tribunals for EI and income security cases, in fact, there were the two levels of appeals outside of the department for people who were seeking income security benefits. So people were familiar with that former model prior to the SST where they had, in effect, two opportunities to have their cases heard outside of the department.
The difference with the appeal level is, again, that evolving nature, particularly of medical conditions and evidence related to Canada Pension Plan disability, but we didn’t want to forestall that there might be other types of cases that might also have evolving evidence. It would be up to the appellants to decide if they had some new evidence that they felt was relevant and could not be considered by the General Division. They would have the opportunity to bring forward the new evidence and have a rehearing, which they can’t currently do.
Senator Dasko: Okay, so it just may result in the kind of duplication that I was referring to. I guess we’ll see how that works out down the road. Was it not possible to somehow change the wording of that clause to make it a little more specific with regard to evidence so that we’re not opening the door to duplicate processes?
Ms. Pelot: I think the fact that we retained the requirement for leave to appeal to go to the Appeal Division and then the specificity around new evidence is what makes it different from the hearing at the General Division.
I would think in the process, when we get down to the nitty-gritty of the process for appellants, the Social Security Tribunal will make it as streamlined as possible in terms of the General Division sharing their information with the Appeal Division and the appellant having to add any new information for the Appeal Division.
Senator Dasko: Thank you very much. I don’t have any more questions.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you to our witnesses for being here. I have a few questions. Hopefully all of them are yes/no kind of questions.
I want to know first whether this change to the Canada Pension Plan and appeals from the Canada Pension Plan, individuals to the tribunal, as well as the Old Age Security and disability plans, will claimants who have appealed their decision before this change was brought forward be able to re-appeal their decision? In other words, is this retroactive?
Ms. Pelot: I’m actually going to turn to my director, Tara Belanger Zahab, for this answer, who is more familiar with the transitional provisions than I am.
Tara Belanger Zahab, Director, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you, senator.
There are several transitional provisions at the end of Division 21. Those permit a specific start date within a certain period, depending on what type of appeal is being undertaken. There is the elimination of several legalistic provisions, such as summary dismissal. You will see that some of the provisions allow that transitional time to move to the Appeal Division, should they wish to appeal. There are a number of pieces once the bill receives Royal Assent and the regulations are in place. Then we will move to the new system, and depending on where they are in the system, there will be certain time allowances to complete the different levels.
Senator Omidvar: So some appellants could have the opportunity to avail themselves of this new process but not all? That’s what I’m hearing you say.
Ms. Zahab: Yes. That’s correct.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
I am struck, as I’m sure some of my colleagues also are, that this change limits this new process to appellants of the Canada Pension Plan disability supports and Old Age Security but does not include appellants who are appealing decisions on their EI benefits. Can you tell me if you are in consultation on changes to appeals and EI benefits and what stage of that consultation phase you may be in?
Ms. Pelot: Thank you, senator.
The changes to the Employment Insurance recourse process are going to be continuing to advance in parallel with the future long-term reforms to Employment Insurance that were announced in Budget 2021. Stakeholders will be consulted as that work progresses forward.
Senator Omidvar: So it’s a work-in-progress, no end date in sight?
Ms. Pelot: Not to my knowledge.
Senator Omidvar: Can I assume — or maybe not — that you gather demographic data on appellants in the old system and the new system, who gets their decision reviewed and overturned? I’m sure you understand what I’m looking for. At the end of this, we must have evidence that it worked for all people of Canada, regardless of their demographic backgrounds. I wonder if you’re collecting that kind of data.
Ms. Pelot: Again, I’ll turn it over to my director to answer about data collection.
Ms. Zahab: Data collection continues for all levels of appeal and all demographics in terms of gender and in terms of the different ages and benefits. We do monitor that. In terms of Canada Pension Plan disability, we can tell you that 57% of CPP disability appellants are women. In the case of EI, 46% of claims are made by women.
We will continue to monitor the performance of the new model of SST, and we will continue to monitor any deviations and ensure that the performance requirements are met.
Am I answering your question?
Senator Omidvar: Partly. I’m just curious about whether you go beyond gender, region, age, et cetera. Do you collect data on race and ethnicity?
Ms. Zahab: We do not.
Senator Omidvar: Okay. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you to the witnesses.
My question is for Ms. Pelot. You said that 80% of the complaints filed with the Social Security Tribunal of Canada were from people with disabilities. I remember that, when we were studying the bill on accessibility, one of the obstacles that we identified and that gave rise to many complaints was that the forms were complex to fill out and that, sometimes, people with a permanent disability were denied because they were told that they no longer met the criteria. At the time, changes were proposed. In the data you have collected so far, is this complexity in filling in the forms still the basis of the various complaints? If so, has thought been given to making these changes or not? This could make things easier and prevent these many complaints.
Ms. Pelot: Thank you, senator. To my knowledge, the cases that are appealed to the Social Security Tribunal of Canada relate to decisions not to grant eligibility for benefits because the person would not have met the criteria of the legislation that governs access to disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. It is either the illness that affects the function or the criteria that are set out in the legislation, in fact.
Senator Mégie: Okay. It was precisely these criteria that we were talking about at the time; we said that it was not clear to some people. This sometimes made them eligible, sometimes ineligible from one year to the next, even though it’s the same disability and the same person. I’m throwing the idea at you, because if that’s one of the criteria that people are complaining about, that could help with the objective, in the move that you’re making to facilitate eligibility for people with disabilities. It could help to examine the forms or to get them to register online in new ways.
Senator Moncion: My question concerns the Social Insurance Number versus a digital identity. Could you tell us whether any work has been undertaken to replace the use of the Social Insurance Number with a digital identity and, if so, what conclusions have been drawn?
[English]
Ms. McCormick: I’m not aware of the digital identity element. Our focus within the Labour Program is primarily for the Social Insurance Number behind the My Service Canada Account. I can certainly find out for you what that work is — what we’ve scoped our work to be because the Social Insurance Number is a key identifier within that particular portal, along with a person’s name, date of birth and mother’s maiden name, I believe. The SIN is clearly one of the key identifiers there. So I don’t have an answer for you today, but we could certainly look into that for you.
Senator Moncion: Thank you. I think it’s the way of the future to get away from the Social Insurance Number.
In Bill C-30, there are a lot of areas where they are going to be using the Social Insurance Number for information requests. I think the government is probably the best place to start to bring along these changes.
[Translation]
With respect to my second question, when will the changes to the Social Security Tribunal of Canada be made or come into effect?
Ms. Pelot: Thank you, senator. We estimate that the changes will take 12 months to implement after receiving Royal Assent.
Senator Moncion: All right. Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Thank you to the witnesses for joining us today.
My question pursues the line of questioning around data collection. I was wondering about two areas of data collection. I understand from you that you do not collect disaggregated data based on race. I’m wondering what the reason is for that.
Ms. Pelot: I don’t currently have the data in front of me of exactly how we disaggregate data. I am aware of certain characteristics that are tracked. In terms of race and ethnicity, to my knowledge, it’s not a question we ask applicants when they bring forward an application under the Canada Pension Plan disability, and I believe it isn’t either for CPP or OAS, although I look to my director to correct me if I’m wrong on that.
Ms. Zahab: You are correct. Under the Privacy Act, we’re only permitted to collect information that would be used in determining eligibility for any of the benefits under OAS or CPP. It’s not a piece of information that would be used in determining whether somebody is eligible for a benefit, so currently we don’t have the authority.
There are other surveys that are undertaken in relation to persons with disabilities, such as the Statistics Canada surveys. We can use aggregated data from those to better understand our population.
Senator Moodie: I have a second question, which relates to the understanding of the subcategories or the categories of individuals who apply with disabilities. It sounds as if there is a certain amount of shifting in terms of qualifications over time, certainly from a medical perspective. From a perspective of understanding, just what are the categories, and what are the definitions of individuals with disabilities? What kind of clarity and what kind of data do you collect around that?
Ms. Pelot: The requirements that are set under the CPP legislation are that a person is considered disabled if they have a severe and prolonged disability. I will turn to my director to give more details on those criteria.
Ms. Zahab: In terms of severity and the prolonged nature of a disability, it needs to be a disability that prevents you from working at any substantially gainful occupation, so we do look at work capacity as well as medical condition, and then there is an element of how much you contributed to the program.
There are a number of elements that are collected, and there are classification codes that are used to identify different disabilities. There are a significant number of CPP disability beneficiaries that suffer from musculoskeletal, for example, and mental illness. So depending on the primary classification of a particular disease, there are specific codes that are used. We are seeing more and more combinations. So we are able to identify primary, and that allows us to better understand our population as well.
Does that answer your question, senator?
Senator Moodie: Yes, it does. Thank you.
Ms. Pelot: I would like to add, if I may, that the CPP disability is not based solely on specific medical conditions but rather on the broader criteria that we just set out.
Senator Bovey: I really appreciate the discussion we’ve had, and I’m particularly interested in following up on Senator Omidvar and Senator Moodie’s discussions on data.
