Debates of May 2nd, 2006

Presence in Gallery

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my supplementary question to the Minister of International Trade, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, I allege my honesty was impugned in that he referred to me as, “if this man was an honest man”.

I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Marleau and Montpetit, page 525, where it states:

The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members...Personal attacks, insults and obscene language or words are not in order.

I respectfully suggest that the minister's comments are unparliamentary. I appreciate that they may be given in the heat of the moment, but I request that he would apologize and withdraw his remarks.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I thank the hon. member for Welland for raising this point. I heard the words that were used. The minister, I think, was careful to avoid suggesting that the hon. member was in fact not honest, and I took it that way in the remarks that were made.

I will look at the precedents to see if there are rulings in respect of the use of those words. Had the minister suggested that any hon. member was dishonest, I would have ruled the remarks out of order and asked for an immediate retraction, but he did not.

I will look at the precedents and get back to the hon. member if it is necessary, since there has been no other comment in the House on the point of order the hon. member has raised. My initial reaction was the remark did not cross the line because he was not suggesting the member was dishonest, which is the thing that would be quite unparliamentary and would have been immediately stomped upon had the hon. member tried that stunt.

Business of the House

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and I believe all parties agree to the following motion. I move:

That on Wednesday, May 3,

(a) notwithstanding the order adopted April 4, at 6:15 p.m. the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings then in progress and shall put forthwith and successively, without debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of any motion relating to interim supply and for the passage at all stages of any bill or bills based thereon; and

(b) notwithstanding Standing Order 84(3), no proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 be taken up this day and the House continue to sit after the ordinary hour of daily adjournment to consider a government motion in the name of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: “That this House supports the government's ratification of the North American Aerospace Defence (NORAD) Agreement”; and that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, no member shall speak for more than 20 minutes and that following each speech a period not exceeding 10 minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto; members may indicate to the Speaker that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another member; that during debate, the Speaker shall not receive any amendments, dilatory motions, quorum calls or requests for unanimous consent; and when no member rises to speak or after five hours of debate, whichever is earlier, the Speaker shall put all questions necessary to dispose of the motion, provided that, if a recorded division is requested on this motion, it shall stand deferred until Monday, May 8 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment and that the House shall immediately adjourn until the next sitting.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

(Motion agreed to)

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

Public Health Agency of Canada Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When the debate was interrupted, the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas had the floor for questions and comments, and there were three minutes remaining in the time allotted for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 has a potential provision in it that could be very helpful. The NDP championed a motion, which was passed in the House of Commons, relating to the banning of trans fats. The member for Winnipeg Centre was a particular champion on this motion.

We know trans fats are in everything from children's baby food to regular types of packaged food. It is one of the things we can reduce, as a human health factor, through promotion, enforcement and regulations. Having an advocate for this through Bill C-5 would be an enhancement. Public policy could be shaped across the country that would improve wellness. More important, it could eliminate some of the risks factors on human health, which costs us on the medical side and shortens the span of life of our citizens.

What is the hon. member's opinion on how the bill might be able to tackle overall coordination and advancement of the elimination of trans fats and other types of human health issues that affect us on a regulation basis?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Windsor for reminding us of the great victory we had in the last Parliament, as an NDP caucus, concerning the vote of Parliament and alerting all Canadians to the dangers of trans fats.

This Public Health Agency will have responsibility for health promotion and the ability to deal with the whole issue of trans fats in our foods. It has been something that has been lacking, frankly. We have not had the ability to focus, to give the kind of attention to the health promotion aspect of our health care system. We have often become bogged down in the important questions of health care and the more acute questions of the health care system.

The Public Health Agency and the Chief Public Health Officer will have an important role to play in promoting health and in dealing with issues such as trans fats. This legislation is very important on that issue as well.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to the debate on Bill C-5.

Starting yesterday, the parliamentary secretary addressed the House on the bill. It is quite clear that the bill has the support of the House. It is a bill that was available in the last Parliament, but was not able to get through the full legislative process before Parliament was dissolved.

The summary of the bill states:

This enactment establishes the Public Health Agency of Canada to assist the Minister of Health in exercising or performing the Minister’s powers, duties and functions in relation to public health. It also provides that the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the collection and management of public health information and the protection of confidential information, including personal information. It also makes related and consequential amendments to certain Acts.

In a brief paragraph, that is precisely what the bill does.

Oddly enough, the debate has become one about health issues, which are really important. It is really important to understand why the bill was first developed in the last Parliament.

