Debates of June 7th, 2005

Committees of the House

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on citizenship issues entitled “Citizenship Revocation: A Question of Due Process and Respecting Charter Rights”.

The current Citizenship Act was enacted in 1977, prior to the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that came into force April 17, 1982.

The major reasons that previous attempts to enact a new Citizenship Act in the 36th and 37th Parliaments failed was the lack of agreement on the proposed changes to citizenship revocation. It is for this reason that the committee has dedicated a report that deals exclusively with this contentious issue.

Under the current Citizenship Act, citizenship can be revoked when a person obtains citizenship or permanent residence by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances.

Following a review in the federal court, where a judge must simply agree that it is more likely than not that the person improperly obtained citizenship, the federal cabinet becomes responsible for making the revocation order.

Currently, an appeal is not even allowed with respect to a federal court judge's decision that on a mere balance of probabilities an individual fraudulently obtained citizenship.

The committee is recommending some fairly radical changes to the existing revocation process. The committee has recommended a fully judicial process and a higher standard of proof. We determined that the potential loss of citizenship is of such fundamental significance to the person concerned that fraud should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court.

Committee members from all four parties agreed that the current revocation process is unacceptable and we must move to a system that requires the government to respect due process and the legal sections 7 to 14 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We have recommended that there be a full appeal process and that the legal protections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply; the same rights a person fighting a shoplifting charge would enjoy.

These recommendations regarding changes to the current Citizenship Act are consistent with the government's commitment in the Speech from the Throne of October 2004, “to defend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to be a steadfast advocate of inclusion”.

The previous minister said that she would table new citizenship legislation in February 2005. That obviously did not happen and we are calling on the government to live up to its previous commitments, including those outlined in the throne speech, and table a new citizenship bill that properly reflects the value Canadians place on the their citizenship.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts concerning the Report on Plans and Priorities 2005-06 of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.

In accordance with Standing Order 109, your committee requests a government response within 120 days.

I also have the honour to present the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts concerning chapter 1, Information Technology Security, of the February 2005 report of the Auditor General of Canada.

In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government provide a comprehensive response to this report within 120 days.

Government Business No. 14

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and I believe you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That during today's debate on Government Business No. 14, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be entertained by the Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-403, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Toronto--Danforth.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to introduce the private member's bill that would change the name of my electoral district from Toronto—Danforth to Danforth--East York--Riverdale.

Everyone knows the Danforth, famous for its Greek food and fabulous community character. However, East York, a very important municipality and Canada's only borough for many years, was annihilated after a referendum showing that Toronto citizens wanted to retain these communities. It was annihilated by the provincial government in an act that was explicitly anti-democratic.

East York, however, lives on in the hearts and minds of the residents of East York and we are re-establishing the identity of East York through the name of this federal riding. This of course will match Beaches—East York which encompasses the other half of this wonderful community. Many seniors and veterans live in East York and they have a great deal of pride for what they have achieved and built over the years.

Riverdale is a historic community in Toronto separated for so many years by the Don River but is now an integral part of the life of the city and we are able to recognize that in this new name. We look forward to its adoption for the next election.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

[Jim Gouk, Conservative, Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition entitled “Health Freedom”. Canadian constituents, primarily from the south Okanagan, desire to have an updated Food and Drugs Act created by Parliament that is consistent with the inherent rights of Canadians to informed freedom of choice and access to non-medicinal drugs products of their choosing as protected by sections 1, 2, 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They call upon Parliament to repeal outdated prohibitions against making truthful health claims for the prevention, treatment and cure of health challenges with non-drug approaches by enacting Bill C-420. They are right to be concerned. It has been a constant battle to keep access to these natural health products.

I hope Parliament, and particularly the government, will stop this attack on people's freedom of choice and agree to the speedy enactment of the private member's bill.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that is signed by thousands of people from my riding and across this country. The petitioners draw our attention to the following: that Canada has committed to upholding the rights of asylum seekers and refugees by signing the 1951 UN convention on refugees and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Accordingly, the petitioners request that Parliament insist that government immediately implement the refugee appeal division's approval by Parliament in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act of 2002.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Supply

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

moved:

That, given a national strategy is needed now to reduce the growing human and economic costs of cancer, heart disease and mental illness; the House call on the government to fully fund and implement the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control in collaboration with the provinces and all stake holders, and given that Canada is one of the few developed countries without a national action plan for effectively addressing mental illness and heart disease, the government should immediately develop and initiate a comprehensive national strategy on mental illness, mental health and heart disease.

