Dave Batters

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the hard-working families of Palliser, on behalf of seniors, producers, small business people and students in my constituency who told me that during the last federal election, they wanted a government in Ottawa that would deliver responsible spending and real tax relief to put money back into their pockets after more than a decade of Liberal mismanagement.

Our government has delivered on that commitment with our first budget. When I went home after the budget last weekend, Palliser residents told me this was a good budget and that our government was on the right track.

We have delivered on our commitment to tax relief. In fact, the budget delivers $20 billion in tax relief over two years. As has been said by many members, that is more than the last four Liberal budgets combined.

If there was one thing I heard again and again on the doorsteps of Palliser residents during the last election campaign, it was that they were overtaxed. Is it any wonder that they felt that way? Under the previous Liberal government, billions of dollars were taken from Canadians through overtaxation and wasted on scandals and boondoggles such as the sponsorship program and a costly and ineffective gun registry.

Meanwhile, families in Palliser are working longer, paying more in taxes and saving less than they were 13 years ago, but I am proud to say that all that has changed under the new Conservative government.

The bottom line of budget 2006 is that every resident of Palliser, every family in Saskatchewan and every person across this great country will see real tax relief.

In the budget our government has committed to reducing the GST from 7% to 6%, effective July 1 of this year and creating a new $1,000 Canada employment credit, which starts effective July 1. We will reduce the lowest personal income tax rate from 16% to 15.5%, effective July 1. We will increase the amount that all Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax.

We will create a new apprenticeship job creation tax credit of up to $2,000 per apprentice. We will completely eliminate the federal income tax on all income from scholarships, bursaries and fellowships while creating a new text book tax credit for post-secondary students. I can not say how much I would have liked that to have been in place when I was a student while the Liberals were in power.

We will provide a physical fitness tax credit for up to $500 to cover registration fees for children's sport, which was very well received by parents with one, two or three kids in sports in my riding. We will double the amount of eligible pension income that seniors can claim under the pension income credit, the first such increase in more than 30 years delivered by the government and the Prime Minister.

As I said, budget 2006 delivers $20 billion in tax relief over two years. That is more tax relief than the last four federal budgets combined. For every $1 in new spending, we have delivered $2 in real tax relief back to Canadians.

As a result of these measures, residents of Saskatchewan will pay $250 million less in taxes in 2007. Families earning between $15,000 and $30,000 a year will be better off by almost $300 a year in 2007. Those earning between $45,000 and $60,000 will save almost $650. Those are real results for families.

Unlike the previous government, our government has focused spending on key federal priorities, Canadians' priorities, that will get results and provide value for taxpayers money.

I neglected to inform the Chair, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the excellent member of Parliament from Edmonton—Sherwood Park.

A significant example of this is the new universal child care benefit. As of July 1, Palliser families will receive $1,200 per year for each child under six. That is real results. That is real money in the pockets of constituents in my riding, not fictional spaces, not promised spaces. We heard promises for 13 years with no delivery. This is money in the hands of families. We will also spend $250 million, beginning in 2007, to create child care spaces.

We have also followed through on our commitment to make our streets safer and to reduce the crime epidemic that is sweeping our communities. We heard from the Liberal member opposite that he would welcome a prison in his riding. We can have that debate another time. I invite him to come on over and join us as we get tough on crime in the country.

Under federal Liberal and provincial NDP governments, my home province of Saskatchewan holds the dubious distinction of being Canada's crime capital. When I talk to seniors in Moose Jaw and families in Regina about the problem of crime, they have told me clearly that it is time to get tough on crime and tough on criminals.

During the last Parliament, I demanded many times that the former Liberal government get tough on drug crimes to address the crystal meth epidemic, which continues to sweep our province. The residents of Palliser indicated during the last election that they were tired of begging the Liberals to take action and that we needed a new government in Ottawa that was serious about getting tough on serious crimes. With the budget, we are keeping our word. We are cracking down on crime.

