Debates of May 1st, 2006

Respecting International Bridges and Tunnels Act

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps for clarification for the member, in my comments I did state that over the past four decades there has been a trend toward deregulating the rail industry, but the industry is still regulated, particularly when it comes to terms of rail safety. That is the direction we are talking about. The purpose of the act would serve to confirm the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction. I think it clearly states that. It talks about government approval for the construction. It talks about government approval for all changes in ownership and it authorizes the government to make regulations regarding maintenance and repair, with safety and security being a vital part of that entire plan.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The time for questions and comments has ended. Resuming debate.

There is no further debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The motion is carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Public Health Agency of Canada Act

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

moved that Bill C-5, An Act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to begin debate on Bill C-5, an act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada. I thank the Minister of Health for providing me with this opportunity.

As we indicated in our Speech from the Throne, this government is committed to building a better federation in which governments come together to help Canadians realize their full potential.

By taking action on things that make us healthy or sick, through public health the Government of Canada can help Canadians make meaningful gains in their health, yielding benefits for our health system and across our economy and society. This piece of legislation represents a critical step in the government's effort to promote and protect the health of Canadians.

As members may know, in 2003 the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, launched an important discussion and debate about the state of public health in Canada. I am pleased to say that my minister was a leading voice in the protection of Canadians during that crisis. SARS provided a significant wake-up call to all governments on the need to renew and strengthen public health in Canada.

Two subsequent expert reports, one completed by Dr. David Naylor and the other by Senator Michael Kirby, pointed to the need to establish a federal focal point to address public health issues. Specific recommendations included the establishment of a Canadian public health agency and the appointment of a chief public health officer for Canada.

In response to the recommendations in the Dr. Naylor and Senator Kirby reports, the Public Health Agency of Canada was created through an order in council. However, the agency currently lacks parliamentary recognition in the form of its own enabling legislation. Unfortunately, the previous government did not have the legislation proceed advantageously through the House, but I am pleased that this government will ensure that the legislation is brought forward and passed.

These reports also emphasized that understanding, preventing and managing chronic and infectious diseases, as well as promoting good health, is the key to a healthier population and to reducing pressures on the acute health care system.

In terms of its links to health issues, promoting good health or preventing illness helps to contribute to the sustainability of health care. Most disability or death in Canada is caused by a few leading chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer, respiratory illness and diabetes. International examples have shown that by placing a greater emphasis on disease prevention, Canada could help alleviate the pressures from these diseases on the health care system.

Providing a statutory foundation would give the agency and the chief public health officer parliamentary recognition and would allow the agency and its staff to assist the Minister of Health in the exercise of the minister's powers, duties and functions in relation to public health.

This legislation is but one example of this government's commitment to protecting and promoting the health of Canadians. The Public Health Agency of Canada spends over $500 million in programs and services that benefit the lives of Canadians each and every day. These appropriations reflect the government's recognition of the agency as a federal focal point for addressing public health issues, as recommended by the experts. It also reflects the important level of the federal government in the issues of public health.

With its roots in the federal constitutional authority for quarantine at our borders and in the 1918 influenza pandemic, there is a clear federal role in coordinating a response to infectious disease outbreaks. From the start, there has evolved a clear role in surveillance, research and knowledge sharing, which can be seen in our lab work at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, Canada's only level 4 lab. Naturally, as Manitoba MPs, we are very proud of the virology lab and look forward to its continued success.

Over the past century, Canadians have increasingly called upon the federal government to take action on health issues of national interest. Efforts have developed to address HIV and AIDS and chronic diseases like heart disease, cancer and diabetes, as well as programs and activities that support early childhood development, active aging and community action on health.

This government recognizes that in order to have an efficient public health system and to protect public health in Canada, we need to continue to foster collaborative relationships with the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments as well as international organizations and public health experts. This is an objective that is clearly set out in the preamble of Bill C-5.

It is also why Bill C-5 does not expand the existing federal activities relating to public health. Rather, it simply confirms our existing federal role and creates a statutory foundation for the agency. Further, it responds to provincial and territorial calls for a federal focal point with the appropriate authority and the capability to work with them in preparing for and addressing public health emergencies.

As the federal focal point, the agency is able to link into worldwide efforts in public health and with institutions such as the World Health Organization so we can ensure that best practices can be applied to Canadian settings.