I can recall in 2000 or 2001 having a private member's initiative in which I proposed that the Government of Canada establish the position of physician general of Canada. Members will be aware of the surgeon general in the United States. The physician general of Canada would be a parallel position. I specifically wanted to address the issue of the evolution of the roles and responsibilities of Health Canada, which were becoming so great that Canadians were having some difficulty finding out exactly where they would get information.

To visit the website of Health Canada is a very problematic exercise even today, because there are so many aspects to Health Canada. It does not surprise me that we are trying to put some focus, particularly as it relates to some of the more critical aspects of public health.

There was the SARS outbreak in 2003. This was probably the big wake-up call that was needed for parliamentarians. The SARS outbreak was particularly focused in the greater Toronto area, actually in Scarborough. A particular member had an area which was under close scrutiny. A lot of people were scrambling around trying to figure out what to do. There was the potential for a serious viral epidemic in Canada threatening the health of a countless number, who knows, thousands, tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people.

I can also remember looking at the websites of various departments to determine what they were doing in terms of the SARS issue. The Health Canada press releases referred to 18 different websites and 18 different departments. It was an indication that within Health Canada there were so many things going on. There were areas of controversy like the hep C issue, which certainly was a significant problem. There was an issue of where the focal point was for public health issues.

Canadians may wonder what public health issues are. Canadians will also recognize that there has to be a reason for the legislation. There has to be a linkage to the constitutional authority given to the Minister of Health.

As it relates to public health, the government obviously wishes to take measures in certain areas. These include health protection and promotion. There is a health protection branch already, but it is in need of that focal point as well.

The issue of population health assessment is another important area, as is health surveillance to ensure that we are vigilant about emerging problems and early detection of situations. There is as well disease and injury prevention. There is also emergency preparedness and response, which is where the SARS situation comes in. These areas are of significant importance to Canadians because they all relate to the umbrella topic of public health.

The Government of Canada also needs to have this focal point to foster collaboration within the field of public health, to collaborate and coordinate federal policies and programs in the area of public health, as well as to promote cooperation and consultation in the field of public health with provincial and territorial governments. It is extremely important that there be this coordination. I can think of a couple of examples where the absence of that coordination has caused some significant delays in progress on certain public health issues.

It is also fair to say that the public health issues transcend Canada's borders as well. It is important that we also foster cooperation in the field with foreign governments and international organizations, as well as with other interested parties and organizations. We did have one issue as it related to SARS which was the sourcing back to a province in China and the fact that there were significant delays in the reporting of the detection of the SARS related problems to the World Health Organization. This had a ripple effect of putting everyone else behind in terms of their ability to respond to this emergency situation.

There are many people who frequently travel internationally and Canada is a destination for many people from around the world. There is significant activity at our borders and airports. Equipment was put in at the airports to try to detect whether or not there might be some problems. This should come as no surprise.

As I listened to the debate yesterday and today, one of the things I noted is that the debate has basically become a broader discussion of health issues and their importance. We have talked about trans fats. The member for Yellowhead took us down memory lane with all the subjects that the health committee has dealt with over the last several years, ever since he has been on the committee. It gives Canadians an opportunity to appreciate the breadth of work that happens at committee and the importance of that work.

Bill C-5 indicates that the minister has the authority to set up committees. These committees are going to be paid and the bill sets out the Treasury Board guidelines, et cetera. It is rather interesting that it is in there. It is almost as though this actually does happen. It is under the general provisions clauses 13, 14 and 15.

Back when Allan Rock was the health minister I was advocating a private member's initiative relating to fetal alcohol syndrome. Allan Rock used to sit beside me at national caucus. There were press releases going out and all kinds of government documents on the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome. These documents were actually put together by committees of people who were responsible for that little area.

One of the principal statements the Government of Canada made at the time was that fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading known cause of mental retardation in Canada. What an ominous statement. It sure should get our attention. It is an interesting statement to make but this came from Health Canada and the statement was absolutely wrong. Fetal alcohol syndrome is not the cause of anything. It is the result. In fact, it is prenatal consumption of alcohol by the mother that is the leading known cause of mental retardation, yet Health Canada in its wisdom was putting out things like that.

It went further. Health Canada set up a coalition that included the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association and NGOs representing all walks of life, including aboriginal people. It came out with what was called a joint statement which said the same thing, and this was some years later. It said that fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading known cause of mental retardation in Canada.