Mr. Speaker, today the Conservative Party is introducing what I hope will be an historic change in the way the Canadian government deals with cancer, mental health and heart disease.

The need for national strategies on cancer, mental health and heart disease is obvious. There is a high human and economic cost that must be immediately addressed in a comprehensive, pan-Canadian approach. The costs of these strategies are minimal compared to the looming health and economic costs.

Leadership for this plan should come from experts on the ground, not from government bureaucrats. Canada lags behind many other developed countries in its approach to national disease strategies. The lack of Liberal leadership on the issue has cost Canadian lives.

In our plan, the autonomy of the provinces and territories will be respected. These strategies will allow the provinces to communicate and share knowledge and best practices across Canada and to hook into national and international expertise.

The Council for the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control has a model for other disease strategies. We understand that the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the mental health organizations will use the cancer strategy as a model for their own programs.

These strategies will operate under full accountability from the moment they are initiated. There will not be more government foundations: funding will be based upon results.

Canada is ideally situated to quickly make progress on a national cancer strategy because we can easily access best practices overseas and improve lives through information sharing. Each province is essentially a laboratory in which trials can take place.

Despite claims made by the Public Health Agency, it has no national cancer strategy. No specific money has been allotted for cancer. The Conservatives are taking the lead on this important health issue while the Liberals hide from making needed decisions.

While the Liberals are up to their eyeballs in corruption and cover-ups of scandals, the Conservatives have a plan for Canadians. The Conservative Party cares about the health and well-being of Canadians. We will not sacrifice them for ideological or political reasons.

Our proposal promotes transparency and accountability, in stark contrast to Liberal apathy. Our plan commits funds to the various diseases while the Liberals say they provide money. As for the small amount of money they do provide, there is no measuring of the effects the funding is supposed to have.

Why do we want a national strategy? Rather than having a patchwork approach for policies across Canada, it makes sense to maximize our gains by pooling and focusing the resources of stakeholders across Canada. These diseases affect the lives of every Canadian.

We also recognize that because of the taboo that surrounds mental illness it is important to finally generate a constructive dialogue on the subject. Just because people do not want to think about or talk about mental illness, there is no reason not to deal with the issue. The Conservative Party is taking the lead on mental health and mental illness.

The Liberals have ignored the human and economic costs of these diseases. The long term costs of cancer, mental illness and heart disease will run into the tens of billions of dollars, if not hundreds of billions. It is important that we implement these strategies immediately. The Liberals have had 12 years to do this and have not done so.

The Liberals have shown a profound lack of leadership and accountability on these issues, particularly in their funding models. For instance, today there is no way to track the money that is spent on cancer. Instead of a national strategy, the Liberals have bought off various advocacy communities with small amounts of money that have had little effect on the problem. They hide behind the excuse that disease specific strategies are ineffective and only a chronic disease strategy will work.

In short, this is nothing but ridiculous. In reality, disease specific strategies have worked remarkably well in numerous countries, such as Britain, France and many other EU countries, to name a few. These policies are at the forefront of each government's health policy framework.

The Liberals claim that implementing national disease strategies would be too difficult due to the complexities of federal-provincial relationships. However, the EU has been able to coordinate through a number of separate nations. We should surely be able to do it within Canada.

It is interesting to note that the Council for the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control has brought in all stakeholders in the cancer community and has buy-in from all these stakeholders. The Liberal health minister promised the Council for the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control that $26 million would be allocated in this year's budget, with increased funding in subsequent years. A week later, on budget day, not a penny was given to the cancer strategy. The health minister's promise to cancer stakeholders was broken, which is not a surprise, unfortunately, when dealing with the Liberals.

We are calling for specific moneys to be allocated to the Canadian strategy for cancer control in the amount of approximately $260 million over five years. The funding would make Canada a world leader in cancer control.

The Public Health Agency, which sits as a board member on the CSCC council and has funded the group's strategy, abstained from approving the plan just two weeks ago. Essentially, it paid for advice on cancer and then refused to accept the advice. Even the cancer experts working with the PHA have no idea what it bases its decisions on or what the plan is.

The Conservative Party supports the leadership of the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health and the Heart and Stroke Foundation. Instead of creating yet another layer of bureaucracy, these groups should take the lead in developing and implementing specific national disease strategies. They are in a far better position to do so than government officials. These groups are composed of experts in their respective fields and involve thousands of volunteers.

We call on the government to implement these comprehensive strategies as they are presented, not by cherry-picking only what it likes and implementing each in a piecemeal fashion. Comprehensive strategies are needed now. All that is required is the political will to commit the funds to these plans.