Additionally, the agency worked with the provincial and territorial authorities to establish the Pan-Canadian Public Health Network as a forum for multilateral intergovernmental collaboration on public health issues that respects jurisdictional responsibilities in the areas of public health. The network includes representation from all jurisdictions and is led by a council of senior public health officials, which is currently co-chaired by the chief public health officer and the provincial medical health officer in B.C. Through the council, the network also provides policy advice through conferencing with the deputy minister of health on public health matters.

The network also includes expert groups that focus on key issues around health, such as communicable disease control, emergency preparedness and response, Canadian public health laboratory surveillance and information, injury prevention and control, and population health promotion. There is also a one-time limited task force on public health human resources.

The network represents a new way of federal-provincial-territorial collaboration on public health matters. By facilitating intergovernmental collaboration through the public health network, the agency is also able to develop and draw on scientific knowledge and expertise in order to provide the best public health advice to Canadians. As we can see, the federal government has a well established leadership role in public health, working in collaboration with the provinces, territories and other levels of government.

Moving forward with the legislation at this time reaffirms the federal government's commitment to public health and underscores the important role that the agency and the chief public health officer will play in supporting a strengthened public health system in Canada.

Let me now turn to the actual piece of legislation, which contains three major elements that collectively will help to protect and promote the health of Canadians.

First, the legislation establishes the agency as an entity separate from Health Canada but part of the health portfolio. In practice, this means that the Minister of Health will preside over the agency and will have management and direction of it. It also means that the agency will assist the minister in exercising or performing his or her ministerial powers, duties and functions in relation to public health as set out in the Department of Health Act.

Having a separate agency within the health portfolio will bring greater visibility and prominence to public health issues, while at the same time supporting policy coherence across the health sector. With the complexity of public health issues and growing public health threats, it is important that the agency be integrated as a key player in the federal system.

Further, the departmental type model will allow the agency to be part of and influence government-wide policy discussions. This is of particular importance to support effective federal efforts on key public health issues, such as pandemic preparedness. For example, the agency developed in collaboration with the provinces and territories Canada's pandemic influenza preparedness plan which is recognized by the World Health Organization as one of the most comprehensive in the world. This model will also ensure continued ministerial accountability with respect to public health issues.

The legislation also sets out the unique dual role for the chief public health officer. This dual role reflects the consensus of the Dr. Naylor and Senator Kirby reports and responds to strong expectations of the public health stakeholders and Canadians that the chief public health officer should be able to speak to Canadians on issues of public health.

What does the dual role imply? First, as deputy head of the agency, the chief public health officer will be accountable to the minister for the operation and management of the agency. In this respect the chief public health officer will be expected to advise the minister on public health matters, giving the federal lead on public health a very influential role in the policy making process. Second, the legislation also recognizes that the chief public health officer will be Canada's lead public health professional with demonstrated expertise and leadership in the field.

As such the chief public health officer will have the legislative authority to communicate directly with Canadians, provide them with information on public health matters and to prepare and publish reports on any public health issues. The legislation also requires the chief public health officer to submit to the minister for tabling in Parliament an annual report on the state of public health in Canada.

The legislation, by conferring on the chief public health officer the status of lead health professional, enhances the credibility and authority not only of the chief public health officer but also the Government of Canada more generally on public health issues. As an impartial credible voice on public health able to communicate directly with the public, the chief public health officer is a visible symbol of the federal government's commitment to protect and promote the health of Canadians.

The ability to collect, analyze, interpret, publish, distribute and protect public health information is critical in managing and controlling disease and preparing for and responding to public health emergencies. The SARS outbreak showed clearly the importance of government having not only accurate information but also the ability and the means to access that information.

That is why the legislation includes specific regulatory authorities for the collection, management and protection of health information, to ensure that the agency can receive the health information it needs to fulfill its mandate.

Specifically, the provisions provide the governor in council with a regulation-making power, to regulate, on the recommendation of the Minister of Health, the collection and management of information relating to public health, including personal information. The information gathered by the agency will continue to be subject to the Privacy Act. Moreover, regulations made by the governor in council on the recommendation of the minister may contain provisions dealing with the protection of confidential information, including personal information.

That information is necessary for the effective functioning of the public health system, which is a lesson we learned during the SARS outbreak and which needs to be addressed before any other health emergency, such as an influenza outbreak pandemic. In light of this possibility the health information provisions in the proposed legislation are crucial to give the agency a clear legal basis for the systematic monitoring and surveillance needed to anticipate, prepare for, and respond to such an emergency in a timely manner.