I understand from your answer that you don’t have the authority to gather data based on race and cultural diversity. However, it seems to me that those realities are really transcending in a very meaningful and important way in all aspects of society. I guess my question is, wouldn’t that information be useful in developing programs going forward? Particularly, if I may, with people eligible for disability programs, I’d be interested to know where geography comes into it. I take a look at what goes on up in the Arctic and the way it seems to me — and maybe this is too strong a word — so many people are discriminated against because they have a disability. It’s where they live and there aren’t the services and there are stairs and they can’t even get into many of the buildings. I wonder, couldn’t this information be of use to you as you develop programs going forward?
Ms. Pelot: Yes. While the actual process for the administration of the CPP disability program does not — the Privacy Act doesn’t permit us to collect information, we do as a department as a whole go out and collect information on, for example, client experience. As my director, Tara, mentioned, there is the Statistics Canada information collected on persons with disabilities. There are various ways in which we have and are intending to go out and get information related to the clients that are served to try and improve the experience that they have.
Senator Bovey: Just by way of a quick follow-up, and I don’t want to take more time, but I do happen to be very close to a young woman who is disabled, and I can tell you she feels discriminated against with all these programs. She does not feel that her situation has been dealt with, and she’s one who has been disabled since birth. I think we as a nation have some improvement to do. I’ll leave it at that. Thank you.
Senator Frum: Ms. Pelot, can you help us understand how the costs associated with appeals are handled? Is it typical for people to hire lawyers when they go through this appeals process? In the case of a successful appeal, are costs reimbursed?
Ms. Pelot: I will again turn it to my director, please.
Ms. Zahab: Thank you for the question, senator.
There is a variety of options available to clients; however, we do not cover expenses. We do see clients retaining counsel to represent them. We also do see a fair number of clients represented by advocates and by organizations that offer that support, as well as family members. For that reason, you will see in this bill that we have included that the representative does not need to be a member of the bar, which was of particular concern when we were consulting stakeholders. They wanted to have the freedom to choose their representative.
Senator Frum: Do you have any rough idea of the typical cost of such an appeal?
Ms. Zahab: I do not. We would have to obtain that for you.
Senator Frum: Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: This is to Division 29, the collection of Social Insurance Numbers. This is a reasonable measure or a measure that I think reasonable people would support, but I will table a fear. Information is more and more prone to being hijacked in different ways. Just recently, a pipeline was hijacked in the United States for ransomware. I think our Social Insurance Numbers are the keys to the information, the wealth, the assets, relationships, et cetera, that we have. I’m really, really worried about it, so I’m going to ask you whether you are on top of following evolving best practices and protecting this information so that it is not used by individuals with criminal and other intents.
Ms. McCormick: Thank you, senator, for the question.
What I will say is that the way that we’re collecting it is behind — as I mentioned before — the My Service Canada Account, which has different programs that use it, for example, Employment Insurance, Canada Pension Plan, and then we will be one of the ones where our federally regulated employees can submit their complaints.
I completely understand the concern and the robustness that is required from the IT security side. I can say in the conversations, discussions and development of our project with IT, that concern is paramount. We understand and take very seriously the collection of the data that we do within the department from basically cradle to grave for all Canadians. I’m not an expert in terms of IT security, but I do know that there are vast improvements that they have been making behind these systems to ensure against any phishing that is happening, any malware attacks, and that this system is being defended by the measures that they are putting in place. I’ll leave it at that, if that’s okay.
Senator Dasko: I noticed a reference to the Social Insurance Numbers to be used to enforce the Non-smokers’ Health Act. I wonder if you might briefly comment on what that means. Thank you.
Ms. McCormick: Certainly. Because there are a number of different acts that fall within the Labour Program, the collection of the SIN could be used but it would not be used unless it’s absolutely necessary. We don’t see the need currently in terms of the collection within the Non-smokers’ Health Act. This is primarily for labour standards and for Federal Workers Compensation.
Senator Dasko: I see. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses for their testimony and thank you for answering our questions.
[English]
We are dealing now with Divisions 22 and 24, which amend the Canada Labour Code to change the definition of “previous contractor” in Part I and the leave provisions related to the death or disappearance of a child.
[Translation]
With us today, from Employment and Social Development Canada, are Ms. Barbara Moran, Director General, Labour Program; Ms. Lori Straznicky, Executive Director, Labour Program; and Mr. Sébastien St-Arnaud, Manager, Labour Program.
I don’t know who wants to speak first, but we are ready to hear your opening remarks.
[English]
Barbara Moran, Director General, Labour Program, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you for having me here today. I’m here to briefly discuss the two divisions.
I will start first with Division 22. Here I’m going to briefly discuss the amendments that are being proposed to the Canada Labour Code.
Part I of the code governs industrial relations and establishes the framework for collective bargaining between unions and employers in the federally regulated private sector. Part I applies to industries such as air transportation, interprovincial and international transportation, banking, telecommunications and broadcasting.
Amendments are proposed to better protect employees in the air transportation sector affected by contract retendering at airports. Many employees in the air transportation sector continue to work through the pandemic: deep-cleaning aircraft, safely handling baggage, performing other critical services that have allowed essential air travel to continue. These employees are at risk when a service contract changes hands between contractors. This practice, known as contract retendering, can result in employees being paid less when they are laid off and rehired, even if they are rehired to do the same work.
There is currently an equal remuneration protection in section 47.3 of Part I of the code that ensures that, after a case of contract retendering, the new contractor cannot remunerate pre-board security screeners at a rate lower than that provided by the previous contractor under the terms of a collective agreement.
The equal remuneration protection currently only applies to employers covered by Part I of the code that provide pre-board security screening services by way of a contract for services with another employer.
The proposed amendments will extend equal remuneration protection to all federally regulated employees covered by a collective agreement in the air transportation sector working at airports. This will ensure that when a service contract changes hands, affected employees are not paid less than employees of the previous contractor who provided the same or substantially similar services.
I’m going to move now to Division 24. This relates to leave related to death or disappearance. These are amendments that are being proposed under Part III of the Canada Labour Code.
In September 2018, the Government of Canada replaced the federal income support for parents of murdered or missing children grant program with the Canadian Benefit for Parents of Young Victims of Crime. This was done in response to a 2017 report by the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, which recommended broadening eligibility for the program in order to mitigate barriers to uptake.
The new benefit includes a number of changes to make the income support more inclusive and flexible, including extending the age limit of the victims from under 18 to under 25; expanding eligibility to parents whose children under the age of 14 are a probable party to the crime; increasing the income support amount by $100 to $450 per week; doubling the period in which recipients can receive the benefit to 104 weeks in situations where the child disappeared; and allowing recipients to work up to 20 hours a week while receiving the benefit.
While the new benefit was introduced in 2018, the government did not have the opportunity at that point to make corresponding changes to the leave related to death or disappearance under Part III of the Canada Labour Code. The proposed amendments to Part III of the Canada Labour Code would align the leave related to death or disappearance of a child with the improved Canadian Benefit for Parents of Young Victims of Crime in order to provide employees in the federally regulated private sector with job protection while they received the benefit.
The proposed changes to the code include extending eligibility for the leave to parents of children from under 18 years of age to under 25 years of age. This change recognizes the changing characteristics of Canadian families that see adult children staying with their parents beyond the age of 18.
The amendments will also increase the maximum length of the leave from 52 to 104 weeks in instances where the employee is a parent to a child that has disappeared. With this change, eligible parents whose child has disappeared would be entitled to the same amount of leave as parents whose child has died.
The amendments would increase the total amount of leave that may be taken —
The Chair: Ms. Moran, I’ve been requested to ask you to speak a little bit slower for the translation, if you please.
Ms. Moran: Certainly. Apologies.
Again, amendments would increase the total amount of leave that may be taken by employees with respect to the disappearance of a child from 52 to 104 weeks. This allows two or more parents of the same child who has disappeared to share up to 104 weeks of leave. This amendment reflects the change that extends the maximum duration of leave for parents of children who have disappeared from 52 to 104 weeks.
Finally, for parents of children under the age of 14, it would eliminate the exception that disentitles employees to the leave if the child were a party to the crime that led to their death.
These proposed amendments would come into force upon Royal Assent of the legislation.
I would be happy to take questions on either of those.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much for this presentation; indeed, we do have questions.
[English]
Senator Frum: Ms. Moran, you repeated the section of the budget act that has to do with what you’re calling contract retendering, which says that many employees in the air transportation sector have continued to work through the pandemic: deep cleaning aircraft, safely handling baggage and performing other critical services that have allowed necessary air travel to continue safely. Many of these services provided by these employees are contracted out by airports and air carriers. When these contracts change hands, workers are at risk of earning less money for the same job.
My question is, what examples, if any, can you provide us where contracts have changed hands and workers were subsequently paid less money for the same job in the air transportation sector?
Ms. Moran: Thank you for the question.
There have been a number of media reports in Canada about a series of retendered contracts at Toronto Pearson Airport that occurred between 2004 and 2017. There, there were documented wage declines of up to $8 per hour among baggage handlers during that period. In the same media reports, they documented a 160% turnover rate among baggage handlers affected by contract retendering at the Toronto Pearson Airport between 2004 and 2017.
