Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2004

Supply

[The Chair]

I would ask all members to address all questions through the Chair this evening, please.

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

Mr. Chair, when the hon. minister was Premier of British Columbia, his government favoured a lawsuit against big tobacco dealing with the issue of light and mild labelling.

As Minister of Health, the same minister and his government have taken the side of big tobacco on this very same issue in the courts. I wonder if the minister can explain this hypocrisy?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Chair, obviously, this is not an easy issue, but it is not a simple one either. Yes, I am a strong proponent of tobacco control.

In my earlier life as the attorney general and the Premier of British Columbia I took several actions. I was the first one in the country, as attorney general of British Columbia, to commence legal proceedings against tobacco companies for doing the damage that we alleged that they have done.

It is important to recognize that the action here, on behalf of the Government of Canada, has been brought about as a result of the government being forced to be a third party in the action that has been brought in British Columbia against Imperial Tobacco. The Government of Canada is not there of its own volition.

The Government of Canada may eventually apply to be struck as a third party; however, in the meantime, to protect the interests of the government and the taxpayers of Canada, it is important that the government is there and acts in the best interests of Canadians so that the class that is certified to be a class in that action is not unnecessarily broad and illegitimately broad. That is really the only purpose why the government is there at this point.

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

Mr. Chair, I would ask the minister to keep his answer to approximately the length of my question.

The bottom line, if I understand the minister, is that the government is siding with big tobacco and is basically going against the plaintiff. Is that not the bottom line?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Absolutely not, Mr. Chair. We will never side with big tobacco. We are not siding with big tobacco now and we will not do it in the future. We are simply trying to protect the Canadian taxpayers so that the class that is certified is not unnecessarily illegitimately broad. That is the only reason why we are there.

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

Mr. Chair, the bottom line is that the minister and the Government of Canada have filed against the plaintiff who is suing big tobacco, therefore, the government is on big tobacco's side.

I would like to shift gears if I may. Today the Auditor General released a report indicating that the federal government had collectively overpaid approximately $17 million for drugs used to treat stomach ulcers. There has been a huge overcharge in the dispensing of drugs. Why has the Department of Health done nothing after it had already been warned three times about this? No action had been taken. Why is that?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, if the hon. member insists on making a remark after I answer a particular question, then I should be able to answer that remark in addition to the question that the hon. member asked.

My position on the tobacco issue remains what I said in my earlier responses.

However, with respect to the new question, let me say that the Department of Health accepts all of the recommendations, without any reservation whatsoever, made by the Auditor General. They are good recommendations. We will follow through with those recommendations.

I will ask the department, as we change according to the recommendations and implement those recommendations, to consult with the Auditor General from time to time to ensure that the Auditor General is satisfied with the changes as we are making them.

The Department of Health, long before I got here, attempted to make some changes. There are issues of consent and privacy that are involved, and that is why the speed of the change was slow. It is obviously not as fast as I would have liked it to be.

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

Mr. Chair, I understood that the Auditor General had said that the issues of privacy did not necessarily affect her recommendations. Why has the government refused to implement the recommendations from the Auditor General twice or three times before? It seems like we have just heard more stalling tactics as we move forward. It is just shameful.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is important to remember that the Auditor General made some excellent recommendations. Yes, the Department of Health has not moved as fast as it should have due to the issues of privacy and consent.

We just saw a press release from the Assembly of First Nations indicating that, while they actually agree with some of the recommendations made by the Auditor General, they are concerned about issues of privacy and consent.

We may not need consent and privacy in collecting the information. However, in preventing abuse, preventing double and triple prescriptions and unnecessary prescriptions, we do need disclosure. The Department of Health is trying to buy upgraded computer equipment so that we could actually deal with these issues at the point of sale. We are making the best efforts that we can.

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

Mr. Chair, while I am pleased the minister admits that the department has not been implementing the Auditor General's recommendations, I can only assume it is because the Liberals do not have the political will to protect taxpayers' dollars and they are fine with government waste.

I would like to move on to the issue with hepatitis C. Yesterday I was on CTV with one of the minister's colleagues, the parliamentary secretary. In the conversation, the parliamentary secretary explained that it took quite some time and quite a bit of convincing for the minister to get cabinet to agree with the hepatitis C compensation, or at least agree to look at it. Can the minister confirm that?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would urge the hon. member to resist the temptation of making remarks after I have answered the question so we can move on to his next question. Otherwise, we will get bogged down with respect to the previous answers as well. That would be a good practice.

I appreciate that he is new in Parliament. I am new to this place myself, although I have some earlier experience. It would be wonderful if we could move from question to question without unnecessary commentary.

