This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in October 2007.
Tony Clement Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-5s:
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this government's ability to move very quickly on the public health issue. I think it is important to Canadians.
Canadians will judge this government on its ability to act quickly and get things in place.
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Mr. Speaker, although I have spoken in this House a few times since my election on January 23, I am privileged to do so today, for the first time in the context of a debate, on behalf of my constituents in Verchères—Les Patriotes. However, I would have preferred to do so under different circumstances.
The Speech from the Throne states, and I quote:
All too often, the strength of our federation is compromised by jurisdictional squabbles that obscure accountabilities and prevent governments from working together in the best interests of Canadians.
This new government will take a new approach.
This same government is now proposing a bill that is has merely been cut and pasted from a Liberal bill, one that in no way respects the constitutional jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces. That is Bill C-5, which permits the government to set out the minimum obligations of the Public Health Agency of Canada.
Before reminding you why the Bloc Québécois opposes this bill, since this is my first speech in the House and just to put a smile on my face for a moment, I would like to sincerely thank my constituents from Verchères—Les Patriotes for the confidence they have shown in me and in the Bloc Québécois, confirmed once again during the last election. I promise to listen to the concerns of my fellow citizens with just as much dedication as my predecessor, Stéphane Bergeron, and to ensure that they are voiced in this House.
I would also like to thank the Bloc Québécois members in Verchères—Les Patriotes, who have given me the honour of representing the ideas and ideals of our party. Although the nomination race was lengthy, it allowed me to establish solid relationships with many party members, and the nomination evening, I can assure you, will be etched in my heart and memory as one of the greatest moments of my life. I would like to recognize my fellow opponents: Marc-André Veilleux who, with the support of his wife, children and family, conducted a great campaign, and Frédéric Brossard-Lemerise, who gave his first political speeches. We have all been there, and it is a major step to take. I must also thank Lise Lavoie, my election campaign manager, Louis-Marie Pilote, my official agent, and their team of volunteers who spared no effort and who, in honouring their commitment to making Quebec a sovereign nation and sacrificing the quality time they could have spent with their families at Christmas and the New Year, greatly contributed to the success of this election.
Finally, I would like to share with you the debt of gratitude I owe my family—my father and grandmother at the top of the list—for the unfailing support they have always shown and continue to provide day after day.
I did say that would put a smile on my face. Unfortunately, it was short-lived because I must now return to Bill C-5, a bill that, let us not forget, was presented by the former government and scorns the Quebec government's sole authority over health care in Quebec.
Need I remind the House that although none of the parties in this House except the Bloc Québécois seem interested in respecting Quebec and the provinces' exclusive jurisdiction over health, Quebec governments have always intervened to ensure that this constitutional guarantee is fully respected? I could find any number of quotes from Maurice Duplessis, Robert Bourassa, Jacques Parizeau or Lucien Bouchard on the matter.
Is it clear that the creation of this agency will cause the governments of Quebec and the provinces—the only governments that have the structure and the tools in place to provide adequate health care—to lose hundreds of millions of dollars?
It is understandable that this type of legislation would appeal to the sort of government that used the surplus generated by creating the fiscal imbalance to interfere in areas in Quebec and provincial jurisdiction. But I have a hard time understanding why a government that claims to want to end this kind of disrespectful conduct toward other duly elected governments would want to introduce it again.
How can the Minister of Health, the adoptive father of this bill, find this bill acceptable when he said, in reference to guaranteed wait times, that we have to respect provincial jurisdictions, even if it takes a little more time to get things done?
How can the Prime Minister, a disciple of open federalism, support this bill when he stated in Montreal on April 21 that open federalism means “respecting areas of provincial jurisdiction, keeping the federal government’s spending power within bounds”?
We are disappointed to see that this government says one thing but does another.
We are not opposed to this bill because we do not care about people's health. Quite the contrary. The Bloc Québécois has always been concerned about health issues, especially public health, a crucial aspect of health that includes both prevention and development of plans to deal with serious diseases.
