House of Commons Hansard #43 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was water.

Topics

Motions in amendmentInternational Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

10 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, what had happened is that there was an agreement to actually unanimously move the NDP motions. There were four on the order paper that were tabled as early as June 13. We voluntarily withdrew two of those amendments because the government came up with logical reasons as to why Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 5 were not consistent with what the policy should be. I agreed with that decision.

From there, we were to work forward and get unanimous consent on amending Motions Nos. 1 and 4. That was agreed to by the government at that time. It was going to bring forward changes. What the government did at the last minute is withdraw that, and not only once, because the government withdrew that and our party tried a second time. We were told it was going to move forward and again the government withdrew it.

I know the government is concerned about lawsuits, but let us think of the lawsuits against the government with regard to changing civil marriage, for example. Let us think about the lawsuits on a whole series of things. If the government is going to be afraid of things and put out the lawsuit issue, that is not sufficient.

The amendments that were being proposed obviously would not lead to that situation. Everyone has seen them before. These amendments have been in the House before. If the government were serious about consultation, it would have actually come back to me at some point in time before tonight; it is not only ourselves. This is due process in this chamber. Everything that has been talked about is due process.

Motions in amendmentInternational Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

10 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's passion and his comments.

First of all, obviously he speaks with great passion. His community is affected by the existing flow now in terms of the Windsor-Detroit crossing, but I have two very specific questions for the member.

First, leaving aside the merits of the process that has been followed to get us here this evening, question number one is the following: is he suggesting that the federal government somehow will be able to avoid or contract out municipal and provincial standards, for example on environmental assessment, should this bill become law?

Second, his colleague who sits on the committee just a few moment ago suggested that consultation ought to be between the federal and particularly the municipal governments, with a passing reference to the provinces, leaving out also, of course, the question of interested parties such as banks, financing companies, mortgage companies, those who are involved in sureties. Those who are financing the construction, expansion or operation of such international bridges and tunnels will be very big players.

If we make these consultation requirements any more onerous on the federal government, is there any merit to this question of making the whole bill more litigious in nature if we give interested parties more opportunity to proceed against the federal government for failure to pursue sufficient consultation, for example ?

Motions in amendmentInternational Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

10 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, first of all, no, absolutely not. That is why “levels of government” is part of the motion. Obviously the province is very much a part of this process. The mere fact that municipalities are creatures of the province is significant because that is bound by legislation itself. That covers this off fairly consistently.

In terms of other parties, of banks and whatnot potentially having an upset, then yes, if the government is not going to follow a fair due process and it is going to show favouritism to particular parties or interest groups or people it supports or has some connections to, as we have seen in the past, then they will bring on those lawsuits. This is calling for a greater scrutiny upfront for due consultation and due process. I think that is going to make a better bill and avoid lawsuits because those things will be scripted out very consistently.

What I think is important to remember is that it will be at the front end. The expectations will be there. That will alleviate the problem in itself. I believe in prevention. I think these clauses speak to an element of prevention that is very significant.

Motions in amendmentInternational Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is the House ready for the question?

Motions in amendmentInternational Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Motions in amendmentInternational Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Motions in amendmentInternational Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions in amendmentInternational Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

(Motion agreed to)

Motions in amendmentInternational Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

10:05 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to thank the members for their cooperation in completing the report stage of Bill C-3.

Would the House be prepared to give unanimous consent to begin third reading stage of Bill C-3 at this time?

Motions in amendmentInternational Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

10:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I believe the question was on the amendment and we will do report stage forthwith.

Motions in amendmentInternational Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

10:05 p.m.

Niagara Falls Ontario

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservativefor the Minister of Transport

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with a further amendment.

Motions in amendmentInternational Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

10:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Motions in amendmentInternational Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

10:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Motions in amendmentInternational Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

10:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Motions in amendmentInternational Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

10:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Motions in amendmentInternational Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

10:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those opposed will please say nay.

Motions in amendmentInternational Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

10:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Motions in amendmentInternational Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

10:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Pursuant to order made earlier today the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 20, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The House resumed from June 16 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 third time and passed.

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

10:05 p.m.

Bloc

Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would first note that I will be splitting my allotted time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

Bill C-5 deals with the Public Health Agency of Canada. This bill is not something new. I would like to review its history. This bill was announced to us in December 2003 by the Liberal government, the previous government. In February 2004, that government said, in its Speech from the Throne, that it would be establishing what it said would be a modern public health system, by creating a public health agency that would ensure that Canada is linked, both nationally and globally, in a network for disease control and emergency response.

At that time, the agency was allocated $100 million to expand front-line public health services, as well as $300 million for new vaccination programs, $100 million to improve the surveillance system, and $165 million over two years for other federal public health initiatives.

Under the bill, the Public Health Agency was given the mandate of focusing on more effective efforts to prevent injuries and chronic diseases—like cancer and heart disease—and to prevent and respond to public health emergencies and infectious disease outbreaks. The Public Health Agency would also work closely with the provinces and territories to keep Canadians healthy and help reduce pressures on “our” health care system. This is how the text read at the time, in 2004, about the creation of this agency.

