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

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the House today at third reading of Bill C-5, an act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada.

We had an opportunity at the Standing Committee on Health to discuss the key elements of the bill. I am pleased to report that there were no amendments to the bill made by the committee.

The committee agreed to report back to the House on this bill for third reading. I was pleased to see the strong support of my colleagues for the legislation. Additionally, I am happy to report that the Canadian Public Health Association has written in support of the legislation.

I think that most of us agree that the bill will provide the stability and authorities that the agency and the Chief Public Health Officer need to help protect and promote the health of all Canadians.

It is important that the bill be passed for a number of reasons. The legislation is not only to provide stability for the agency, but it is also needed so that we can properly address and respond to public health threats and emergencies.

In the event that we are faced with a public health emergency, such as an influenza pandemic, the agency and the Chief Public Health Officer must have the authorities and tools to be able to effectively respond.

First, the Public Health Agency of Canada must have specific regulatory authorities for the collection, management and protection of public health information to ensure that the agency can receive the information it needs. As the SARS outbreak clearly showed, it is important for the government to have the ability and the means to assess accurate information.

I would like to mention that the current Minister of Health was indeed the minister responsible for issues around SARS when it broke out in Canada, when he was minister of health in Ontario. This is in large part the reason why the government is so enthusiastic about creating a legislative framework to ensure that we can fight pandemics in an effective and meaningful manner. We are certainly fortunate in Canada to have the Minister of Health who is also someone who has had firsthand experience in dealing with these types of issues.

This is of particular importance because of the growing threat of an influenza pandemic or other public health emergencies. The Public Health Agency of Canada must have clear legal authority to collect, use, disclose and protect information received from third parties. The bill provides that authority.

This is important as it will first, give the provinces and territories the necessary assurances that they can share public health information with the agency in accordance with their own privacy legislation. Second, the Chief Public Health Officer must have the parliamentary recognition as Canada's lead public health official. He must have the expertise and legislative authority to communicate with Canadians and report on public health issues.

Bill C-5 establishes the position of a Chief Public Health Officer and gives him the legislative authority to speak out on issues of public health. Finally, as the public health agency was established only through an order in council in the past, passing the bill will provide a statutory foundation to the agency.

This will provide the stability that the Public Health Agency of Canada needs to continue to promote and protect the health of Canadians through leadership, partnership, innovation and action.

It will also provide the foundational basis for the Public Health Agency of Canada to meet the challenges ahead and address many of the other public health issues that were raised during second reading.

I understand that there may be a concern by some members that the legislation encroaches upon provincial jurisdiction. Let me be clear. Bill C-5 does not expand existing federal activities related to public health. Further, the bill does not supercede any existing provincial legislation nor does it impinge on the activities of provincial public health agencies and organizations. Rather, it simply creates a statutory foundation for the agency and establishes the position and dual role of the Chief Public Health Officer.

By providing a statutory footing for the agency, the bill responds to provincial and territorial demands for a federal focal point with appropriate authority and capacity to work with them in preparing for and addressing public health emergencies. In fact, the federal government has a well established leadership role in public health, working in collaboration with provinces, territories and other levels of government.

We intend to continue along this approach. The preamble of Bill C-5 clearly states the federal government's desire to promote cooperation with the provincial and territorial governments, and coordinate federal policies and programs. For example, the agency is working with provincial and territorial authorities through the pan-Canadian public health network. The public health network is a forum for multilateral intergovernmental collaboration on public health issues and respects jurisdictional responsibilities in public health. The network represents a new way of federal, provincial and territorial collaboration on public health matters.

By facilitating intergovernmental collaboration through the public health network, the agency is also able to develop scientific knowledge and expertise in order to provide the best public health advice to Canadians. This legislation continues the strong tradition of cooperation and collaboration which has been part of Canada's approach to public health for decades.

Clearly, we all have a shared interest to protect and promote the health of all Canadians. Through this legislation we will be demonstrating to Canadians that we have listened to their calls to establish a permanent focal point to better address public health issues and that we are taking the necessary steps to strengthen the public health system as a whole.

It is important that we have such legislation in order to provide a statutory foundation for the Public Health Agency of Canada and support our collective efforts to strengthen public health in Canada.

I would also like to add that the government has brought forward this legislation in its first 100 days which I think demonstrates the commitment that the government has to public health. I realize that some members opposite may suggest that they had brought forward the legislation, but it is important to point out that at that time it had not even made it to second reading.

Having said that, I am pleased to say that all the federalist parties seem to support the government in bringing forward this legislation and it is important to demonstrate that through action. In budget 2006 we saw $1 billion set aside to deal with pandemic preparedness. That shows not only are we bringing forth legislation, we are going to back up the legislation with the necessary resources and the necessary political, public and governmental commitments to ensure that Canada is as prepared as possible to ensure the protection of health and that the health of Canadians is maintained in case of a pandemic emergency.

With that, I am very pleased that the bill has approached third reading and will come to a vote shortly. I look forward to the support of all the federalist parties to ensure the protection of all Canadians.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his opening speech on this bill which I am sure will have the support of all parties. Health care continues to be the number one priority of Canadians. I think that the initiatives with regard to establishing wait time benchmarks in the last Parliament and a commitment to wait time guarantees will also be important building blocks in our health care system.

The member mentioned whether or not this was a predecessor bill. When the House begins each and every day, we begin with a prayer. The prayer is that we make good laws and wise decisions. Quite frankly, I do not care where it came from. What I do care about is that we do the right job on behalf of all Canadians.

I had the opportunity to be in committee when it had Dr. David Butler-Jones before it. There is this challenge, I would say, that we have with regard to the agency, with regard to its funding, and more importantly, with regard to its priorities. I think it would be very interesting and helpful to the House if the member could relay some of the concerns that the committee had around the priority areas to make absolutely sure that we are not just creating another agency that is going to begin creating an empire.

It has an important mandate, but it also has some options. I think those priorities are important for Canadians to know about as well as the concerns that the committee had expressed. The member may want to share those thoughts with us.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to understand that we all need to ensure that the agency focus on its core competencies, which is of course pandemic preparedness and infectious disease.

There are other things that overlap, but I know the member was particularly concerned in the last Parliament with fetal alcohol syndrome. The health committee will have further information when it reports to Parliament on this issue. I ask the member to be patient and he will see that report presently.

With regard to the preamble in the member's comments on benchmarks in health, I must take a moment to remind the House that in too many cases the benchmarks were not set by the previous government and the health care guarantee was actually a promise made by the Conservative Party in the last election. Interestingly, about a month after it was announced, it was largely copied by a couple of the other parties.

The guarantee stems from the Supreme Court decision that came in June, which is a decision that access to wait time is not access to health care. Unfortunately, that has been quite an indictment on the previous government, where wait times doubled and there was a shortage of family physicians and other health care professionals. However, that is just to clear the record.

I am very pleased that among the federalist parties there is an understanding that with Bill C-5 a pandemic does not respect borders. We must be prepared and we must work together across party lines and political parties to ensure that we are prepared as much as possible to ensure the protection of public health and Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to ask the member a question regarding the Public Health Agency of Canada because, as the member knows, it is located in Winnipeg.

It is a very important agency, especially with the issue of the future and possible pandemics and, as the member so eloquently relayed to us, the present health minister was actually in charge when the SARS epidemic hit Ontario.

Could the member outline some of the very important things that the Public Health Agency, under Dr. Butler, will offer to all Canadians in terms of safety, health care in a possible pandemic at some point in time, and how that might relate to West Nile virus, for example?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for highlighting the point that the current Minister of Health essentially led Canada's response to the SARS crisis. The lessons learned during that time were the genesis of the Public Health Agency.

We learned that we needed an individual who was beyond politics, someone who could see the big picture and who had the scientific knowledge necessary to deal with something like SARS. That is where the Chief Public Health Officer comes in. The Chief Public Health Officer can coordinate and deal in a non-political, scientific and evidence based manner with the issues around infectious diseases, pandemics and things like the West Nile virus.

The member also pointed out that we have a world-class level four lab in Winnipeg that can test for pandemic viruses, flus and other infectious diseases. The member may also know that it was a previous Conservative government and the then health minister Jake Epp that brought that lab to Winnipeg. As a fellow Winnipegger, I am very proud to have that facility in my province.

I am pleased to have the support of Manitoba colleagues in bringing forward Bill C-5 as it will affect Winnipeg in many ways. More important, it will help protect the health of Canadians in ways that have been outlined in debates at health committee, in this House, and in other venues.

I look forward to seeing this bill pass so we can get on with other matters as well.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member opposite on the great work he has done along with me and other health committee members.

In his opening remarks he mentioned investments that have been made by the new Conservative government for the Public Health Agency and public health initiatives. Perhaps the member could expand on exactly what those initiatives are.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the gist is that $1 billion over five years has been set aside for pandemic preparedness. This is a significant investment. It is an important investment. I would like to refer the member to the budget for further details as I am getting the signal from the Speaker that I have run out of time.

We thank members from all federal parties for their support in allowing this bill to pass.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question with regard to the Public Health Agency.

In the summer of 2003 the Okanagan mountain park suffered damage as a result of forest fires. There was a real need for leadership from the provincial side that was somewhat challenged at the time. I appreciate the member saying that the federal level needs to show leadership. I know the provinces will be on side for that because they need stability, certainty and leadership during a national health crisis.

SARS occurred about four years ago and we identified that as a pandemic. It was shouting at us from a national perspective. Why has it taken so long for the Public Health Agency legislation to come forward?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of a mystery why legislation was not brought forward until the very last days of the previous government. It should have been brought forward long before that.

The current government has brought it forward to deal with things such as a natural disaster. Heaven forbid that Canada should ever have to deal with something like hurricane Katrina or a pandemic situation. The Chief Public Health Officer will have laid the foundation along with provincial, territorial and municipal governments and first nation communities to ensure that we have an effective and quick response plan in place to reduce any harmful effects and protect the health of Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Softwood Lumber.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Brampton—Springdale.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand here today to provide support for the third reading of Bill C-5, a bill to create the Public Health Agency of Canada.

In the previous Parliament this bill was introduced by the previous Liberal government as Bill C-75. However, due to the dissolution of the 38th Parliament, it died on the order paper.

Bill C-75, which was introduced by the Liberals in the last Parliament, was the initial step toward strengthening the ability of the federal government to protect the health and well-being of Canadians. I am glad to see that the new Conservative government has recognized this great piece of public policy initiative that was brought forward by the previous Liberal government and is now trying to ensure that we provide the necessary legislative framework for the Public Health Agency of Canada.

In September 2004 the Public Health Agency of Canada was established by an order in council, once again by the previous Liberal government. The agency's mandate was to strengthen Canada's public health and emergency response capacity, and to develop national strategies for the management of infectious and chronic diseases.

The Public Health Agency will assume the responsibility for the Canadian strategy for cancer control, an issue that is important to many Canadians across the country. Also as part of its key initiatives, the agency will develop an integrated pan-Canadian public health plan which will address issues of chronic diseases, including important diseases such as cancer and heart disease.

The need to improve and strengthen our coordination in the area of public health has been highlighted by the inadequate response to a national tragedy in 2003, the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, also known as SARS. After the SARS outbreak, the federal Liberal government appointed a National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health.

The National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health was given the mandate to provide a third party assessment of current public health efforts and lessons learned for any future infectious disease control. One of the many issues that the committee examined was how a federal public health agency could contribute to the renewal of public health, as well as how this new agency would be structured. The committee was chaired by Dr. David Naylor and hence the Naylor report was issued.

Given the objectives that the national advisory committee had, one of the main objectives was to ensure that there would be a chief public health officer who would serve as a national voice and a spokesperson for public health, especially during any outbreaks or other federal health emergencies.

The chief public health officer it was recommended would advocate for effective disease prevention and health promotion programs and activities, would provide science based health policy analysis and would advise the Minister of Health. Also when required the chief public health officer would advise and make recommendations to the provincial and territorial health ministers, would provide leadership in areas of health initiatives and would ensure that we increased the quality of public health practice in this country.

In November 2003 the report from the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology echoed the opinions that were issued in the Naylor report and agreed with the creation of a public health agency. The committee also recommended that the agency would enhance the federal government's ability to support local work in disease control and prevention.

In April 2004 our former minister of health, Anne McLellan, created a working group on public health that would work with the recommendations in the Naylor report and the standing committee report as well. A number of different witnesses appeared before the working group. They also recommended the creation of an agency that would concentrate and focus federal resources, that would enhance collaboration between the different levels of government and providers of public health services, that would allow for a faster and more flexible response to emergency situations and also would ensure that we improved and focused our communication efforts.

The committee stressed the need to take immediate steps for the creation of a public health agency. It felt, along with the many other stakeholders, that the agency should be responsible for emergency preparedness, immunization and chronic disease prevention.

The previous Liberal government was committed to public health in Canada. An investment of over $354 million was made to over 1,600 health research projects. The former Liberal government was also very committed to ensuring that Canadians received the highest quality of health care services in this country. Hence, an investment of $42 billion over 10 years was made to ensure that wait times were reduced in this country and also to ensure that Canadians received the highest quality of public health care service.

Budget 2005 by the former Liberal government invested another $805 million over five years in the area of health, including chronic disease prevention, pandemic influenza preparedness, drug safety and environmental health. A federal wait times advisor was appointed. In addition, the Canadian public health care protection initiative was further strengthened.

We believe it is very important that an agency be created and that the new Conservative government also make significant financial investments to ensure the effectiveness of this agency. Public health efforts on health promotion and disease prevention are extremely critical. As a chiropractor, I think it is really important that we start practising a model of wellness and prevention in our country.

Many of the chronic diseases that face Canadians, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, heart disease and diabetes are the leading causes of death and disability in Canada. The Liberal Party and many individuals in our caucus remain committed to ensuring that we protect the health and safety of Canadians. Health care is one of the most important issues to many Canadians across this country.

While I support Bill C-5, there is one element that is missing from the bill and the Conservative Party's agenda. The Conservative Party cancelled the ministry of state for public health that existed with the previous Liberal government. Health care is one of the most important concerns to Canadians. As a result, the Minister of Health has a number of obligations and responsibilities. One would want to see a public health minister in place in government to ensure that the health of Canadians was promoted and protected.

I strongly believe that the Conservative government should reconsider and reappoint a minister of state for public health to ensure that the leadership and innovation that is needed in the area of public health in this country is provided. Hence, I would request the reinstatement of the ministry of state for public health as a government department. The minister of state for public health could work with the Minister of Health, the Public Health Agency and the Chief Public Health Officer to provide the leadership and innovation that is needed in this area.

Some members who spoke before me are from Winnipeg, Manitoba which is where the headquarters for the Public Health Agency are located. As a former Winnipegger, I definitely hope that the Public Health Agency continues to have its headquarters in Winnipeg to ensure that it continues to provide the leadership in the area of public health across the country.

In conclusion, on behalf of my constituents of Brampton—Springdale and many members on this side of the House, we support Bill C-5 and the creation of the Public Health Agency. I would also hope that in the months to come the new Conservative government would once again reinstate the very important position of minister of state for public health. Public health is an issue that affects many Canadians across this country. I would hope that we could provide an environment of wellness and prevention to ensure that Canadians live their lives to the fullest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that the member would talk about the minister of public health when the position is not included in the bill. Ministerial positions are not generally included in legislation, particularly ministers of states.

