Mr. Speaker, it is always appropriate to make some linkages, but it was stretch to talk about the accountability act and this agency. However, members make choices.
The member went further than the bill. He said the agency was fine. We know the agency was there in September 2004. We know that Dr. David Butler-Jones already had been appointed by order in council. The bill, of the last Parliament, substantively gives it parliamentary recognition.
The important part is with regard to the mandate and the raison d'être. Concerns have been raised about pandemic issues, chronic disease, breast cancer and the kinds of things that are big hits to Canadians in risks to health. The other issue I heard in committee, in looking at the testimony and listening to some of the debate, was the logistics of establishing the agency in a way which might lead to greater bureaucracy, or some empire building and possibly some lack of integration of the programs throughout Health Canada.
Everything is still operating under the umbrella of Health Canada. However, as we create and formalize the agency, notwithstanding it still will report through the minister to the House, it will have its own life in these matters. Therefore, it is important to not only establish the agency with an appropriate mandate, but also to ensure, operationally, that the agency will be effective in its job.
I could only think that may be the linkage between the agency and the federal accountability act. With all the best interests at heart, legislation will not guarantee that an agency operates properly. This is the area in which we should be vigilant, and I think the member would agree.