The funds needed to implement the plans are relatively small in light of the long term costs associated with mental illness, cancer and heart disease. The Liberals have doled out nearly $20 billion in the past two months and yet have done nothing to adequately combat diseases that will affect the lives of every Canadian and strain government resources in the decades to come. The longer they wait, the higher the long term costs for Canada will be.

What will a national cancer strategy buy? We will get: a national cancer prevention strategy; system change for greater investment in supportive and palliative care; improved surveillance and analysis; a common data and technology system to facilitate national standards; a centralized national database of clinical practice guidelines; a national human resources database; and a long term research agenda.

I would like to also take a moment to acknowledge Senator Forrestall, who has been instrumental in spearheading action on cancer and cancer research. Unfortunately, the senator is ill. I would like to express my hope that he will soon return to good health and continue his fight in Parliament.

Because I am splitting my time with my colleague from Yellowhead, I do not have time to get into all the specifics, but the bottom line is that we have an opportunity to do a great thing for Canadians. We have an opportunity to deal with the cancer crisis, the mental health crisis, and the heart disease crisis we have and to deal with them now, because this is just going to get worse.

The Liberals had the opportunity to implement a national strategy and they have not done so. If we talk to any of the cancer associations, they will agree with that statement. Though the Liberals will deny it, the fact is that leadership on this issue is coming from the Conservative Party of Canada.

We look forward to working with the stakeholders to ensure that the health of Canadians remains and is preserved into the future.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member, who is the lead health critic of the official opposition, for bringing this subject forward. We know that health care generally is the number one concern for Canadians.

I will have a chance to speak later in greater depth on this, but we can present arguments as to whether we should be funding or allocating directly for specific diseases or a specific strategy or whether we should have a global fund and have peer reviewed competitive research funding.

We are investing considerably, especially in cardiovascular and cancer research, through the Canadian Institute for Health Research and its specific institutes within that through the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and through the research channels. In many ways, assets that are out there financed by the federal government are working toward those strategies.

We could argue whether that is the way to go or whether we should have dedicated funding. The problem with dedicated funding is that we have to start to pick and choose among diseases. I do not know that there are many out there that do not deserve funding. Many of the groups are working toward their funding, so we have a competitive process and I will get to that later.

However, the question I have for the member and where I agree with him, is that as a nation we are failing on the question of mental illness. I will not be so political as to point to any individual party, order of government or any level of government because it is a very difficult issue. It has been a taboo type issue across the country and does not necessarily have the proper structures interprovincially.

If I were to have a heart attack in any province of this country, I would be taken care of properly and then I would worry about which province would pay. If I were to have a mental breakdown, I am not so sure that I would get the same level of care. We have to work together.

A lot of people, like Michael Wilson, were advising the Minister of Health. There are a lot of people working on it across the country. I think we have to go further at all levels of government and I would ask the member for his comments on this subject.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member raises an interesting question. What approach is better, to have disease specific strategies or to lump it all together in one pot? This seems to be what the Liberals have been doing.

The answer is very clear. Disease specific strategies have worked. They have worked throughout the industrialized world, in France, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, the U.K., and through the EU. Canada is out of step in this regard. Disease specific strategies also allow for transparency and accountability.

The member raises the issue of having to pick and choose diseases. The fact is that cancer, heart disease and mental illness, if we combine those three diseases together, probably touch the lives of just about every Canadian. These are not willy-nilly issues. These are diseases that have a profound effect on Canadians.

We have a strategy to deal with cancer that is ready to go. It has been bought into by all the stakeholders and all the provinces. All it needs is the funding. The Liberal government has refused to provide the funding. Let us see how it goes.

I challenge the Liberal government to prove the cancer community wrong. The way we can do that is to fund its programs. Canadians will be pleasantly surprised to see concrete outcomes and receive huge value for their dollars.

I trust third party arm's length organizations with all their stakeholders to implement the strategy than a government bureaucracy that is subject to the political manipulation of ministers. There is also the fact that there is no real transparency or accountability available when we look at what the member is suggesting.

This strategy will be transparent. The members will be accountable. We will see value for our dollars. I encourage the member to reconsider his position and support the Canadian cancer community, the Canadian mental health community and the Heart and Stroke Foundation. They support us. They do not support the Liberal plan. They support the Conservative plan which is their plan.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and a pleasure to second this motion. It is very important that we come into this House and talk about issues other than sex and corruption, which seems to have capitalized the attention of this place and discredited each and every one of us who represent members of the Canadian public. It is important that we talk about something that is near and dear to their hearts, that they are compassionate about, and that will impact them, their kids and their grandkids for generations to come.