In the previous government, the minister of public health really did not speak to issues of public health at committee or in the public. It was often the health minister. It is important to understand that the legislation makes it clear that the health minister will be responsible for determining the scope of the mandate of the Public Health Agency as it goes to things outside the pandemic preparedness.

The member mentioned the Canadian strategy for cancer control which, intrinsic in the strategy, is an arm's length body. That is what was in the debate on the June 7 motion last year and the understanding that exists now.

My concern is that the creation of a public health ministry would blur the lines of communication. It is very clear that in a pandemic the Chief Public Health Officer has a specific role, as does the health minister. Having a minister of public health, as was the case in the previous government, blurs the lines of communication. This was mentioned many times in the health committee and I believe I also mentioned that concern. We want an effective government and an effective cabinet, and creating more positions that may or may not be necessary is probably not in the interests of Canadians.

Members of the Bloc gave us some feedback that somehow pandemic preparedness interferes with provincial jurisdiction. I wonder if the member would agree that pandemics do not respect borders and that it is important that we have a national strategy and that we be part of an international strategy.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to comment on his comments in regard to the minister of state for public health, which I had mentioned in my speech. I did not, in my speech, mention that the position should be included within the bill.

However, after looking at the mandate and at the different branches within the Public Health Agency, including the infectious disease and emergency preparedness branch, the health promotion and chronic disease prevention branch, the public health practice and regional operations branch, and the strategic policy communications and corporate services branch, I believe it is extremely important to the public health strategy of this country to have a minister of state of public health who would work alongside the Minister of Health to ensure we have a pan-Canadian strategy to address issues of importance to Canadians, like cancer prevention, heart disease and other chronic diseases.

In regard to the member's question about the Bloc perhaps thinking that the Public Health Agency would impinge on provincial jurisdictions, I think what Canadians across the country are really looking for right now in the area of health care is leadership. Health care, sickness and disease know no boundaries and people want, I think, federal, provincial and municipal elected officials to put aside their territorial jurisdictions and ensure we do what is best for the Canadian public.

When it comes to the area of health care, Canadians from coast to coast to coast want to see all individuals work together to address the issues that are important to them, such as reducing wait times, ensuring we have wait time guarantees, ensuring Canadians have access to doctors, ensuring that when we bring in the best and brightest physicians from all over the world that those physicians have the opportunity in Canada to have their qualifications licensed and accredited so they can contribute successfully to the health work force.

Canada should be providing and taking an international role when it comes to addressing issues of pandemic preparedness, such as the avian flu and the West Nile virus. When it comes to the issue of emergency preparedness, we as a country and Ontario as a province have already been through the unfortunate tragedy of SARS in 2003. As a result of that, we have learned a tremendous amount and can provide the leadership that is required internationally to address other emerging issues, like the avian flu and the West Nile virus.

In that light, I would hope all parties will support the legislative framework of Bill C-5 for the Public Health Agency.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I just heard strikes me as a bit simplistic, both what the parliamentary secretary had to say as well as the hon. member who just spoke.

I will just give the example of the World Health Organization. It does not give orders to anyone, not to any country in the world. Does it give orders to the United States or to the Canadian or Quebec health agencies? No, it does not give any orders.

They say they want to establish a Canadian health agency because the provinces are incapable of getting along or incapable of doing their job or because sicknesses know no boundaries. It is very simplistic to say these kinds of things.

We should also not forget that the health agency will have a $665-million budget. Of this amount, about $165 million will be spent over two years on other federal public health initiatives. What are these other initiatives? Will these initiatives not just duplicate services that are already provided in other provinces?

Quebec has a fine health care system. The problem it has, as in the other provinces, is the chronic under-funding from which it has suffered since 1993, the reduction in federal funding, which fell from 50¢ to 14¢ on the dollar. This is what we need to realize.

The provincial health care systems, including the one in Quebec, are very effective now and have developed over the years. However, they have been under-funded, probably on purpose by the previous government. It did this so that some day, since the provinces and health systems were starved out, it could barge in claiming that the systems were not very effective. It is obviously impossible to be effective when there is no money.

I would like the hon. member to reply to these questions.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I agree with the member that Quebec probably does have a superior health care system, it is important to recognize that this public health agency would not impinge on any other provincial jurisdiction. Rather, it would work in collaboration with the provinces and territories to ensure the country is prepared nationally for any possible future outbreaks, whether it be SARS, the avian flu or the West Nile virus.

We can talk about these great public policy initiatives but it is also important to invest in them, which is why I was quite disturbed, upon reading the budget put forward by the new Conservative government which mentioned health care and wait times reduction as being a priority, that it contained no new investments to ensure the implementation of these wait times guarantees.

We can talk about reducing wait times, about trying to increase the number of doctors, about having a national pharmaceutical strategy and about the fact that Canadians need to have the best in home care services, but if the new government does not put in the required resources, both the financial resources and the manpower resources, it will be difficult to address some of the issues that we face in health care.

I would urge the Conservatives to invest the money in the priority areas to which they have spoken because it will only be through investments and having an innovative mindset that we will actually address the many challenges in health care. We must start practising and thinking in the mindset of preventing and promoting health care and wellness.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during her speech, the member referred to wait time guarantees. The current health minister indicated that the wait time guarantees were actually covered financially under the moneys related to the $42 billion health accord that was agreed upon with the provinces and the prior government.

I am curious as to how we will get wait time guarantees with the promise of funding out of the moneys that already were there, even though the provinces have no idea that it is included in that funding.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member has had a great deal of interest in the area of health care and in ensuring his constituents are represented.

I am glad he asked the question. As we saw in the new budget released by the Conservative government, it outlined health care as one of its top priorities but no new money or investments were made to ensure the wait times guarantees would be achieved.

The Minister of Health has, unfortunately, told the provinces to get off the pot and get to work on implementation, but the minister--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Laval.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak about Bill C-5.

The first time we heard about this was under the previous government, when we were talking about another bill, on December 12, 2003. The Liberal government announced then that it would soon be creating the Public Health Agency of Canada, which would report to the Department of Health. There has been a great deal of debate since that time. Was the creation of a public health agency a logical step?

In the wake of the SARS episode in Toronto, the public was gripped by a number of fears and needed reassurance. The government decided that it was time to think about setting up a public health agency.

However, the Public Health Agency of Canada is mandated to step up its efforts to prevent injuries and chronic diseases such as cancer and heart disease and to act in public health emergencies and infectious disease outbreaks. The Public Health Agency of Canada will also work closely with the provinces and territories to help Canadians live healthy lives, with the goal of reducing the pressures on our health care system. That is the mandate of the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the government wants to justify and confirm the agency and make sure it works well here in Canada.

Yet as recently as this afternoon, we again had proof that Health Canada does not work, and the government wants to create another agency, duplicate mandates and put money into more structures.

As recently as yesterday, we learned that a drug had been developed with public funds. It was necessary, even essential, to the survival of babies born prematurely. It is a nitric oxide inhalation treatment, a drug that obtained a single patent. In fact, an American company took out a single patent. As a result, the price of this drug has quadrupled in the space of a year.

This is incredible. Hospitals that previously paid $30 a day to treat children are now paying $2,500 a day for the same treatment, the same drug, and an American company is reaping the profits.

The Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario was asked to demand an inquiry by Patented Medicine Prices Review Board Canada. But the Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario told us that it was not within his jurisdiction, as this was an independent quasi-judiciary body. However, section 90 of the Canada Health Act clearly states that the minister has the right and the duty to demand an inquiry when things are not going right in his or her department

We have also seen that, in various other areas of the health department like in the House of Commons, employees are not even covered under the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité au travail, or CSST. Yet, they want to establish a public health agency. They are not able to look after their own people, to look after the people working on Parliament Hill, but they want to create more duplication in terms of the mandates of the various departments.

Aboriginal people received no new assistance in the last budget to deal with the tuberculosis and HIV-AIDS epidemics. This prompted the auditor general, in 2004 and again in her latest report, to criticize the lack of follow up of the medication taken by Aboriginal people since 1999. She even strongly suggested that Health Canada implement enabling legislation to enable it to follow up, and ensure that the use of non-insured prescription drugs is rigorously controlled and that people are administered the appropriate drugs.

The annual increase of the budget for the federal health system for the first nations capped at 3%. We are talking about a budget of approximately $600 million for the Public Health Agency. That is a lot of money, which will be used to duplicate what the provinces are already doing. That is very unfortunate.

Cuts were made in health travel, access to medication and diabetes prevention. In addition, we learn from the May 10 report of the Canadian Institute for Health Information that, with respect to drug expenditures in Canada, the first nations represent the segment of population with the lowest percentage of funding per capita.

We also learn that, for Canadians in general, per capita expenditures total $750, as compared to $419 for first nations.

There have been incidences of tuberculosis in Garden Hill. Only 4% of houses have running water, and overcrowding in housing is three times higher there than elsewhere. Places like Kashechewan still do not have drinking water. There are places where there is no affordable housing. There is no adequate housing. Resources are lacking to help them.

We have been talking about a number of national strategies, yet we cannot even take care of our own responsibilities. It is very disheartening to see that the government wants to establish a public health agency—which would merely duplicate what Quebec already has—yet it will not even take care of children, adults and the elderly.

Thousands of people in first nation communities are denied access to basic health services that are taken for granted by others. They have no official recourse.

Our soldiers return from dangerous missions raw, traumatized and suffering from post-traumatic stress, only to be denied the services they have every right to expect.

The poor and the very vulnerable can do very little to improve their situations because we do not have the resources we need to help them do so.

Some military women in vulnerable situations start drinking more, thus endangering the health of their current and future children. They are also endangering their own health.

There are even people from Health Canada who are rather zealous, although not at the right time. A veterinarian was punished by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for doing his job. When he found hogs unfit for human consumption in line for slaughter, he took them off the line. Instead of someone punishing the company that produced those hogs, the veterinarian who was preventing people from eating tainted meat was punished. This is outrageous.

Yet, in a speech given on April 20, 2006 in Montreal, Prime Minister Harper touted his open federalism:

Open federalism means respecting areas of provincial jurisdiction. Open federalism means limiting the use of the federal spending power—

In the same vein, the health minister declared, in reference to guaranteed wait times:

We have to respect the jurisdictions of the provinces, even if it means taking a little longer to act.

This proves, once again, that their actions do not match their words.

Quebec has had its own public health agency since 1998. This agency takes care of everything under its jurisdiction. The Institut national de santé publique du Québec already has plans that are working well and that are shared with the public on a regular basis, for example, plans for SARS, mad cow disease, the West Nile virus, infectious diseases, nosocomial diseases such as C. difficile infections, the Quebec plan for an influenza pandemic, a blood surveillance and immunization plan and, recently, a plan to fight avian influenza.

All of this was done on our own, with the little money we have received from the federal government since 1994. In fact, health care budgets have been reduced by several million dollars, if not billions. The federal government added a little bit last year, but it still has not returned to the sums being invested in health care in 1994.

My colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and myself feel that, since it is the Government of Quebec that has the expertise and can intervene with all the establishments in the Quebec health network, it is the Government of Quebec that should set the priorities, develop the action plans for its territory and integrate them with the international objectives developed by organizations such as the WHO.

The Conservative Party said that it would respect the jurisdictions of the provinces. It repeated this during its campaign, in its electoral platform and in the throne speech. However, establishing this sort of agency is not going to make people really believe that this government wants to respect the jurisdictions of the provinces. This is just duplication and some very cumbersome new structures.

In a television interview a few weeks ago, an Indian grand chief was saying that of every five dollars invested in the first nations, only one dollar actually reached them. The other four were absorbed by structures.

Do we really need this? We need money in the health field. People are asking for care every day. Some are on waiting lists. People need surgery and treatment. We do not need a public health agency; we need a health department that functions appropriately and efficiently. For that we do not need more structures; we need to make the existing structures more efficient. That is the problem.

This has nothing to do with whether one thinks there are too many public servants or not enough. I will not get into that debate. However, as long as we are unable to adequately improve the efficiency of our structures, as long as we do not recognize the provinces’ jurisdiction in the fields of concern to them, as long as we do not return the money to those provinces so that they can meet the needs of their clientele and their population, as long as we take no action, we are on the wrong track. Indeed, it is not an agency that we need. Of course there are certain needs. But what we need is money so that services can finally be provided to our fellow citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I assume that I do not have much time left, as I see that you are rising. But as you are indicating that I still have five minutes, I am pleased that I have some time to tell you more about this.

You are a young family man, Mr. Speaker. I perhaps should not say that. I do not know if I have the right to say it. I know I do not have the right to talk about others, but I may perhaps tell the Speaker that he is a young family man.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the health of your family is dear to you. I am sure that it is very important to you that the medication, treatment and care that your family may need be available in a timely manner. That can only be possible if we agree to increase health transfers, if we agree to respect provincial jurisdictions. I would go so far as to say the following. Mr. Charest, the current premier of Quebec, who is not known as a separatist, said not so long ago:

The premiers dealt with other matters, such as the establishment of a public health agency capable of coordinating a national response to a crisis caused by an infectious disease such as SARS. The two levels of government will also examine the means of coordinating their efforts in the event of a natural catastrophe. Quebec, has created its own structures in these two areas, and they are working. They will collaborate with those to be put in place; however the issue of duplication—

Therein lies the problem. We will again lose money because of this duplication.

I do not know whether this is true in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, but in Quebec we are having a hard time making ends meet with our health budgets because we do not get the necessary funding. The population is aging everywhere and is having problems everywhere. However, particularly in places where we want people to be healthy, governments need to be given the means to do so, the means to take their responsibilities.

I will close by saying that Health Canada's responsibilities are to take care of soldiers, veterans, the first nations, the Inuit, to take care of their own matters and give money to the provinces to ensure that they in turn can take care of their own affairs. It is not Health Canada's responsibility to implement national strategies on cancer, Alzheimer's disease or diabetes. Health Canada has to help the provinces set up their own strategies because every situation is different.

I hope my colleagues will take what I have said to heart and vote against Bill C-5. I am not against health, but I am against outright waste.

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

Mr. Speaker, while I thank the member for her comments, I thought we were debating Bill C-5. There was some deviation from the Bill C-5 legislation, perhaps, and I would like to remind the member that the product she was referring to is dealt with by the PMPRB, which is a quasi-judicial format. It will be dealt with appropriately through that venue.

With regard to the aboriginal issue, this is a very big concern. There was money set aside in budget 2006 for an investment of $450 million in aboriginal public health: to improve water and housing on reserve and educational outcomes and to assist aboriginal women and children. It also confirms up to $600 million for aboriginal housing off reserve and in the north. Furthermore, there is $190 million for an aboriginal diabetes initiative and $145 million for maternal and child health. There have been significant investments made and there will continue to be.

Let us get back to Bill C-5 directly. Bill C-5 is important because it allows for coordination of provincial efforts. It does not in any way infringe on provincial jurisdiction. Rather, it is a focal point for coordinating provincial responses to a pandemic threat. This is important for everything from dealing with privacy concerns to communicating a message to the public. This would be done through the Chief Public Health Officer.