These provisions are also needed to provide assurances to the provinces and territories that they can lawfully share information with the federal government. With such provisions, provincial and territorial ministries will have the certainty and clarity to confidently share health information with the agency. Having this power in the legislation is also critical to ensure that the collection and protection of health information is done in a manner that respects the privacy rights protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Rest assured that the information provisions in the legislation reflect the government's concern for protecting the personal health information of Canadians. As regulations are developed, we will ensure the privacy of Canadians is respected.

My colleagues and I support the legislation as it represents a critical piece in the ongoing improvements this government is making to strengthen Canada's public health system. By giving the agency its own enabling legislation and making the chief public health officer an independent critical voice for public health, the government will not only bring greater visibility to public health issues or threats facing Canadians, it will be taking a step to renew and strengthen the public health system as a whole.

It will support the agency as it continues to promote and protect the health of Canadians through leadership, partnership, innovation and action, just as it has been doing since its creation. Ultimately the legislation will give the Public Health Agency of Canada a sound legislative footing to assist the minister to protect and promote the health of Canadians. The agency is meeting, and will continue to meet, the challenges and critical responsibilities that have been given to it by the Government of Canada.

I have appreciated the opportunity to start the debate on behalf of the Minister of Health on this important piece of legislation.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are some other points I will raise later, but the member said that the public health officer will speak directly to the people. Given that the public health officer is responsible actually to the minister, how would the member envision that direct communication with the public if indeed the responsibility is through the minister? I assume the information that goes to the public would therefore first go through the minister. Has there been a consideration of that position being more independent?

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

Mr. Speaker, the legislation actually deals with that point. The role of the public health officer is very similar to that of a deputy minister, with the major exception that the chief public health officer would have the authority through the legislation to speak directly to the public.

The other issue the member may be interested in is the chief public health officer will also have the ability to provide a report to the House on public health issues that he or she feels are important to Canadians. Canadians will be very pleased to have an independent credible voice if and when, but hopefully never, a pandemic occurred. This is something that did not exist when there seemed to be a lot of confusion on how to respond to the SARS crisis.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health whether the new agency, the Public Health Agency of Canada, has more powers? Its role and mission are quite broad. How will the department meet all the expectations and carry out the whole mission set for it now?

We know officials were transferred, because 1,400 public officials were transferred from Health Canada to the Public Health Agency. Now, there are 2,000 officials, because the agency is operating, as we know. We are simply discussing the legislation that will give it its powers, the bill before us today. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary of the Minister of Health whether, with all the powers this bill will give it, it will have more employees? I would say the answer is yes, in order to meet the provisions of the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that this is a machinery piece of legislation. The powers that this legislation would help streamline already exist under the mandate of the health minister. If we had more time I could explain it in more detail, but one way to look at it is it would be a different way of allocating responsibility to ensure that if a pandemic strikes, we would be able to act quickly as a nation, including the provinces.

It is unique in the sense that the chief public health officer would have the ability to speak directly to Canadians. The powers to which the member was referring already exist. There would be no extension of powers per se. The powers are already within the mandate of the minister.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Toronto was hit by SARS a few years ago. There was a great deal of concern at that time as to what kind of protocol there would be at the airports. There seems to be different practices in different airports and very little collection of central information. In Toronto not only is there Pearson International Airport but there is a tiny airport that wants to expand its flights from not just within Canada but also flights from elsewhere. It gives me great concern that we would have airports that have different protocols and that, in my reading of this bill, the public health officer would not seem to have any jurisdiction over such agencies as airports.

How would the member envision this bill trying to stop this loophole so that we would have a clear protocol that is mandated by the public health officer so that we could be safe and secure? Not that there would be another SARS crisis, but we really should have clearly demonstrated regulations and standards in airports. How would the bill deal with this issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right that there was confusion when SARS hit. I am pleased to say that the current Minister of Health when he was the Ontario health minister showed a great deal of leadership at that time and received kudos from all parties and stakeholders for his leadership.