The Bloc Québécois also recognizes that there is a lack of funding for health. In fact, the Bloc Québécois feels that the main problem is underfunding related to the fiscal imbalance that deprives Quebec and the other provinces of the revenue they need to carry out their responsibilities and, as a result, makes them less able to properly support their public health bodies.
The Bloc Québécois feels that correcting the fiscal imbalance will enable Quebec and the other provinces to further develop services for their people in their areas of jurisdiction and ensure that everyone has the right tools to meet the new public health challenges.
The Bloc Québécois feels that only correcting the fiscal imbalance and providing stable funding will enable Quebec and the other provinces to further develop services for their people in their areas of exclusive jurisdiction and ensure that their citizens receive proper health care.
In his budget the Minister of Finance informed us that he will address the fiscal imbalance. I hope the government will keep its word and remain firm in its commitment to resolve this impediment to a healthy democracy in Quebec and the provinces. If it is sincere, this government will indicate to us quite quickly the process it will negotiate with the provinces and the deadline it has given itself. It goes without saying that given the complexity of this issue, a short deadline would be preferred in order to achieve concrete results by spring 2007.
Since I am taking a few moments to talk about restoring fiscal balance, I want to remind the government that this cannot be done without including the $807 million the federal government owes Quebec in 2007 for cancelling the child care agreement.
In closing, I want to reiterate that the federal government's responsibility is to provide adequate funding for health and not to propose new structures—such as indicators for waiting lists—that do not solve the problem of the under-funded health care system. This government should listen to its good friend Jean Charest who, in reference to the Public Health Agency of Canada, said last January that Quebec had its own structures and that they were working.
Since 1998 Quebec has had the Institut national de santé publique du Québec, which does not need a federal agency that will perform the same duties. Why create unnecessary duplication?
Since it is the Government of Quebec that has the expertise and that can intervene in all the institutions of Quebec's health network, it is up to that government to establish its own priorities and action plans and include them in the framework of global objectives developed by agencies like the WHO.
I thought, quite naively, that arrogance had left this House with the Liberal government. The establishment of this agency proves the contrary. If, however, Canadians really want it and Quebec's refusal to have Canada-wide objectives imposed on it harms Canada's development, like our colleagues from other parties in this House are saying, would it not be better for us to move forward as good neighbours in two sovereign nations?
Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders
Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia Manitoba
Conservative
Steven Fletcher ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, the member talked about jurisdiction. In fact, public health is a shared jurisdiction. We are not talking about the direct delivery of health care in hospitals or otherwise.
I wonder if the member could comment on the virology lab in Winnipeg. If the member believes that each province can do everything completely independently, then he must believe that each province should have its own virology lab. I ask the member where he will get the expertise, moneys and other support in order to do that. If he does not believe that, then he must believe that there is a shared responsibility on behalf of everyone in the Canadian federation to work together to protect the public from pandemics and deadly diseases.
I assume the member therefore needs to change his position and support this public health act, because there are synergies that can be gained by working together as Canadians.
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his question.
I totally agree with him. Indeed, we must work together to be better equipped to respond to pandemics of deadly diseases. However, this does not mean simply working together here in Canada, with Quebec and the other provinces. We must all work together on a global level.
It is the WHO that establishes guidelines for the various stakeholders in the world to guide them in their choices and in the development of their own policies.
In Quebec, we have an institute, the National Institute of Public Health. It works quite well. Of course, it calls on capabilities from outside Quebec. However, it is this institute that determines the guidelines for Quebec, since it knows its people best.
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like first to congratulate my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes for his very interesting speech. He clearly emphasized that Quebec wants its areas of jurisdiction to be respected.
I also heard the comments from representatives of the Conservative federal government about the Public Health Agency of Canada. I remember some of them, particularly that this is a federal central organization that collects and analyzes data for all of Canada. However, as the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes said so brilliantly, health is a responsibility that comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.
I would like to ask a short question to my colleague. Could he explain to us very briefly the contradiction that exists between what the Conservative government is saying about this open federalism with its respect for provincial areas of jurisdiction, and Bill C-5 on the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada?
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for his question.