Speaking of provincial jurisdiction, if a pandemic were to break out in Ottawa, I think it is very important that we have a coordinated role so we can deal with it in Gatineau. For all intents and purposes, there is no boundary. It is just a political boundary. It does not deal with the realities of nature and pandemics. The Ottawa area is a classic example of why a national coordinating effort is important. It is because we are so close together.

I understand that the member comes from an ideological background which is provincial this and provincial that all the time; however, what I find interesting is that the people on the far left, the NDP, and the Liberals and the Conservatives all take a national view. We all see that having this public health agency is important. I wonder if the member would agree that pandemics do not respect political borders.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pretty certain that, if a pandemic were to break out in Ottawa, no one would want to save us; it would be an easy way to get rid of us.

All joking aside, I am glad that I was able to raise this question again in my speech on nitric oxide. At least we heard the beginnings of an answer. It seems very interesting.

I am also pleased that the hon. member mentioned the fact that the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP all agree on the need for a national vision. I have nothing against that idea. It is Canada's prerogative to want to have a national vision, which is legitimate.

We want to cooperate and coordinate our efforts in Quebec so that this may run smoothly. However, we want no part of this national vision. Even Premier Charest has said so. This could not be more clear. When a die-hard federalist states that he does not want this national vision, it must be because there is a problem with it.

I would also point out that one of the reasons why this does not work is perhaps because of the funding set aside when developing strategies. The hon. member mentioned the money being invested for aboriginal peoples. As I said earlier, whether another $200 million, $600 million or $30 million is invested in another program, we cannot forget that $2 billion was taken away this year. That is a lot of money.

Even if money is invested, it is not enough to adequately meet all needs. There are entire generations of people who are dying. We cannot allow this.

No matter where one lives in Canada or Quebec, everyone has the right to healthy living conditions and to have a roof over their head.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member. I agree with her on some points. That said, I will not be voting with her because I support this bill. I think that we need this institution to help us protect ourselves.

I agree with her that we do not want duplicate services. It is important that our resources for this be used wisely.

The member seems to have skipped over one thing: everything that is going on internationally. When we have to deal with avian flu, SARS or some other as-yet-unnamed threat, we need an agency that can work with international groups and provincial governments to ensure a concerted approach.

I had the opportunity to visit China with the Minister of Health to see what we were doing and how we were participating internationally in the SARS issue, avian flu, or the possible flu pandemic.

We developed tools like the Global Public Health Intelligence Network (GPHIN), a Canadian tool used by several countries around the world.

It would be unfortunate if each of the ten provinces and three territories were to develop such a tool. I think it would be reasonable to have just one nationwide tool managed by an institution like the one run by Dr. David Butler-Jones. We must have an institution like that to work with provincial authorities and with regional groups through the provinces. I think that is reasonable.

It will contribute to ensuring the health safety of the Canadian public in all provinces and territories. That is what the member wants, so I encourage her to reconsider her position and support this bill.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I once sat on the Standing Committee on Health and whom I miss very much, despite the difficulties we sometimes had.

In fact, the central database of this Health Canada program can compile data from all over the world, which is very interesting. But that is part of something that can be coordinated at the provincial level. Now, with computers, it is very easy to work together with these databases. We have nothing against coordination or working together. What we are saying is that, unfortunately, the Public Health Agency is taking on responsibilities that do not belong to it.

It is not the Public Health Agency's responsibility to work on issues such as a national chronic disease strategy. That is the provinces' responsibility. We cannot stress this enough.

There is another point that is just as important. We have to be in contact with other countries when we are talking about pandemics, diseases that can cross borders very quickly. That is one of the reasons why it is very important that Quebec has a presence at the international level to discuss these issues. In fact, even though Quebec has a so-called voice at UNESCO, in reality this means nothing. Quebec merely sits at the Canadian table. It has no vote. It has to agree with Canada or keep quiet.

This is no way to act, and it does not make Quebec enthusiastic about getting involved in major projects that mean nothing and produce no results in the end.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There is time for another short question. The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating my colleague on her very enlightening presentation on the Bloc's position, and more importantly what the provinces, and Quebec in particular, are going through as a result of the federal government's withdrawal over the years.

One of the problems encountered over the years came from the federal government continuing to interfere and give orders to the provinces while at the same time withdrawing financially. I would like to point out that, at the beginning of Confederation, the federal government was expected to pay 50% of the costs for health care. Just 20 years ago, it paid 25% of these costs. But that percentage has since dropped to approximately 17%. This goes to show the federal government's withdrawal from health care funding.

My question for my hon. colleague is this. Under a provision of this bill, the federal government will be allowed to interfere in the area of front-line public health by providing $100 million. We know that such services come under the jurisdiction of the provinces, that is the problem. One hundred million dollars is not a huge amount, but it is enough to put in place a structure which, in turn, will give orders to the provinces and Quebec. That is what is wrong with this bill. I would like to hear my hon. colleague on that.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with my colleague's question. He is well aware of the social issues and knows full well how difficult it is for a province to meet the needs of its residents if transfers are cut.

We were talking about structures earlier and there are still about $100 million earmarked for front line services. To me this just represents more offices that will open here and there. It will take even more bureaucrats to give orders to the provinces. The provinces will have to do what they are asked, but without additional resources because they will not have received more money for their health services.

How can front line health care providers in the provinces meet the needs of the public if money is invested in structure? That does not work. Money absolutely has to be invested in services.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as with any new initiative, I would hope there will be an ongoing evaluation of how Bill C-5 is proceeding. At committee, people were interested in the initiative, but some had questions about what it would look like in six months or twelve months and whether it would accomplish what it was put forward to do.

I am very hopeful that the government will put in place a way to monitor and to evaluate whether the legislation has done the work that Canadians expect it to do. There are still some pieces that we can work on a bit.

A number of issues need some following. Because time is short, I will focus only on the bill and on another day I will give another speech.

People know about pandemics. Anybody who turns on a radio, or a television, or talks to a neighbour may not understand everything about a pandemic, but at least they know it is a health crisis. They read about people dying from it. They see the kinds of actions being taken, as we saw in Ontario last year around SARS and TB. They have seen people wearing masks.

There is no question that the work around pandemics in the bill takes us forward. However, some things fall from that. While individuals might understand a pandemic, they may have no idea about the other things the Public Health Agency does or will do. They count on the government to be there to do the work. They are not even sure what “the work” is. Most of what they read about, if not pandemics, are the bed shortages at their local hospitals. People depend on the government to do this other work, which also falls under the agency. I will speak to that in a moment.

The issue of a pandemic and the responsibility of the Chief Public Health Officer is extremely important. We have federal areas of jurisdictions, such as transportation, airports, railways, ports, which are incredibly busy in the area where I come from, and military bases. I believe the Chief Public Health Officer should have jurisdiction over all those. New or very dangerous viruses entering the country know no jurisdiction. They enter the country and spread as quickly as possible.

It is difficult. In certain areas we clearly have federal jurisdiction and in other areas the provincial health officer would make decisions about quarantine and actions taken around a pandemic. I really believe the Chief Public Health Officer is the individual who should make those decisions. I also believe that the Chief Public Health Officer needs to have a mandate to do that. It is not always clear in the bill where the Chief Public Health Officer's mandate to act starts and where it ends.

One of the things I might raise is that I gather we had a new quarantine act last year. I was not here. I know it has had royal assent, but I do not think it has yet been proclaimed. I am not going to ask those questions because I am not going to use up that time yet, but I will at some stage. Perhaps we could learn that from the health committee. When will this quarantine act actually be proclaimed so that it therefore can be used in the way that it is intended to be used?

There are some other things I would look at in the act that need to be at least monitored on an ongoing basis.

By the way, the other thing I would say around federal responsibilities and the Chief Public Health Officer's responsibility is the fact that we also have international obligations. We do not just have obligations to the people who live in Canada, because again, viruses and other illnesses do not know borders. We have an international obligation to meet, which is not just a moral obligation but a contractual obligation. I think the Chief Public Health Officer is the person to ensure that we do this.

The one thing that concerns me is that the ability to declare a quarantine is still left with the Minister of Health. I must admit that as a citizen of Canada I would much rather see the quarantine act or the proclamation of the quarantine in a certain area for a certain reason rest with the Chief Public Health Officer as opposed to the Minister of Health. This is an area which I must admit I could be more comfortable with.

I think people expect that this person will be a professional individual, not that the minister is not one. People expect that it will be a trained, educated person who has a medical background, medical expertise and expertise in diseases that are contagious. However, having made that point, I want to go on to the other points that I am a little worried about. That is why I will look for the report about the act from this committee.

One point is resourcing. Other people have spoken to this. Resourcing is going to be extremely important in order for this agency and its staff to be successful. There is no question about it. I know there has been a significant amount of money added as a result of the pandemic part of the agency. I more than understand that, but there is another huge responsibility that comes under the Public Health Agency.

One huge responsibility is surveillance. We need to know what it looks like across the country for a number of chronic diseases. It could be chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD, or type II diabetes. It could be Alzheimer's disease. It could be a variety of chronic illnesses for which this agency already has the responsibility to do the surveillance.

I want to make sure, particularly as we see more chronic diseases and growth in the numbers of people with these diseases, that this agency is able to carry out its tasks in an able and efficient fashion. I do not want to see resources diverted to prevent people from doing that at a time when we are actually seeing more people with chronic illnesses.

There is another thing about surveillance, of course, and I know that for my colleagues across the way this is a concern. There is no mandatory reporting. I would far rather have seen mandatory reporting.

I do not think any province is deliberately going to hold back information, but I would rather have seen mandatory reporting whereby provinces have to report to the Chief Public Health Officer what the status is around chronic illnesses or other trends they are seeing. That would be important for the federal government to know in order to take proactive as opposed to reactive action. I would much rather have preferred, as I say, to see mandatory reporting.

Another thing we have recently seen across the country in many places, but which is different in every province, is a drop in immunization. There are a lot of people today who have never seen a communicable disease. Either they have been immunized against it as children or their children have been, but they have never seen tuberculosis. They have never seen an outbreak of tuberculosis unless, of course, they are working in a downtown urban area now, although we thought it was gone. They have never seen, as I have in one province, 50 children left significantly challenged as a result of the fact that their parents had not had the children immunized.

When we start to see those drops in immunization, that is a trend across the country. I want the Chief Public Health Officer to know that and to be able to at least provide some leadership. I want the health officer to look at whether there are some reasons why it is going up in one province and down in the other and to look at what have we learned from the province that is doing well and what is happening in the province that may not be. Without mandatory reporting, that is not always possible, although, as I say, I do not think anybody would ever try to deliberately hold back that kind of information.

It also indicates that if we start to see more chronic disease across the country, we may, although I am not saying we will, start to see a need for certain kinds of surgery. I assume that this would somehow affect guaranteed wait times or the fifth platform, which I am still anxious for us to have an opportunity to speak about. I will not take up the time today, but it may have an implication for how we can continue to guarantee wait times if there is a trend that says we have more people with a particular chronic illness, which we know may lead to surgery at some stage for many of these people.

The other two areas that I think are extremely important have also been mentioned earlier. These are the areas of promotion and prevention. We will do far less work in health care and we will have significantly less wait times if we do really sound and solid work in the area of promotion, which is about helping people make good choices. Then there is prevention, which means being able to do those things such as helping young women learn to exercise very early on. I bet that if we did this with every girl child in Canada we would see far less broken hips from osteoporosis when those young girls are 65 or 75 or whatever.

These areas of promotion, of promoting health lifestyles, and prevention, the kinds of things that we know can prevent certain illnesses, often are pushed to the back because we are concerned about the pandemic, the wait times and what we read about at our local hospital. I speak from some experience as a health minister when I say that prevention and promotion often get pushed to the side.

I am not saying that there is an intent in this. I do not want there to be an inherent risk because of the very broad mandate, and because of the extreme interest in pandemics, as there should be. Many people have died during a pandemic. We have seen more information recently from another country to show that one virus can go from person to person. This means that virus is mutating, so that is very front page news.

I think it would be easy as the agency to focus on those areas that we hear so much about and see so much about and that people talk so much about, and yet those areas that could reduce our wait times, make our population healthier, et cetera, may not get the kind of attention they need. If we can do promotion and prevention and encourage that while we have young children, then the minister of health, whoever that is in 20 years' time, is going to have a healthier population and will spend less money because we will not see people with the same levels of a number of those chronic illnesses.

Recently there has been quite a bit in the paper about asthma and the number of people who die from asthma, often because the prevention being done is not being done in a way that is consistent and not in a way that always meets their needs. I would want to see that from across the country, so--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The member for Surrey North will have five minutes to complete her remarks the next time the bill is before the House.

The House resumed from June 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cape Breton—Canso.

It is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-5, an act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain acts. I rise not only as the elected member for Nunavut but also as the associate public health critic for the official opposition.

As our world becomes more globalized, and as our population ages, we are faced with challenges, as a country, to public health which we must address.

The necessity to strengthen coordination in public health across the country was largely highlighted by the inadequacies of the public health response to the 2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, commonly known as SARS. It was a most painful and difficult lesson and certainly required a focused and strategic effort to address the shortcomings for the future security of all Canadians.

I would like to quote from a document which is available on the website of the Public Health Agency of Canada. It is Dr. Naylor's response to Minister McLellan on June 15, 2003, as the chair for the advisory committee on SARS and public health. He wrote:

Thus, we believe the focus of governments should be first and foremost on building the necessary public health infrastructure and clinical capacity to contain infectious outbreaks. Local containment and rapid contract tracing is the key both to prevention of exportation and limiting the impact of importation of infectious diseases.

We are reminded of the crisis that we grappled with as a nation in 2003. This did indeed affect us as a nation, as a threat to our public health. It required action and the then Liberal government responded with study and consultation. The prominent reports included: “Learning from SARS--Renewal of Public Health in Canada, A report of the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health October 2003”, which is also known as the Naylor report, and “Reforming Health Protection and Promotion in Canada: Time to Act”.

In September 2004 the Public Health Agency of Canada was established by an order in council, and the Public Health Agency of Canada received control of the former population and public health branch of Health Canada. After extensive study and consultation, the Liberal government developed and introduced on November 16, 2005 Bill C-75, an act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain acts.

The bill would provide the legislative basis for the Public Health Agency of Canada. Once Parliament was dissolved the bill consequently died and was removed from the order paper.

Fortunately for Canadians, the Conservative government has decided to re-introduce the Liberal bill on April 24, 2006 in this new session as Bill C-5.

The preamble states:

--the Government of Canada wishes to take public health measures...foster collaboration within the field of public health and to coordinate federal policies and programs in the area of public health...promote cooperation and consultation...foster cooperation in that field with foreign governments and international organizations...creation of a public health agency for Canada and the appointment of a Chief Public Health Officer will contribute to federal efforts to identify and reduce public health risk factors and to support national readiness for public health threats--

Coordination and cooperation seem to be a clear path to a strong public health system, resilient enough to contain or deter outbreaks that could cause our economy billions of dollars in both health care expenditures and lost tourism dollars.

In addition to such financial consequences, the social costs are immeasurable. This was proven during the SARS crisis in the greater Toronto area as regular days were disrupted with fear and insecurity.

Bill C-5 indicates that the Minister of Health will preside over the Public Health Agency of Canada. To this end, the agency will be directly accountable to the Canadian people through federal legislation.