We did an analysis of the collective agreements covering pre-board security screening officers that are covered by the existing equal remuneration protection under Part I of the code. This analysis showed that the wages of these employees who had this protection increased consistently over the past two decades and that these wages were generally consistent across the country. On the other hand, the collective agreements that we looked at for air transportation ramp attendants, for example, who are not covered by the existing equal remuneration protection at those same airports over the same period showed a less consistent increase in wages. While the wages did increase gradually over time, there were multiple periods of stagnation. In addition, the average entry-level wages for these employees have been generally lower than those for pre-board security screening officers at the same airport, despite the fact that they were almost the same in the early 2000s.
Those are a few of the examples I would provide.
Senator Frum: Just to be clear, though, you’re saying these changes were sparked by media reports, but the department didn’t do any independent analysis?
Ms. Moran: The independent analysis was what we did through the review of the collective agreements.
We also looked at various studies that were done. For example, there was a 2007 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office that indicated that contract retendering can cause safety risks and found that low wages and high turnover for ramp and fuel workers at American airports are major factors in ramp accidents.
Lastly, we did undertake back in 2019 — we did a notice to interested parties that was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Stakeholders were asked to provide their views on this issue and to provide data on it. In some cases, through their submissions, we did actually get 17 examples of contract retendering indicating wage declines of up to $8 an hour, or 31%, across several occupations.
Senator Frum: That leads to my next question, which is, which employees in other sectors, if any, might benefit in the future from the extension of equal remuneration protection through a similar amendment to the Canadian Labour Code?
Ms. Moran: At this point, we are just looking at airports. The reason for that is the evidence we have been able to find that there is a significant issue with the contract retendering in the airports. Were we to find the same level of evidence in other sectors, certainly we would be open to looking at those as well. At this stage, we’re just looking at airports.
Senator Frum: Thank you.
Senator Bovey: Thank you, Ms. Moran. This was an interesting presentation.
My question is going to be about Division 24. If I may say so, it looks to me that the purpose of Division 24 was to align the labour law to equal the benefits that have been changed in 2018.
I was intrigued by an article that I read in The Canadian Press yesterday, which quotes Heidi Illingworth, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. She voices concern that the benefits aren’t being used to their full extent and that there is not an awareness of the benefits of these programs for parents of children who are victims of murders and who have gone missing. She also referred to the fact that, for a while, the cost of this program was, in fact, exceeding the monies paid out.
I wonder if you can fill in both those aspects for me, please.
Ms. Moran: Thank you for the question, senator.
Unfortunately, my responsibilities with regard to the benefit are limited to the Canada Labour Code leave provisions. What we’re trying to do on our part with this change is to ensure that there is job-protected leave in place for the federally regulated employees who wish to avail themselves of the benefit. In that regard, one would hope that having that job-protected leave could at least facilitate their uptake of the leave.
In terms of the concerns with regard to the benefit itself, unfortunately, I don’t have that data with me today. It’s my colleagues in the department who would be able to respond to those questions.
Senator Bovey: If I may, if the purpose of this is to equalize the two parts of these terrible situations parents are facing, what are you proposing to do to make sure that parents are aware of this program? If they are not aware of the benefits, how on earth are they going to be aware of the leave they can get? Surely making sure that Canadians are aware of the program is critically important. Do you have mechanisms in place where you will be able to be in touch with those who are managing the benefit? As I understand it, this came into the budget so that the two pieces could be put together. I worry about defining chasms in society instead of building bridges. I’m looking to you for the bridge.
Ms. Moran: In terms of the Canada Labour Code changes, we ensure that if the legislation passes, those changes and the availability of the leave are communicated to federally regulated employers. In doing that, you’re right, it will raise the profile of the availability of this leave to employers as well as employees. Standard operating procedure for the labour program, when we do make legislative changes, is to make sure that it is pushed out to our stakeholder community in terms of the federally regulated sector.
We also ensure that it’s listed on our website, for example. The website provides a really good, comprehensive list of all the leave that is available.
Finally, our inspectors across the country also play a role in ensuring that employers and employees are aware of the leave provisions and for employers to ensure that they are providing these types of job-protected leave for their employees.
Senator Bovey: Thank you.
I have one really quick final question: What has the pandemic done about the awareness of these programs? Has it affected what you have brought in or how you think it will be implemented?
Ms. Moran: No, I wouldn’t say that it has impacted how we would be communicating this particular provision.
Senator Bovey: Thank you.
Senator R. Black: With respect to Division 24 and the Canada Labour Code, what consultations, if any, did the Government of Canada hold with stakeholders about the Canadian Benefit for Parents of Young Victims of Crime?
Ms. Moran: On the Labour Code provisions per se, there were no specific consultations done on those. Again, what we generally try to do under the Canada Labour Code is to align the leave provisions to whatever benefits. For example, when there are changes to Employment Insurance to parental leave, for example, we would make sure that the Canada Labour Code has leave that aligns to make sure that federally regulated employees are able to avail themselves of those leave provisions without fearing for the loss of their jobs.
On this one, we didn’t do any specific consultations. However, harkening back to the original redesign of the benefit itself, it was based on the recommendations of a 2017 review and report from the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime that made a number of recommendations for changes to the benefit. That was the reason why there was a decision taken by the government to redesign that benefit.
Senator R. Black: Thank you.
How was the age of 25 determined? Eligibility has been extended to parents of children who are 18 years of age or older but under 25 years of age. How was that “under 25 years of age” selected as the age for a parent to qualify? Why not 26 or 24? Thank you.
Ms. Moran: Thank you for the question.
Again, it goes back to that 2017 report by the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. That review found that one of the most common reasons for applications for the benefit being denied was because the victim was over the age of 18. That was what that found. Expanding it from 18 to under 25 recognizes that Canadian youth are living with their parents longer than in previous decades. The risk of violent victimization is highest among persons aged 20 to 24 and then subsequently decreases with age. That was the rationale for that.
Senator R. Black: Thanks very much.
Senator Moodie: I’m going to focus my question on Division 24 again, which is a very popular area today. With the changes that have been made with this amendment, how many more parents do you think will now be accessing this benefit, in view of the changes both in definition around age and the other changes that are in place?
The second part of that question would be this: Why 104 weeks? What is the evidence to support 104 weeks being the appropriate time needed for parents to recover adequately?
Ms. Moran: Thank you for the question, senator.
I’ll answer your second question first about the extension to 104 weeks. That was done in response to findings from the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that the median length of time for a homicide case to be completed was approximately 64 weeks, so the extension of the income support period to 104 weeks has afforded recipients the flexibility to also take time off to attend court proceedings, if needed. The proposed amendments to the leave ensure that parents of children who have disappeared have access to job-protected leave throughout the entire 104-week period.
Regarding your first question, unfortunately I don’t have the data in terms of since the program was changed in terms of what the level of take-up has been.
Sébastien, do you have that information?
Sébastien St-Arnaud, Manager, Labour Program, Employment and Social Development Canada: Unfortunately, that is not available.
Ms. Moran: So we don’t have that.
In terms of the impact the changes to the Canada Labour Code will have on the uptake of the leave, again, it would be challenging to estimate that. There would be very few who would be able to avail themselves of this leave. The federally regulated sector is fairly small, so the number of people, thankfully, who have this occur to them is also very small, so to try to estimate what these changes will do — it’s very important to ensure that for that very small number of people to whom this horrible thing happens, that they are able to avail themselves of the leave. But one would anticipate that even with this change, the total number of employees who will access it would remain fairly low.
I’ll turn to my manager again, Sébastien, to see if he would have any other data that he would suggest.
Mr. St-Arnaud: No, unfortunately, I don’t have data. Ms. Moran said that we have a small population in the federal private sector, so it will be a very small number. We don’t have this information. Sorry.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Moodie, did you have another question?
Senator Moodie: No, not at this time.
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: I will ask a question in relation to each of the divisions, starting with Division 22.
With this measure, we know that the government’s aim is to ensure that wages do not fall when a contract is re-tendered. However, my question relates to the need to slow down staff turnover. Are there any measures in place, or is this or any other measure planned specifically to counteract staff turnover during a re-tendering process? If so, what are they? Can you explain how the measures would work in this regard?
[English]
Ms. Moran: Thank you for the question, senator.
I suggest that this measure is actually expected to help reduce turnover and generally improve stability in the airport sector. That would benefit employees and employers in the air transportation sector. For employees, we hope to see that it would reduce stress and other negative mental health impacts that are associated with having wages reduced. As well, for employers, the cost of turnover — so things like hiring and training new people would likely be reduced as a result. If individuals have their wages protected at the level when the contract gets re-tendered, they would be more likely to stay. Yes, indeed, there is an expectation that there will be a reduction in turnover as well as improved stability associated with these changes to contract re-tendering.
[Technical difficulties]
What that’s about is, again, if an employee has the assurance that their wages are going to be protected when it’s re-tendered, that reduces stress and other negative health impacts. For employers, the big advantage is that the cost of turnover — so if somebody stays as a result of having their wages protected, they are less inclined to leave the job. Costs associated with the employer related to hiring, training and that type of thing would likely be reduced.
The last point I would make is that we feel there would also be a benefit by a reduction in occupational health and safety risks associated with contract re-tendering. Again, it’s that point about if there’s greater stability in the sector because you’re protecting the wages, then [Technical difficulties].
