Health Committee on May 16th, 2006

Evidence of meeting #4 for Health in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meeting.

On the agenda

Bill C-5, An Act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain Acts

Committee Business

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jane Allain General Counsel, Legal Services, Public Health Agency of Canada

Jim Harlick Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Communications and Corporate Services, Public Health Agency of Canada

Sonya Norris Committee Researcher

Clerk of the Committee

Nancy Miller Chenier Committee Researcher

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

I'll call the meeting to order. We have a few members who are probably a little late, but we will proceed.

I want to start because we're going into clause-by-clause. We have some new members around the table, so initially I'll describe the process. I think it's important for us to understand that there is no intention, necessarily, to rush this piece of legislation. We were actually expecting witnesses today, if we could get them. The clerk has informed me that there are no witnesses, so there is no reason not to go clause by clause. We're hoping to get that looked after today.

To describe how clause-by-clause works, we want to examine every line of the bill, actually word by word, if we need to. The committee will vote on each clause in the bill, each amendment, the schedule, the preamble--if the bill has any of those--the title, and then finally on the bill as a whole. So we'll go through that process, hopefully, today.

I also want to apologize to Christiane Gagnon for the speed at which I've been speaking. I've committed to her to slow it down a bit and to make sure--and committee members can check me on this--that before we complete an action of any kind at the committee the interpretation is clear and we're clear on what the committee is actually doing. I apologize if it wasn't clear in the past, and we'll try to correct that.

Before we proceed, are there any questions about the process we're going through?

Christiane.

11:05 a.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

I'd just like to...

I'm going to talk slowly so you can understand me.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

Thank you.

11:05 a.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

You claim to be in no hurry to adopt the bill, but the process takes very little time. The bill was referred to the committee last week. If we do not hear from any witnesses...The witnesses needed to analyze the bill's context. Some were not able to travel on such short notice, since they are often busy wrapping up other matters. The process is fairly quick and we'll go ahead and adopt the bill anyway. That doesn't mean that we'll vote in favour of the proposed legislation, but we will go ahead with the clause by clause study.

First, however, there's something I'd like to say. We're opposed to the bill's underlying principle, for several reasons. It clearly infringes on areas under provincial jurisdiction. Quebec has its own Health and Social Services Act and the preamble to the bill is virtually identical to the preamble of the Quebec legislation.

Mr. Charbonneau, the provincial opposition critic, queried the Minister of Health and Social Services about the bill. The Minister wasn't familiar with all of the particulars, but one things is clear: Mr. Couillard would oppose any strategy that would infringe upon fields of provincial jurisdiction and result in duplication, just as he did when regulations respecting assisted reproduction were enacted. This matter is currently before the Court of Appeal. In addition, the Minister has distanced himself from all national strategies respecting cancer, mental health and health promotion.

The concerns of the Bloc Québécois are similar to those of Quebec politicians. The bill sets out a number of federal initiatives. It opens the door to federal interference in the health field. It does not contain a special clause targeting Quebec. Nor are the federal government's intentions in terms of collaborating with other levels of government clearly defined.

For all of these reasons, we will be voting against this underlying principle, and hence, against the bill in general. The committee can now proceed with its clause by clause analysis.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

Mr. Fletcher.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Chair, I have a question on process. The Bloc member raised a lot of points that they raised in debate. I wonder if it's appropriate; I'd like to respond if this is the venue. Obviously, this bill doesn't infringe on provincial jurisdiction. The preamble clearly says that. Is this the appropriate time, Mr. Chair, to rebut to what the Bloc said?

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

I would suggest that we'll go through it clause by clause. We will vote on the bill as a whole. The Bloc can certainly voice their concerns with the bill in each of the processes. I think that's fair. It really comes down to the will of the committee collectively as to whether the bill carries and the clauses carry. So I don't think, on the global perspective--and I think that's what the rebuttal would be--it would be productive. I think we all understand their concerns. I actually believe their concerns are perhaps more with some of the regulations that might come out of the bill than actually what we're dealing with this morning. I think that can be dealt with in another way.

Madame Demers.

11:05 a.m.

Bloc

Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC

Last year, Mr. Chairman, we debated and voted on Bill C-12 which dealt with quarantine provisions. The bill was also passed in the Senate and received Royal Assent. However, it has yet to be enacted. Why is that? At stake is a public health policy.