Furthermore, the bill makes amendments to the Department of Health Act and the Quarantine Act. As a country, our demands are always changing. It is important, therefore, to meet such changing demands with appropriate and adequate legislation and amendments if need be.

These amendments are an example of meeting such changes in our country. However, in my support of Bill C-5, it is of serious concern to me that the bill does not have specific statutory responses for first nations and Inuit population health issues, including crisis response.

In respect to the Garden Hill First Nation, which my colleague from Churchill represents, and the tuberculosis epidemic that is being experienced since March, the first two active cases of TB have spread to more than two dozen active cases. This outbreak has been the source of social disruption.

Although public health for first nations Inuit is currently administered through the FNIHB of Health Canada, Bill C-5 should be an important bridge and lead on the issue of public health for first nations and Inuit. It would work in collaboration with the aboriginal people, as they are the population at risk due to chronic housing shortages, mould in homes, and inadequate access to health care and health care systems. I might add that even in my own riding of Nunavut, we are certainly experiencing cases of TB that have been increasing in numbers and that is very alarming to us.

Through Bill C-5, the federal government also has legislative authority for specific client groups, including the RCMP, the military and federal institutions. These are areas of direct responsibility and each of these client groups requires specific consideration and responsibility for optimum service.

The bill sets out the framework for coordination, promotion and protection of public health for Canadians, and will support continued collaboration and coordination with provincial, territorial and first nation governments, along with Inuit governments as well.

Canadians want to be healthy. They do not want to feel at risk of diseases such as SARS, avian flu, TB, or any other diseases for that matter.

Canadians want to live free and healthy, and quite frankly, Canadians deserve it. Bill C-5 provides substantial assistance in this particular regard and this bill addresses the challenges and obstacles that are blind to our provincial jurisdictions and international borders.

I encourage all members of this House to join in solidarity and work toward the benefit of the health of our people, the health of our nation.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her contribution to Bill C-5.

I recently had the opportunity to sit in at a health committee meeting with the new head of the Public Health Agency of Canada, Dr. Butler-Jones. One of the things that I was very interested in was that there seems to be a partitioning of some aboriginal health issues outside of the agency, and it raises some questions.

I know that the members of the health committee also question the separation of initiatives as it might relate, for instance, to fetal alcohol syndrome, where there was one approach for the aboriginal community and one set of programs, and the rest of the population was dealt with through the agency itself.

I would like to ask the member, is she confident that the aboriginal health issues, which have been discussed often in this place, have an appropriate attention directed to them through this new Public Health Agency of Canada?

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that currently there is no obligation for the federal government. It has no statutory obligation to deal with aboriginal health through the Public Health Agency of Canada. That is something that worries me a little in that we would have a separate way of treating the health of aboriginal Canadians.

My personal preference would be to have a more coordinated effort that is in line with the rest of the country. I cannot speak so much for first nations, but I know for my riding, where we are under a territorial public government, that our department of health is part of the initiatives that pertain in the country.

I know my colleague from Churchill was very worried about this particular part of the bill. We discussed it and felt that there has to be a more coordinated effort so that these types of services for the bands, especially the health services for the people who live on reserves, does not fall through the cracks and that there is a coordinated national effort along with what we are doing in the Public Health Agency of Canada.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to and greatly appreciated my colleague's speech, and I share her concerns about the first nations and the Inuit community.

I would like to know when, if ever, in her opinion, the government took concrete action to respond to the needs of the first nations and the Inuit without having to be seriously prodded into action by parliamentarians. Also, does she believe that her concerns will be put at ease by the government investing more heavily in structures?

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, again, I cannot speak for first nations issues, but in my discussions with different people on different issues, whether it be on health, education or housing, we need to understand that unless the people are involved in the process of developing criteria, developing curricula, and developing policies for their own people, they will not feel that they have ownership of the measures that are in place, and they will not work.

We have seen from past experiences, even within the nine years that I have been here, in areas where we do not work with the people, there has been resistance to come on side with whatever initiative we are doing, whether we are talking about health, education or governance. Unless the people themselves are directly involved and have a say in how measures are being implemented to help them, then they will not work and we will not get the results that we want to see.

In this particular area, I would say that the Public Health Agency of Canada and maybe through Health Canada must work with first nations and the Inuit population to work with measures that would ensure that the safety of their health is the same as other Canadians, especially in the Public Health Agency of Canada criteria.

The other thing is, under the first nations and Inuit health benefits, we have a different health insurance system that really needs to be overhauled. That might be another area that the federal government should pursue because we do not want, as we say in Canada, the two tier system for health. That is certainly also the case for aboriginal Canadians.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join today's debate on Bill C-5.

Enhancing the public health care infrastructure is the key in combating disease and possible pandemics that may threaten our societies and our nation at large. The lessons we have learned from SARS serve as imperative in restructuring and enhancing our public health care system.

Bill C-75, introduced by the Liberals in the last parliamentary session, was an initial step toward strengthening the ability to protect the health and well-being of our citizens. It is important to keep our public health system and the health of our population a priority at all times, not only in times of unpredictable disease. A key element in enhancing our capacity for disease prevention as well as emergency response lies within the intergovernmental infrastructure of public health.

A sustainable public health system encompasses a comprehensive and cohesive measure of cooperation, not only across governments but within governments as well, in addition to non-governmental organizations, the private sector and of course the public at large.

In general, every level of government, from local to federal, must collaborate and assume their roles and responsibilities in order to achieve a functional, integrated public health care system and an effective emergency response capacity. The SARS outbreak managed to articulate and highlight the weaknesses of our public health care system and the defects of managing health crises.

Toronto followed China and Hong Kong as another region hardest hit by SARS. As of August 12, 2003, there had been approximately 44 deaths and 438 suspected cases of SARS in the Toronto area. These figures, along with the panic that occurred because of SARS, put great pressure and stress on the health care system and inevitably on society at large. There were high numbers of patients in need of intensive care. Hospitals had to be shut down. Elective procedures were cancelled. Most important, appropriate and adequate supplies necessary to combat the disease were woefully lacking.

Luckily, the public health care workers were able to contain SARS and prevent it from spreading to the larger community. Nonetheless, such health crises should not be subject to and depend on luck or a committed staff. Rather, they should be tackled by a cohesive public health care system with the regional capacity for outbreak containment, information management, surveillance and infection control.

Overall, the SARS outbreak illustrated that Canada was not ready to deal adequately with a pandemic. The Government of Ontario was certainly at no capacity to withstand simultaneous SARS attacks, and the rest of the provinces did not represent a better stance either.

Learning from these lessons, the former government's initiative in introducing Bill C-75 was aimed at creating an agency with the ability to protect the health and safety of all Canadians. Such an agency was meant to create the leading role in federal collaboration with the provinces and territories in order to achieve a sustainable public health care system through the renewing of the system as a whole.

The Public Health Agency of Canada assumes the role of working closely with provinces and territories by being part of the public service and working to combat and prevent chronic diseases, such as heart disease and cancer, in addition to injury prevention, public health emergencies and, notably, infectious disease outbreaks.

The distinction of the agency is in its functional structure and interconnectedness. It liaises as follows. The agency is to be headed by the Chief Public Health Officer and includes two direct reporting bodies: first, the agency's corporate secretariat, which houses the executive and ministerial services, and second, the agency's scientific director general, who is responsible for the agency-wide mandate of science and coordination.

The agency has a number of branches. I will do a brief run-through of them. Of course, as with any good federal government agency, there will be a number of acronyms.

There is the infectious diseases and emergency preparedness branch, IDEP. Within this branch, there are number of different responsibilities. The centre for infectious disease prevention and control, CIDPC, is within this branch, as are the centre for emergency preparedness and response, CEPR, the national microbiology laboratory, NML, and the pandemic preparedness secretariat, PPS. They all fall within IDEP's responsibility.

Other branches are the health promotion and chronic disease prevention branch, HPCDP, as well as the public health practice and regional operations branch, PHPRO, which encompasses public health practice in all regions throughout the country.

Finally, there is the strategic policy, communications and corporate services branch, which encompasses the strategic policy directorate, the communications directorate, the finance and administration directorate, and the human resources directorate. Really, they are the logistical support behind the branch.

The new structure's functionality and collaboration and the division specialties created by this agency are essential for the renewal of our public health care system. With specific specialized fields and care divisions, each health oriented topic will be dealt with effectively, efficiently and rapidly.

For example, let us take into consideration the centre for emergency preparedness and response. This unit, under the infectious diseases and emergency preparedness branch, was created in March 2006 for the specific purpose of coordinating and facilitating pandemic preparedness and emergency response activities in a cross-governmental and nationwide format. This is an advanced unit that has brought together the lessons learned from SARS and was able to put them into use when dealing with the possible outbreak of avian flu.

By providing leadership within the Public Health Agency of Canada, next to working with key partners and stakeholders, the secretariat served as the focal unit of emergency preparedness. It provided internal and international capacity of outbreak containment, information management, surveillance and infection control. It also achieved clarity in defining the roles and responsibilities within the decision making process, enabling effective, efficient and integrated federal and national health pandemic preparedness.

The success in controlling and disqualifying the breakout of avian flu in Canada serves as an indicator that this agency and its particular branches serve as assets to the betterment of the health care system here in Canada.

Canadians want to live in a safe and healthy environment, with a reduced risk of disease. Certainly these branches and the work undertaken by these branches will go a long way in doing that. That is why I believe Bill C-5 should be supported.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of my colleague on Bill C-5 regarding the creation of the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Since I have been a member of Parliament, the overwhelming majority of our time in this chamber has been spent on health care. I think everyone would agree. It has been the number one, top of mind issue, but very little of that time is spent on talking about public health and actually making Canadians healthier.

Recent events in the House of Commons have given us the opportunity to do something significant for actually improving the general health of Canadians, but this has not met with broad support from members of the House of Commons. Most of us were moved by Wendy Mesley's CBC program about the contamination and chemical soup we live in today and the terrible reality that 50% of our children's generation will get cancer due to exposure to chemical agents, much of it environmental.

Just weeks ago, the chamber dealt with an NDP opposition day motion to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides. I had wanted to ask my colleague from Nunavut a question about this, given that even people in the far north are finding residual chemical pesticides in the milk of mothers living in the far north. The level of contamination is staggering.

I want to ask my colleague for his views on two important public health initiatives that we have missed acting on in just the last 18 months. One is the opportunity we had to eliminate 200 million kilos per year of chemical pesticides being used for non-essential cosmetic purposes, hopefully to elevate the public health of all of us. Also, there is the fact that 18 months ago the House of Commons voted to ban trans fats, a known public health hazard for which there are safer alternatives available. No action ever came of it.

It is frustrating to Canadians and certainly frustrating to me that as we stand here and talk about creating a new Public Health Agency of Canada we are not putting our money where our mouth is in terms of taking concrete steps to improve the general public health of Canadians.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

First, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I see the merit in the member's point and I certainly agree with him. I think that as a society we have come a certain distance with regard to pollutants or carcinogens. I think we have become much more aware of their impact. Most provinces now hold portfolios for ministerial positions for health promotion. I also think there are steps toward addressing obesity.

That is what this agency is all about. With the establishment of this agency, we have a number of different opportunities. There is an opportunity that will focus on public education. There will be science based evidence that will support public education programs. The agency will look at legislative initiatives that will allow this country to go forward and make wise investments to secure the future health of our citizens.

I am not in disagreement with the comments that my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has expressed to the House today.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening attentively to my colleague for the last 10 minutes. I agree with him that this bill was brought forth by the previous government. We obviously would encourage it.

One of the comments I have, though, is that the Public Health Agency is headquartered in Winnipeg. Winnipeg is the site of the only level 4 lab in the country. Given that my colleague is from Cape Breton and has always been a huge supporter of ensuring that these institutions do not remain only in central Canada, that they be located outside of Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal, I would like my hon. colleague's comments on, first, the importance of ensuring that it be maintained in Winnipeg and, second, the importance of having these institutions outside of the central capital region.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the evidence is overwhelming. We want to ensure these agencies and federal departments can deliver services more efficiently. We must also look at the cost of renting office space and having a well-trained, highly motivated workforce. I know great work is being done in Citizenship and Immigration by committed employees in Sydney and Cape Breton. I agree wholeheartedly that the regions make a great contribution to the country and this is one way that we can.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill C-5, an act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada.

I would like to start by mentioning that I am a social worker by trade. I have worked in the Quebec health and social services network for 20 years or so. During that time, I worked in a residential and long term care centre for seniors. In this kind of facility, the risk of contagion and epidemics is significant, the clientele being extremely vulnerable. All that to say that, professionally speaking, I am very sensitive to the public health issue.

I witnessed firsthand how competently and expertly the public health authority in my region can handle epidemics, particularly a flue epidemic. I realized that Quebec had an aggressive and efficient response strategy that meets the needs of Quebeckers.

Bill C-5, which is now back in the House, is essentially designed to solidify the agency as an independent administrative entity that is an integral part of the Canadian health network, by giving it a number of powers and appointing a chief public health officer.

In fact, Bill C-5, an act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain acts, has put Bill C-75, introduced in November 2005 just before the 38th Parliament was dissolved, back on the legislative agenda. As I have said previously, by making this Liberal bill its own, the Conservative government is also adopting the Liberal vision of Canada: Ottawa knows best and will impose its views from coast to coast.

I think it is important to understand that, contrary to what it has said since it was elected, the Conservative government wants to make inroads into health, one of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

Is the government aware that Quebec has had its own Institut national de santé publique for eight years now, since 1998? It appears not, because if the government was aware, it would have inserted a provision in the bill at the outset to recognize the reality in Quebec and to recognize that the proposed Public Health Agency of Canada will duplicate services and cause confusion in Quebec.

To illustrate this, I invite all members to visit the Internet site of the Institut national de santé publique du Québec at www.inspq.qc.ca. I will provide some information that will help the members understand just how much confusion the establishment of this agency will create. The site says:

The vision of the Institut national de santé publique du Québec is to be the centre of expertise and reference centre for public health in Quebec. Its goal is to advance knowledge and propose intersectoral actions and strategies to improve Quebeckers' health and welfare.

In fact, when the Institut national de santé publique was created in 1998, the coordination of public health expertise in Quebec underwent a major reorganization. Achieving the institute's mission involves pooling and sharing expertise, developing research, disseminating and using knowledge and engaging in international cooperation.

In addition, in the field, the institute works to attain its objectives through various activities and specific services: advice and specialized assistance, research or development of new knowledge, training, information, specialized laboratories, international cooperation and knowledge exchange.

All Institut national de santé publique du Québec activities are part of a broad concept of public health, and aim for the highest possible quality standards.

To achieve the highest possible quality standards, the agency participates in three World Health Organization collaborating centres, including the Quebec WHO collaborating centre on the development of healthy cities and towns, the Quebec WHO collaborating centre for safety promotion and injury prevention and, finally, the WHO collaborating centre on environmental and occupational health impact assessment and surveillance.

By definition, a WHO collaborating centre must “—participate in the strengthening of country resources, in terms of information, services, research and training, in support of national health development”.

The preamble to Bill C-5 mentions that this proposed Canadian agency also plans to encourage cooperation in this area with foreign governments and international organizations, as well as with other interested organizations and individuals. Clearly, these functions will duplicate what is already happening in Quebec.