With respect to the hepatitis C question--

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

It is called a rebuttal.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I appreciate that, but it is important to remember that cabinet deliberations are confidential. Yes, the deliberations took some time. This is not an easy issue. This is a very difficult issue with a long history and with a lot of tears shed both by the victims and those who had to make tough decisions.

I appreciate all the history. Having appreciated all the history on all sides of the House, it is important that we take whatever steps we take after due deliberation.

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

Mr. Chair, the minister hides his experience well. It is interesting that it took so long to convince cabinet, and we know this to be true. The parliamentary secretary said so on television last night. The present Prime Minister, then finance minister, the present Deputy Prime Minister, then health minister, and many of the current Liberal members who were involved in the original decision are now part of the current cabinet. I am sure they do not want to be known to be making wrong decisions, as they have clearly done.

Having said that, could the minister tell us that these people will receive compensation in a timely manner and similar compensation to the people who have already received compensation?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, I was not here and I do not want to be judgmental about these issues. These are difficult issues at any time. I think all of those who made the decisions felt that those were appropriate decisions for those times. Times have changed and circumstances have changed.

It is important that we remember when we make difficult decisions, we are not always right. Quite often we are right and quite often we may not be. What we are doing today is the right and responsible thing to do. It is important that we not now interfere in the discussions that are taking place by talking about the mandate the lawyers might have.

Lawyers have been given the mandate to look at all available options to provide financial compensation to the hepatitis C victims, pre-1986 and post-1990 and as part of the consideration, they will be looking at that potential actuarial surplus.

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

Mr. Chair, what does the government say to the families of those hundreds of people who have died, families who have suffered for eight years. The information the government has today, it had eight years ago when it made the decision. It refused to do the right thing then. It is still delaying in doing the right thing now.

Will the government get this going right away to compensate these victims? It should be done now. Do the right thing, right away.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, I believe the right thing is being done. Lawyers have been mandated to discuss all available options. I believe it may take several months. I said that before, and I am prepared to say that again. These are difficult issues involving several thousands claimants, several sets of lawyers and several class actions. We have to talk to the provinces and territories and to all the lawyers on behalf of the claimants.

These are very sensitive issues. I do not wish to politicize the issue at all. That is why I have conducted myself in an extremely non-partisan fashion on this particular file.

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

Mr. Chair, these people have suffered due to Liberal partisan politics and the fact that you guys could not get it together in cabinet. It is disgraceful that--

[The Chair]

Order, please. Please address all comments through the Chair for the questions.

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

Mr. Chair, changing gears again, the minister in Boston made an announcement that Canada would not be the drugstore for the States. The Prime Minister later on that same week indicated that the government had no plans to deal with the Internet pharmacies.

Why is there this contradiction between what the minister says and the Prime Minister? Who is right?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, let me reaffirm on the previous question. The government of the day felt that it was the appropriate decision to make on hepatitis C. Circumstances have changed, and we are making what is now the right and responsible decision.

However, on the issue of the Internet pharmacies, the Prime Minister and I are of one mind. The Prime Minister has said that very clearly. The Prime Minister supports the positions that I have taken. Once again, it is a very difficult issue. It is an issue of adequately safeguarding the safety and supply of drugs for Canadians. We are looking at all options in the event that we need to use them to safeguard that supply. We will continue to monitor the issue and we will continue to look at all the legal options available for us if and when they are needed.

[The Chair]

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of Health.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Chair, the fact the House has chosen to focus on the health estimates here in the committee of the whole obviously shows that we think the health care system in the country deserves this kind of scrutiny, and it reflects the deep interest all of us have in our health care system across the country.

I know that we will have a substantial debate on many policy issues this evening. However, since this session is about the estimates, I want to take a few minutes to map out the work of my portfolio and, in particular, my department, Health Canada. Then I want to outline how that department gets its results and some of the major issues that are addressed through the resources that Parliament will vote this year.

Let me start with the broadest scope of my responsibilities to Parliament, which is to say, the entire health portfolio.

As members may probably know, many ministers are responsible to Parliament for a mix of departmental and agency activities. The health portfolio has one department, Health Canada, which I will come back to in a few moments. It also includes the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which has a $752 million budget. Of that, fully $711 million goes to grants, largely to support innovative health research.

I am also responsible for two small agencies: the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission and the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board.

Health Canada is by far the largest component of my portfolio. The main estimates for 2004-05 project a budget of $3.2 billion for the department and more than 9,000 full time equivalent employees, with many of them spread across Canada's regions. Since the mains were developed before the creation of the new Public Health Agency of Canada, all those figures include the people and funds that are being transferred to that new agency during this year.

There is another point that I should make now on these resources. They do not include the transfers that our government makes to the provinces and territories, such as the Canada health transfer. Those funds are recorded in the estimates of the Department of Finance.