It is important, before we start talking about health care, that we have a clear picture of what is coming at us with regard to the demographics of our country and how that will impact our health care system. We pride ourselves on our health care system. We are passionate about it and passionate about saving it, protecting it and making it better.

We have seen the Liberal government over the last decade not only removing funds from it but actually discrediting it to the point where we have doubled the number of people on waiting lists. We have a lack of human resources in our system, where 75% of doctors are refusing to take any more patients in this country right now. We are seeing a lack of nurses. We need 100,000 within the next few short years in order to refurbish the workplace within our hospital walls.

It is a serious situation when we look at the disastrous state the health care system is in right now. Before we even start dialoguing and discerning how we are going to fix that, we have to understand what is coming at us in the long term because health care, unfortunately, gets used as a political football. We look at it in four year segments, as election cycles go, and how we are going to win the next election by using health care as a vehicle. That has to stop. We do not have the luxury of doing that in this country.

When we look at the baby boomer population, the stress that it will put on the health care system will not start for a decade. Once that starts it will then begin to intensify and will keep intensifying until about the year 2040. It is important for us to mention that here because everyone in this House has to understand that, so we can clearly articulate it to the people of Canada. If we do not understand what is coming at us, there is no possible way that we can make decisions on how we can fix it.

Health care has been treated by crisis management, as patients show up at the door of hospitals, for the last half century. We must recognize that we must do more than just treat health care and patients of Canada through a crisis management approach. We must look at it in a proactive way. We must look at prevention and that is why it is important that we look at this motion today. That is why we are bringing it before the House, so we can have a healthy debate and look at what we are going to do with cancer, mental illness, heart problems and strokes, and how we are going to look at these issues in a proactive way.

It is important to mention what has happened in the last two years with regard to the health accords of 2003-04. The government implemented them, but we have seen very little action coming out of the 2003 accord. In fact, we agreed with the 2003 accord, but we saw that the provincial and federal governments actually bailed on a lot of the commitments in that 2003 accord.

I do not know what was more frustrating: the poll results that we saw on the 2004 accord or the $100,000 it took for the government to actually poll constituents and find out what they felt about that 2004 accord. The cynicism that was reflected in that poll should have been expected after what we saw come out of the 2003 accord where everybody bailed on their commitments.

Nonetheless, we know that the public's confidence in the health care system has eroded, and that is very clear in the poll that just came out yesterday or the day before. It is not surprising, but it is frustrating. It tells us that Canadians do not believe that the 2004 accord is actually going to solve all the problems. It is not going to be the fix for a generation that the Prime Minister had promised Canadians. It is not going to do anything more than play politics with health care like we have done in the past and are doing at the present time in order to win another election. That has to stop.

The motion speaks to a Canadian strategy for cancer control. I am absolutely struck at how well the strategy has been laid out by the Cancer Society. In fact it is very passionate about it. The Liberal government will tell us that it is implementing it, that it is in the Speech from the Throne and that it is supposed to be in the budget, but it is not. I was struck by the fact that an individual from the Cancer Society drove 10 hours in one day to meet with me in my riding office to explain the strategy to me.

The individual told me that just a few short years ago one in four Canadians contracted cancer in their lifetime. Today it is one in three. In a few short years it will be one in two. Those are horrendous numbers when talk about the demographic curve and the impact that will have on our health care system as we move into the 21st century. We have to understand this fact. If we do not understand it, we will be unable to solve anything.

The strategy is a preventative approach. How many cancer deaths can we prevent in the foreseeable future? Before we start draining the bucket to solve the problem, we should stop filling the bucket. By filling the bucket, I mean how do we deal with the number of overweight people? How do we deal with the health conditions of people because of their lifestyles? How do we ensure we have clean water, clean air and clean land? How will that impact our society with regard to health care?

I have had 20 years of experience in the health care system in my province of Alberta. The way we deal with mental illness in every province is a disaster.

When I sat on a regional health authority in Alberta, one statistic absolutely astounded me. It indicated that the number one reason people were hospitalized was for mental illness. It is not cancer or heart disease. People do not understand the seriousness of mental illness.

A study which came out last June indicated that 24,000 deaths within our acute care hospitals were caused by adverse events, most of those because of problems with medications. A good part of the reason why people are medicated is because of high stress and the amount of pressure placed on them. That is why we see an explosion in the number of people on benzodiazepines, antidepressants and sleep disorder medications. Until we stop thinking there is a pill for every problem and start realizing that every pill also has a problem, we will never be able to deal with these problems.