I understand that the government wishes to ignore this reality, but members of the Bloc Québécois were elected to talk about Quebec's reality, needs and distinct character here in the House of Commons. Do not be fooled into thinking that we are the only ones defending the interests of Quebeckers.

On May 11 during question period at the Quebec National Assembly, Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, member for Borduas and opposition critic for health, asked the health minister, Philippe Couillard, the following question, “Does the minister acknowledge that there is evidence of overlapping jurisdictions and that what the federal government is proposing is more than an exchange of information; that it is taking the place of the government that has the responsibility of applying Quebec's public health act and health and social services act? Does he acknowledge the overlap in responsibilities? Does he acknowledge that this is unacceptable? Will he tell us today that the Government of Quebec will strongly and completely oppose interference in jurisdictions that are strictly Quebec's in the area of health?”

Do you know what the health minister, Mr. Couillard, said? He said, and I quote:

Of course.

He said, “Of course”, and he continued:

The proof is that we used legal recourse on the issue of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act and we are opting out—

Now listen to this.

—of every national Canadian strategy that will be introduced, for instance on cancer, mental health and health promotion. We will see what the final wording of the bill will be, if and when it is passed by the House of Commons.

This proves it is not just the Bloc Québécois that opposes such a bill; the Government of Quebec's health minister opposes it as well.

I suggest that, instead of creating new sources of conflict and overlaps in public spending, that money be paid directly to Quebec so that it can provide the health services the public has every right to expect.

Let us come back specifically to Bill C-5. In the preamble of the bill it says, “the Government of Canada wishes to take public health measures, including measures relating to health protection and promotion, population health assessment, health surveillance, disease and injury prevention, and public health emergency preparedness and response”.

Does the current agency not already assume, for the most part, this role the government wants to give it in this bill?

I also understand that the agency already fostered consultation and cooperation with the provincial and territorial governments and that it already encouraged cooperation with foreign governments and international organizations, that it is headed up by a doctor and that it seems to have a large team of officials at its service as well as a hefty budget.

Why do we need to invent a new structure for Canada?

I seriously wonder if we really need Bill C-5, which has several elements that I find worrisome.

I am wondering whether the consolidation of this agency is really necessary and whether it is in the best interest of taxpayers—an expression so dear to our Conservative government—to finance this administrative structure as a separate entity within the existing health care network.

I truly believe that this bill came about in direct response to the SARS crisis in the Toronto area in 2003.

In my view, the government thinks that this intrusion in health care, an area of jurisdiction belonging to Quebec and the provinces, is justified largely because of the serious and unfortunate experience with SARS in 2003.

We agree with the parliamentary secretary regarding the important debate on the state of public health in Canada triggered by the SARS crisis. Nevertheless, I would point out that, at the time, the various players in the Quebec health care system agreed that, if the crisis had happened in Quebec, it would not have been as serious as it was in Ontario. In fact, Quebec was ready. The well-established and well-structured Institut national de santé publique du Québec was there precisely to respond to that kind of event.

Quebec has an action plan ready to be carried out in the event of an emergency situation within its borders and it has well-established, responsible human resources.

Furthermore, Quebec has developed a public health culture and public health practices that are often cited as examples all over the world. Furthermore, the Institut national de santé publique du Québec was consulted for its expertise by members of the working committee from Ontario responsible for making recommendations regarding the creation of a health promotion and protection agency in Ontario. Their report was tabled in March 2006 and the agency should be created by 2007.

The SARS crisis in Toronto, in a sense, prompted the creation of that agency in Ontario. At first glance, the agency would seem to play the same role as the Institut national de santé publique du Québec.

In short, because in its area of jurisdiction Quebec has put in place what is required to respond to this type of crisis, because Quebec is rigorous and has developed remarkable expertise in its role as protector of public health, in addition to collaborating with the various players in this area, the Bloc Québécois does not feel it is necessary to give this status to the Public Health Agency of Canada, as provided for in Bill C-5.

I really do not see how the new status and the new powers of the Public Health Agency of Canada, which will have an office in Quebec, will help to better deal with a future influenza pandemic, for example. Each province must put in place its own public health structure, one that is well co-ordinated and well run.

I do not believe it necessary to squander large amounts of money on a heavier bureaucracy in order to establish and conduct coordination of provincial activities in the area of health promotion and prevention. I do not see how this agency per se will make it possible to react more quickly.

The parliamentary secretary to the health minister stated in May, and I quote:

—everyone in Canada can benefit by working together...if there were, heaven forbid, a pandemic influenza we would need to have a coordinated effort throughout Canada to deal with the issue.

He added that “we would need a coordinated effort throughout the world”.

The parliamentary secretary to the health minister leads us to believe that, at present, the provinces, territories and the WHO are not working together, and that Bill C-5 would solve this problem.

I would not want the parliamentary secretary to think that I am against collaborating and cooperating, or that I have anything against concerted efforts. I want him to know that what I am against is duplicating structures, creating another bureaucracy, unnecessary spending, duplication, and intrusion by the federal government in Quebec's areas of responsibility.

I am for better health protection for Quebeckers and Canadians while ensuring both efficiency and effectiveness. The most appropriate actors for this remain the experts designated by the provinces.

In Quebec, the public health action plans are coordinated by the director of the Institut national de santé publique, who is responsible for cooperating with his counterparts in the other provinces, federal officials and the WHO in the event of an epidemic or pandemic.

The problem is that people's needs in terms of health and social services are experienced in Quebec and the provinces, while the money is in Ottawa.

Take for example Quebec's ongoing planning activities in the area of health promotion.

In Quebec, every provincial, regional and local expert agrees that the top health promotion priority is addressing the problems of our overweight and obese youth. Allow me to quote the following:

The scope of this public health problem has prompted the Government of Quebec to identify obesity prevention as a government priority...The institute's work also contributes to the development of preventive interventions based primarily on changes to political, economic, socio-cultural, agricultural and food, and built environments that will make it easier to adopt healthy weight management behaviours while taking care not to intensify the excessive preoccupation with weight.

That is a rather concrete example showing that, in Quebec, we have identified among our health promotion priorities the issue of excess weight in our young people. The response methods selected and used are suited to the culture and values of Quebeckers.

If we visit the website of the Canadian agency, we can see that it too has national strategies dealing with weight and excess weight.

Thus, a Quebecker doing Internet research would come across a Canadian strategy and a Quebec strategy to battle excessive body weight. Personally, as a taxpayer and a citizen, I see this as a waste of public funds. Running a health promotion campaign involves all sorts of activities: brochures, flyers, radio and television ads. The federal government is spending money, and so is the Quebec government. This is a clear, blatant example that shows taxpayers that spending is being duplicated.

I have one more example. Even though I only have a minute left, I would like to take the time to provide one last example, which is about the fight against cancer.

These days, cancer is a very serious, increasingly common illness that affects many Quebeckers and Canadians. Quebec has its own strategy for fighting cancer. On the federal level, Canada has created its own national strategy. As a Quebecker, I find myself up against the same situation as in the other example I just gave. We are presented with two strategies, complete with different kinds of promotional and educational materials. This is another blatant example of unacceptable duplication of spending.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois is committed to supporting the other parties in this House when it is in the best interest of Quebec. However, we cannot support a project in which the government seeks to duplicate services and create new bureaucratic structures.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments. I have to say they were quite disappointing because there were a lot of inaccuracies and misstatements.

With respect to the Canadian strategy for cancer control, it is true that the government put $260 million toward a five year strategy. When the Conservatives were in opposition, I brought forward a motion to fully fund and implement the strategy. Unfortunately it did not happen with the Liberal government but our government is going to make it happen.

The strategy will provide coordination of best practices in cancer. If something is going well in Quebec, Quebec will be able to convey that knowledge to British Columbia, Alberta or P.E.I., for example. The same is true if something is going well in another party of the country. Quebec could benefit from that knowledge.

The other part of the strategy is research. The federal government plays a significant role in cancer research. It is ludicrous for the member to suggest that the research that will be conducted within the cancer strategy will not have the potential of helping people in Quebec.

With regard to the larger picture, we hear the same tired lines from the Bloc Québécois all the time about duplication and provincial jurisdiction. That is not the case with this bill. This bill allows for the coordination of resources to deal with a pandemic. Pandemics do not respect borders. Moreover, the Canada Health Act and the powers that the Minister of Health has are well known. The Public Health Agency is part of that. The health minister already has the power to deal with public health issues. The Public Health Agency falls under the responsibilities of the Minister of Health. It is not an encroachment. It allows the health minister to better deal with the challenges faced by all Canadians, including Quebeckers. The Public Health Agency also has to deal with our international obligations.

Would the member agree that pandemics do not respect borders? A simple yes or no answer would be fine.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for listening to my speech. Perhaps he missed half of it, I do not know. He arrived almost at the end of my speech.

I can say, in answer to his question, that I think he is right; germs, bacteria and so on know no boundaries. This is an undeniable fact. He must understand that the Bloc Québécois is not opposed to strategies for fighting cancer. However, we believe that this is a provincial responsibility, that this comes under the province's jurisdiction and that we can cooperate with a federal authority.

We want the federal government to give us the money so that we can implement our own strategy for promoting health and fighting cancer. Indeed, Quebec is always prepared and it is already doing so, since the Department of Health is part of the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control. We are already cooperating.

Consequently, why is it so necessary to create an entity and to use public funds to support a structure that, in my opinion, is not relevant? I believe that Quebec is currently cooperating with federal authorities, and that it is doing so very well. Why duplicate our health promotion and cancer control activities when each province is doing this well and we are already cooperating with federal authorities?

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

We will now go to statements by members. There will be five minutes left for questions and comments when the debate resumes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, on behalf of New Democratic Party, to join in the debate at third reading of Bill C-5, an act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain acts.

I and the people of my riding are proud to have the federal virology laboratory located in the riding. We have taken a great personal and professional interest in following the evolution of the realization that our public health initiatives are equally important and perhaps even of more importance than our health care system generally in that our health care system dedicates so much of our resources and energies to fixing people after they are broken. The public health regime is dedicated to elevating the standards of our general health and, hopefully, preventing people from getting sick.

I think all the authorities in the field of delivering health care have come to the realization that it is all about finding better ways to create a healthier population. We support Bill C-5 and this initiative because it would take us one step further in prioritizing the public health of Canadians at least equally with the priority of helping Canadians once they have been stricken with an illness and helping them to cope with it.

In giving thought to the issue of greater public health, this debate gives us the opportunity to review some of the accessible things without a great deal of expense and resources spent that would have a direct impact on public health.

I note that the creation of the new Public Health Agency of Canada would also create the chief public health officer whose mandate surely would be one of education, to help Canadians understand and realize what steps they can take to create a healthier population and enjoy a better quality of life. As a secondary benefit, it would take enormous pressure off our overtaxed public health care system.

A couple of obvious things come to mind, which I sincerely hope the newly appointed chief public health officer would be seized of. One is the fact, and I say this with some shame, that Canada is still one of the world's leading producers and exporters of asbestos. It is hard to imagine in this day and age of scientific awareness of the health hazards of asbestos, but we continue to produce and export it at an alarming rate of 240,000 tonnes per year. We know that one fibre can and has caused devastating health conditions for those who, after a terribly cruel and long incubation period, are struck down with mesothelioma, the cancer caused by asbestos.

We should encourage our newly created public health officer to address the asbestos issue because there is no business case to continue supporting the asbestos industry the way we do. We are one of the world's largest producers and exporters of asbestos while the rest of the world is banning it. The entire European Union has banned asbestos, as has France.

In fact, Canada went to the WTO to stop the banning of asbestos, if anyone can believe that, which is why I said that I had introduced this issue with some trepidation and some shame. Canada tried to intervene to stop the good people of France from banning asbestos by claiming that it would be a trade barrier. We would not be able to sell our Canadian asbestos to France anymore. Fortunately, Canada lost and France won at the WTO and France continued in its logical step of trying to get this poison away from its citizens.

France is now calling for a global ban on asbestos. It is rare for a nation state to appeal to other nation states in this era of delicate diplomatic relationships but France is calling, very overtly, for a ban on asbestos globally. I hope Canada heeds the message and takes note of that.

Last week the ILO, the International Labour Organization, passed a resolution calling for a ban on all forms of asbestos. The world should no longer be exposed to asbestos and yet we continue to dump corporate welfare into the crippling asbestos industry in the province of Quebec.

I know the hazards of asbestos because I used to work in the asbestos mines. I have friends who have died and friends who are dying of asbestos related diseases. I know how we were lied to about asbestos and how that industry continues to lie to Canadians and to the world about the effects of asbestos. It is not overstating things to say that the asbestos industry is the tobacco industry's evil twin in the damage it causes to the general public health in Canada where the countryside is littered with asbestos, even in the buildings that we work in on Parliament Hill and around the world.

The only place Canada can find a market for its asbestos is in the third world, developing nations, that rarely have health and safety measures at all, much less ones that are enforced. We do not see HEPA filters on a day labourer in Pakistan who is shovelling Canadian asbestos from a wheelbarrow into a pile of cement to make asbestos cement tiles. I have seen the pictures. The labourers are barefoot, bare chested and have no health protection whatsoever. It is happening as we speak with Canadian asbestos.

I hope our new chief public health officer listens to the world and ignores the asbestos industry, stops giving corporate welfare to these guys and stops using our Canadian embassies to promote asbestos. One hundred and twenty conferences in 60 different countries were paid for by the Asbestos Institute, which is funded by the federal government, to promote Canadian asbestos. At the most recent one in Jakarta in May, the Canadian embassy was used to host this asbestos promotion event which was paid for by the Government of Canada. I think it is appalling.

The second issue I would like to touch on in terms of public health is in the context of the new Public Health Agency of Canada and the role of the chief public health officer. I hope the new chief public health officer will take note of the fact that over 90 Canadian municipalities have banned the cosmetic non-essential use of pesticides in their municipalities. I hope he takes note of the courage and tenacity that it takes on the part of often volunteer reeves and councillors of small municipalities and cities who only work part time in many cases.

Those individuals have to stand up to the massive chemical lobbyists who pounce on communities. As soon as they indicate that they are interested in banning the non-essential cosmetic use of pesticides, they get inundated with the lawyers, the lobbyists and the threatened lawsuits that the cosmetic use of pesticides cannot be banned because it is an unfair trade restriction and they have no jurisdiction. They bog them up in the courts for years trying to stop them from doing what common sense dictates they do.

That is the situation that over 90 municipalities in Canada have had to struggle through. The City of Ottawa failed by one vote after two years of trying. I hope our new national chief public health officer can recognize the problems the municipalities must struggle with and encourage the government to do nationally what municipalities are forced to do municipally.

Parliament had an opportunity to pass an NDP opposition day motion to ban the cosmetic non-essential use of pesticides and to lend support to those courageous municipalities. I should point out that Hudson, Quebec was the first municipality in Canada that managed to do this. It was in response partly to two young men in the area of Hudson, Quebec who lived in the vicinity of five golf courses that were regularly sprayed with these chemical pesticides. The cluster of chemical and environmentally related cancers in that area was astounding.

Those two young men both contracted brain cancer in their early teens. They made a pact with each other that if either of them survived the other would go on to be a champion of having these pesticides banned. One died and the other went on to be a champion. I have heard him speak and I wish everyone in the House of Commons could hear him speak.