Health Canada expenditures cover a very wide range of activities that are aimed at improving the health of Canadians. The activities include ones that are fully within federal jurisdictions, while others support the provinces and territories as we all address common challenges.

In most cases, the work of my department takes place through partnerships with all kinds of institutions, groups and individuals who are interested in health issues.

Let me take a few moments to identify some of the major areas of activity of my department. I will set them out by the strategic outcomes that we can see in the report on the plans and priorities.

By far, the largest single component of our budget, and in that I include the resources being transferred to the Public Health Agency of Canada, is spent on first nations and Inuit health activities. The strategic outcome is healthier first nations and Inuit, through collaborative delivery of health promotion, disease prevention and health care services. This reflects our jurisdictional responsibility for the health of first nations on reserves and Inuit people.

It includes the direct health services that we fund in those communities, whether supplied directly by us or through funding agreements with aboriginal groups. It also includes the non-insured health benefits program that covers many health related costs, such as dental and vision care, medical transportation and prescription drugs.

This is an area in which our government has been investing more money.

These decisions are meant to address the needs of growing first nations and Inuit population. They are meant to take on specific challenges, such as the need for clean water in first nations and Inuit communities. They are incorporating our continued commitment to deal with specific concerns, such as diabetes.

These estimates include the 2003 budget commitments to increase funding to the first nations and Inuit health system by $231.9 million this year alone for specific needs, as well another additional amount of $36.4 million to cover rising demands in general.

A second aspect of our work in Health Canada falls under the strategic outcomes of access to quality health services for Canadians. In this case, while a lot of the attention goes to our work to meet obligations under the Canada Health Act and deal with major policy questions, much of the funding goes to support primary care reform.

We are working closely with our provincial and territorial colleagues to help fund their efforts to improve how primary care is delivered in Canada through the primary health care transition fund, which is allocated an extra $23.6 million for 2004-05.

This area is also the focal point for much of my department's work to follow through on many of the first ministers health commitments of recent years. For example, it includes the $20 million northern health supplement that came about in connection with the 2003 first ministers accord on health care renewal.

In the interest of time I want to group two strategic outcomes together. One is about healthier environments and safer products for Canadians, while the other is about safe health products and food. Both have in common the legislative responsibilities that we have under a range of federal laws and regulations. Some people do not realize the substantial role that the government is expected to play on issues such as approving new drugs going onto market, testing consumer products for safety or ensuring that Canadians are not exposed to radiation hazards.

However every working day doctors, scientists and other professionals, as well as many support staff in my department, are dealing with those specific priorities.

These estimates incorporate $37.6 million that will help us implement the new therapeutic access strategy. The strategy is quite wide-ranging and I hardly have the time to do it justice here. Let me summarize it by saying that it will help us improve our regulatory performance in getting new drugs to Canadians sooner, while improving our ongoing tracking of drugs that are on the market. It will help us promote the more optimal use of drugs by Canadians and will fund important policy work.

The estimates also include other commitments such as an increase of $15 million for a successful federal tobacco control strategy. They also include our work under Canada's drug strategy which received $18.4 million this year in the 2003 budget. That funding is helping us support measures to reduce substance use and abuse, particularly among young people. We are using it to support community driven programs and activities.

These estimates include $7.2 million in additional funding for the Pest Management Regulatory Agency which is part of Health Canada. The funds are needed to implement the new Pest Control Products Act that was passed in the last Parliament.

As these estimates are set out, there is a substantial allocation devoted to the strategic outcome of bringing about a healthier population by promoting health and preventing illness. This work is largely moving to the new Public Health Agency of Canada.

Although there is much more that I could discuss in terms of our strategic outcomes and the organization and mandate of the department, I should conclude these remarks by saying that there is more to come.

The President of the Treasury Board has tabled supplementary estimates that included our most recent commitments to Canadians. For example, they authorize spending related to initiatives from the 2004 budget, such as improvements to Canada's public health system and the extension of both the Canadian diabetes strategy and the hepatitis C prevention support and research program.

They will cover funding for initiatives arising from the 2003 first ministers accord. One example is the support for the new health council of Canada. Another is funding for the health human resources strategy that involves work with the provinces, territories, health organizations and others to ensure that we have the health workforce that Canada needs.

In time, my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, will also seek the Commons approval for our share of commitments under the first ministers agreement that was reached in September.

Let me sum up by saying that a record of solid fiscal management and a commitment to put resources where they are most needed is paying off for Canadians. Our government has a diverse and active health agenda. My department is at the centre of that agenda and is taking the steps to use the public funds that it gets in the most productive ways possible and very often in partnership with others.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chair, may questions be put to the minister?

[The Chair]

Yes, five minutes are provided for questions.