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: My question concerns Division 24 and relates to the exception for children who have died as a result of their involvement in a crime. Why has the exception to the right to leave been maintained for parents of children aged between 14 and 18 who have died as a result of their involvement in a crime? In addition, could you tell us how many children this exception applied to in the last year for which data was compiled?
[English]
Ms. Moran: Thank you for the question.
Again, what I would say is that I rely back on that 2017 report of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. There, in her [Technical difficulties] requirement that the child not be a willing party to the crime was inconsistent in Canada’s approach to youth justice under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. One of the principles of application in that act is that while young persons must be held accountable for criminal acts, they’re not necessarily accountable in the same way or to the same extent as adults. So that’s a bit of the rationale behind the change.
In terms of data, unfortunately no, I don’t have data on that question in terms of the redesign of the benefit.
Senator Forest-Niesing: You don’t have any past data, even if it’s distant past?
Ms. Moran: No. Unfortunately, we don’t.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Thank you.
The Chair: I was just curious about that data. Is it that you don’t have it or it just doesn’t exist somewhere else? I think we have lost you once more. That’s okay. We will be able to figure it out. Let’s continue with questions because we still have a few of them.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, Ms. Moran, for being here and for your discussion.
I have some questions about the change in the code. Let me just paint a scenario. We have, let’s say, Air Canada as a hypothetical example, and they are hiring a food-service company, Company A. They decide to put it out to tender, and they then hire Company B instead of Company A. So what happens with the workers at Company A is they all lose their jobs, and the workers at Company B get the jobs. The code changes will only affect the workers who are somehow able to transition from Company A to Company B, and I wonder how many people that would be. In the example I gave, the situation would be as I described it, and all kinds of people would be losing their jobs. Those people are not protected by the bill, only those who happen to be rehired by another company. I’m wondering how many people are actually in this sector who are rehired by Company B in this situation. Is it a large number? Is it a small number? My experience with contracting out when I worked in the private sector was just the situation that I described: all kinds of people lose their job from one company, and those jobs are given to people in another company. I wonder if you could just explain that situation a little bit. Thank you.
The Chair: If you could please go ahead, Ms. Straznicky. I see Ms. Moran seems to be having some difficulty.
Lori Straznicky, Executive Director, Labour Program, Employment and Social Development Canada: I will jump in here. Thanks for the question.
Our understanding anecdotally is that in the federally regulated jobs that we’d be looking at here — so, for example, baggage handlers and cleaners — typically, when the contract would be re-tendered and change hands, because of the nature of the airside service that they’re providing, they have certain credentials they need. Typically, a large number of those employees who would be let go by the previous contractor are often rehired by the second one to do either the same or a similar job. There is evidence to suggest that it is the same people who are going forward.
In terms of the number of those people, the point that you raised that it would need to be employees covered by a collective agreement to begin with, that is one hurdle that the employees who [Technical difficulties] there’s the potential for this protection to cover a maximum of about 95,000 non-management employees working in the air sector, but they would also need to work in airports and be covered by a collective agreement in order to benefit from it. There’s less of a likelihood that all of these employees would regularly experience contract re-tendering, so the expectation is the majority of that group would not be affected by the change.
Another piece is that roughly 5,500 of these employees are currently screening officers who are already protected by the provision. So the data that we’ve looked at suggests that about 51% of employees in the air sector are covered by collective agreements and therefore could potentially benefit from the extended equal remuneration protection.
Just one final thing to note is that typically the collective agreement coverage that we see in this area is for employees who work directly for airlines and airport authorities and also for large contractors. So hopefully that offers some information.
Senator Dasko: Yes, I think what you’re saying is there is a potential number of workers to be covered by this, but in actual fact it’s probably somewhat different than that. The potential is in a situation of stability without companies changing hands and then we’re getting to a much smaller number in the end. Yes.
Ms. Straznicky: I think that’s a fair way to classify it, yes.
Senator Dasko: Recently, the Government of Canada reached an agreement with Air Canada to support them and bail them out in a $5.9 billion package. I wonder if this change in the Labour Code was in that agreement. Was it part of the agreement that the government reached with Air Canada?
Ms. Straznicky: No. The work on this change began back in 2018 when the then Minister of Labour announced that she was going to extend this provision through equal remuneration protection. Our Labour Program did go out and consult with stakeholders in 2019 on the question and then continued to work on it since that time. So the work on this had, in fact, begun prior to the pandemic.
That said, acknowledging that a lot of the workers who have continued to work throughout the pandemic, such as those who are doing baggage handling or maintenance work or cleaning aircraft, they are vulnerable and are essential workers throughout this, so part of this measure was to ensure that they were not left behind as we move toward economic recovery in the sector.
Senator Dasko: It wasn’t part of that deal, is what you’re saying. It wasn’t incorporated into the arrangements that were made.
Ms. Straznicky: No. The changes were a separate policy.
Senator Kutcher: I have one question with three parts. On Division 24, God forbid that any parent has to go through that horrible time, but one would be in an intense emotional state. Three things. One, how do parents learn about this benefit? Two, what’s the process that they go through to access it? Three, have there been any concerns raised that the existing application process may be overly burdensome, and if so, what has been done to mitigate that?
The Chair: I see, Ms. Moran, you have succeeded in returning. Let’s try again. I can tell you that your colleague has been very helpful.
Ms. Moran: Thank you, and my apologies. My Wi-Fi is apparently very unstable. I will actually defer to my colleague on this because I only caught the tail end of the senator’s question.
Mr. St-Arnaud: Just to repeat your question, you are asking what was done to promote the program? Is that correct?
Senator Kutcher: Three things. How do parents learn about the program? How do they access it, or what’s the process they go through to access it? Third, have there been any concerns raised that the accessing of the program is overly burdensome, and if so, how have those concerned been mitigated?
Mr. St-Arnaud: I can answer for the first one. For every Canadian who sadly has experience with this kind of event, there’s information online about the program, for instance. There is information on how to apply for the program. So yes, they have access to the program through applications online.
In terms of the detail about the burdensome of the program by itself, I will recommend that maybe we talk to — we are not in a position to respond to this question since we’re just in charge of the Canada Labour Code.
Senator Kutcher: Could I follow up a bit on that? It’s all well and good that some things are online, but my gosh, if you’re in that kind of situation, the last thing you’re thinking of is going online looking for stuff. What’s the process that people who are in this horrific situation are informed of this potential support from the government?
Mr. St-Arnaud: To access the leave by itself, I guess people will have to turn to online or they can ask their employers. If they are subject to collective agreement, they can talk to their union reps, for instance, and get information in terms of what kind of leave is available for them. Through the access, for instance, to the information about the leave, under the Canada Labour Code there is information that would redirect the employees to the benefit by itself. There are different ways that parents who support this can get the information that they need. Does that answer your question?
Senator Kutcher: I think it does. My understanding of this is that there is no way that someone who is in such an emotional state would actually probably even know about the benefit, unless there was a potential reach out.
Maybe we can come back to this at committee.
The Chair: I think Ms. Moran is trying to jump in. Did you want to add to that?
Ms. Moran: Sure. Just to add to what my colleague said, I would say that one of the things that we can do to help as well is, again, push out to our employers and employees about the availability of this leave so that an employer would be aware of it and, if this tragic occurrence happens, then the employer would be able to communicate the availability of this leave to the employee as well. So that’s another avenue that could be used to ensure that people are aware of the availability of the benefit and the associated leave.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: I’m going to stick with the line of questioning opened by Senator Kutcher. In 2017, the former Ombudsman of Victims of Crime, Sue O’Sullivan, launched a review of the Federal Income Support for Parents of Murdered or Missing Children. Her report stated that the application process was onerous and difficult for victims to understand. Add to this the trauma that they are going through. Add to this the possibility — and it is a possibility — that they do not work for an employer who has an HR department but work for a small business employer. Add to this the possibility that they may be self-employed or not working at all. Horrendous things happen to people, unfortunately, in all kinds of situations.
It seems to me that this program is pitched to an individual in a certain context. I know that, gratefully, you have said to us a few times that the population is very small. I think I heard you say you don’t collect any data on this small population, but I wonder whether there is a policy imperative, in fact, to collect the data if the mandate was given to you. Would you agree?
Ms. Moran: Thank you, senator.
I would need to go back to my colleagues with Employment and Social Development Canada who have responsibility for the benefit to find out what data they do collect. In fact, I’m happy to go back to them with those questions and provide it to you once I have that data. I just don’t have it myself related to the Canada Labour Code leave provision.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you. I would appreciate that.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: On the website dedicated to the Canadian Benefit for Parents of Young Victims of Crime, I found one of the eligibility criteria for the incident, and I quote:
In the case of a deceased child, where the child is 14 years of age and older, the child must not have been a willing party to the crime that led to their death.
There are incidents that are sometimes reported on television. For example, during a fight, two young people hit each other and, unfortunately, one of them gets a fatal blow and dies.
Is this part of the admissible crimes or not? I would like to have clarification on this criterion, please.
[English]
Ms. Moran: Thank you, senator, for the question. I might turn to my manager to see if he would be able to respond. Thank you.