Those communities, one by one, were banning cosmetic pesticides until the entire province of Quebec did so, to its great credit. The province took it out of the hands of those struggling municipalities. It said that it would stand up to the big chemical companies, that it would fight the court cases on behalf of the municipalities and that it would do away with the hundreds of thousands of kilos per year of usage of non-essential cosmetic pesticides.

True public health is when we take steps to try to improve the general health of our population. It does not make sense to wait until more and more people contract environmentally triggered cancers and then scramble for the money to find better treatments for those people. I do not think we will ever keep up.

My home province of Manitoba now spends 42% of its provincial budget on health care, and it is not enough. We still have waiting lists. We still do not have enough CAT scans. I do not think it will ever be enough until we turn off the tap at the front end and have less people coming into the system with catastrophic diseases, these appalling cancers.

There is a terrible statistic of which we should all be cognizant and of which we should all take note as members of Parliament. My children are in their twenties. Of their generation, 50% of them will die of cancer. People say that it is because they are living longer. That is not true. It is because they are being exposed to a chemical soup that is unprecedented in the history of mankind. It is only in the post-war years that the petrochemical industry has exploded and the exposure to new chemical compounds has exploded as well.

The burden of proof to prove that they are dangerous is on us, and that is the problem. We tried to put forward a motion in the House of Commons that would put the burden of proof on the manufacturers. They would have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a product would not harm us before the product could be sold. Instead, it is innocent until proven guilty for chemicals.

Manufacturers are allowed to put chemicals on the market with very little oversight, other than their own testing, which has self-interest to it. Then, after 20 or 30 years of usage, if we can prove there is enough people affected with cancer from their product, maybe then we can start to fight to get it taken off the market. We want the onus to be reversed. I hope we have an ally in our new Chief Public Health Officer, through the Public Health Agency of Canada. We will be appealing that to the person who takes the job. We will be asking for help to keep Canadians safe from this rampant exposure to the chemical soup.

I will not dwell on this much longer because I know I have to speak directly to the bill. However, there is a compounding effect of which none of us are aware. Even if we accept the chemical companies at their word, that compound A, in and of itself, is not harmful to us, there is another chemical company selling compound B to us. When compound A and compound B join forces in our kidneys, our livers and other organs, they create compound C, which kills us.

That is what we are faced with this and that makes it difficult for us to prove any one chemical causes this reaction. Our bodies are saturated with a chemical soup of 20 different compounds. We need to minimize the exposure, especially among infants and pregnant women, and we do that by proactively reversing the onus. The burden of proof has to be on the manufacturer.

I welcome the creation of the new Chief Public Health Officer because it gives us somebody to whom I can appeal. Parliament rejected our idea out of hand. It is let the free market prevail, people will not buy the product if it is killing them. If it kills them, then they will not be buy it so the company will go out of business. That is not good enough for leadership in terms of our public health.

The last thing, in the context of public health and achievable doables, to which this Parliament could attend itself, is the issue of trans fats. Many of us who were here in the last Parliament know NDP put forward an opposition motion on my private member's bill to eliminate trans fats, to take them right out of our system.

The Liberal government put in place measures to require mandatory labelling of trans fats. In other words, the Liberal Department of Health acknowledged that it was desirable to get trans fats out of our system or to at least eliminate Canadians' exposure to trans fats. Its proposed methodology, though, was to require labelling.

We are grateful the government at least acknowledged the issue, but it is not okay to put poison in our food just because it is properly labelled. I will not accept that. Labelling is inadequate. A hungry teenager, standing in line at a fast food restaurant, will not spend a lot of time to compare the technical Latin terms of one chemical versus another in the concentration of that component of the french fries he or she buys. They are hungry and they will eat them. As a result, these deadly manufactured trans fats have poisoned a generation.

There is a class issue involved with this too. It takes a fair amount of economic security to eat well in Canada, to buy healthy fresh foods and to keep cupboards and fridges stocked with good food. Low income people, with less organized lives due to the pressures they face, are more likely to eat fast food. Canadians eat an average of 10 grams of trans fats a day. Teenagers eat as much as 35 grams of trans fats per day. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, one gram per day increases the risk of heart disease by 20%.

Scientists, who address research on trans fat, use the term “toxic”. It meets the literal definition of a toxin, yet it is common throughout all our processed foods. Western prairie farmers would thank us if we eliminated these partially hydrogenated oils. Certain strains of canola oil are the best alternative to trans fats in terms of shelf life and to maintain quality and taste without changing the product directly. If we were to ban trans fats, it would create an enormous burgeoning industry. Our three Canadian prairie provinces are the best places in the world to produce these strains of canola oil. We could provide the world with a safe oil so french fries could still enjoyed by our children, but would not kill them.

Even though I am pleased that we are seized of the issue of improving public health, it frustrates me that three achievable things are in front of us today, but we are not acting on them.

We should ban asbestos. We should stop mining and exporting asbestos to the Third World. Canada is viewed as being an international piranha. If we think we have a bad reputation for the seal hunt, ask other countries what they think about Canada dumping asbestos into the Third World. It is shameful that the federal government continues to undermine this dying and deadly industry. The asbestos mine I worked in closed. It died a natural death due to market forces. I do not care if the remaining asbestos mines are in Quebec, but they should be shut down and allowed to die a natural death too. By staying open, they are killing a lot of people.

We do not need to read Silent Spring again to know that chemical pesticides have a dilatory affect on our organs and our quality of life.

We need to ban trans fats. For Heaven's sakes, what is the holdup? Members do not have to listen to me, but they should listen to the Heart and Stroke Foundation. They should listen to Dr. Wilbert Keon and Senator Yves Morin, a Liberal senator and a Conservative senator, who worked with me on the trans fat initiative. These gentlemen are heart surgeons; I am just a carpenter.

[An hon. member]

You work with the Conservatives too much.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Nobody has a monopoly on good ideas and some of those Conservatives actually know what they are talking about. Yet Parliament did not take any action, even though some of the world's leading authorities on cardiac health insisted that we do so. Denmark banned trans fats and we should ban trans fats.

[John Baird, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I listened, with great interest, to the speech of the member for Winnipeg Centre. He obviously brings a lot of passion to this issue.

While he spoke a lot about the Public Health Agency, which is important for the future of the country, and he spoke a lot about trans fats, most notable is the fact that he did not speak about the federal accountability act.

I would be remiss if I did not stand in my place and acknowledge the terrific amount of work that member has done to ensure we deliver accountability to the federal government. He should be congratulated for his hard work and for standing up for principle.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, for recognizing the joint contribution that was made to move the federal accountability act through its stages in the committee. It was shepherded masterfully through the committee stage by committed people, by those who stand up for openness and transparency. They had to go to the wall, because openness and transparency has its enemies.

In the past I have quoted a British TV show Yes, Minister in which Sir Humphrey is talking to the prime minister. He says, “You can have open government or you can have good government, but Mr. Prime Minister, you cannot have both”.

This is a shocking signal. There are opponents to the idea of open government. It takes political courage to champion the concept and to stand by it, to bring it to fruition and to make manifest these lofty principles, which were only clichés under the last government, of transparency and accountability. To make that manifest will be to the betterment of all of us.

Under the new access to information provisions, which we forced through on Bill C-2, anyone who wants to know about the inner workings of the public health agency, the financing, funding and administration, would be able to file an access to information request. Prior to to those motions being passed in committee, that would have been excluded. This new agency would have been operating in the dark because it would not have fit in the definition of government institution.

We have made great progress for Canadians. I hope Canadians realize that we are at the end of an era and at the start of a new era, I would hope, in terms of accountability and transparency.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always appropriate to make some linkages, but it was stretch to talk about the accountability act and this agency. However, members make choices.

The member went further than the bill. He said the agency was fine. We know the agency was there in September 2004. We know that Dr. David Butler-Jones already had been appointed by order in council. The bill, of the last Parliament, substantively gives it parliamentary recognition.

The important part is with regard to the mandate and the raison d'être. Concerns have been raised about pandemic issues, chronic disease, breast cancer and the kinds of things that are big hits to Canadians in risks to health. The other issue I heard in committee, in looking at the testimony and listening to some of the debate, was the logistics of establishing the agency in a way which might lead to greater bureaucracy, or some empire building and possibly some lack of integration of the programs throughout Health Canada.

Everything is still operating under the umbrella of Health Canada. However, as we create and formalize the agency, notwithstanding it still will report through the minister to the House, it will have its own life in these matters. Therefore, it is important to not only establish the agency with an appropriate mandate, but also to ensure, operationally, that the agency will be effective in its job.

I could only think that may be the linkage between the agency and the federal accountability act. With all the best interests at heart, legislation will not guarantee that an agency operates properly. This is the area in which we should be vigilant, and I think the member would agree.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as is often the case, the member for Mississauga South has a valid point.

I appreciate that he reminded me to pay tribute to Dr. David Butler-Jones. As my colleague from Mississauga knows, the federal microbiology lab where Dr. Frank Plummer and Dr. Butler-Jones work is located within my riding. We are very proud to have that lab in my riding and play that role in the network of public health agencies across the country.

The member raised some valid concerns regarding the act. I do not know why the power to enforce the Quarantine Act remains with the Minister of Health when there is a new Chief Public Health Officer. Surely that officer is more specialized and capable. There is more professional competency, with no disrespect to the Minister of Health, within the Public Health Agency than there is in the Minister of Health's office.

I do not understand why the Public Health Agency is not given the authority to act cross-boundary. If a crisis transcends a provincial-territorial border, what disease recognizes provincial and territorial borders? What outbreak or crisis that the Chief Public Health Officer has to deal with is going to stop at the border? I do not understand some of those aspects of the bill.

Even though the new Public Health Agency has been seized with being ready for things such as West Nile virus, another SARS outbreak, or Asian flu, I want the new agency to be seized with some of the ongoing public health concerns that I identified, such as asbestos, the cosmetic non-essential use of pesticides, and the pervasive use of trans fats in processed food. These are things the agency could do on an ongoing basis through education, through educating lawmakers like us, through advocacy, things that are not crisis oriented but are general public health oriented.

That is the way we will elevate slowly the standard of general health in our country. We do not just need better ways to fight and combat disease. We need prevention. I hope that with the emphasis on energy and resources, we will be prioritizing prevention at least as much as cure.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected in 1993 and when the 35th Parliament opened in January 1994, one of the issues was our health care system. It continues to be the top priority of Canadians today. At the time there was a commitment of the party that formed the government to establish a national forum on health, because there was this looming concern about whether or not our health care system was prepared to meet the challenges that we were facing. Some of the signals were already showing.

I had served for about nine years on the hospital board in Mississauga, so I was quite interested in the health files. After nine years on the board I had learned a little about our health system, how complicated it is and how extremely important it is to deal with prioritization. Therefore, when I came to Parliament, I asked to be on the health committee.

I raise this because the first meeting I ever attended as a parliamentarian was a meeting of the health committee. The officials gave us a presentation on the state of the health care system in Canada. What I will never forget, and it still continues to be reflected in what we are talking about in Bill C-5, is they said that 75% of what we spend in the health care system is for the remediation of problems and only 25% is for prevention. Their conclusion was that that model was unsustainable. They were right.

Even back in 1993 there were the same concerns about whether or not we had the right balance between prevention and dealing with problems after they had occurred. That is why since 1993 there have been significant programs with regard to the responsible use of alcohol, smoking cessation, and the like. These are directly related to a conscious decision by Health Canada to get the balance a little better and shift from dealing with problems after they have occurred to prevention.

As we go through all of this, it is extremely important that we do not abandon those who are ill. At the same time, while stabilizing the problems that are there already, as economic circumstances will permit, we still have to make those investments.

The genesis of this bill goes back to even before I became a member of Parliament. Sometimes things in this place take a long time to ultimately happen. There are linkages. Everything has a history. There certainly is a history here and rather than repeat a lot of the information that was given by members already, I wanted to add a little perspective. I wanted to provide some information to members and to Canadians about one of the principal areas of the mandate of this new agency, which actually started to operate in September 2004. This bill will give some parliamentary foundation to it. Its mandate is to strengthen Canada's public health and emergency response capacity.

Many members have talked about the SARS outbreak in 2003. In some areas of our country that was a very difficult time. Particularly in Scarborough, Ontario, there was some localization. In the Chinese community, the restaurants and some of the seniors' centres, all of a sudden there were problems. We could see that it was there. We received a failing grade on the report card on how we responded to that crisis. People were not sure what they were dealing with, how to deal with it, how to protect the health of Canadians.

Since that time, more and more people are becoming better informed about things like bird flu and pandemics. They are still a bit unsure about what these things are. Part of the principal mandate of the agency headed up by Dr. David Butler-Jones is to deal with preparedness for the big hit, for those things that really could impact.

I am told that if a pandemic of a certain viral strain or flu strain were to hit, in theory it could spread throughout the world in a matter of weeks. Those who have health difficulties may be the most vulnerable.

What do we do about all the caregivers, the doctors, nurses, paramedics and first responders who are exposed to all these things? What happens when they get sick and suddenly there is nobody to help? This could be very devastating. It has been a long time since Canada has had a pandemic.

I thought I would share with the House something which I wrote about a month ago on what is a pandemic. I received feedback from some constituents who thought it was helpful.

I wrote that there are three types of influenza currently in the news, the human influenza, the avian influenza and the pandemic influenza. Now all of a sudden, there is something new here.

Human influenza, the flu as we would typically know it, is a respiratory infection caused by an influenza virus. We are familiar with that. The strains circulate every year and make people sick. Most people will recover from the influenza within a week or 10 days. However, people generally over the age of 65 and children with chronic conditions, and chronic conditions are an important element, or weaknesses and deficiencies in the immune system, such as diabetes or cancer, are at greater risk of serious complications from some other diseases like influenza or flu. Pneumonia would probably be the most prevalent. Between 4,000 and 8,000 Canadians die annually of influenza. It is not an insignificant number, 4,000 to 8,000 Canadians, and we somehow take the flu for granted.

There is also the avian influenza. The media refers to it as the bird flu because birds seem to be the most prevalent transmitters of this strain of influenza. Birds and other animals, including pigs which are also very prevalent carriers of these viruses, also contact and transmit influenza. Wild birds in particular are natural carriers. They have carried animal influenza viruses with no apparent harm for centuries.

This is not something that was just created because of something else that we have done. This has been with us for a long time and is rearing its ugly head. How many times have we heard about medical problems which have been latent for many years and suddenly they crop up again? HIV-AIDS is another similar example of where people may have the virus but will not have full-blown AIDS for 10 years or even longer. There are latent problems.

Wildlife have carried animal influenza viruses with no apparent harm to themselves. Migratory fowl, ducks and geese carry viruses known as the H5 or H7 strain or some other subtypes. Currently there is an avian influenza called H5N1. We hear about H5N1 a lot. I wish it would be given a name that people could remember. That virus is circulating in southeast Asia and parts of Europe and is infecting many poultry populations and some humans.

We now have evidence that there is transmission to humans. This strain is highly pathogenic or highly deadly to birds and has infected a limited number of people, but still, it has infected people. There is no evidence that this virus has been transmitted from person to person. That would be the big step. Going from a bird to a human, yes, there has been some limited transmission, but when human to human transmission happens, it will be a whole different kettle of fish.