We have to look at a national strategy. We have to understand how to prevent illnesses from the start. Maybe we should look at slowing down our society with regard to the amount of pressure and stress on individuals. This would allow us to deal with some of the problems in a more proactive way.

It was interesting listening to one of the questions from my Liberal colleague with regard to the reason for having a national strategy on some of these issues.

Three thousand babies are born with fetal alcohol syndrome every year. This is an issue that the health committee dealt with recently. We brought forward a motion and debated it in the House. We sent a directive to Health Canada indicating that by June 2 we wanted a comprehensive strategy on how to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome.

At the last meeting of the health committee, Health Canada came forward with a solution. It was the most pathetic example of how it would deal with this situation. It had nothing to do with prevention and it had very little to do with the question that was asked. This directive was sent to Health Canada not just by the health committee, but by the House of Commons.

When I see that sort of approach by Health Canada and I see the kind of weak approach with regard to health care and our health care system by the Liberal government, I have to admit we have a serious problem in our country.

It is a pleasure for me to second the motion before us today. I challenge every member in the House to understand exactly what it is saying. I challenge them to vote for it. If they vote against it, they are saying they do not care about a national strategy. If they vote against it, they are saying they do not believe that prevention is the way to go. If they vote against it, they are indicating that they want to play politics with health care instead of looking at solutions. It is very important that we understand what is coming at us.

When I spoke about the demographic curve, I failed to mention the amount of obesity within our school aged children. They are going to start to have heart, stroke, cancer and diabetic problems at age 30 and 40, not at age 50, 60, 70. That will impact our health care system at the same time the demographic curve does. When we look at a realistic picture, we have to understand that we have to look at preventative solutions. We have to put people at the centre of our health care system and build a system around the needs of patients. If we fail to do that, we will fail Canadians and we will fail the health care system. The Liberals have failed them for the last decade. It is time to remove them. It is time to deal with health care the way it should be dealt with, and that is the approach before the House today.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to ask my colleague a question about this important issue. Two years ago I tabled a similar motion related to environmental contaminants, human health and prevention. A Bloc amendment to the motion passed in the House of Commons with every party voting for it. Then we voted on the main motion and the Alliance and some Liberals killed it, narrowly. It was unfortunate because prevention was very much at the forefront of the motion, cancer in particular.

I would like to ask the hon. member a question about an important issue he raised, and that was the issue of prevention. I would like to get his opinion on whether the environment, in particular pollution and its connection to human health is adequately addressed by our country.

I know the OECD has discussed the issue of Canada losing billions of dollars of production because of the impact of environmental contaminants on human health. Cancer, as this motion addresses, is an important issue related to that.

What does he think we should do on the issue of the connection of human health and cancer related to our contaminants? Yesterday we identified a series of cities that were plagued by smog. What his suggestion to reduce the human health factors related to smog and individuals? What would he bring forward as a priority?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's questions give me an opportunity to explain to the House and Canadians our party belief on this.

We believe we have to deal with cleaner air, cleaner land and cleaner water. Those are the essentials. We have to do a much better job than we have done in the past.

However, we do that by getting rid of nitric oxide, sulphur dioxide and some of the poison contaminants that come out of the smokestacks of our factories and automobile exhaust pipes. We do not do that by bringing in CO

2

emission controls, a Kyoto protocol issue, which is about changing wealth rather than dealing with contaminants in Canada. We do not solve the problem by buying carbon credits from Chile or Russia. We solve the problem by dealing with the pollutants in our air. That is how we save Canadians.

I am appalled by a party over there that believes the Kyoto protocol is the answer. Two parties over there seem to believe that is the solution and answer to the smog problems that plague Toronto. It has nothing to do with smog. It has everything to do with CO

2

, which is what the Kyoto protocol is. It is an elusive situation where they have fooled Canadians into thinking that will solve the problem.

Unfortunately, it will not. It is the right idea going in the wrong direction. It will have a horrendous cost impact on Canadians rather than create the kind of climate changes that we need to save the lives of Canadians.

When we talk about human health and the health of a society, he is absolute right. We have to clean things up. We have to have cleaner air, cleaner water and cleaner land. We can do that with some of the technologies.

The member asked a specific question about fixing the problem of smog in Toronto. We do not do it by fixing CO

2

. We fix it by having more efficient automobiles, with new advancements in technology such as using other alternatives to fossil fuel. We are starting to see some of those advancements in our automobiles, the hybrid as an example.