Indeed, this is quite strange. On the one hand, different government ministers and stakeholders are telling us about the place that the government wants to give Quebec and they assure us that it will now respect the provincial areas of jurisdiction. On the other hand, as soon as this House resumed its work, the government presented us with Bill C-5, which provides for the establishment of a Canada-wide public health agency.
A public health agency in Canada might create confusion in Quebec. Who would now be the main spokesperson? We, in the Bloc Québécois, consider that it is the Institute--
Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but we must pursue the debate.
The hon. member for Hochelaga now has the floor.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about a bill that is actually a rerun of a bill introduced by the previous government. The wording is exactly the same.
Clearly, the political landscape has changed. My friend the parliamentary secretary, who was formerly in opposition, is now enjoying life in the government. We can imagine just how proud he is to be a parliamentary secretary, and we wish the best of luck to him and his whole team in their new duties.
I know that within him is a man who has deep respect for provincial jurisdictions and that his autonomist streak is just waiting for an opportunity to come out. That said, we must be very, very aware that, frankly, this bill is insultingly paradoxical.
If this were a bill about epidemics and quarantine or about patents and trademarks in the health field, all the Bloc Québécois members would agree that the government is fully within its jurisdiction.
But how can the government have the gall to introduce a bill on public health in this House? The very title of the bill is potentially offensive and shows no respect for provincial jurisdictions.
What is public health? Often, it consists of treatments for citizens. Public health often means a vaccination strategy. Who gives vaccinations? Not the virology lab in the riding of our colleague, the parliamentary secretary.
Of course, the Bloc Québécois members are not so simple as to think that viruses have borders. That is not our philosophy. That is why we want cooperation across Canada, across North America and around the world, as the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes stated.
However, where we part ways with the government is on the need for an agency with roughly $665 million in funding to handle this cooperation.
The government has a very clear urge to engage in nation building. When the Conservative government, the Tories, introduce a bill on the Public Health Agency of Canada, they are giving a nod to the Romanow report.
The Liberal's propensity to intrude and centralize was familiar to us; there is nothing new about that constitutional philosophy. But I find it surprising that the Conservatives are making the same kind of calculations in terms of nation building.
Why is there a Canadian public health agency? It was established because all governments are getting the same polls and realizing that, for the vast majority of our fellow citizens, health is the top priority.
At the time when the Liberals took office, back in 1993-94, and reduced transfer payments from $18 billion to $12 billion, with the inherent risk this had of destabilizing the provinces' public finances, health was less of a concern for the federal government.
Let us not forget that it took three conferences of federal, provincial and territorial first ministers, be they NDP, PQ, Liberal or Conservative, it took a totally airtight, monolithic coalition of provincial premiers to get the federal government to put money back into health care. This resulted in an accord providing $41 billion over 10 years, with the federal government's contribution being 18¢ on every dollar, whereas 25¢ were expected.
That is to say that the Public Health Agency of Canada exists for a political reason.
The reality is that, if ever there is, God forbid, a crisis such as a pandemic, actual help will not come from the virus laboratory in Manitoba, but from the CLSCs in Quebec and front-line services in Ontario or British Columbia. Those are the players working closely with health and social services, as my colleagues mentioned this morning.
We cannot support the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada. We know too well the cascade of events the federal government would put us through. Incidentally, the Public Health Agency of Canada took over a number of programs. I would not want our fellow citizens to think that the agency is only involved with issues relating to viruses and immunization. The Public Health Agency of Canada took money earmarked for administering HIV, AIDS and cancer programs and a number of other strategies.
The Government of Canada wants to engage in “nation building” through its health care system. I am willing to bet you, Mr. Speaker—a pint of beer or a glass of wine, if you have more refined tastes, which I'm sure you do—that the government is going to table a bill concerning a national pharmaceutical strategy. It wants to institute a common purchasing policy for all provinces and a common pharmaceutical formulary. We are heading down a slippery slope in terms of health.
Fortunately, the voice of the Bloc Québécois can be heard in this House. We would remind you that creating the Public Health Agency of Canada is no more effective nor does it respect provincial jurisdictions any more than Canada Health Act. The Canada Health Act proposes principles that are very familiar to us all, including universality, a public system, accessibility and a transferrable system.