To answer the specific question, the Government of Canada already has significant powers in the event of an emergency under the Emergencies Act and the Emergency Preparedness Act. Combining those two acts with the quarantine powers in the new Quarantine Act which was passed in the last session of Parliament and with this current bill would deal with any foreseeable scenarios. One has to look at the bill in conjunction with the other three acts that I have mentioned.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly agree with the parliamentary secretary when he said that there is not much point in having a chief public health officer unless that person is prepared to speak to Canadians on important matters. This is the case in the United States where the equivalent position, the Surgeon General, heads up many important public health campaigns, such as the movement to stop drinking during pregnancy because it leads to fetal alcohol syndrome.

Here in this country a motion regarding putting labels on all alcohol beverage containers has been languishing because of Liberal inaction. Conservative members supported that motion which was passed almost unanimously by Parliament. I would like to ask the member if he will indicate to Canadians, who are waiting desperately for action on this issue, that he is prepared to have all alcohol beverage containers contain the wording that the chief public health officer of Canada warns everyone to avoid drinking during pregnancy.

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue that the member raises is a serious one. As health critic in the last session, we spent a lot of time looking at this issue in the health committee. We have a crisis with fetal alcohol syndrome and other ailments pertaining to alcohol related matters deal.

The Public Health Agency of Canada may look at an issue like this in conjunction with Health Canada. Extensive consultation took place in the last session of Parliament. The intent of the member's question is excellent. We need to deal with this crisis of drinking while potentially carrying a future person. There are lots of social consequences to that.

If the member would like to bring suggestions to the health committee, the stakeholders or myself, I would be happy to address it. However, I think the discussion today is on the broader issue of trying to set the machinery in place, so that there is a mechanism to deal with issues such as the member has raised but also a worldwide pandemic. I think that was the seed that brought the legislation to where it is today. I hope that members in the House of Commons will support the legislation, so we can deal with the potential of a severe pandemic or other public health concerns.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to congratulate our new Minister of Health on the introduction of Bill C-5 because I believe it is his first piece of legislation as a federal minister of the Crown.

This bill, which would establish the Public Health Agency of Canada with a legislative mandate, was introduced in the last Parliament. The agency itself was created more than two years ago by order in council and was supported in its initial stages and first growth period through budget allocations approved by Parliament. This bill solidifies the agency as an integral part of the Canadian health network.

I am sure Canada's new Minister of Health, the member for Parry Sound--Muskoka, did not require much persuasion to introduce this bill. As Ontario's minister of health during the SARS crisis, he experienced both the need for and the desirability of a federal source of support, federal lab based scientific information, a federal communications capability, and federal international contacts. His own experience would lead him to a true appreciation of the Public Health Agency of Canada.

I am also sure the minister would want me to commend the former minister of public health, the member for St. Paul's, for her leadership on this file over the last couple of years. Her leadership gave birth to the Public Health Agency of Canada and that leadership nurtured it along to where it is today.

At this time I would also like to thank Dr. Butler-Jones for his dedication as the Chief Medical Officer of Health Canada and essentially the captain of the team of public health professionals at the agency.

As Canadians worry about new and frightening communicable diseases like SARS, the potential bird flu and others not yet identified, they can be encouraged by the capabilities of the Public Health Agency of Canada. Bill C-5 deserves the support of this House because our agency deserves to be secured for the future by an act of Parliament.

For many years Canadians have been concerned about the state of the health care system. They ask if it will accommodate them when they get sick and need care, and that is a legitimate question. A reading of history shows that public health measures have improved more people's health over time than any amount of care given after they have fallen ill. Clean water, sewage treatment and mass immunization projects, for example, have prevented more illness and death than anything else.

Let us pass this bill quickly, so that we can all focus on the public health challenges that face us. For example, we are witnessing a resurgence of tuberculosis with a local outbreak in the constituency of Churchill, Manitoba. Last week, officials from the affected community were unable to meet with those responsible at Health Canada and were shuffled off to officials at the Department of Indian Affairs who have no jurisdiction over health. I am totally confident that our new Minister of Health will attend to this matter quickly.

There is a deep concern in the north about the imminent arrival of so many outsiders, for example, workers for the Mackenzie Valley pipeline project and apparently about 2,500 members of the armed forces. People are particularly concerned about sexually transmitted diseases and some are actually referring to the pipeline as the new AIDS highway. It seems to me that we need to develop quickly a new set of public health strategies to prepare for this influx of people and to protect an already vulnerable indigenous population.