When there is a coalition of some 18 groups and organizations representing virtually everybody who has ever touched an issue and those groups still do not get it, we start to have some questions about whether or not committees have been charged with the proper instructions.

We saw the same kind of problem with another issue that came to the health committee. It was about health warning labels on alcoholic beverage containers, which again related to fetal alcohol syndrome. The government created a task force. It was a very broad task force. A lot of money was spent on that task force. It worked for a couple of years and came out with reports. There was glossy literature but what the task force did not have was any recommended strategies or solutions. All of the reports and documents were saying things like, “Here is where we have been. Here is the history. Here is how we got to where we are today and we are continuing to work”.

If more and more committees are going to be set up within Health Canada, or any other department for that matter, we have to be vigilant. If accountability is a hallmark word for this Parliament, then accountability also means that when committees are established, as this bill permits the minister to do, those committees should be charged to follow the full line of activity right though to strategy, recommendations and other proposals related to implementation.

When I first raised the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome with the then health minister, the hon. Allan Rock, he decided he was going to set up a national advisory commission on fetal alcohol syndrome. One night after being in the House most of the day, I went back to my office and there was a fax on my machine. I had met with the people in Health Canada who were going to set up the advisory commission and they wanted to send to me the terms of reference for its establishment.

It was the same as what I had seen before for another committee in another department. There would be one person from every province and territory. There would be a gender balance and other criteria. There would be people who were knowledgeable about fetal alcohol syndrome and they were going to do some work.

I did not think it was really necessary for anyone to know any more about fetal alcohol syndrome after all the work that had been done. I thought that maybe what we should have been doing was creating an advisory commission that would advise the Government of Canada, the Minister of Health and parliamentarians on strategies that may very well work to handle the situation where it has to do with behaviour. We cannot legislate behaviour but we can encourage good behaviour and maybe discourage behaviour that is not healthy.

I spent the whole evening rewriting the terms of reference and saying that when we set up committees, we need to have people whom we know have the experience and the expertise to deliver solutions. We need them to recommend solutions and strategies and have the basis so that there will be a buy-in for all the stakeholders.

I recommended a behaviouralist, a psychologist and an expert in federal-provincial relations because we do cross jurisdictions within governments. We needed marketing people and communications people. We needed people who could deliver a product and get the job done.

If we continue to boast, as this bill does, that the minister can set committees up on these various subjects that relate to public health, there is the risk that we could actually increase the bureaucracy of Health Canada but not necessarily deliver in terms of the priorities. I would think that the priorities for the Public Health Agency of Canada should be amplified further with regard to what those priorities are, or at least the minister has to articulate what those priorities are in terms of the most significant health risk to Canadians.

Under the regulations section of the bill, section 15(1) states:

The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations respecting

(a) the collection, analysis, interpretation, publication and distribution of information relating to public health, for the purpose of paragraph 4(2)(h) of the Department of Health Act;

It is a very broad provision. It is interesting that it says that “The Governor in Council may”. I am pretty sure they will and maybe we should say they shall.

I gave this little speech about doing legislation through regulations rather than in the bill itself.

When the health committee gets this bill it may want to consider whether there should be some provisos with regard to the issues of collection, analysis, interpretation, publication and distribution of information relating to public health because we can really get carried away we this stuff. I hope it is done in a way in which we are not trying to simply see who can produce glossy brochures and a whole bunch of very beautiful looking information but, rather, who will put together this stuff where it in fact is as a consequence of the work done by this new agency under the Chief Public Health Officer who will have the equivalent position of a deputy minister. However that activity has to be established within the legislation which really emphasizes the need that this is not work that we just do to keep people busy. This is work to deliver results.

I would think that, knowing the situation we had with SARS, and given the information we have on the high possibility of a pandemic and the fact that we have situations where there are not enough pharmaceuticals necessary, these are some of the priorities which the minister will have to engage this new officer to undertake.

I wanted to raise that because I do not think the bill by itself does justice to the urgency there is with regard to this new agency.

We have some major risks and threats to the public health of Canadians. Although there are a broad range of activities, I am hoping the bill would be the kickstart to establishing the necessary priorities so Canadians have the protection that is necessary for good public health and they can have confidence in this new agency.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments, particularly those around Allan Rock, but I think he may be dating himself. I remember seeing Mr. Rock on TV when I was in grade school.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

You were there until you were 23 though.

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

Yes, that is right.

With regard to the points raised by the member around committee work and so on, it seems that the member, courageously, may be challenging part of the record of the previous government as far as its effectiveness and efficiency.