Sovereignty is a very promising and liberating prospect for the future of Quebeckers. In a sovereign Quebec, if it were up to the Parti Québécois, the National Assembly would adopt legislation that would include the principles found in Canadian legislation. What would be different would be the actor, the one who votes on the budget and provides health care services.
I am fast approaching forty, Mr. Speaker. Did you say I had one or two minutes remaining?
Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
You are too kind, Mr. Speaker.
The paradox lies in the fact that the federal government wants to enforce a law while not having any expertise in how to deliver the services in the field.
When I was health critic, I read a report every year that the member for Québec will now make a point of reading to obtain up-to-date information. In this report, Quebec or other provinces are criticized for not providing some service that ought to be provided, as if the federal government should have a say in the delivery method for health services.
We will not be duped by this series of events, this escalation that the government is preparing. We will not accept that the federal, Conservative government engage in nation building, as did the Liberals, with the health file. We will be the jealous, scrappy and uncompromising guardians of the prerogatives of the Government of Quebec. Fortunately, in this House, the Bloc Québécois is there to make the voice of Quebec heard. We will continue to do so under any circumstance.
Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders
Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia Manitoba
Conservative
Steven Fletcher ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, part of being a nation is ensuring that all its citizens have security, good order, good government, peace and good public health. This is a machinery bill that will allow the Government of Canada to do that. In fact, there is no change in power or jurisdictional issues. This is all within the powers that already exist with the federal government.
The member talked about jurisdictional issues. There is an explicit federal rule in controlling infectious diseases at our borders, something with which the Chief Public Health Officer would deal. There is no expansion in any way, shape or form of the federal role in provincial jurisdictions.
The member talks about an independent Quebec. However, there are synergies in working with all Canadians. Another example of that is the virology lab in Winnipeg. The virology lab provides many services for people across Canada, including Quebeckers. If we carry the member's logic to its natural conclusion, he would expect each province to have its own lab, which is hugely expensive, and there are not enough human resources to staff such labs.
Would the member admit that synergies are to be gained by working together and that all Canadians, including Canadians who live in Quebec, benefit from having a coordinated and deliberate strategy?
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Like him, I was present at the committee when Dr. Butler-Jones presented the agency's role. I am sure my colleague will agree that this is not an administrative reorganization. If it is indeed an administrative reorganization with a $650 million budget, then we have a problem with the appropriate use of public funds.
This agency was the product of a report the federal government received following the unfortunate SARS crisis. From a humanitarian perspective, we must work together under all circumstances, particularly in cases of natural or public health disasters. I think Quebeckers support that.
What we are saying is that we do not need this agency. The European Union, for example, wants to share information, but the fact that Great Britain has a virology lab or a lab to study certain diseases does not mean that Belgium or other European Union countries cannot have one too.
My colleague, the parliamentary secretary, is arguing from a false premise. If the premise is false, the conclusion will be too. We want to be involved in this issue. We are saying that, except for its responsibility for quarantines, the federal government has no business developing service delivery plans. That is what the new agency plans to do, it will get $650 million to do it, and its budget will grow over the next few years.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I agree more with the parliamentary secretary. We are really talking about the public health of Canadians.
Does the member feel, notwithstanding there will be an agency established, that this agency should not have such a free reign to try to do all things at the same time, but rather should establish a critical list of priorities and assure Canadians that the most important priorities will be dealt with by the agency in its early days?
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian agency is taking over an administrative branch that existed at Health Canada. Moreover, it is taking over programs that are managed by Health Canada, a number of which are related to diseases that are already known.
The Bloc is not questioning the relevancy of working together. We believe that the centre of decision making, coordination and of policy should not fall to Health Canada, and certainly not on the federal government.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House to speak to such an important bill with such an import role.
As my colleague from Winnipeg stated, there are many aspects to health that we need to confront directly and if we do not do it from a national perspective, then the health of all Canadians will suffer.
I want to touch on a number of issues in Bill C-5 and the role of the Chief Public Health Officer. If we take a look at what Canadians suffer from in terms of health concerns, we need to a lot more in the area of prevention.