With the extreme weather events of the past few years, we have seen catastrophes like Katrina imperil people's health and even their lives. In addition to weather events, some people in B.C., for example, live on a fault line which could give rise to a serious earthquake. Apparently, hundreds of schools in B.C. are not built to earthquake standards. All these phenomena give rise to public health concerns. This House needs to be reassured that plans and resources are regularly updated to protect the health of Canadians.

Recently, some physicians have suggested that the biggest threat to the long term health and well-being of Canadians is the developing epidemic of obesity. This House will want to know what the minister is planning a response to this newly identified threat.

In addition, prescription drug therapy is increasing. Use has increased 47% in the last seven years. In 2004 there were 375,000 prescriptions from retail pharmacies alone, not to mention prescriptions dispensed within hospitals and other institutions.

The good news is that drug therapy is often replacing surgery and expensive hospital stays as the therapy of choice. The bad news is that adverse reactions to prescription drugs are estimated to represent about 30% of admissions to hospital, and that does not even take into account adverse reactions experienced by patients already in hospital.

We have experienced Vioxx, Celebrex and Propulsid and know of deaths based upon these drugs. It is becoming a fact that the sheer size of the population involved in the ingestion or injection of prescription drugs propels the clinical trials and the eventual approval of these drugs into an issue that could be considered as public health.

I support the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada, but I am also anxious to move beyond Bill C-5 in order to address some of the very real threats to public health that are emerging in Canada every day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her comments and support for the bill. The member spoke about bringing the bill forward and hopefully getting it through the House quickly. I am obviously very supportive of that as well.

I would like to ask the member, why did the previous government not act on this legislation earlier? It was two years in order in council and the legislation was tabled for first reading in November of last year. It did not even make it to second reading. This makes one question the commitment of the previous government to the Public Health Agency of Canada given that it had potentially up to 13 years to implement it and certainly five years after SARS.

Could the member tell us why it took so long for the previous government to even table the legislation?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is questioning the commitment of the previous government to the agency and its work. In this place, it seems to me that the best way to measure commitment is to count the dollars that flow to ensure something happens.

The agency was created by order in council, but it was fully supported each step of the way. In other words, somebody was hired first to set it up and that somebody had to find space, and then rent that space or renovate it. That someone begins to hire staff. The agency did not appear out of thin air as a fully functional entity.

Therefore, there was some time between the actual creation of it by order in council and the assignment of moneys to it in ever increasing amounts to the point where there was an appropriateness for having a bill.

As far as the bill not getting past second reading, I would look to the member opposite and his party who voted against the government and brought down the House. Had his party not done this, the previous government would have delivered this bill.

Bill C-5 is exactly the same, word for word, as the earlier bill. I do not mind that. I am enthusiastic about what I hear from the other side in the same manner as the government seems to be so enthusiastic about its bill on bridges and tunnels, which is another identical bill. The government was so enthusiastic that about 10 of its members rose and sang its praises. Liberal bills are proving to be quite valuable. I appreciate the support members of the new government are giving them.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the former Liberal government certainly talked a lot about public health and the former health minister talked a lot about giving all grade 3 kids the opportunity to learn to swim so they would not drown.

We also heard a lot of talk about childhood obesity and the need to ensure there were programs in the schools to teach young children to know what kind of healthy food they should be eating and to ensure this food was accessible in schools.

We heard a lot of talk about cancer prevention but I saw nothing over the last few years in the way of a public health funding commitment in this area, funding that is desperately needed.

Clause 20 of the bill mentions an annual report. Aside from an annual report and some regulation capacity, what does the hon. member see in the bill that could give us hope that we would finally see some funding, whether it is for a food program in schools or helping kids to learn how to swim so there are no drownings, all of which has been talked about by many public health officials and the former minister of health?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the interest the new member for Trinity--Spadina has shown in all these public health measures which she described and which the former minister did mention in some of her speeches.

However, learning to swim is usually the purview of the YMCA or the municipal government. Public health obesity programs are usually decided upon by more local authorities and even food programs in schools are usually not the purview of the federal government.

However I can understand the member's interest in those things because it represents activities of the level of government from which she came to this place. In fact, the role of the federal government, which is to transfer money to the provinces for those kinds of measures, both public health measures and health care measures, is our responsibility. The public health agency creates a framework for coordination and action, as described by the parliamentary secretary.

However we do not spend a lot of time in this place debating food programs in schools or learn to swim programs.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps if we spent more time in the House debating food programs we would have fewer children in this country going to bed hungry every night and perhaps it would bring us a little closer to what is really happening in the homes on the streets that we live in all of our cities and towns.