I believe there will be new technologies far beyond what we see today. We should focus and put our money on that. We should put our research into this area to do what is the right thing for the people of Canada so we can save their health, build our economy, have the best country in the world and sustain that into the 21st century and beyond.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I became a member of Parliament and joined the health committee in January 1994, the first presentation came from Health Canada officials. They outlined how 75% of health spending was on remedial or fixing the problem and only 25% was prevention. Their conclusion was the system was unsustainable.

Therefore, I do not think it is a surprise by the situation in which we find ourselves. We have had some false starts on things like the National Forum on Health. It came to the conclusion that there was enough money in the system, but it was not being spent properly. Subsequently, all that work was reversed and it said that more money was needed. However, we still have not seen the results.

I applaud the member for bringing forward the motion. It is an important area, particularly with regard to addressing what the member would describe as maybe frustration with Health Canada.

However, people are living longer these days. It is not so much that they are living healthier lifestyles, but that the technology of medicine and pharmaceuticals have allowed people to overcome a lot of the things that they could not in the past. Therefore, there are some conflicting approaches to a healthy lifestyle.

I am a big believer in terms of an investment in prevention. Does the member feel that perhaps now is the time to take a little tougher stand with Health Canada, which seems not to have come to that same conclusion, and to ensure that words of parliamentarians are not only heard but acted upon?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is one of the frustrations that I believe everyone in the House has sensed over the last while. It is the lack of respect for votes that are taken in the House. We saw that frustration first-hand in the health committee with the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome. That is not the only one. There are many others.

It shows the amount of disrespect the House has even itself. It is not only the disrespect and cynicism Canadians for the House in the way that we have acted in the last while. That has to change or democracy will fail.

However, how do we look at prevention and how do we send the message more clearly to the health department, which I believe was the essence of the question? If we vote unanimously for the motion, that will send a very strong message to the government. If we are to have a national strategy, we will have to ensure that we put some feet to the fire. We must send a message to Health Canada.

It is great to see the Minister of Health here. I am hoping he will stand up and applaud this initiative. It is in his ballpark to deal with. I implore him to not only vote for the motion but to act on it. That is what Canadians need and that is what we have to do. We have to stop playing politics with health care and start doing what is in the best interest of Canadians. That is the reason they have charged us to come to the House. It is an honour to represent them from that perspective. Each and every one of us had better feel the weight of that and understand that the reason we are here is to speak on their behalf.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is among one of the foremost preoccupations for me as the Minister of Health.

I thank the hon. member opposite for bringing the issue forward in the form of this motion. The hon. member is quite right in highlighting the human and economic toll of serious chronic diseases, such as cancer, heart disease and mental illness.

Few families have not been touched at some time by the pain, the anxiety, the fear and the tragedy brought on by such devastating conditions. The Government of Canada understands and I understand that when Canadians are forced to fight these battles they should never be left on their own. They need and warrant our help. The hallmark of a caring society is one that aids people in their time of greatest need.

We can and must do those things. At the same time, we need to support knowledge sharing to ensure that the benefits of research are put into the best practices that will, over time, help lessen suffering by unlocking the key to earlier detection and better management.

Those are among the principles of our new integrated strategy on healthy living and chronic disease. These strategies are being developed by the new Public Health Agency of Canada.

Thanks to an important investment included in last February's federal budget, the strategy brings together, focuses and builds on the many activities that are already helping Canadians deal with the burden of chronic disease.

Non-infectious or chronic diseases do not generally seize the headlines but the truth is that they kill more Canadians every day than all the emerging communicable diseases combined. We know that 82% of deaths and 74% of disabilities are attributable to chronic diseases.

The cost in terms of quality of life is immeasurable. Insofar as it is possible to put a price on suffering, we can say that chronic diseases cost our economy an estimated $70 billion per year.

While chronic diseases can afflict anyone, their burden is not shared equally. Certain groups, low income and aboriginal Canadians, for example, are more apt to suffer from heart disease, diabetes, obesity, cancer and some types of mental illness than the population at large.

Many chronic diseases are largely preventable and yet more and more Canadians are not sufficiently active or not eating as healthily as they might to ward off chronic disease down the road.

Chronic disease is often dubbed the silent epidemic. We in the Government of Canada, alongside our partners in the provinces and territories and the health and non-profit sectors, can hear the cry for health loud and clear. We hear it and we are acting.