My colleague already referenced the importance of what we put into our environment. We must ensure that what we put into our environment does not make us ill and later on requires us to use health services that are costly and scarce. It makes no sense if in the end those illnesses could be prevented.
Pesticides is an area that my colleague talked about and one which I have been active on in my own community. When we look at the pesticides that are put into our environment without any concern for the health of our children and those who are most vulnerable, it seems to me that we have a lot of work to do. As the member mentioned, there presently is a model in the province of Quebec where the cosmetic use of pesticides will no longer be allowed. I think that is something all provinces should be looking at. I am hopeful that when the bill is passed that the Public Health Agency will look at the Quebec model.
I would also like to look at the additives that we put into our food source. Today I spoke in the House about the importance of recognizing those persons who work in the public service and who have blown the whistle, not because they were trying to rock the boat but because they were looking out for the public good.
We recently had the mad cow or BSE crisis. Canadians should know that there were men and women working in the veterinary branch of Health Canada who cited the concerns around BSE two years before the crisis hit. We know the costs that were borne by those in the agricultural community. Many people lost their livelihood and many went through incredible turmoil in their own lives.
We also have a concern around the health of Canadians in general. Why? It is because our food source was contaminated. Our own officials within Health Canada, who blew the whistle on BSE, said that rendered beef cannot be fed to cattle. This is exactly what was happening.
We knew this information and had this information but there was no coordinated effort to deal with it. In fact, the recommendations that came forward were the recommendations that the premier of Alberta cited. What did the premier say? He said that we should be testing more of our cows, that we should not be feeding rendered feed to cattle and that there should be more money put into this jurisdiction.
In fact, the same thing happens presently and had been happening in Japan and Europe. Why? It is because those countries had gone through this crisis.
I think the role of having someone looking over the national concerns of public health is absolutely critical for the reasons I have mentioned when we look at the mad cow crisis. This could have been avoided. We could have responded to that crisis more quickly and more sensibly. The health and welfare of Canadians would have been put first and foremost.
Other areas in terms of prevention where I think we have failed and need to do more is on how we prevent persons who are living at the lowest margins from becoming ill. We know the key indicators of health when we take a look at where people live, what kind of housing they have, what access they have to health care, what kind of nutrition they have and what kind of food sources are available to them. We know that access to recreation facilities is important. People must be allowed to participate fully and not, with all due respect, the little bit that was given in the budget. We need to go much further than that so all our citizens can participate in a healthy, vibrant, active life.
Those are the things we need to be put on the table. This kind of purview by the Public Health Officer would allow for health promotion to take place so that we could truly get into preventing some of the ailments Canadians suffer from.
My background is that of a school teacher and I have seen, exponentially, the rise in asthma. At the school where I taught, only one or two students had asthma. If I were to go into any classroom in Canada today and asked how many kids had asthma, I would find that at least three or four students would put up their hands. Why is that? It has to do with the quality of our air, along with some other concerns.
What have we done to prevent the poor quality of our air and deal with pollution? We obviously have not done enough. This needs to be looked at through a national lens. I hope the Public Health Agency can look at this kind of thing and, in doing so, will offer some recommendations that will have some teeth. We do not want to see a report that just gathers dust like the Romanow report sadly did. We want to see a report that has efficacy, that will be heard, not just something that is tabled.
When the bill goes through committee it will be interesting to look at other jurisdictions to see if there are ways in which this will not just be a reporting mechanism to the Minister of Health, but that the recommendations have some teeth so that they will have traction and efficacy and that the health of Canadians will benefit in the end.
We just have to turn to what has happened in the past with reports from auditor generals or other royal commissions when really good work was done but, sadly, not enacted. I hope the scope and the efficacy of the public health office will be something that is not just seen as symbolic but something that will be action oriented.
I want to touch on an area that is near and dear to me, and that is the area of mental health. This is Mental Health Awareness Week. I believe most Canadians are aware of the fact that it is an issue that has been stigmatized for far too long. I would like to see provisions put into the Canada Health Act so that we can take this issue seriously. Hopefully it will become one of the primary focuses of the Public Health Agency. This area has been stigmatized for far too long. It requires resources so that Canadians can have an active, healthy participation in their respective communities.