The member who brought forth the bill has referred to this as a machinery bill. I understand the point that he is making. It is a mechanical bill to pull pieces together. However that does not in any way mean that it is not a bill that can show vision. It can be a machinery bill and show vision for the people of Canada about their public health agency.

I did not find much reference to interdisciplinary work with other ministries. If, for instance, tomorrow morning there were a nuclear spill, where in the bill does it say what ministries would take responsibility or how they would coordinate their responsibilities? Surely a number of ministries would have very significant life saving responsibilities in such a tragedy but I see no reference for the agency to be working cross government with other departments.

I was hoping that perhaps the member could either refer me to the part of the bill that I might have missed or explain to me how that could happen.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the member's comments about the need for vision. It was exactly that need for vision and the need for across the department coordination that led the last Liberal government to establish a new department called the Department of Emergency Preparedness and Public Safety because all these things have to do with public safety. In any such event as a nuclear accident or some such thing, it would be that minister and that department that would lead, and then all relevant departments would participate, the public health agency being one of those, and meetings would be convened with that set of ministers to each take on their own roles in solving the problem and guaranteeing public safety.

I take as a compliment her idea of this coordination and cooperation in a horizontal way, but I can assure her that one department would be in charge and one minister and that would be the minister of public safety and emergency preparedness.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the new critic for health, I join today's debate with interest. The bill proposes legislation that will give the new Public Health Agency of Canada all its powers. It is currently operating, but no legislation has yet given it its powers and responsibilities.

It must be noted that this is a bill that comes from the Liberal government. In February 2004, the creation of a public health agency was announced. The new agency was to ensure that Canada was well connected at the national and international level in health matters and that there was a network responsible for monitoring diseases and responding in an emergency. A budget of $404 million was attached to it. The Public Health Agency of Canada was under the responsibility of the Department of Health, and so $404 million of Health Canada’s budget was allocated to the new Public Health Agency of Canada. A further $665 million has been added to that budget. So the budget was increased. Employees who worked at Health Canada were transferred to the new Public Health Agency of Canada. It started with 1,400 employees. If I am wrong, I would appreciate someone correcting me. This new agency is operating at present, and there are now 2,000 employees working in the Public Health Agency of Canada.

The total budget is broken down as follows: $100 million to improve public health; $300 million for new vaccination programs; $100 million to improve the surveillance system; and $165 million spread over two years for other federal initiatives. That last point is cause for concern. What does that mean, “federal initiatives”? We do not have enough information to discuss this new $165 million that will be spent on new federal initiatives.

There is also a plan to develop strategies with the provinces and territories. This new Public Health Agency of Canada will have six regional offices, including one in Quebec City.

The new Bill C-5 that we are discussing today is an extension of the defunct Bill C-75, which was introduced on November 16, 2005. It also allowed the government to provide minimal details about the agency’s obligations, including submitting an annual report to this House. The new director of this new agency, the Chief Public Health Officer, will also have to report to Parliament in an annual report. The intention was to clarify the agency's mandate and obligations.

The bill also explained the reasoning behind the new agency. The idea was to have an autonomous body in an area that would no longer come under the government. The new agency is therefore much more autonomous. It comes under the authority of the Minister of Health, naturally, but it is separate from the government. The idea was to grant certain powers with regard to quarantine.

The same spirit underlying Bill C-75 is now found in Bill C-5. The Bloc Québécois finds it a bit suspicious that the new Conservative government is able to approve such a bill. I could quote the new Prime Minister and the Minister of Health. They said that there should be no more intrusions into areas of provincial jurisdiction and no further use of the provinces' spending authority. The Prime Minister made big promises in Montreal in front of the business community.

Yet he is able to agree to a bill that the Bloc Québécois feels will allow still more intrusions into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The Minister of Health also made this promise. He said that respecting the provinces meant respecting areas of provincial jurisdiction and providing a framework for spending authority. The Minister of Health will not necessarily respect provincial jurisdiction. He even said that respecting provincial jurisdiction meant taking a bit more time to act. The Bloc Québécois would have liked it if the new government had taken the time to really analyse the impact on the provinces. We know that there is an act--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but her time is up.

Pursuant to order made Thursday, April 27, 2006, the House shall now resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider Government Business No. 5.

I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.