Bill C-5 (Historical)

Public Health Agency of Canada Act

An Act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain Acts

This enactment establishes the Public Health Agency of Canada to assist the Minister of Health in exercising or performing the Minister’s powers, duties and functions in relation to public health. It also provides that the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the collection and management of public health information and the protection of confidential information, including personal information. It also makes related and consequential amendments to certain Acts.

Public Health Agency of Canada Act

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not question the good faith of the member. I have had the opportunity to work with her and she does very good work. I am very happy to be able to ask her a question today.

With regard to cooperation, would it not be preferable that Quebec not have an office since it already has the Institut national de santé publique, which does an excellent job? That would reduce the risk of blunders like we saw this morning regarding an ad campaign—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again I will say that this national Public Health Agency works in collaboration with all offices and all departments in all provinces across our nation.

The member opposite is a representative from the beautiful province of Quebec and I know her concerns are centred around Quebec. I think as this evolves and is formalized, in the way it is being done right now, we together can ensure what is best for each and every one of our provinces. More important--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order. The period for 20 minutes speeches is now terminated. Members may now speak for 10 minutes with 5 minutes for questions and comments.

I would like to ask members, especially during the period of questions and comments, to look at the Chair. I will give you signals as to how much time you have left so that we can share the time in an equitable manner with all members.

I now recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-5 on behalf of the NDP caucus. I also want to recognize and pay tribute to the Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Butler-Jones, a resident of Winnipeg and a resident at the federal virology lab in my riding, the only level 4 biological laboratory in Canada. It is a dubious thing to have a level 4 lab in the middle of a residential neighbourhood but we do not have time to dwell on that today.

Many of us were moved as we watched Wendy Mesley, on her program special, talk about her personal struggle with cancer. She made a very compelling point about public health in the process of that very personal exposé. Many of us have been led to believe, and it has been the prevailing wisdom, that if we have cancer it is probably because of something we did, such as we smoked or we did not take care of our personal health. In other words, and I say this with the greatest of respect, it has been a bit of a blame the victim mentality about the exploding incidents of cancer in our society.

I would like to put it to the House, through the context of this debate, that there is a secondary reasoning that we have to accept. It could be, and I argue it is to a large degree, our environment which is increasingly a chemical soup that we are exposed to. I say this as a way, I hope, of sounding the alarm and in the context of speaking to it for all of our benefit but within the context of public health.

The question I put to my colleague from Kildonan--St. Paul is in this vein. I recognize that the Public Health Agency has been preoccupied with infectious diseases, the SARS emergency and crisis after crisis, but I urge us, as MPs, and the Public Health Agency to be seized of our public health as it pertains to exposure to known harmful products around us every day.

In that light, I have put forward a private member's bill, which I hope to expand on at some other date, to ban the non-essential cosmetic use of pesticides everywhere. Over 90 municipalities have done this unilaterally. Ottawa tried and failed. I believe it should be a federal initiative because some smaller municipalities cannot stand up to the incredible lobby that hits them. As soon as they have the temerity to suggest that they might want to ban the use of cosmetic pesticides in their communities, the lawyers and the chemical producing lobbyists show up and, more or less, slap-suit them into silence or submission. It is a role that the federal government could play to help these communities.

The entire province of Quebec has done it. Community after community started banning it until the province recognized that was the will of the people and simply banned it.

Fifty per cent of the 200 million kilograms of chemical pesticides used in Canada every year is for non-essential use. That is the first point I would make.

The second issue concerns another dangerous carcinogen, a health hazard that we have within our ability to do something about and have turned a blind eye to, and that is the fact that Canada is still the third largest producer and exporter of asbestos in the world. The province of Quebec, where it is produced, has the highest rate of mesothelioma among women in the world and the third highest among men in the world. That is a cancer caused only by asbestos.

I used to work in the asbestos mines and I can say from experience that they were lying to us about the health hazard of asbestos then and they are lying to us about the health hazard of asbestos today. The Government of Canada should not be spending millions of dollars a year, as it does, subsidizing and underwriting the production of asbestos to dump into third world countries where there are very few health and safety measures and, what measure there are, are not enforced.