I wonder if the member could clarify his concerns a bit more. He does seem to be out of step with comments made by other parties, including his own earlier on in the debate, in that the legislation was tabled by the previous government. We want to move expeditiously in bringing this legislation through second reading and then to committee.

Is the member indeed contradicting the comments of other parties?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no, that would be an unfair characterization of my comments.

The bill was before the last Parliament. I think all members would agree that it provides the foundation, the tools and the mechanism to work. The issue really comes down to how we use that foundation, those tools and that mechanism. I do not want to see any more committees.

The member knows that the last time I sat on our health committee, Dr. Butler-Jones came before us with a report that the committee had asked for and it turned out to be a report showing what had been done over the last number of years. However it gave us absolutely none of the feedback that had been directly asked for by the committee. That is unacceptable. I do not care which party is in government. I am a member of Parliament. I asked the question and I wanted an answer, as did the committee. As the member will recall, the committee, which received approval in this chamber to make the request, did not get the response that it requested.

As a parliamentarian, if I am going to be accountable for my work and the things that I am interested in, I am going to want to ensure that the tools that are available to us are used in a cost effective way and in a progressive way so that public health issues do find solutions for some of the problems that we face.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make some comments on Bill C-5 and to ask the member a question.

I come from British Columbia where, as members know, an outbreak of avian flu two years ago devastated the eastern Fraser Valley zone of the lower mainland. We found at that time that the coordination among various federal agencies was done very poorly. This strain of avian flu basically mutated by a factor many times over 24 hours. It took many days to get test results back because of the lack of coordination at the federal government level. The quarantine lines were breached twice.

I am talking about an extremely serious situation that ended up being catastrophic. Seventeen million birds were exterminated. It was only because of the geographical isolation of that particular part of the Fraser Valley and the fact that there are eastward flowing winds that the catastrophe was averted beyond that. However it was still a catastrophe that had huge ramifications for citizens of that region of British Columbia.

We see four areas of concern with Bill C-5. First, the Chief Public Health Officer is not given authority over areas of federal jurisdiction, such as airports, railways and military bases. Second, the power to enforce the Quarantine Act remains with the Minister of Health. Third, the Public Health Agency is not given the authority to act when a province is overwhelmed by a crisis. Fourth, the Public Health Agency is not given authority to impose mandatory reporting of diseases by the provinces. We see those as loopholes and we are concerned about them.

I wonder if the member for Mississauga South shares those concerns.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that the position reports to the Minister of Health. I do not discount the significance of the example the member gave but it almost sounds like he wants to suggest that Health Canada somehow should be divided in terms of one being for the delivery of public health initiatives, as we have discussed under this bill, and the other basically dealing with the health care system and the Canada Health Act. That may be a debate for another day.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member has done a lot of good work in the House and through committees on issues that we know very well, such as fetal alcohol syndrome. If we know them well it is because he has brought them to our attention. He is published on that matter. He has brought forward private member's bills that I hope will have an effect on the way the department operates and works toward those strategies.

When we look at the Public Health Agency we see two areas of interventions: in emergencies and pandemics, such as SARS and the potential of an impending bird flu. However we also have disease prevention and common health risks, fetal alcohol syndrome being one of the areas where the member has been working a long time on prevention.

We learned today in the House that on Health Canada's website there is no longer a reference to the rate of disease strategy, an investment of $300 million working in partnership with Canadians, with the provinces, with local authorities and with non-governmental organizations to reduce these disease elements and health risks that are common to a bunch of diseases, such as cancer, cardiac problems, pulmonary problems, diabetes and so on.

Would the member care to comment on how he would see us working through the Public Health Agency and with the Department of Health on all these elements?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is the dilemma. If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority. I would think that Canadians want to know that we are prepared for the big hit, whatever it may be, whether it is a pandemic, another SARS, bird flu or who knows what. Those kinds of things have the potential to kill a large number of Canadians. We need to tell them that we are going to deal with it.

We have already done much work in some of the other areas. It is not to belittle them. We must continue to work on all fronts but there are certain priorities we have to deal with.