We will provide $161 million to put more RCMP officers on the streets. We will invest $37 million in my home city of Regina for the RCMP to expand its national training academy. This is great news for Regina and the province of Saskatchewan. We will provide $20 million for communities to use to develop programs designed to prevent youth crime. We will provide the money that is required to arm our border agents. We have delivered on our commitment to make our streets and our borders safer.

I want to turn now to agriculture and what budget 2006 delivers to agricultural producers, who are the backbone of Palliser's economy. Farming is part of our heritage. Farmers feed our cities and keep our rural communities strong. Falling prices and trade disputes are causing them real financial hardship. People are suffering. They are losing farms that have been in their families for generations.

Current insurance and income support programs are not doing enough, and we cannot allow this to continue. That is why our government will restore and sustain a strong, vibrant farm sector which provides the income farmers need to live.

One of our government's first actions was to accelerate disbursement of $755 million in payments under the grains and oilseeds payment program. We are now going further. In budget 2006 our government is committing an additional $2 billion in funding over two years, $1.5 billion of which will be allocated in this budget.

During the election we committed to an additional $500 million for farm support programs, and we are delivering on that promise. We will provide an additional $500 million per year for farm support. We will provide a one time investment of $1 billion to help farmers in the transition to more effective programming for farm income stabilization and disaster relief.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, which lurched from crisis to crisis on the farm gate without any real vision or commitment to improving things, our government has begun the process of scrapping the CAIS and replacing it with programs that are simpler for farmers and that will actually deliver results.

As the residents of Palliser understand and appreciate, the Conservative government has delivered on its key priorities. Families, seniors, students and working people will all see tax relief in this budget and new spending which addresses their priorities and improves their security. We have also addressed health care, which is of particular importance to the residents of Palliser. Despite being the home of Tommy Douglas, Saskatchewan continues to experience the longest wait lists in the country under an NDP government.

It is unfortunate that two parties did not support the budget. I do not know how they are going to go home and look their constituents in the eye and explain why they voted against real tax relief and real help for families in our country.

[Justice, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations estimates that 700,000 people, mostly women and children, are victims of human traffickers around the world each year. Despite promises to act, the previous Liberal government failed to protect victims of human trafficking. Once again, this government promised action and has delivered.

Could the immigration minister tell the House of his plans to protect people from human trafficking?

[Research and Development, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore stood in the House and pretended that he was interested in research and development in Canada. The member has been out of the country for the past 30 years, which might explain his lack of understanding about what the Liberals have done, or more accurately have not done, for research and development in the past 13 of those years. Here is a quick refresher.

The Liberals broke their 1993 red book promise to double research and development. Instead, the Liberals cut spending on science and technology. Under the Liberals, Canada's productivity growth lagged behind that of our largest competitor. Liberals also cut funding for education. They cut social transfers to the provinces by $25 billion. Liberals starved the Canadian post-secondary education system of much needed resources, resulting in the doubling of tuition fees.

This Conservative government is committed to research and education. Maybe the member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore should have taken a lesson in Liberal history before he signed on.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we are 20 minutes into today's session and, frankly, the level of partisanship is a bit unbelievable. The member, who seeks the leadership of his party, has taken sarcasm to new levels. Perhaps he figures that is the way to push him over the top. I am not sure if members opposite are going to buy into that or not; we will have to wait until December.

The member should realize by now that fearmongering simply does not work, nor do crying or deception. Canadians voted for change on January 23 and change is what they received. They knew what they wanted. They wanted something different. They were sick and tired of 13 years of Liberal corruption and mismanagement, they voted for change, and that is what they received in this budget.

As for the gall of that member and his suggestion about the great state of the country, yes, things are good in Canada right now, with the economy up and the dollar up, absolutely, but we know who deserves the applause for that: we know it is the hard work, the innovation and the competitive spirit of Canadians that deserves the applause. It sure as heck is not the Liberal government of 13 years. That is ridiculous.