Over the years, Health Canada has worked with its partners to respond to the many urgent needs posed by chronic disease. I know my colleagues will review some of the many disease specific initiatives that have emerged from our many fruitful partnerships, such as the Canadian heart health Initiative and the Canadian diabetes strategy.

Let me spend a couple of moments on the programs that we have or will have with respect to cancer. First is the integrated strategy of healthy living and chronic disease. As we know, in this budget that is before the House, $300 million over five years have been provided, of which a significant portion will fund a component for cancer specific activities in support of the Canadian strategy for cancer control.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research is also involved in research and provided $94 million for cancer research in 2003-04. For 2004-05, cancer research programs benefited from $93 million, in addition to $12 million for cancer related Canada research chairs.

There has been a $10 million one time grant for the 2005 budget for cancer research in recognition of the Terry Fox Marathon of Hope.

The Canadian breast cancer initiative will get $4 million annually to support research, care and treatment, professional education, programs for early detection and access to information for women.

The Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance gets $3 million annually to support high quality research on all aspects of disease.

Many other programs that are currently in place.

We are also fully engaged on a number of very worthwhile fronts with the Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance of Canada.

The Government of Canada is also investing intensively in research into the causes and potential treatments for various chronic conditions. In the area of diabetes, for instance, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research committed $28 million in 2003-04 alone.

Since 1997, the Canada Foundation for Innovation has awarded another $27 million to support diabetes research at universities and research hospitals, while six of Canada's research chairs specialize in this disease alone.

Mental health is often overlooked as a chronic disease , but it may be just as devastating and debilitating for Canadian families. In making mental health one of my own personal priorities, I recently appointed the Hon. Michael Wilson as a special adviser for mental health in the federal workplace. I have asked my cabinet colleagues to appoint a senior official within their ministries to help coordinate federal policies and activities in the area of mental health in our own workplace.

I think we can all agree that the range and depth of initiatives underscore the commitment of the Government of Canada to control the prevalence of chronic disease. However we also appreciate that there are compelling reasons to integrate our efforts, to build on our laudable progress and to create some powerful synergies. Indeed, that is the approach adopted in budget 2005 which builds on previous investments with another $300 million over five years for the integrated strategy on healthy living and chronic disease. If I might add, this approach is supported by the 2004 accord on health care of the first ministers of September 2004.

The strategy will include a series of activities to promote healthy eating and encourage physical activity and healthy weight in order to help control chronic diseases. It also encompasses a series of complementary disease specific activities in the area of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer, as I have indicated.

For example, funding for the Canadian diabetes strategy will rise from $15 million to $18 million a year. The aboriginal diabetes initiative will also be extended and enhanced. Its funding will rise to $25 million in the first year and eventually up to $55 million as part of a $700 million aboriginal health package that was also agreed upon at the first ministers meeting in 2004.

The investment will support diabetes prevention and health promotion and improved treatment and surveillance.

I am confident that the integrated strategy on healthy living and chronic disease is the right way to go. It will result in better health for all Canadians and a more sustainable health care system down the road.

The reason for my confidence is that the strategy adopts an innovative approach comprising three interrelated pillars. First, it promotes health by addressing the conditions that lead to unhealthy eating, physical inactivity and unhealthy weight. I have been personally engaged in my own struggle with all of those issues and have been exercising almost every day for the last three months.

Second, the strategy seeks to prevent chronic disease through focused and integrated action on major chronic conditions and their risk factors.

Third, it will furnish us with platforms for early detection and management of chronic diseases.

We take a great deal of justifiable pride in the knowledge that Canadians are among the healthiest people in the world. They are served well by a health care system that is one of the best in the world. There is no question that health care system can be improved upon and that is what I suppose all of us across the country are engaged in.

A long, healthy life has become something of an expectation of living in a wealthy society and yet, ironically, there is a downside to longevity and prosperity. However that does not mean we need to lose ground when it comes to our enviable health status. What it means is that we need to focus on priorities. We need to recognize that chronic diseases pose a real and growing threat to our population.

We need to commit to action. We need to work together to address the underlying conditions that lead to chronic disease. We need to work in partnership, governments, health professionals, researchers, the non-profit sector, all those with a shared interest in maintaining a healthy population and a sustainable health care system. We need to work together in an integrated fashion tying together surveillance and monitoring, prevention and health promotion, knowledge sharing and best practices, and early detection and better disease management.

Those are the key elements of our integrated strategy on healthy living and chronic disease. I am confident that they will lead us down the right path toward better health for all Canadians.