First, on behalf of Canadians and through the Public Health Agency, I would like the agency to be aware of and take action on the exposure to asbestos that continues to take place today in Canada, especially in the province of Quebec where the threshold limits are appallingly high and the exposure is epidemic. However it is also for the rest of us because Canada's bizarre affinity and affection for asbestos has led us to contaminate virtually the entire country, including the very buildings that we occupy here today.

I would suggest to the House that the asbestos industry is the tobacco industry's evil twin. It has been lying to us and putting us at risk for the better part of the last century and it continues to do so today. I ask the federal government to, for God's sake, stop supporting this dying industry and let the industry die a natural death.

The asbestos mine in which I worked died a natural death because no one wanted to buy this poison any more, except for underdeveloped third world countries. The whole European Union has banned all forms of asbestos. Australia, Japan and South Africa have banned it but not India. India is one of our biggest markets for dumping Quebec asbestos.

I know it is awkward for the federal government because it has just taken over the seat in Quebec that has all the asbestos mines, Thetford Mines. However, as a former asbestos miner, I ask the government to do the miners a favour and shut down these horror pits and do the rest of the world a favour and stop exporting this killing product. It is like exporting 1,000 Bopals every year. That is how cruel and negligent this is. The Public Health Agency should have a role to play in the broader public health and not just in the emergency preparedness for communicable diseases.

If members have not seen Wendy Mesley's special on CBC about her personal experience with cancer, they should make a point of seeing it. Those who have seen it, I ask them to reflect on this and consider that it is not just what we do and it is not always our fault that we get cancer. We are being poisoned and pickled by a chemical soup as we speak and it is irresponsible to allow that to continue. It is irresponsible to expose another generation to that type of chemical contamination.

It has been well researched in the post-war years that the use of chemical pesticides grew exponentially and, correspondingly, the incidence of certain types of cancers grew exponentially. We will never be able to prove the direct causal link between this particular chemical and that particular cancer, but we know enough now that the precautionary principle must prevail, especially when it is our children who are being exposed as they tumble around innocently on the lawns of the city park that was just sprayed with 2,4-D. We owe it to ourselves.

My bill calls for an absolute moratorium on the non-essential use of chemical pesticides until such time as one by one the industry can come before a parliamentary committee and prove to us that they are absolutely safe. It reverses the onus. It puts the burden of proof on the industry, Instead of us having the impossible task of trying to prove this chemical is dangerous, we want that company to have the equally difficult task of proving to us that the chemical is absolutely safe. It can then put it back on the shelves and sprinkle it around the countryside. I do not care what they do with it. That is one concrete thing we could do today that would substantially reduce the incidence of chemical related cancers.

In summary, there are steps we could take and, with our newly ratified changes to the Public Health Agency through Bill C-5, Parliament could actually make great use of our Public Health Agency by facing up to the reality that the asbestos industry is a corporate serial killer and it should be stopped in its tracks. We also can clean up our municipalities by stopping the cosmetic non-essential use of pesticides.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the member pointed out that the virology lab in Winnipeg is in his riding. We have heard from the Bloc Québécois that Quebec is independent and that the Quebec public health agency does not need help from the rest of Canada.

The member mentioned that the virology lab is the only level four lab in the country. I wonder if the member would agree that the virology lab is an excellent example of many of why we need a national collaboration in dealing with public health.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud to be the hosts of the federal virology lab, which, of course, has a Quebec connection. We were given the virology lab because the Mulroney government gave Quebec the CF-18 contract which we really wanted. We were the low bidder on the CF-18 contract that had to go to Bombardier because Bombardier is in Quebec. As a default, we received this disease factory plunked into a residential neighbourhood. I do not think it was that great a trade, frankly, but now that we have it we are proud to have it. It is part of a national strategy where we serve all of the provinces, including the province of Quebec, with their needs in analyzing infectious diseases.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health says that Quebec does not need help or wants nothing to do with the rest of Canada. This is totally false.

Quebec has always been fully cooperative. We should not forget either that Quebec has its own health research university centres. What we said and what we are repeating is that Bill C-5 that is before the House today is directly interfering in provincial areas of jurisdiction. A federal government that manages only a few hospitals has no right telling the provinces how to manage their health care systems.