Mr. St-Arnaud: Usually when a parent who made an application to the Canadian Benefit for Parents of Young Victims of Crime, he will have, at the same time, if he has a police report, for instance, information, because usually in that situation, it would be somebody who is deceased. So there’s a good chance if it’s related to a crime, for instance, a police report will be provided at the same time during the application. I guess the report by itself will decide whether the employee would be eligible or not. It will be helpful in terms of determining if the employee is eligible or not for the benefit. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: All right, thank you.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Given the number of questions about Division 24 that have been asked about data, information and the number of people affected, I now realize that we are still talking about very tragic situations and circumstances that occur only very rarely. Therefore, we are talking about a very small number of incidents, if I had to guess.
However, listening to you speak, I wonder: Without having data on the number of times these measures have been used in the past or the people who will be affected by the changes that will be made in this division, without having made any projections about the possible use of this measure or its possible implementation, are you trying to solve a problem without knowing if it really exists?
[English]
Ms. Moran: Thank you for the question.
I think what I would say is that, again, on the data issue, I will have to go back to my colleagues that run the benefit to see if they can provide a better sense of what the level of take-up is of the benefit.
From a Labour Code point of view, I would say even though one would anticipate the number of people who are availing themselves of this is quite low, it’s very important that we ensure that individuals have job-protected leave that is associated with the various benefits that the government offers because, without that, there is a risk that they could lose their job when they avail themselves of that leave. Even if I were to say that I expect that the full number of people who are going to take this would be quite small because the federal jurisdiction is small, it’s important for even those couple of people to make sure that they are able to have the leave in place.
I would also say that putting it in place does provide that opportunity for employers to be aware of it and to be able to communicate that to employees that may be going through this tragic occurrence.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Thank you. That clarifies it.
Senator Bovey: I’m going to go back to what I said at the beginning of this discussion. I’m worried about the two programs being disconnected. I would really hope, given that the fact that you don’t have the numbers at your fingertips now, that you really do build bridges between these two parts of the program. I agree with Senator Kutcher when he talks about the stress people are in under situations like that. They’re not going online looking for programs. Any advice I can give would be to please try to draw some of those connections together. Otherwise, we’ll go right back to that article I read that was published yesterday that people are concerned that people are not aware of it and won’t be able to find it.
Ms. Moran: Thank you, senator.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Could you explain to me the relationship between the Canada Labour Code and the Criminal Code? Is there a connection between these two measures and why is this measure introduced today?
I think there is a principle of harmonization in this case and I would like you to clarify this division.
[English]
Ms. Moran: I may turn to my manager, Mr. St-Arnaud, to respond.
[Translation]
Mr. St-Arnaud: The purpose of the leave and the benefit as such is that they are intended for children who are victims of a crime recognized under the Criminal Code. This explains the relationship between the leave and the Criminal Code or the benefit if you like.
Senator Moncion: There is no connection in terms of the number of weeks? In this case, they are trying to make a change by increasing the number of weeks of benefit.
Mr. St-Arnaud: The number of weeks is a period during which employees can have up to 104 weeks of leave if they wish. In terms of the benefit, there are 35 weeks of benefit available to employees, who can use them at any time during this 104-week period.
Employees can be expected to take a certain period of time to deal with the situation, for example, when a child dies. They may wish to return to work after a number of weeks when they are more comfortable. However, the purpose of this long period is also to allow for a trial. This gives much more flexibility. Parents can still take time off work and access a benefit to cover their salary during their period of leave to be able to attend court proceedings. That is why there is a 104-week period; it is there to give parents more flexibility to use the benefit as they wish.
Does that answer your question?
Senator Moncion: Yes, that answers my question, and I hope it also clarifies things for my colleagues.
There is really an issue of harmonization between crime and accessibility, and the Canada Labour Code is being amended to further address the more disturbing aspects of these situations in a family context, as well as in the context of young victims and the crime that is committed.
The Chair: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. St-Arnaud. It does indeed help us to understand all this better.
I would like to thank our witnesses, who have been very helpful to us in understanding these two divisions. Honourable senators, that concludes this part of our meeting.
We welcome our final panel of witnesses to consider Division 28, which amends the National Research Council Act to grant the council the power to engage in the production of “drugs” or “devices” as defined in the Food and Drugs Act.
With us, from the National Research Council of Canada, is Stephen Scott, Director General, Policy, Strategy and Performance. We’re also hoping to have Ms. Christine Jodoin, Director General, Biologics Manufacturing Centre Project. She has problems connecting, but we are trying to do everything we can to get her to participate.
We also have Darryl Patterson, Director General, Biomanufacturing Strategy Implementation Team at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.
Without further ado, we’ll start with Mr. Scott’s opening remarks.
[English]
Stephen Scott, Director General, Policy, Strategy and Performance, National Research Council of Canada: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the invitation to speak with the committee today about the government’s proposed amendments to the National Research Council Act, which are in Division 28 of the Budget Implementation Act.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that National Research Council facilities are on the traditional, unceded territories of many First Nations, Inuit and Métis people. Their ancestral footsteps and rights extend beyond the boundaries that exist today. We respectfully honour these peoples’ rights, history and relationships with this land.
For over 100 years, the NRC has supported Canada in challenging times. Our early research focused on building Canada’s scientific foundation in the years following the First World War and through the hardships of the Great Depression. This positioned the NRC to deliver science and technology support during the Second World War and contribute to the 20th century sustained period of nation building.
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Research Council has mobilized various capabilities to support Canada’s response to the crisis. The NRC legislative amendments proposed in the Budget Implementation Act are about positioning the NRC to deliver domestic vaccine manufacturing capacity in Canada going forward.
Before speaking to the two amendments specifically, I’ll take a moment to provide some initial background.
In August 2020, the Government of Canada announced an investment of $126 million to design, construct and operate a new biomanufacturing facility adjacent to the NRC’s existing Royalmount site in Montreal to enable the domestic production of COVID-19 vaccines. This announcement included a commitment to operate the facility through a public-private partnership.
The Biologics Manufacturing Centre, or BMC, is currently on schedule to be completed by the end of July 2021. The build-out of the shell is finalized, and the NRC has started working on commissioning the facility, with the expectation to be able to do engineering runs by the end of the year. Depending on regulatory approval by Health Canada, the NRC expects to be able to produce vaccines shortly after. Once operational, the facility will provide a vaccine-manufacturing capability of up to 2 million vaccine doses per month.
As additional background, in February of this year, the government announced the signing of a memorandum of understanding with the biotechnology company Novavax to pursue options to produce its COVID-19 vaccine at the NRC facility once both the vaccine candidate and the facility receive the required Health Canada approvals.
In this context, the government is seeking two amendments to the National Research Council Act through the Budget Implementation Act.
The first amendment would enable the National Research Council to manufacture and produce medical products such as vaccines on a larger scale to respond to pandemics and other public health needs. Currently, the NRC is authorized to produce medical products on a smaller scale for things like clinical trials and experiments. This new authority would provide the NRC with the ability to manufacture vaccines at a larger scale as soon as the new biomanufacturing facility receives regulatory approval from Health Canada.
Second, there is a proposed amendment to provide the NRC with the ability to incorporate and stand up arms-length entities, such as not-for-profit organizations. Under this amendment, the NRC would be able to establish special purpose collaboration models that increase and deepen linkages between NRC researchers, academics and the private sector. The new biomanufacturing facility, which will be operated through a public-private partnership over the longer term, is an example of where the new collaboration model could be used.
Before closing, I will touch briefly on the NRC’s role more broadly in the government’s efforts to quickly developed made-in-Canada vaccines and therapeutics and increase our country’s domestic biomanufacturing capacity.
The NRC is working with partners across government to advance research and development for vaccines and therapies to prevent and treat the spread of COVID-19, in line with the best advice provided by the Government of Canada’s vaccine and therapeutics task forces. This includes the NRC’s collaboration with VBI Vaccines, which was first announced in March 2020, to develop a vaccine targeting COVID-19 and related respiratory viruses. The NRC is also supporting VIDO-InterVac at the University of Saskatchewan on the development and production of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate.
In addition, to further support COVID-19 vaccine development, the NRC Industrial Research Assistance Program is also providing support to seven innovative small- and medium-sized enterprises for the development of vaccine candidates. NRC IRAP is also working with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to provide support to three innovative firms to scale up production facilities and increase Canada’s biomanufacturing capacity.
Finally, in support of Canada’s biologics manufacturing capacity for research, the NRC is also building a permanent clinical trial material facility at the Royalmount site in Montreal. Once complete, this facility will be able to produce 500 litres of clinical trial materials per month to support future vaccine research and development in Canada.
In closing, addressing complex, modern-day challenges requires increasingly deeper collaboration with non-government entities in order to leverage the best minds and ideas from the private and not-for-profit sectors, as well as academia. The legislative amendments being proposed as part of the Budget Implementation Act will enable the National Research Council to continue to deliver on its mandate in three core roles within the science, technology and innovation ecosystem, which are advancing scientific and technical knowledge, supporting government policy objectives and supporting business innovation.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, and we will now be pleased to take your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Scott. We will begin with questions from the deputy chairs.
Senator Bovey: Thank you, Dr. Scott. I found that very interesting. I am a person who really supports the triple-P partnerships, having worked with them in a variety of capacities over a number of years.