Why is it of concern? People are exposed to several different strains of influenza many times during their lives. Even though the virus changes, their previous bouts of influenza may offer some protection through the development of their own immune systems. However, three or four times each century, for some unknown reason and it was a surprise to me, a radical change takes place in the influenza A virus causing a new strain to emerge to which nobody will have immunity. It will be new. It will have morphed itself into something brand new.

One way that this radical change could happen is that a person sick with a human influenza virus also becomes infected with the avian influenza virus and the two viruses mix. This means that the avian influenza virus acquires some of the human influenza genes, potentially creating a new type of influenza. Now it is getting complicated. It is just like the human population. As families marry, it kind of spreads itself out. We are sharing and creating all kinds of uniqueness in terms of the degree of immunities that we have built up in our gene system and our gene pool.

There is no pandemic influenza in the world right now. That is good news. However, there were three influenza pandemics in the last century and scientists are preparing for another influenza pandemic. That is part of the responsibility of this agency.

We know it is coming. This agency has an enormous responsibility to ensure that we are absolutely prepared, as prepared as we possibly can be.

I did however learn a couple of other facts that I was not aware of that Canadians should also know. The Canadian pandemic influenza plan was released in 2004. It outlines the actions to be taken at various levels of government so that we have a coordinated response. This is a good thing.

The Public Health Agency of Canada continually monitors the influenza viruses. Obviously, we want to ensure that we are players in this game. We will adapt and revise that plan as more information becomes available and as the knowledge of pandemic preparedness globally becomes greater in terms of the risks associated with it.

There are vaccines and antivirals which are two components of our approach. There are two ways to deal with this. A pandemic vaccine cannot be developed until a new virus emerges. That means we have to wait until it happens before we can actually develop the medicine that is going to be necessary to treat it.

People have asked me if they should be stockpiling some of this stuff that they can get at the drugstore and they can get from their doctor who will give them a prescription. That is fine for a particular strain of a virus, but it is not going to do very much unless it is the same strain that actually becomes the pandemic virus. After the strain has emerged and has been identified, it actually is going to take about six months before the influenza vaccine can be developed.

We can imagine that in the six month period in the middle of a pandemic there are going to be some serious problems. In fact, we could not possibly develop enough of that vaccine to treat all Canadians at the same time, which means that all of a sudden some choices have to be made.

I mentioned earlier the caregivers, nurses, doctors, first responders and paramedics. These people need to be treated first because if we do not have them, we do not have the linkage to the medicines that we need. Therefore, the vaccine would not be available at the start of the pandemic and may be in short supply for some time. All of a sudden we begin to appreciate that this is a complicated issue. If this is all the agency has to do, it would be worth doing.

Canada has a contract with domestic suppliers to develop these vaccines at that point in time. Until that is available there are antivirals which will be an important part of the response. An antiviral is a medicine that destroys a virus or interferes with its ability to grow, but it is not a cure. Antivirals do not provide immunity. Antivirals are used for prevention, but the dose is much higher and has to be taken for as long as people are exposed to the virus. It is an interim measure. It is the best we could do without having the vaccine itself.

The combined federal, provincial and territorial governments currently own about 35 million capsules of an antiviral with 5 million additional capsules on order. The antivirals however are limited in their effectiveness and are therefore only part of the overall strategy.

People ask if we are ready for the pandemic. I suppose, in terms of the pills that we can take to ensure that, should it break, we will have something that will either prevent us from getting the virus, or if we have it, the pills will ensure that we do not have serious complications and maybe even die. All of a sudden, when we start talking in this context, we are talking about a major catastrophe. We are talking about a lot of people who will be impacted.

The final thing is, what can Canadians do themselves? At this time, if people are travelling to a foreign destination, they should check Health Canada's website and find out the risk elements and risk conditions that may exist there and what happens should they get sick abroad, et cetera. From country to country, particularly in some undeveloped countries, there are some risks.

Prevention is obviously the best defence. Besides getting an annual flu vaccine, personal basic hygiene will help to ward off sickness. We know that. I would refer members to the Health Canada website simply to get a little information about preparedness in terms of a pandemic possibility. It is really important.

Since the agency was established in September 2004 and the Chief Public Health Officer was appointed by order in council in September 2004, the bill is simply giving it a parliamentary foundation, which will allow it to continue. I do not think we will see any changes, other than it will have the ability to issue a report on its own through the Minister of Health. It still reports. It is actually a former department of the Ministry of Health that will now be an agency within Health Canada.

It is important to understand that there is a designated mandate. As I indicated, the first part of the mandate was to strengthen Canada's public health system and emergency response capacity; second, to develop national strategies for managing infectious diseases and chronic diseases; and third, to develop an integrated pan-Canadian public health plan that address chronic diseases, including cancer and heart disease.

In the brief time that I have remaining, I want to mention something else that did come up in some of my work as a member of that health committee and as a parliamentarian since.

One of the private member's bills that I introduced about five years ago called on the Government of Canada to establish the position of physician general of Canada. It was intended to be modelled somewhat after the surgeon general of the United States.

Canadians need some information about personal health. Seniors want to know about seniors issues and seniors illnesses. Youth may have questions about a disease or whatever. Women need information on things like hormones and have questions on whether or not breast self-examination is still useful. People have questions about health. I found it extremely difficult to get information out of Health Canada's website or through making direct enquiries to the Health Canada office.

However, if we were ever to visit the surgeon general's website in the United States, we would see that there is a portal or a link to cancer, if we want information on it . Whether a person is a youth, a senior, or a pregnant woman, if they are suffering from depression or there is a mental health issue, the website is set up so nicely to communicate with people. Too often governments do not have communications formats which are informative to people who just want some basic reassurance.

When there are emerging issues, such as something that has been with us for a long time like fetal alcohol spectrum of disorders, or FAS, should not someone be there pronouncing on the risk associated with doing this or not doing that, someone who has some credibility from within the health profession to assist Canadians with their health needs?

It would be complementary to what the health agency is doing. I hope we can find that portal for all of the other things that we have to care for in the best interests of the health of Canadians.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I had the opportunity to sit with him on the health committee for a few years. I know that these issues have concerned him for a long time. I remember that when we were both on the committee, we studied the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome. He also took part in the study of the federal tobacco control strategy. We also examined together in committee the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and we recently studied the issue of the Public Health Agency of Canada.

For those who are watching us, I will say that this initiative was launched under the Liberals and the Conservatives decided to maintain it. It is a bit surprising that we are studying such a bill today.

Health and public health, terms that we see in the title of the bill, are clearly not under federal jurisdiction.

I remind the House that we have modernized the Quarantine Act. The Bloc Québécois, in its usual positive spirit, which all hon. members in this place can confirm, worked extremely hard. In fact, we agreed that quarantine did indeed come under federal jurisdiction.

Does my colleague believe that the creation of the Public Health Agency of Canada constitute an encroachment on a provincial jurisdiction?

Would he not agree that federal epidemiological objectives as a whole could very well be reached under the Quarantine Act which is clearly under federal jurisdiction?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with this member often. We worked on the AIDS file at the subcommittee on HIV-AIDS which he may recall, and a few others.

The synergy and the dialogue that has gone on within the health committee over all those years that we were involved together, such as the plain packaging for tobacco, is probably, in a microcosm, a reflection of the importance of us working together: the Bloc, the NDP, the Conservatives and the Liberals.

We achieve more as a group than we would ever achieve if we all went away and did our own thing. I would suggest to the member that quite possibly that is a good model also for Canada, that we work together.

Let me leave the member with what I honestly believe to be an important foundation value that I have. The measure of success of a country is not an economic measure. It is in fact the measure of the health and the well-being of its people. As a parliamentarian I have always tried to move toward those things which would in fact enhance the health and the well-being of the people, with full cognizance that some are better off and better able to care for themselves.

I would say that in regard to his question about dealing with this agency, Quebec can do certain things with the Quarantine Act, et cetera, but there are no boundaries to disease. It is very quick and we have a linked approach, not only to the provinces and the territories but internationally, to collaborate internationally, to make absolutely sure that we are part of the leading edge to address matters such as pandemics.

This is not a responsibility that each province should take individually. As the member well knows, in Canada some regions are not as well off as others and cannot do as much, or as comprehensively, or as good a job, or attract the kind of people they need. In fact, in some cases there may only be one or two individuals available in all of Canada who may be the people we need to lead in terms of pandemic preparedness, and I think Dr. Butler-Jones is one of them.

Therefore, how can we say that if a province can get somebody good enough, it will be taken care of, but if it cannot, that is its problem because we have ours? That is not the approach I take. As long as Canada is made up of 10 provinces and 3 territories, we are going to work on behalf of all Canadians, and in my Canada, that certainly includes my Quebec.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, seeing as the new public health officer was created under the Liberal government, perhaps my colleague from Mississauga South could tell us why the mandate of the new public health officer had what I would see as built in weaknesses, built in limitations such as that in the event of the Quarantine Act being implemented, which I would think would be at the very point we would want the public health officer to be in direction and control, the authority reverts back to the Minister of Health. I do not understand that.

I do not know if my colleague will be able to answer my next question because he cannot speak on behalf of the former government, but he has been a longstanding member of Parliament and was on the government side for many years. What was the attachment that the previous Liberal government had, and apparently the new Conservative government has, to the asbestos mines? Why this irrational commitment to an industry that is dying, an industry that is killing people and an industry that will collapse without the corporate welfare that successive governments continually shove at it?

The member's government was fairly right wing in its economic policies and the former prime minister, when he was minister of finance, was the most right wing finance minister in the history of Canada. Why did he support corporate welfare for asbestos mines that should have been left to die by market forces? Why this artificial life support to a deadly material that should be eradicated from the face of the earth?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I took the time to get the transcripts of the committee meeting where the health minister spoke to Bill C-5 and to the issue raised by the member. With regard to the mandate issues, they may not have been structured or represented in the most efficient and most effective way with regard to things like the Quarantine Act.

I consider this to be an operational matter. The most important part, obviously, was with regard to the principal mandate issues being pandemic preparedness, emergency preparedness and chronic diseases, which the member's colleagues have spoken about quite well.

The question with regard to asbestos was interesting. I could go with a political attack but maybe I will go with the policy side and take the high road. The justice building, which was converted for MP offices, has asbestos in the walls. However it is the asbestos that is packaged in sealed packages and it is in a format that does not create the same problem that free, loose asbestos in the ceilings is causing in the West Block.

I could give the member a case of where this is a big problem and we need to get rid of it, but what about proper applications of certain chemicals or resources. I am not an expert on asbestos but I do know that within the last five years on Parliament Hill we have had both. If the member wants us to ban the production and use of asbestos in all its forms and that we should do whatever it takes because it is not good, he should spearhead that important initiative because I think he would get a lot of support. However, in the meantime--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Hochelaga.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on a warm and sunny Friday afternoon. I am sure that none of us would rather be anywhere else but here and that we feel most privileged to discuss this bill. I thank the whip's office for giving me the opportunity to do so.

That said, it is with great concern and surprise that we find the Conservative government is carrying on the Liberal-trademarked tradition of interfering with and disregarding provincial areas of jurisdiction. We are well aware that when it comes to centralization and constitutional arrogance, there is unfortunately a rather synonymous relationship between the former Liberal government and the concept of disregarding areas of jurisdiction.

This is even a paradox within the Department of Health. As we know, Monique Bégin was Minister of Health and Welfare at the time under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who was not himself particularly sympathetic to decentralization. It was she who introduced in this House a Canada health act that included a number of principles, such as universality, comprehensiveness, portability and, of course, public health.

When Monique Bégin introduced the Canada Health Act in 1983 or 1984, even doctors agreed that it seemed to thoroughly disregard provincial jurisdiction. I was rereading some documents at the time of the Romanow report, which I will come back to shortly. When Monique Bégin tabled the Canada Health Act, Ontario doctors went on strike to protest it. Typically, Ontario has not been fertile ground for socialism, revolution and overthrowing the established order.

All of this shows how difficult it is to understand how the federal government sees its responsibilities in the area of health. I was discussing this with my colleague from Laval, and I find it even more paradoxical and quite incredible to see that while the federal government fails to do what is expected of it, it goes barging in where it should be exercising considerable restraint.

Constitutionally, of course, the federal government has responsibilities, including one on epidemics. When the previous health minister introduced the quarantine bill—that work had begun with Pierre Pettigrew and continued with his successor in that department—the Bloc Québécois worked very seriously in committee. Indeed, we agree that it is the federal government's prerogative to determine certain situations where the risk of contagion or epidemics is such that quarantine zones must be established. Of course, the bill was not perfect. We would have liked it to provide for advance notice and compensation mechanisms when people are deprived from their right to go to work. Nevertheless, essentially, we did not challenge the fact that the federal government was solidly rooted in its jurisdiction.

With regard to the patent issue, the whole issue of intellectual property is an extremely important consideration. In fact, this began with the Conservatives. We will remember that, in the 1960s, there was a royalty system. Licences and patents were protected. However, it was possible for companies to copy patents on payment of a rebate. They would pay a certain percentage on what was called royalties.

We realized that this system was not beneficial to Canada—and I will get back to the special character of Montreal, that beautiful city, Greater Montreal, where 50% of the population is living, where we can see a different movie every day, where cultural opportunities are extraordinary.

It has the Olympic Stadium, the Planetarium, the Botanical Garden—

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

The Outgames.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

It has public transit and the Outgames, as the hon. member for Laval so rightly informed us.

It became apparent in Canada that the royalties system was not conducive to establishing a domestic research industry for bio-pharmaceuticals. At the time, this was a demand by the brand name drug industry, the one doing the research, which was mainly located in Montreal. The generic drug industry was copying in a way and not doing a whole lot of original research. These days I know that has changed somewhat.

I was the health critic. This was a good time in my life. It was stimulating and I had the pleasure of working on the same committee as the hon. member for Laval. We got up in the morning and saw each other in committee. Those were wonderful years in our lives—a great time in my life. All that to say that the brand name drug industry was originally located in Montreal and was calling for a properly protected public patent system.

The President of the Treasury Board was still just a baby then, but he will certainly remember that the Mulroney Conservatives had introduced Bill C-91, which was warmly received throughout Canada and Quebec and which, at the time, gave patent protection for 17 years. International rules have changed. This has increased to 20 years.

All that to say that when it comes to patents, epidemics or research, we understand that the federal government wants to intervene because this is their responsibility. However, when the federal government takes steps to intervene in matters of public health, there is a slight problem, a failure to respect jurisdictions. This is going too far and we would have liked members of the Conservative caucus from Quebec to rein in the government by telling it there are no prerogatives more sacred than health and education.

Just remember Maurice Lenoblet Duplessis, the illustrious member for Trois-Rivières. It is a tradition in Trois-Rivières to elect illustrious, talented members and I am here to say that this tradition continues. Maurice Lenoblet Duplessis set up the Tremblay Commission, which called for full respect of the jurisdictions of health and education.

Why did the federal government table a bill to create the Public Health Agency of Canada? I would like to point out that, for the past two budgets at least, there has been a considerable allocation of resources. I saw that the Public Health Agency of Canada was given $665 million in the 2004 budget and that its resources have been growing.

This is extremely troubling because, clearly, the Public Health Agency of Canada will want to do some nation building in the area of health care, as we all know. We in the Bloc Québécois are perceptive, astute and wise enough not to be fooled by the government's ploy.