We need to set things straight. Today's debate is not about a war between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Rather, we are discussing the government's plan to put a health care system, a registry, a new level of public employees in each of the provinces. I do not think that we need this. That would be spending money for nothing.

I would like to hear the comments of my friend from Winnipeg Centre on this issue.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is one Chief Public Health Officer through the Public Health Agency, Dr. David Butler-Jones, who spends a lot of his time flying around the country serving in that function. Not only does he fly around this country, but he also flies internationally because the agency is part of a network internationally that monitors infectious diseases, whether it be SARS or the avian and Asian flu.

I do not know about each individual province but I do know there is only one national agency and one chief officer. The National Institute of Public Health in Quebec is linked intricately with this Canadian agency.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-5, which provides the statutory framework for the Public Health Agency. As well, Bill C-5 establishes the position, the powers and the duties for the Chief Public Health Officer.

In my discussion today I will talk about why I think this legislation is important. I also want to comment on whether public health needs a national voice and whether we are actually interfering with provincial jurisdiction. I will be dealing with these questions throughout my discussion.

Public health is a field of health care that is often out of the spotlight until there is a crisis. Let us face it, most of us take our public health needs for granted. We all assume that the water coming out of the tap is safe to drink. We all assume that when we go to a restaurant, the facilities are clean and the food is safe. We all assume that our immunization system protects us from communicable diseases, including tuberculosis.

However, when there is a crisis, the interest in public health suddenly comes into focus. In a crisis, our public health care professionals and the public health care system become the centre of attention. In a crisis, Canadians deserve, want and should get solutions and answers, and they should get them immediately.

In my previous job as a regional councillor in the region of Halton I experienced first-hand the vital role public health plays in the lives of my constituents. I appreciate its importance and firmly believe the Government of Canada has a role in gathering information, providing advice and responding to emergencies in public health.

Canadians expect their federal government to care about their public health needs. The past outbreak of SARS and in my area the introduction of the West Nile virus have been two important public health issues in my riding. Public health officials have played a key role in informing the public on the risks and actions that people need to take to protect themselves.

Public health in today's environment is facing a number of challenges, including the potential of a pandemic influenza outbreak. Our Public Health Agency can play a vital role in preparing and preventing such an outbreak in all parts of Canada. A planned and coordinated effort will help prevent a Canadian public health crisis in the future and our Canadian Public Health Agency should be at the forefront of this effort.

Members of the public expect the government to provide them with the necessary information to protect them in a timely and accurate manner. I see this as the key role for the Public Health Agency. The agency is and will continue to be the catalyst for information sharing and will be the central clearing house for public health data as it relates to trends and issues facing public health in this country. I support this important role for this agency, as we can work cooperatively with the provinces and our municipal partners in preparing and responding to public health threats.

Not only will this agency be the connection for public health in Canada but it will also be a key link in the public health issues and best practices that are facing other nations around the world. The agency will work closely with other important international health agencies, such as the World Health Organization.

I also support having a Chief Public Health Officer who will be the lead spokesperson on public health issues at the federal level. We need a credible spokesperson who has the trust and faith of the Canadian public. The bill will make the Chief Public Health Officer the deputy head of the agency and accountable to the Minister of Health. The Chief Public Health Officer will use his or her expertise to assist in policy development in public health.

In addition, the Chief Public Health Officer will also be required to submit to the Minister of Health for tabling in Parliament an annual report of the state of public health in this country. The Chief Public Health Officer will have the authority and expertise that is needed to give Canadians confidence that our public health concerns are being addressed.

Are we interfering in provincial jurisdiction? I say no. I view the Public Health Agency as complementary.

I took it upon myself to contact the public health doctor for the region of Halton, Dr. Nosal. I asked his advice on whether he felt that an additional level of scrutiny of information was important. He told me directly that he and his colleagues throughout Ontario believe it is important to have a national voice in public health.