Last week the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse issued a wonderful report and I hope members will look at it. It was on the current situation with regard to the costs and the morbidity from misuse of tobacco, alcohol and drugs. If members have not seen that report they can read it on the CCSA website. It states that alcohol is the one area where we have not made progress. In fact, it states that binge drinking is one of the most critical causes of health problems among Canadians. This is consuming a large number of drinks in a short period of time on a periodic basis. It does not mean that a person is a chronic drinker. It could be one occasion. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars annually as a cost of this misuse of these drugs and the mortality from them, which makes this a significant priority for the new Public Health Agency.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to address Bill C-5, an act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada. If anything demonstrates the need for the position of a chief medical health officer at a public health agency to deal with these types of concerns, it has to be the former administration's response or, more appropriately, lack of response to a SARS outbreak that is behind the creation of this agency.

By acknowledging that the Public Health Agency of Canada was created in September of 2004 through orders in council, Bill C-5 represents housekeeping legislation from the last Parliament as the new agency lacks parliamentary recognition in the form of its own enabling legislation. As such, the legislation would provide a statutory footing for the Public Health Agency of Canada and gives the agency and the Chief Public Health Officer, the CPHO, the parliamentary recognition they need.

Canadians will recall that the previous administration, as part of the democratic deficit that led to its eventual defeat, routinely organized and reorganized federal government and then sought retroactive approval from Parliament after the fact. In one of the worst examples of the democratic deficit that existed in the House prior to the last election, this was done to provide a cabinet spot for the member for York Centre, who was encouraged to move from the hockey arena to the political arena. This was after his predecessor was encouraged to leave elected politics and took a patronage appointment to the other place to create a seat vacancy.

The proper sequence would have been for the appropriate legislation to come before Parliament. That should have been the case with this legislation. However, this is housekeeping legislation, as the new government works to restore the confidence Canadians will have in their public institutions.

As my colleagues have indicated, this legislation represents a key piece in supporting the federal government's efforts to promote and protect the health of Canadians. The need is there and I support that need.

As everyone may know, following the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak, known as SARS, there were discussions and debates on the state of the public health system in Canada. As a member of Parliament from the province of Ontario in the 37th Parliament, I participated in the emergency debate in the House on severe acute respiratory syndrome as an important independent voice.

It was clear from the outset, when SARS was first identified that leadership, was evident on the benches of what is now the government of today. My colleagues and I were very careful in our approach, allowing the old administration latitude on how it dealt with SARS. Our questions were constructed to provide information to the public. It would have served no purpose to unduly alarm the Canadian public or the international community.

In that regard, the Conservative Party was very responsible in its approach to the SARS crisis. The tragedy of that case was the total lack of leadership from the federal government. The people of Ontario suffered. First, there was the West Nile virus to scare away the tourists. Then, because of the incredible incompetence on the part of the old government, the World Health Organization, the WHO, issued a travel ban against Toronto, Ontario based on the lack of information it had at that time.

The tourism industry, which is important for jobs and our economy took a hit as a consequence. The economic losses to Ontario alone were in the hundreds of millions of dollars. If the province of Ontario, under the firm leadership of the new Minister of Health acting in that capacity for the province of Ontario, had not acted decisively and displayed the leadership necessary to control this spread of SARS, it is clear that Canadians could have been faced with a full-blown epidemic.

Canadians will probably never know how serious the threat to the health of Canadians SARS posed. What is unfortunate is that it took this crisis for the old government to finally grasp the need for a public health agency and a chief medical health officer. Canadians who watched the emergency debate on SARS were surprised to learn that Canada had a minister responsible for emergency preparedness. That minister, who had a mandate to deal with national emergencies, went missing and was totally invisible as the events unfolded regarding SARS.

Canadians should not be surprised to learn that the minister responsible for emergency preparedness at the time was the same individual who had the dubious distinction of shutting down the Emergency Preparedness College in Arnprior at precisely the time Canadians would have benefited from over 50 years of experience in training for emergencies and emergency first responders for Canada.

I had the opportunity to question Assistant Deputy Minister Jim Harlick, in committee, about the government reaction. In responding to a question from the member for Compton—Stanstead, Mr. Harlick stated the following:

We only have one minister at the federal level really designated as Minister for Emergency Preparedness although all ministers under the statute have responsibility for it.

Too many people being responsible led to the confusion where no one stepped up to assume the leadership that was needed in the SARS crisis. The Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness, OCIPEP, was described in the media as a secretive emergency agency and the decision to split up that office, which Bill C-5 effectively does in this legislation, will allow the Canadian public a clearer view of the role of the various government agencies and how we prepare for an emergency with clear lines of communication for people to understand who work in government also.