I am intrigued that Division 28 provides the authority for the National Research Council for the incorporation of corporations and the acquisition of shares in corporations. Is this, as a result of the pandemic, to try to fast track some of the crises or challenges the country has faced, or is this a step that has been under review or contemplation for quite some time? Do you have the right to go to a company and buy shares to have a good holding in them, or do you do it like anybody else who takes on these partnerships? What rights or authorities do you have to be the lead as opposed to following opportunities that corporations might give you?
Mr. Scott: Thank you for the questions, I am happy to provide some answers.
On the first question, in terms of acquisition of shares, the senator is correct. The legislation is worded in a way that would provide the NRC with the authority to both establish on its own an arms-length entity as well as to enter into a partnership with another entity or organization as part of an arms-length entity or not-for-profit organization. The legislation was worded that way specifically to provide the flexibility for the NRC for both of those situations. If there is a situation down the road where the NRC would wish to stand up an arms-length entity, we would have the flexibility to do either of those. That flexibility is built into the legislation.
In terms of acquiring shares in a company, the legislation, or the power, is broad. It doesn’t specify whether that would be in the instance of a not-for-profit or for-profit corporation, so there is flexibility there. The priority, as a government and from the public policy perspective, or the focus would likely be on the not-for-profit side. That is certainly the focus from a policy perspective. The BMC, which I spoke about in my opening remarks, is certainly an example of where that could be used at some point down the road.
Senator Bovey: Was this pandemic-inspired?
Mr. Scott: The authority is certainly tied to the biologic manufacturing centre. Following the announcement last year to basically construct a new facility from a field of grass at the existing Royalmount site in Montreal, the intention from the outset, including what was part of the announcement last year, was to transition it to a public-private partnership. That was certainly tied to that decision.
Senator Frum: Mr. Scott, as you have said, Division 28 amends the National Research Council Act to provide the National Research Council of Canada the authority to engage in the production of drugs or devices. I will pick up on Senator Bovey’s thought by saying that I do assume that this initiative was precipitated by the pandemic. Is the granting of this new authority a statement about the government’s failure to be ready on both the vaccine and PPE front for the COVID-19 pandemic?
Mr. Scott: Thank you for the question.
As noted, the authority is tied to the establishment and stand-up of the biologics manufacturing centre that was announced last year and is continuing to move forward, as noted in the comments at the outset. The authority that’s part of the Budget Implementation Act is really — I would frame it as a tool in the toolkit for the National Research Council to operationalize and put in place that decision.
Senator Frum: Thank you.
The learning from the SARs report of 2003 indicates that the NRC’s Institute for Biodiagnostics in Winnipeg and the Institute for Biological Sciences in Ottawa developed an effective vaccine for group C meningococcal disease. The NRC already has the capacity to develop drugs, so what is the new added power that Division 28 brings?
Mr. Scott: Thank you for the question.
In the current National Research Council Act, the NRC has the legal authority and mandate to produce medical products on a smaller scale, so for things like clinical trials and experiments. If there is an experiment going forward and there needs to be a small amount of drugs or therapeutics for vaccines produced to conduct those experiments or clinical trials, the NRC has the ability to do that today. That’s right in the National Research Council Act, which is the founding legislation for the NRC.
The new authority, to answer the question, would provide us with the legal authority to produce on a much larger scale. As I stated in my opening remarks, once the BMC is operational, it would have the capacity of producing up to 2 million vaccine doses per month, which is considered above the threshold of a clinical trial or experiment. So the authority in the Budget Implementation Act would provide the NRC with the legal mandate to do that work.
Senator Frum: Is the NRC positioning itself to go into competition with the private sector?
Mr. Scott: On that question, I would ask my colleague, Christine Jodoin, to respond.
Christine Jodoin, Director General, Biologics Manufacturing Centre Project, National Research Council of Canada: Thank you very much.
The intention is not to compete with the private sector. It’s actually the opposite.
The BMC has really a dual public role mandate, I would say. The first one is to be ready at any time to be able to pivot to address the pandemic emergency. As such, that means the facility needs to be ready in terms of constant GMP certified operational readiness to pivot.
The second objective is to support the growth of the biomanufacturing capacity in Canada. As such, it’s not there to compete with the private sector but to support and complement their efforts. In particular, if we look at the landscape of the biomanufacturing sector in Canada, one of the things that will support this mandated BMC is supporting industry, and in particular, SMEs and academia that have limited access to production facilities of this nature that they can use to scale up. We are there to support them rather than compete with them.
The other thing I would say is in the continuum of biomanufacturing, the BMC is positioned in terms of, I would call it, proof of product. It’s there to support and de-risk production at a certain scale before it can be something that can be undertaken, I would say, in a bulk commercial manner such as CMOs in the ecosystem.
Senator Frum: Thank you.
Senator R. Black: I have a couple of questions.
Division 28 in part amends the National Research Council Act to provide the National Research Council of Canada with the authority to engage in the production of drugs or devices for the purpose of protecting or improving public health. Specifically, I believe there are certain requirements for the use of this authority whereby approval from the Minister of Innovation, in consultation with the Minister of Health, may be needed. Can you share with us the purpose of the requirements to receive ministerial approval?
Mr. Scott: Thank you very much for the question.
The legislative text was drafted with the provision as noted, that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry would need to approve the exercise of such authority in the future, in consultation with the Minister of Health. It was designed that way to reflect the exceptional nature of such authority. The policy rationale behind that was, in the future, if the National Research Council did need to exercise this authority, given its exceptional nature, it was appropriate to structure it that way so the ministers would need to approve prior to the exercise of that.
Senator R. Black: Thank you.
Division 28 outlines that while the Royalmount site facility will be operated by NRC in the short term, it currently does not have the legal authority for the large-scale production of drugs or devices necessary to protect or improve public health. The site, as you have mentioned, is slated to become operable in early 2022 under a public-private partnership to increase production capacity. You have shared with us the private sector parties, or some of the names, anyway. Will the facility only be able to produce the approved COVID-19 vaccination and research? Or over time, might it be repurposed in the future to make Canada more self-sufficient in terms of all vaccine production?
Mr. Scott: I’ll defer to my colleague, Christine Jodoin.
Ms. Jodoin: Thank you.
It is not just for COVID vaccines, definitely. We are currently addressing COVID vaccines, and that’s the priority right now and into next year. The intent is it’s not just for COVID vaccines, but it could be for other biologics, therapeutics and supporting the production of drugs, such as drugs for rare diseases. A lot of these other drugs that are too risky for the market to undertake, those are things that the BMC intends to undertake, again, as its public mandate to support growing biomanufacturing capacity in Canada but also ensuring that drugs can be produced that otherwise the market would not undertake.
Senator R. Black: Thank you to the witnesses. My questions have been answered.
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: Actually, I had other questions, but they have already been answered. I’m going to ask you a single question. Mr. Scott, in your comments you said that these measures would enable the production of up to 2 million vaccines or drugs per month.
My question to you is this: Do you think this would allow us to reach a level of self-sufficiency in the event of another pandemic? If a surplus is envisioned, would that allow us to sell or offer our surplus vaccines to other countries in need?
[English]
Mr. Scott: I’ll ask my colleague Christine Jodoin to answer.
Ms. Jodoin: Thank you.
Just going back to the estimate that Stephen Scott provided you with, approximately 2 million doses per month of vaccine, which could be the equivalent of 24 million doses per year, keep in mind that the actual amount will vary depending on the vaccine type and their manufacturing yield. This is really only an estimate. I will say it could be smaller or bigger. That is just one point of clarification on that.
The second thing I want to clarify is that the BMC is there to respond to emergencies. It is really there to ensure, I would say, against a gap in terms of domestic supply. In other words, again, in the role of supporting biomanufacturing capacity in Canada, it is looking at gaps during a pandemic in terms of vaccines. The BMC is there to ensure a surety of supply. The vaccines that it would develop are there to ensure the surety in terms of any gaps in biomanufacturing capacity in Canada. In particular, it would make sure that very vulnerable communities are targeted for those vaccines, such as front-line workers and people in long-time retirement and other communities that are vulnerable. That’s just one thing.
The other thing is that it is of larger scale with a production capacity of approximately 4,000 litres per month, but keeping in mind that relative to other biomanufacturing facilities, it is not that big. There is not the intention that it would fully vaccinate the whole population. It could be done, but it would take a number of months. I just wanted to clarify that.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much for this answer.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Thank you to the witnesses for coming to join us and to share your information with us.
I wanted to follow up on that line of capacity. I’m just trying to understand. You talk about this role being a gap filler, if you will, a responsive role, a role in which this organization would respond to need and would build capacity. The numbers of 4,000 litres per month of biomanufacturing products, 24 million doses and so on have been thrown out there. From zero to that, how quickly is it going to be possible for you to do this? And what’s it going to take for you to actually ramp up, and, in realistic terms, what are we looking at in terms of your becoming a producer in response to a need?
Ms. Jodoin: Thank you for the question.