As a regional councillor, my personal experience in public health issues included SARS. A hospital in the community of Burlington was closed to the public during the SARS outbreak. Constituents called me in tears. They could not get into the hospital to see their loved ones. They wanted to know what was happening. It was something new for us. Information was not as available as we would have liked it to be. We got the answers, but if at that time there had been a national agency that had that type of information on how to respond to emergencies and to a crisis that could have been shared with other communities and provinces, then we would have been able to react in a quicker and more efficient manner.

Another public health issue which I think is more localized for me but could occur in other parts of the province and country is West Nile virus. It is a virus carried by mosquitoes. It tends to grow in stagnant water and can cause a public health issue.

We had a major reaction in Burlington on what to do about West Nile virus. Would it not be great if we had a national agency that could act as a clearinghouse to provide information so that all public health agencies across the country would how we handled the issue, what worked and what did not. Then if it became an issue in another parts of the country they would be able to react quickly to those issues.

That is why I believe we are not interfering with any provincial jurisdiction. What we are doing is standing up for the health of Canadians everywhere.

In addition, there was a study done on whether there was a need for this agency. There was a full consultation with experts in the field and public health stakeholders and they all agreed there was a need and desirability for a national public health agency. In discussions with our provincial and territorial partners, they indicated a need for a federal public health voice. They indicated a particular need for federal involvement in emergency situations.

This legislation does not expand the existing role that the federal government plays in public health. The legislation simply provides the agency with the mandate to assist the Minister of Health in exercising his or her powers, duties and functions in public health.

Of course we want to work cooperatively with our provincial, territorial and municipal partners. In addition, the agency will play an important role with international organizations and other public health experts around the world. Public health threats to Canadians often have no borders.

In conclusion, the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Chief Public Health Officer deserve our support. Whether it is preparing for a pandemic influenza outbreak, maintaining the national emergency stockpile system, consulting with other international organizations, or responding to other public health crises, Canadians can be reassured that the federal government takes public health seriously.

I look forward to supporting the bill all the way through the legislative process.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill provides in the regulations that the new Chief Public Health Officer is able to form committees to collect, analyze and distribute information. I am not sure whether the member has any knowledge about what has been going on within government in terms of setting up these ad hoc committees to look at things, but I do know the health committee had an unfortunate encounter with one such task force looking at alcohol misuse, and particularly questions that the committee raised with regard to fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. The member will probably know that it is an important issue.

When we talk about the new agency, it will have to have some priorities. Members throughout the House have talked about a number of areas of public health promotion and protection but when it gets down to it, I would think that Canadians want to ensure the significant risks to public health ought to be dealt with first. Does the member agree?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that based on our government's response to a number of issues facing Canadians, we are very keen on setting priorities and following through on priorities, as we said we would do in the election. We are delivering on them now. I do not see any difference in the way we operate here. Once this is in place from the legislative perspective, and as members know the agency is already up and running, it is appropriate to determine the public health priorities of Canadians. This can be done through consultations involving the Ministry of Health, the public, members of the House and the health committee. Those public health priorities should be the priorities for that organization. We need to take advice from the experts in the field, including the Chief Public Health Officer and the other public health agencies throughout the country on what the priorities are for individual provinces and territories. Once those are set it would be ideal for us to follow through on them.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier the parliamentary secretary had talked about the $1 billion that was set aside for pandemic preparedness, so I checked the document to see if the word “aboriginal” was anywhere in it and it is not, on pandemic preparedness.

What are the department's plans with regard to the specific requests that have been put forward by the Assembly of First Nations on testing, staff training, and sewage and water?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I obviously do not have the answer to that specific question.

I just want to say again that once this legislation is in place, priorities should be addressed in terms of what the issues are. Whether it be clean water, emergency preparedness, or something else, those things should be dealt with and we look forward to the input of all the parties on those issues.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, to clarify for the NDP member, actually the 2006 budget provides for $450 million to improve water and housing for on reserve educational outcomes and to assist aboriginal women and children. The budget also firms up to $600 million for aboriginal housing off reserve and in the north.

With regard to my question for the member for Burlington, we have heard a lot of rhetoric from the Liberals, but here we are within 100 days of our party forming the government and we have brought forward Bill C-5 and the Liberals were not even able to bring it to a vote. I wonder if the member could comment on the contrast between the previous government and this government's commitment to public health.