In the 9/11 budget, OCIPEP received $396 million to prepare for emergencies. For Canadians to understand why the old government was so inept at handling SARS, a look at the old administration's own internal analysis on how it responded to 9/11 as informative.

In the federal government's own internal assessment of how it responded to 9/11, it found the following. There were concerns with fluctuating requests, multiple players, problems with the available and capacity with ground transportation, with special blame directed at Health Canada. There was a lack of clear coordination within the Government of Canada. There was no declaration of a lead department, no standard coordination mechanism and a lack of clarity around OCIPEP's role.

The creation of the Public Health Agency and a Chief Public Health Officer is a direct response to that internal assessment.

The internal analysis then identified immediate steps to be taken such as properly trained personnel, the need for strategic airlift and the need to develop a permanent pie level interdepartmental body responsible for planning, directing and coordinating federal and national operations during a crisis.

The most scathing criticism was reserved for the $396 million that the OCIPEP received. This is the same agency, I remind Canadians, that discarded all its institutional memory on how to deal with an emergency when it made the decision to close the emergency preparedness college in Arnprior.

OCIPEP was characterized as having inadequate internal operating procedures and a workforce with little relevant experience or specialized training. These inadequacies generated confusion, slow responses and disappointed stakeholders. The OCIPEP assessment went on to confirm that Emergency Preparedness Canada had a limited capacity to maintain extended operations that would be required in a crisis.

The headquarter staff, many of whom have been OCIPEP for less than six months, displayed “a lack of knowledge and awareness of policy and operational procedures”. The new Chief Public Health Officer will have the expertise to deal with this crisis. I have no doubt that the next health crisis is waiting to happen and we will be better prepared for it.

As an example of what may occur when a potential threat is not properly identified and analyzed, just looked back to that great blackout of 2003. The old office of critical infrastructure, protection and emergency preparedness produced a threat analysis to Canada's infrastructure. Under the section “Impact and Accidental Threats on Canadian Critical Infrastructures”, it has this to say about power failures, and I quote from its website.

The North American hydro grid is more interconnected today than it was at the time of the Great Northeast Blackout. "This interconnectedness has increased the ability of the grid to withstand unexpected disruptions as managed by coordinated real-time monitoring across North America."...This work is therefore making the possibility of another massive blackout that would leave large areas of North America without power, remote.

In hindsight, it is now clear from this faulty analysis by OCIPEP that the federal government totally underestimated the potential threat to the power grid, just like it underestimated the threat from SARS. The OCIPEP assessment concluded, and I will continue to quote from the federal government's own internal assessment to handling emergencies, that the Government of Canada paid insufficient attention to emergency planning.

In many respects, Canadians were very lucky that SARS was contained the way it was. This is a disease that on average claims 4% of its victims. Imagine what would have happened if we had a disease such as smallpox, which takes 30% of its victims. If that had hit instead of SARS, the consequences would have been far more serious for the health of Canadians.

SARS was a disease that was unintentionally introduced at a couple of sites in Canada. Again, what would have happened if a contagion had been deliberately introduced, carefully planned so the infected persons went to several major cities across Canada or North America for that matter? A pandemic. There would not be enough people on this continent to battle against such a case of biological warfare.

A nationally coordinated plan with a clear and rehearsed protocol for all the relevant stakeholders and departments of government that would take in all the information from the World Health Organization is what Canadians can expect from this new agency.

We recognize that health care is a provincial responsibility, but responding to international health bodies like the World Health Organization is a requirement of the federal government. I am confident that this new agency will complement the role of health care in Canada and our ability to respond to the next health crisis in a timely manner.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 looks like a cut and paste of the bill the Liberals introduced last year.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister said, and I quote: “A federalism of openness means respecting areas of provincial jurisdiction, keeping the federal government's spending power within bounds—”. From what I see, the government in office is creating a structure that will be another health monster.

I have a question for the hon. member. How is it that, with its openness and knowing that health is under Quebec's jurisdiction, the government is once again meddling in an area belonging to the provinces?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that health care is a provincial responsibility. The legislation and the formation of the agency will complement what the provinces are doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, the agency was created by an order in council and there was no legislative framework. The legislative framework that was brought forward in the last Parliament was done during the dying days of the government. However, the legislation is being brought forward in the very early days of the present government. Could the member explain why public health seemed to be such a low priority in the last government and such a high priority in the present government?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament, with the opposition as government, there was clearly a lack of leadership.

We are tabling the legislation and going forth, even before we present our first budget. We are showing that public health safety is definitely a priority with the government.