If you mean in the actual situation right now that we’re at, which is that we are now scheduled, as planned, to finish the construction of the facility in July, including the commissioning, qualification and validation, and then to work toward a drug establishment licence later in the summer, and then do engineering runs by the end of December, and then subsequently in the following year be able to produce, you’re right that we won’t be able to produce up to that amount of an estimated 2 million a month right away when we start. There is a lot of time that has to be done before full production in terms of testing and making sure that we have consistency and stability in the batches. In terms of ramping up to an estimated 2 million per month, I think, realistically, it would be covering next year and into the following year that we probably would be able to ramp up in that capacity.
Senator Moodie: My understanding is that the role of this organization and this capability is not in the acute phase of the pandemic or the outbreak or the acute phase of need. It will be in the follow-up phase, the intermediate phase in a year to two years’ time. Would that be true?
Ms. Jodoin: I’ll clarify. My apologies.
Yes. I think we have to remember that when this was announced in terms of building this facility, which was last summer, we were in a pandemic. The reality is that while there is a vaccine roll-out right now for Canadians, I think it is still very important that we get ready for the pandemic such that we have to plan into next year whether there will be a requirement for the facility to support boosters. We don’t know necessarily the life cycle of the efficacy of the current vaccines. We want to certainly be in the ready mode to respond to any of those needs into next year.
Senator Moodie: I would like to understand. An important part of the process is the research and the partnering that you will need to do with the research centres and with the research minds within our country. Over the years, that has been significantly contracted and money into research has depleted. That’s a huge concern, especially in a situation where we’re now looking to generate local expertise that moves into local production. How do you see this unfolding? What steps are being taken to boost important biomedical research in vaccines and other important drugs?
Ms. Jodoin: I can speak to NRC’s role in this area. I’ll defer to my colleague Darryl Patterson to talk about the funding that’s been provided for research outside of NRC in support of investments that have happened during the pandemic and before that as well as with the biomanufacturing strategy.
In terms of NRC, we do support a lot of research in this space. We do have the Human Health Therapeutics Research Centre that does R&D with academia and the private sector focusing on developing and supporting enabling platforms for biologics development and biomanufacturing. That is something that they have done significantly. As such, in this space, they have supported many potential vaccine candidates, such as VBI and VIDO in Saskatchewan. So they are supporting that. Obviously, that is complemented with other funds that some of these vaccine candidates and others have received. That’s the work that NRC has done in this area.
We do have some stats on the number of organizations that it’s helped in terms of the clinical stage, but I’ll defer to my colleague Darryl Patterson on the bigger picture of investments in this area.
Darryl Patterson, Director General, Biomanufacturing Strategy Implementation Team, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada: Thank you, Christine.
Senator, your question is very relevant and an important piece of the overall biomanufacturing strategy that we’re moving forward with. There is certainly a recognition and an understanding that in order to rebuild the life sciences sector and the biomanufacturing industry, it’s not just about building the end capabilities to manufacture vaccines. The entire value chain needs to be nurtured and developed, not only on their own but in concert with the investments you’re making in the biomanufacturing capacity realm.
In Budget 2021, there are significant amounts of money earmarked for research and for infrastructure. There’s $500 million for the Canadian Foundation for Innovation to support bioscience capital and infrastructure needs of post-secondary institutions and research hospitals. There’s $250 million for federal research granting councils to create a new tri-council biomedical research fund, and $45 million to the Stem Cell Network to support stem cell and regenerative medicine as well as a couple of other funding mechanisms.
The idea is that when the strategy rolls out, it’s going to have a global view that looks to support strategic areas of research that capitalizes on Canadian expertise in a way that feeds into the sector and the value across the supply chain. It’s a very relevant question and one that the government is focusing on in terms of an overall strategy.
Senator Kutcher: I have two questions, one for Mr. Patterson and the other for Mr. Scott and Ms. Jodoin.
Realizing that Canada is a very small therapeutic market globally and that the pandemic has now driven global competition for biopharma R&D, first question, Mr. Patterson: The consultation document, “Considering the creation of new biomanufacturing capacity for Canada,” has highlighted the absence and the importance of a coherent national strategy in this area. NRC is only one component of such a strategy. How will the various investments that Canada has made and, hopefully, will continue to make in biopharma manufacturing be consolidated to meet our therapeutic needs as these develop, whether they be vaccines for new pandemics or novel antimicrobials to assess the living threat of antimicrobial resistance? How will these specifically be sustained in non-crisis times in a manner that will allow them, particularly the SMEs, to continue their operations, and yet allow for a rapid response should the need arise?
Mr. Patterson: Thank you very much, senator, for the question.
It’s a complex equation to figure out, no doubt. I alluded to it a bit earlier. I think there are a couple of overarching principles that the government should keep in mind when it’s building out the strategy. There’s clearly been an erosion over three or four decades of biomanufacturing capacity in Canada. That needs to be scaled up. It needs to be scaled up strategically by focusing on areas of Canadian advantage, Canadian expertise and in a way to serve global markets as well. You’re correct. We are a small market of 38 million Canadians. It’s therefore important to build up a robust sector that can be self-sustaining but also support the global efforts and the global supply.
When you’re looking to strengthen it, you want to focus on a number of key pillars. One is strengthening the research systems, strengthening coordination, building up capacity along the supply chain in a way that supports and grows and nurtures Canadian companies, ensuring that the inputs are in Canada. We have to continue to support the companies that are growing and scaling up, making sure there are connections across the industry. We need networks of excellence to ensure that it’s an ecosystem that continues to support each other, as well as ensuring that we are working with our colleagues at Health Canada in an efficient regulatory system that protects the health of Canadians first and foremost but also encourages innovation and ramping up of clinical trials and expertise. We really need to make ourselves an attractive destination for not only international companies but to grow small- and medium-sized enterprises in a way that is mutually reinforcing and supporting.
Senator Kutcher: Lots to do.
Mr. Scott, much of the success in the last decade in global biopharm research has been driven by innovation clusters of universities and industry — particularly SMEs — such as the Pharmaceutical Solid State Research Cluster that is led by Cambridge. Unfortunately, Canada is not a member. In the U.S.A., we see the models of Raleigh-Durham, the BioCapital region, the Boston-Cambridge hub, et cetera.
How will NRC encourage growth of these biopharm clusters across Canada, particularly recognizing the criticisms of many scientists that, in the last decade, NRC has increasingly tended to focus on its own contract research at the expense of developing academic collaborations nationally?
Mr. Scott: Thank you for the question. I’ll speak to one or two components, and I’ll defer to my colleagues on one or two others.
Just in terms of the comment around growth of small- and medium-sized enterprises, I mentioned at the outset of my opening remarks about the NRC IRAP program, the Industrial Research Assistance Program. Over the last 12 to 18 months, the program has been rapidly scaled up. It’s an existing grants and contributions program that funds business support to highly innovative small- and medium-sized enterprises in Canada. That has been ramped up over the last, as I say, 12 to 18 months to support not only innovations in the biopharmaceutical area but also economic recovery and innovation by these firms. That’s in addition to, as my colleague Christine Jodoin mentioned earlier, the more core exploratory R&D that our Life Sciences division conducts with various partners, including a number of universities in the country.
I’ll stop there and turn to Ms. Jodoin to see if she has anything else to add.
Ms. Jodoin: One of the things that we are dealing with on this biomanufacturing centre project is we’ve had some preliminary consultations this fall because of exactly that. We want to make sure that the NRC and this centre are going to be delivering and filling the mandate for the BMC, to grow the biomanufacturing capacity in Canada, making sure that all the players can be engaged somehow, to ensure the success and that the objectives are fulfilled and that we are recognizing where there are some gaps and that they are addressed.
We will do more of these consultations, as it is important to hear the voices from the communities. That is a commitment that we have with the BMC as we continue to shape its operations and look at the future governance of it. I just wanted to add that.
I don’t know if Darryl Patterson would have anything else to add.
The Chair: Did you want to add something, Mr. Patterson?
Mr. Patterson: No, thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you to our witnesses. It’s a fascinating discussion.
I’ve heard you refer to the erosion of biomanufacturing capacity in this country a number of times. Coming out of this crisis, we are relieved that an investment will be made in the manufacturing of drugs and supplies at the NRC.
There is, of course, another way, and I wonder if you’d comment on that. Two University of Toronto professors, Leslie Boehm and Greg Marchildon, have suggested that it would be wiser to invest in a non-profit, university-based enterprise that has a public health mandate of providing vaccines at the cost of production. There is actually somewhat of a proof of concept here with the Connaught Laboratories at the University of Toronto. Was that an option that the government ever considered?
Ms. Jodoin: The question you ask is one that we are looking at right now. As I said just before, we are looking at some governance models for the Biologics Manufacturing Centre. In terms of the authority to incorporate a corporation, of course, the corporation could be not-for-profit or for-profit. This is something we are exploring. In particular, when we’re thinking of the mandate of the BMC, we have to make sure that the approach to the future governance of its operations are fit and aligned to make sure that the BMC will be successful and also sustainable into the future. Certainly, not-for-profit is a model to consider. Of course, research has been done in this area, particularly looking at the landscape in Canada, for sure. This is certainly a consideration as we go forth.
I do want to let you know, though, that, as well, as exploring not-for-profit and public-private partnerships and other models, we have set up a project advisory board. That was set up in January 2021. It is made up of representatives from biopharma, academia, universities and ex officios from government. We are asking exactly those questions of them and seeking strategic input around the considerations that we should think about in terms of the future governance of the BMC, the not-for-profit and other models as well.