I remember that in 1997, then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, the member for Shawinigan, created the National Forum on Health. At that time, I was a young MP in this House, high-spirited, energetic and confident about the future. I told my caucus that the Liberals were going to use the forum to do some nation building and would barge into health care. I was not far off.

[An hon. member]

Not Jean Chrétien.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I do not wish to call up bad memories for the House. However, it is a fact that it was Prime Minister Jean Chrétien who created the National Forum on Health—that he chaired himself— which allowed citizens from across Canada to have their say.

The idea to create the Romanow Commission stemmed from that forum. This commission of inquiry, which was not a royal commission of inquiry, no longer wanted there to be 10 health care systems. It recommended there be only one. It even went as far as proposing that there be a common procurement policy for drugs and a single order form, under the federal government's responsibility.

Health care is something that is highly visible. The Bloc Québécois cannot let the Conservative government get away with this. I hope that we can count on the vigilance of the President of the Treasury Board and that he will tell his government that health, particularly public health care, falls under provincial jurisdiction.

I salute the President of the Treasury Board, a progressive man in his caucus. I know that, in terms of ideology, he is a dove. Within the government, there are hawks, there are doves and there are night owls. However, I will not comment on that.

That said, Premier Charest—who lacks backbone somewhat when it comes to defending Quebec's interests—is a man who has sometimes been rather complacent about the Conservative government. Premier Charest used to be a Conservative MP. Once when this House was in committee of the whole, there were two Conservatives. Things have changed. That was the will of the people, and the Bloc Québécois respects democracy. Regarding the Public Health Agency of Canada—and I invite the President of the Treasury Board to pay attention—Premier Jean Charest, who was the member for Sherbrooke, said that Quebec had created its own health structures.

As I mentioned earlier, Quebec has the Institut national de santé publique. Quebec has created its own health structures, and they work. These structures will cooperate with the ones that are put in place, but duplication is out of the question.

That is the real question. How can we think that a public structure with a $665 million budget will not be tempted to dominate, to sprawl and to intervene in jurisdictions that are not its own?

I remember well the years when the Liberal government reduced health transfers and the provinces were in serious trouble.

One of the negative aspects of Canadian federalism is this sort of fiscal imbalance that can be created. The government can table a budget and cause fiscal destabilization of the provinces without any negotiations or any advance notice to the provinces.

From 1993 to 2001, successive Liberal governments completely starved the provinces. The provincial premiers—New Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals and people from the Parti Québécois—took a common stand and eventually won an agreement on health and restoration of the public money that the provinces had been cruelly deprived of.

As the leader of the government knows, the health system is critically short of money. This will be important, because initially, the federal government was to contribute 50% of program operating costs. Even with the agreement that the government of the current member for LaSalle—Émard signed with the provinces, the figure is not much higher than 25% or 30%.

As you can see, this situation is not acceptable. I hope the Conservative government will have the courage to table a bill shortly to restore the transfer payments.

I saw the Prime Minister yesterday on public television, for which all members of the Bloc Québécois have the greatest respect. I saw, on the CBC French network, that the Prime Minister wanted to flip flop on the issue of the fiscal imbalance and that he was preparing the provinces for the fact that the extent of the fiscal imbalance was not so bad, even though this Prime Minister had the nerve to go to Sainte-Foy during the election campaign and tell Quebeckers that his party would resolve the fiscal imbalance. And now that I see the Prime Minister getting ready to dither and go back on his word, I certainly hope I never have to rise in this House to say that the Prime Minister has broken his word and not made all the investments expected by Quebeckers, including the Premier of Quebec.

We saw yesterday on CBC French television how worried and anxious the Quebec Premier was that the Conservatives would not deliver the goods. It is at times like this that we realize how fortunate it is that the Bloc is here in this House and is vigilant. We will not abdicate our duty to be vigilant and to force the federal government to solve the fiscal imbalance problem. It is too easy for the Prime Minister to show up at Ste-Foy and make promises that he later disowns.

In short, Bill C-5 does not respect provincial jurisdiction and the creation of a public health agency is not necessary. As for epidemics, I will say that all the public health managers can have meetings. The expected cooperation could very well be coordinated through existing interprovincial mechanisms without creating a new structure with a $665 million budget.

The Quarantine Act already includes the necessary provisions. If ever the situation necessitates it, the federal government can invoke that legislation but we will not let the federal government do its nation building with the health issue. We will not let the Conservatives follow the tradition instituted by the Liberals, either. And I know that for the Conservatives the bible on health care is the Romanow report. We will not let the Conservative government invade Quebec's jurisdictions, particularly not jurisdictions as sacred as health and social services.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

At the next debate on Bill C-5, the hon. member will have 10 minutes remaining for questions and comments.

The House resumed from June 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first note that I will be splitting my allotted time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

Bill C-5 deals with the Public Health Agency of Canada. This bill is not something new. I would like to review its history. This bill was announced to us in December 2003 by the Liberal government, the previous government. In February 2004, that government said, in its Speech from the Throne, that it would be establishing what it said would be a modern public health system, by creating a public health agency that would ensure that Canada is linked, both nationally and globally, in a network for disease control and emergency response.

At that time, the agency was allocated $100 million to expand front-line public health services, as well as $300 million for new vaccination programs, $100 million to improve the surveillance system, and $165 million over two years for other federal public health initiatives.

Under the bill, the Public Health Agency was given the mandate of focusing on more effective efforts to prevent injuries and chronic diseases—like cancer and heart disease—and to prevent and respond to public health emergencies and infectious disease outbreaks. The Public Health Agency would also work closely with the provinces and territories to keep Canadians healthy and help reduce pressures on “our” health care system. This is how the text read at the time, in 2004, about the creation of this agency.

First, I want to say that Canada does not have a single health care system, and that this last statement clearly denied the unique aspects of the provinces’ health care systems, in particular the health care system of Quebec, which is solely responsible for managing health care within its borders. And so, at the time, when $100 million was made available to expand front-line services, there was a direct intrusion into areas under Quebec’s jurisdiction, because in Quebec, front-line health care is in fact provided by the CLSCs.

The agency was ultimately supposed to have the collaboration of six regional offices, one of them in Quebec. It was in November 2005 that the federal Liberal Health minister of the day tabled Bill C-75 creating this public health agency of Canada, a separate and autonomous agency which was granted immense powers. Fortunately, Bill C-75 died on the order paper when the election was called.

At that time, the Conservative government was against Bill C-75, because it was a Liberal initiative. Now the same bill is being tabled again, with a different name. Now it is numbered C-5. You will note that it is exactly the same bill.

It must be said that, in the beginning, the Liberal government took advantage of the fiscal imbalance—which it created itself—to increase its intrusions in the field of health, particularly through the use of its spending power. The Conservative government seems to be continuing down the same road. And yet, last April in Montreal, the Prime Minister boasted of his open federalism, his federalism of understanding, saying that open federalism was a kind of respect for the fields of provincial jurisdiction, while also providing a framework for the federal spending power.

One could create a list of the federal government’s intrusions in fields of provincial jurisdiction, going back many years.

Under the Constitution Act, 1867, health and social services fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, including Quebec. Yet from as far back as 1919, Ottawa has been intervening increasingly in those sectors, even forcing Quebec and the provinces to comply with so-called national standards and objectives, despite the fact that the Constitution Act states that health is a field of provincial jurisdiction.

I will cite the various laws we have been presented with since 1919: first, the creation of the Department of Health; in 1957, passage of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act; in 1966, passage of the Medical Services Act; and in 1984, passage of the Canada Health Act.

The 1984 Canada Health Act is the most flagrant example of encroachment. It imposes conditions and criteria in respect of insured health services and extended health care services, which the provinces and territories must respect in order to receive the full financial contribution under the Canada health and social transfers. In other words, if the provinces want to receive transfers, they have to accept the Canada Health Act.

Quebec agrees with the principles of this law, but refuses to allow the federal government to impose national principles and standards on Quebeckers. This would amount to prohibiting Quebec from making its own choices, when health is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and of Quebec.

In April 2005, the Minister of Health at the time even questioned one province about the status of private diagnostic clinics, threatening Quebec and the provinces with a reduction of their share of the Canadian health transfer if they did not comply with Ottawa’s wishes.

The Bloc Québécois will always protest the federal government’s attempts to interfere in the management of health care in Quebec. We have our organization, our way of doing things and providing our health care and social services and we feel that it should be respected.

Then Roy Romanow proposed the Health Council. The result was an agreement between Ottawa and the provinces in February 2003. This agreement guaranteed federal reinvestment in health on certain conditions. The problem in health is that the provinces have so little money—there have been so many cuts at the federal level—that the federal government, which has money, has taken on the right to invest in health when this is not its jurisdiction.

Then there was the Public Health Agency of Canada, which we are discussing this evening. Within this agency, the federal government continues to impose its priorities for the sake of pan-Canadian objectives that deny Quebec's distinct character. In spite of the lack of Canadian expertise in the area, Ottawa wishes to play the role of coordinator of the actions of the various health systems. Quebec, however, already has its own public health agency, and has had it since 1998. This agency is the Institut national de santé publique du Québec. Quebec does not need the federal agency, which will duplicate actions in this area unnecessarily.

Mr. Speaker, I see that you are telling me I do not have much time left, so I will conclude my speech.

It should also be mentioned that all Quebec governments have been opposed to these federal intrusions in Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction. We need only think of the governments of Maurice Duplessis, Daniel Johnson Sr., Robert Bourassa, Jacques Parizeau, Lucien Bouchard and lately Jean Charest.

I hope that my colleagues will understand and respect the position of Quebec by not giving this House the mandate to vote in favour of Bill C-5.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is obviously a great pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-5, An Act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain Acts.

As you know, this agency has been in operation since the fall of 2004, but there was no legislation giving it the powers and responsibilities that it currently exercises. Accordingly, the bill we are considering today proposes, finally, to give powers to the new Public Health Agency of Canada.

Like my colleague, I hope that the Conservative members who were elected in Quebec on a platform of respecting areas of jurisdiction will vote against this bill.

When the former Liberal government created the Public Health Agency of Canada, it assigned it the mandate of ensuring that Canada was connected at the national and global levels, in health matters, and that there was a network responsible for disease control and emergency response. As well, the federal agency has as its mission to focus on more effective efforts to prevent chronic diseases, like cancer and heart disease, prevent injuries, and respond to public health emergencies and infectious disease outbreaks, as well as providing for other federal public health initiatives.

Clearly, when the Liberals established the Public Health Agency of Canada, they were once again confirming that they did not respect Quebec’s difference, by interfering massively in an area under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. By creating this agency, the federal government is showing its arrogance with regard to the powers of Quebec and the provinces, and insolently denying the unique aspects of the health care system of Quebec, which is solely responsible for managing health care within its borders.

It is important to point out that while this was an initiative of the former Liberal government, the new Conservative government has decided to reintroduce the same bill. It is now number C-5. By bringing forward the same bill as the Liberals, the Conservative government shares the vision of the federal Liberal Party: Ottawa knows best, and Ottawa will impose that on the entire country.

Just as the Liberal government used the fiscal imbalance it had itself created, as my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville was saying, to continue interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces by using its spending power, so the Conservative government now seems to be continuing that tactic for the same purposes.

This new government, however, claims in its speeches that it is practising open federalism that respects the jurisdictions of the provinces. It is not respecting Quebec when it brings forward a bill like this. The discrepancies between word and deed are glaringly obvious.

Plainly, and contrary to what it has said since it was elected, the Conservative government is not reluctant about invading areas under Quebec’s jurisdiction, like health. It is as intrusive as the Liberals. Since it is a more right-wing government, we might even be more worried by this.

In my opinion, Bill C-5 raises a number of concerns that explain why we oppose it.

Not only does it have an arrogant attitude towards Quebec and the provinces, but the federal government has created a new health structure. The Conservative government must know that since 1998, Quebec has had its own national public health institute, and it does not need a new federal agency. Since it was created, Quebec’s Institut national de santé publique has monitored pubic health trends, prepared prevention programs for the Quebec public and advised the Government of Quebec when the government is developing new health programs.

So it already does what the Public Health Agency of Canada is supposed to do under this bill.

The Bloc Québécois feels that since the Government of Quebec has the expertise and deals with the institutions in the health care system, it is the government that should determine the priorities and develop action plans in its own territory, making them compatible with the global objectives developed by the World Health Organization, for example.

For 20 years I worked in the health care system as a social worker. I was therefore able to see for myself all the skill and expertise that Quebec’s public health care system brings to preventing and dealing with epidemics, for example, through vaccination campaigns against meningitis, as we had a few years ago, in which the CLSCs did a tremendous job, or all the prevention and intervention programs developed by the CLSCs, community organizations and hospitals. We have the necessary health care expertise and do not need the federal government to interfere.

I saw that Quebec’s strategy was very effective and, most importantly, met the needs of Quebeckers. I do not think, therefore, that there is any need for this new agency. It will only duplicate what is already being done by Quebec and the provinces, in particular by the Institut national de la santé publique du Québec.

Instead of interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, this new government should set as its priority the provision of adequate funding for health. Duplicating a system that already exists in Quebec is not the way to solve the central problem of our health care system, that is to say, under-funding.

If the federal government really wants to help improve our health care system, it should fix the fiscal imbalance instead and give Quebec and the provinces the means they need to develop and further improve the services they provide their populations in their areas of jurisdiction and ensure that, when it comes to health, their populations have the tools they need to deal with the new challenge facing public health care.

By its massive cuts to health transfers in the 1990s, the federal government endangered Quebec’s health care system. It is obvious that the cruel cuts to federal transfers helped destabilize the system because the Government of Quebec finds itself now in a financial situation that makes long-term planning very difficult.

Our health network in Quebec is under enormous pressure. Our aging population requires more and more hospital care, surgery, geriatric services and cancer services, not to mention home care provided by the CLSCs and proximal care provided by our community organizations. We need funding for our health network.

Instead of creating an agency that already exists in Quebec and can provide services tailored to Quebeckers' needs, despite underfunding problems, the federal government should quickly correct the fiscal imbalance so that the provinces can develop their respective networks to ensure that their citizens will be well served. The people in Quebec and the other provinces are entitled to health services, not duplicated programs and repeated interference.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to start, I have a comment and then I will have a question.

My comment is that there are so many intrusions by the federal government into provincial jurisdictions that it has practically become a shameful disease. That is what it has come down to. That is my comment.

I would like to ask my colleague what is behind all this? Why does the federal government have to table Bill C-5 and what is the solution?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a former colleague I have known for several years would have said, what we are talking about here is nation building.

I believe that, in order to justify its role and its existence, the federal government feels it must build the Canadian nation and create a system that, unfortunately, duplicates what is already in place. This is unfortunate for the people, because health care needs are enormous. We need all available resources to meet the people's needs. Neither our population nor our country can tolerate this duplication.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Sheer), Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 20, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.)

The House resumed from June 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to order made Monday, June 19, 2006, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-5.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that worked so well, let us try it once more. I think if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote on the motion previously before the House to the motion presently before the House, with the Conservative members present voting yes.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal members in the House will be supporting this great Liberal bill and voting in favour of it.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Québécois will oppose this motion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members will be voting yes to this motion.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I vote in favour of this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #24

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 28 minutes.