First, I want to say that Canada does not have a single health care system, and that this last statement clearly denied the unique aspects of the provinces’ health care systems, in particular the health care system of Quebec, which is solely responsible for managing health care within its borders. And so, at the time, when $100 million was made available to expand front-line services, there was a direct intrusion into areas under Quebec’s jurisdiction, because in Quebec, front-line health care is in fact provided by the CLSCs.

The agency was ultimately supposed to have the collaboration of six regional offices, one of them in Quebec. It was in November 2005 that the federal Liberal Health minister of the day tabled Bill C-75 creating this public health agency of Canada, a separate and autonomous agency which was granted immense powers. Fortunately, Bill C-75 died on the order paper when the election was called.

At that time, the Conservative government was against Bill C-75, because it was a Liberal initiative. Now the same bill is being tabled again, with a different name. Now it is numbered C-5. You will note that it is exactly the same bill.

It must be said that, in the beginning, the Liberal government took advantage of the fiscal imbalance—which it created itself—to increase its intrusions in the field of health, particularly through the use of its spending power. The Conservative government seems to be continuing down the same road. And yet, last April in Montreal, the Prime Minister boasted of his open federalism, his federalism of understanding, saying that open federalism was a kind of respect for the fields of provincial jurisdiction, while also providing a framework for the federal spending power.

One could create a list of the federal government’s intrusions in fields of provincial jurisdiction, going back many years.

Under the Constitution Act, 1867, health and social services fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, including Quebec. Yet from as far back as 1919, Ottawa has been intervening increasingly in those sectors, even forcing Quebec and the provinces to comply with so-called national standards and objectives, despite the fact that the Constitution Act states that health is a field of provincial jurisdiction.

I will cite the various laws we have been presented with since 1919: first, the creation of the Department of Health; in 1957, passage of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act; in 1966, passage of the Medical Services Act; and in 1984, passage of the Canada Health Act.

The 1984 Canada Health Act is the most flagrant example of encroachment. It imposes conditions and criteria in respect of insured health services and extended health care services, which the provinces and territories must respect in order to receive the full financial contribution under the Canada health and social transfers. In other words, if the provinces want to receive transfers, they have to accept the Canada Health Act.

Quebec agrees with the principles of this law, but refuses to allow the federal government to impose national principles and standards on Quebeckers. This would amount to prohibiting Quebec from making its own choices, when health is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and of Quebec.

In April 2005, the Minister of Health at the time even questioned one province about the status of private diagnostic clinics, threatening Quebec and the provinces with a reduction of their share of the Canadian health transfer if they did not comply with Ottawa’s wishes.

The Bloc Québécois will always protest the federal government’s attempts to interfere in the management of health care in Quebec. We have our organization, our way of doing things and providing our health care and social services and we feel that it should be respected.

Then Roy Romanow proposed the Health Council. The result was an agreement between Ottawa and the provinces in February 2003. This agreement guaranteed federal reinvestment in health on certain conditions. The problem in health is that the provinces have so little money—there have been so many cuts at the federal level—that the federal government, which has money, has taken on the right to invest in health when this is not its jurisdiction.

Then there was the Public Health Agency of Canada, which we are discussing this evening. Within this agency, the federal government continues to impose its priorities for the sake of pan-Canadian objectives that deny Quebec's distinct character. In spite of the lack of Canadian expertise in the area, Ottawa wishes to play the role of coordinator of the actions of the various health systems. Quebec, however, already has its own public health agency, and has had it since 1998. This agency is the Institut national de santé publique du Québec. Quebec does not need the federal agency, which will duplicate actions in this area unnecessarily.

Mr. Speaker, I see that you are telling me I do not have much time left, so I will conclude my speech.

It should also be mentioned that all Quebec governments have been opposed to these federal intrusions in Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction. We need only think of the governments of Maurice Duplessis, Daniel Johnson Sr., Robert Bourassa, Jacques Parizeau, Lucien Bouchard and lately Jean Charest.

I hope that my colleagues will understand and respect the position of Quebec by not giving this House the mandate to vote in favour of Bill C-5.

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

10:15 p.m.

Bloc

Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is obviously a great pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-5, An Act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain Acts.

As you know, this agency has been in operation since the fall of 2004, but there was no legislation giving it the powers and responsibilities that it currently exercises. Accordingly, the bill we are considering today proposes, finally, to give powers to the new Public Health Agency of Canada.

Like my colleague, I hope that the Conservative members who were elected in Quebec on a platform of respecting areas of jurisdiction will vote against this bill.

When the former Liberal government created the Public Health Agency of Canada, it assigned it the mandate of ensuring that Canada was connected at the national and global levels, in health matters, and that there was a network responsible for disease control and emergency response. As well, the federal agency has as its mission to focus on more effective efforts to prevent chronic diseases, like cancer and heart disease, prevent injuries, and respond to public health emergencies and infectious disease outbreaks, as well as providing for other federal public health initiatives.