Senator Omidvar: To any of the witnesses who have some insight into this: Patent and patent waivers are all the talk right now. Blue sky into the future. Your Royalmount biomanufacturing facility produces a vaccine or a drug that has the potential to be as lifesaving as, let’s say, the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines. Who holds the patent? Is there any consideration, even at this early stage, of patents not in proprietorship for a shareholder but in proprietorship for the public good?
Ms. Jodoin: This is an area that we are looking into right now. I’m afraid I can’t answer that question at this point in time. It’s certainly something that we have to consider as we do get engaged into production of the BMC with vaccines, sponsors and others, and even looking into a future public-private partnership model. This is something we’re looking at. Thank you for the question.
Senator Dasko: I agree that this has been a very interesting discussion. I’ve learned a lot.
This legislation obviously gives the NRC the authority to do a number of things. Basically, you’re having the door opened to taking on various things. During this conversation, I’ve noted a whole list of things that are possible in your future and the things that you’ve been doing in your present. In response to Senator Kutcher, for example, Mr. Patterson mentioned research, coordination, supply chain support, support across industries, growing enterprises and also filling gaps in production. Many other things have come up in this conversation, and everything, of course, sounds great. It sounds wonderful.
My question is: As you look into the future, what is it that you think you will do? You can’t do everything. You can’t focus on everything. What is the realistic picture of what you will be focusing on, let’s say, in the next couple of years? Can you tell me what you think your priorities will be, given that you now have the opportunity to do so many more things? I can direct the question to anybody. Thank you.
Mr. Scott: Thank you for the question. I’m happy to respond.
The two authorities being sought as part of the Budget Implementation Act in the short term are very much driven by the Biologics Manufacturing Centre and the requirements needed to ensure that it’s operationalized. As noted earlier, and to the senator’s point, these will be tools in the toolkit for future use. As noted, since they are of an exceptional nature, that’s why in the legislation it’s built in around ministerial approval and Governor-in-Council approval. These will be authorities exercised in the future with great discretion and oversight and with the view of contributing to the NRC’s core mandate, which is not changing as part of these legislative amendments, so science, research and innovation to support academia, government and business innovation.
In terms of the second part of the question and some of the broader value chain investments that my colleague Darryl was speaking about, those are much broader Government of Canada policy objectives. The NRC is just one component on that broader spectrum. I defer to Darryl if he wants to add more context or explanation. The NRC is just one part of that broader story and suite of investments that Darryl was outlining earlier.
Mr. Patterson: I’m happy to add a little bit.
The Chair: Absolutely.
Mr. Patterson: You’re absolutely right, senator, that you can’t boil the ocean. There’s an element of decision-making that needs to take place, and strategic decision-making.
Generally speaking, if you look at the allocations in the budget, they give certain indications of where the investments go by topic. A billion dollars is to the Strategic Innovation Fund to support industry scale-up. I mentioned the money for research. There’s money for skills in a much broader context.
Once the objectives are set, I’ll give you an example which might illuminate it, and it’s not an example of a decision made but, for instance, mRNA. When you want to respond in a pandemic, you want a couple of things. You want speed, you want flexibility and you want sufficient doses. But you don’t know what platform is going to be the one that is going to solve the day for pandemic X. So you want to be able to some extent to mitigate that risk by developing capabilities across a number of platforms, but you can’t do everything. The value chain and the supply inputs into various vaccines can range in the hundreds, even thousands. So you’re not going to produce all the elements in one place in Canada. If at one point the decision is that we’re going to invest in mRNA because certain capabilities exist in Canada, you look at where the key excellence lies. There’s a research cluster out west, a lot of expertise in lipid nanoparticles, which is a key component of mRNA vaccines, so you want to invest in research related to that. You want to look at the supply chain, investing key strategic elements of the mRNA supply chain, to ensure that Canada is a global contributor and a player when it comes to responding to a pandemic where mRNA is the solution. Then you want to invest in research and manufacturing capabilities in mRNA. That creates a strategic advantage for Canada hypothetically speaking. Protein subunit is another advantageous platform where you want to make strategic investments along the research supply chain and production capacity.
Those considerations are being taken into account, and we realize that choices are going to have to be made in the investments we make. We want to leverage existing strengths in Canada and focus and grow on where the puck is going as well, so the future of a lot of these areas. I hope that helps a little bit.
Senator Dasko: From what you said, it obviously means you have to keep a certain amount of flexibility to be able to respond to situations as they arise. That also creates a certain constraint because flexible organizations have different characteristics than large, steady-as-you-go sorts of organizations. So there is that too.
Senator Frum: I’ll continue on that theme, for any of the witnesses. Of key importance to responding to pandemic in the future is to have processes, including approval processes, that permit rapid responses. My question is, what specific measures have been put in place to fast track this production facility? What legal, regulatory and policy changes are being considered that will enable a rapid response in a future pandemic? Further, a national ability to rapidly identify pandemic threats, as Israel and other countries did in the early stages of this pandemic, is clearly something that was lacking in Canada. Is improving that national assessment capability also something that you are contemplating?
Mr. Scott: I’ll just defer to my colleague Christine to answer.
Ms. Jodoin: I can answer for the NRC in terms of being ready and agile. I know we’re saying we can’t be everything to everyone and we do have to make decisions to make sure that we can support and be focused to deliver. The key thing with the BMC is its primary mandate is to always be ready to pivot toward a pandemic emergency and support pandemic preparedness. What this means is that for this centre, it will always be in a constant GMP state of readiness to be able to pivot at any time that the government requires us to pivot, to fulfill a pandemic emergency. So one key thing in terms of the BMC is it will be in constant readiness state. When it is not supporting a pandemic, then it can pivot to support growing the biomanufacturing capacity and focusing on public interests projects. The primary is always being in a constant ready state to be able to pivot to address a pandemic emergency.
I don’t know if Darryl Patterson would have anything else in terms of the questions. I know there were questions around regulatory considerations. I think that would be the area of responsibility of Health Canada with respect to that.
Senator Frum: In terms of fast tracking this facility, where are we at? Since August 2020 when this really became an issue, what is the progress?
Ms. Jodoin: The progress of this facility is going very well actually. Right now, of course, the construction of this facility has been going on at an accelerated pace and it is on schedule. When we started this, we finished the external shell for this facility in December. We are on target to complete the construction by the end of July. This includes the interior design and fit up and the good manufacturing practises commission and qualification of the equipment and the facility. Normally something of this nature in terms of a GMP certified biomanufacturing facility can take up to two years to complete.
What did we do to accelerate this? It was quite a challenge. However, we successfully have done it. Because of the importance of this centre to be completed to support the pandemic, significant efforts were made to deliver the facility in a very agile manner, so adjusting and adapting throughout the process of construction and the design. For example, the design and the build took place simultaneously. While the construction of the shell was taking place, the interior fit-up design was also being completed. This really allowed for the schedule to be condensed while still addressing all the many details that are required to ensure the facility meets its GMP compliance.
Senator Frum: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you all for being here. This is such an essential and important topic.
I’m sure that all Canadians are very pleased about the imminent completion of the GMP-compliant Royalmount site, but although it’s a great start, the pandemic has taught us we can’t put all our eggs in one basket. We have seen what happened in other sectors where the pandemic got into manufacturing plants and then they had to shut down. How will the Government of Canada ensure that we have a robust, distributed network of regionally sited biopharma manufacturing capabilities that can mitigate potential shutdown of a single site component during a pandemic?
Mr. Scott: Thank you for the question. I’ll give one initial comment and then I’ll defer to my colleague.
The senator’s point is well taken. There have been a series of investments, not only just in the Biologics Manufacturing Centre at the Royalmount site in Montreal but a series of other investments in facilities, both through NRC funding as well ISED funding, to do exactly as the centre was getting — as to build a multifaceted, robust biomanufacturing capacity.
I’ll defer to Mr. Patterson for additional comments.
Mr. Patterson: Thank you, senator.
In the immediate response to the pandemic in March, the government began making investments to build up biomanufacturing capacity, which includes the NRC investment but also, for example, $173 million in Medicago in Quebec, $175.6 million in Accelera which is therapeutics out West, and Precision Nanosystems as well as Novocol in Ontario and Quebec. There is a complete appreciation of your point that you need to make sure you have a diverse range of facilities that can produce a diverse range of drugs and therapeutics in order to respond and to make sure that those facilities are viable in non-pandemic times. So that strategy will continue, and it will continue to be built up and considered in that context.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Thank you senators. Thank you to our witnesses.
[Translation]
Thank you. Despite all the little challenges we had to face, we succeeded and we are all very satisfied and happy. Thank you for being there.
[English]
You are very well aware that we are meeting tomorrow and on Friday. I do want you to keep in mind that on Friday, we have some time at the end for a bit of in camera discussion on possible instructions for the analysts as we start doing that report, so keep that in mind, and slowly but surely prepare what you might want to bring forward to our dear analysts.
Again, thank you to our witnesses, and if there is no other business, keep safe, and we will see you all tomorrow.
(The committee adjourned.)