Once again I applaud the hon. member opposite for his well placed concerns and for bringing this urgent matter to the floor of the House. While we are making progress on the path I just outlined, the motion is worth considering in the context of the direction we are taking.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed, not necessarily for what the minister said but what he did not say. The minister did not tell us that the government will vote for the motion, which is to fully fund and implement the Canadian strategy for cancer control.

The minister has to understand that the non-profit organizations in the cancer community, the organizations to which he referred, are screaming that the government is not listening. What we heard at the press conference this morning and in their comments since then is that the government is not listening to the cancer community. If it were it would implement the strategy.

The lack of support from the government on the motion is further seen by the Public Health Agency of Canada abstaining just two weeks ago from supporting the five year fiscal plan of the council. I have been told that the minister made a commitment that the cancer control strategy would be fully funded in the last budget but, for some unknown reason, which perhaps the minister could explain, the funding was cut.

We also understand that federal officials are blaming other federal officials for cutting the budget but everybody knows it is a decision of the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Therefore the minister has to take responsibility for not fully funding and implementing the strategy.

The disease specific strategies have been proven throughout the world to be the way to go. Countries with similar democratic profiles as Canada, such as Australia and the U.K., have implemented such strategies. I will ask the minister for a simple yes or no answer. Will the government fully fund and implement the Canadian strategy for cancer control?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is fond of very simple answers.

Let me go back to the 2004 accord. The first ministers all agreed, based on advice they all received from their jurisdictions, that we should have an integrated healthy living and chronic disease strategy. That strategy will be funded with $300 million additionally over the next five years, which means $60 million additionally a year.

Obviously, money is never enough. One could always pour in a lot more money. We need to work on a whole host of issues, healthy living and dealing with common risk factors in the integrated disease strategy, and of course disease specific actions and projects that need to be dealt with. All of that has to be done together. We are working on that multi-pronged strategy.

I believe that if the member looked at that, he would be satisfied that we would deal with the issues that the NGOs or non-profit sector is asking for in terms of the stand-alone strategy. It was a decision made in the budget at that time. We want to make sure that we deal with the common risk factors in the chronic disease strategy in an integrated fashion aided by some of the disease specific initiatives that we are undertaking as well.

[Jim Gouk, Conservative, Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic the minister would keep emphasizing the term “lead us down the path”. It seems very apropos.

The war on cancer should not have to depend on the efforts of a heroic young man who lost his leg and eventually his life to cancer. It should depend on the government and on Parliament. The strategy of the Liberals reminds me of a brush fire where the responsible agency, in trying to save money, instead of sending the equipment and manpower necessary to put out that fire, sends one person with a small extinguisher. Eventually they lose control and lose a lot of forest land, jobs and taxes and create problems for the environment instead of doing the job right upfront.

I would be interested to know if the government has ever done a cost benefit analysis. For example, if it put in large sums of money, what benefit would it get in terms of savings to the health care system, lost wages, taxation and all the other things that come up?

In terms of what money is available, recently the government came out with a budget and said, “This is all we have”, yet a few short weeks later, the Liberals managed to find another $4.6 billion. I will not even go into whether or not the things they targeted with the additional money were really wonderful, but they had $4.6 billion, presumably, to make this commitment. If they took a large part of that and instead of talking about putting hundreds of millions of dollars or even a few million, and I think the minister said an additional $60 million, the figures I have seen lead me to believe that if we would invest hundreds of millions, we would save in the long run hundreds of billions.

Has a cost strategy analysis every been done? If so, why does the government not take a serious look at making a genuine commitment to a real war on the health problems of the citizens of this country and deal with it once and for all for net saving and also for quality of life?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that chronic diseases, as I indicated in my remarks, cost us approximately $70 billion a year. That may include the productivity cost as well.

It is important to recognize that stand-alone strategies are not necessarily the best way to deal with this issue. There was agreement on that issue among the first ministers because there is emphasis in that accord on an integrated chronic disease strategy. I understand there is some consensus among professionals who deal with these issues that many of these diseases, including cancer, share common risk factors. Therefore, it is important for us to have an integrated disease strategy and an integrated response to several of these diseases all at the same time, as I said, aided and complemented by disease specific initiatives that we need to deal with. It is important.

There is no question that public health generally needs to be promoted across the country rather than remedial action. We need to make sure that we promote healthy living. Part of this strategy would be the education, awareness and promotion of healthy living.

I am personally engaged in trying to live healthy. I have been at the gym at the Confederation Building almost every day for the past three months. It is important that each one of us engage in that.

[Jim Gouk, Conservative, Southern Interior, BC]

I would rather you stay inside and sign some cheques.