Clearly, when the Liberals established the Public Health Agency of Canada, they were once again confirming that they did not respect Quebec’s difference, by interfering massively in an area under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. By creating this agency, the federal government is showing its arrogance with regard to the powers of Quebec and the provinces, and insolently denying the unique aspects of the health care system of Quebec, which is solely responsible for managing health care within its borders.

It is important to point out that while this was an initiative of the former Liberal government, the new Conservative government has decided to reintroduce the same bill. It is now number C-5. By bringing forward the same bill as the Liberals, the Conservative government shares the vision of the federal Liberal Party: Ottawa knows best, and Ottawa will impose that on the entire country.

Just as the Liberal government used the fiscal imbalance it had itself created, as my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville was saying, to continue interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces by using its spending power, so the Conservative government now seems to be continuing that tactic for the same purposes.

This new government, however, claims in its speeches that it is practising open federalism that respects the jurisdictions of the provinces. It is not respecting Quebec when it brings forward a bill like this. The discrepancies between word and deed are glaringly obvious.

Plainly, and contrary to what it has said since it was elected, the Conservative government is not reluctant about invading areas under Quebec’s jurisdiction, like health. It is as intrusive as the Liberals. Since it is a more right-wing government, we might even be more worried by this.

In my opinion, Bill C-5 raises a number of concerns that explain why we oppose it.

Not only does it have an arrogant attitude towards Quebec and the provinces, but the federal government has created a new health structure. The Conservative government must know that since 1998, Quebec has had its own national public health institute, and it does not need a new federal agency. Since it was created, Quebec’s Institut national de santé publique has monitored pubic health trends, prepared prevention programs for the Quebec public and advised the Government of Quebec when the government is developing new health programs.

So it already does what the Public Health Agency of Canada is supposed to do under this bill.

The Bloc Québécois feels that since the Government of Quebec has the expertise and deals with the institutions in the health care system, it is the government that should determine the priorities and develop action plans in its own territory, making them compatible with the global objectives developed by the World Health Organization, for example.

For 20 years I worked in the health care system as a social worker. I was therefore able to see for myself all the skill and expertise that Quebec’s public health care system brings to preventing and dealing with epidemics, for example, through vaccination campaigns against meningitis, as we had a few years ago, in which the CLSCs did a tremendous job, or all the prevention and intervention programs developed by the CLSCs, community organizations and hospitals. We have the necessary health care expertise and do not need the federal government to interfere.

I saw that Quebec’s strategy was very effective and, most importantly, met the needs of Quebeckers. I do not think, therefore, that there is any need for this new agency. It will only duplicate what is already being done by Quebec and the provinces, in particular by the Institut national de la santé publique du Québec.

Instead of interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, this new government should set as its priority the provision of adequate funding for health. Duplicating a system that already exists in Quebec is not the way to solve the central problem of our health care system, that is to say, under-funding.

If the federal government really wants to help improve our health care system, it should fix the fiscal imbalance instead and give Quebec and the provinces the means they need to develop and further improve the services they provide their populations in their areas of jurisdiction and ensure that, when it comes to health, their populations have the tools they need to deal with the new challenge facing public health care.

By its massive cuts to health transfers in the 1990s, the federal government endangered Quebec’s health care system. It is obvious that the cruel cuts to federal transfers helped destabilize the system because the Government of Quebec finds itself now in a financial situation that makes long-term planning very difficult.

Our health network in Quebec is under enormous pressure. Our aging population requires more and more hospital care, surgery, geriatric services and cancer services, not to mention home care provided by the CLSCs and proximal care provided by our community organizations. We need funding for our health network.

Instead of creating an agency that already exists in Quebec and can provide services tailored to Quebeckers' needs, despite underfunding problems, the federal government should quickly correct the fiscal imbalance so that the provinces can develop their respective networks to ensure that their citizens will be well served. The people in Quebec and the other provinces are entitled to health services, not duplicated programs and repeated interference.

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

10:25 p.m.

Bloc

Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, to start, I have a comment and then I will have a question.

My comment is that there are so many intrusions by the federal government into provincial jurisdictions that it has practically become a shameful disease. That is what it has come down to. That is my comment.

I would like to ask my colleague what is behind all this? Why does the federal government have to table Bill C-5 and what is the solution?

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

10:25 p.m.

Bloc

Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, as a former colleague I have known for several years would have said, what we are talking about here is nation building.

I believe that, in order to justify its role and its existence, the federal government feels it must build the Canadian nation and create a system that, unfortunately, duplicates what is already in place. This is unfortunate for the people, because health care needs are enormous. We need all available resources to meet the people's needs. Neither our population nor our country can tolerate this duplication.

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

10:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is the House ready for the question?

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

10:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.