The member has to look at the totality of the budget picture. He would realize that yes, taxes are down for all Canadians. That is a fact. He knows that is a fact when we consider the totality and things like the Canada employment credit. Let us go a little further. In terms of lowering the GST, the Liberals did not honour their commitment in 1993.

Here is my question for the member opposite. He talks about accountability. I would like to know from him, the pizza king, if he is not a bit red-faced when he talks about accountability and yet billed $134 for pizza for two. Accountability--

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when the member for Wascana sat in cabinet in the previous Liberal government, he claimed that he was going to move the head office of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to his riding in Regina. Just recently, in opposition, he sent out literature to his constituents referring to a move for INAC as his work in progress.

Would the minister responsible tell the House if any plans are in place to move INAC to Regina or has the member for Wascana misinformed the citizens of Regina?

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is a new member and I want to welcome him to the House.

I sat here this morning and listened to the member from the Bloc Québécois talk about the significant number of individuals working within the Public Health Agency of Canada who are devoted to the health care of our first nations peoples. That is a very positive step. Perhaps the member could look into those figures. I believe it was in a neighbourhood of 1,500 to 1,700 employees dedicated to first nation health and certainly a lot of work will be done both on and off reserves.

The member is concerned that the Chief Public Health Officer would not have standing or authority on reserves. In fact, the Chief Public Health Officer, under this bill, would be a deputy answering to the Minister of Health. I will give the member perhaps a couple of different scenarios.

Ultimately, the Minister of Health will have responsibility for what happens in terms of health care on reserves, such as in the case of an emergency, quarantines or containing a pandemic. The Minister of Health would do that, I would guess, in cooperation with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The Chief Public Health Officer, as a deputy, would work with other deputies within the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to address the health care concerns of our first nations people.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has a number of high quality universities, as there are throughout the country, and federal dollars do flow down through the provinces to these universities for such research. This type of activity is something the government would encourage.

As the member knows, some very important work happens within the private sector in terms of research and development in the field of health care. However the member is absolutely right when he says that more work could be done in the universities in Quebec and throughout Canada.

It certainly is not the intention of the government, in introducing this legislation, to infringe in any way upon the provincial control or the provincial responsibility for health care. Clearly, that responsibility is well defined in our Constitution. What we are trying to do with the bill is to follow up on the recommendations of Dr. Naylor and Senator Kirby to provide some federal role which these individuals believe would benefit the health care of Canadians.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite is a physician and certainly has very useful insight to add to this place and to this very important debate.

It is nice to see the support that the bill has, at least from two opposition parties, but I think the Bloc Québécois would support the spirit of it.

The member talked about lifespans and the fact that we face some very serious challenges right now in Canada in terms of public health. If some of these epidemics are not brought under control, things that are very widely accepted and well-known but the impact may not be well understood, such as heart disease, diabetes, childhood obesity, the need for lifestyle improvements and primary prevention measures, we could have lifespans on the decline in Canada and that truly would be a shame.

The member asked if I would take this to the Minister of Health. Absolutely. I am very proud to be serving on the health committee in this 39th Parliament. I look forward to working with other members of the committee who will look at this and other bills and see if improvements can be made. I will go to the Minister of Health and talk about everything we can do in terms of primary prevention in order to improve the health care of Canadians, to address things like water quality, as the member mentioned, and lifestyle modifications, a mental health strategy for the country and basic policies to address heart disease and diabetes.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to address this important bill, Bill C-5, an act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Before I begin, I welcome the member for Surrey North to this place and thank her for her intervention this morning. I found her comments to be very informative. It is clear that she was a nurse before she came to this place.

She said that the health of Canadians is of utmost importance to members of Parliament. She commented on the SARS crisis in 2003 and how people were afraid for lives, especially people in Ontario and the GTA. She talked about the need for leadership, and I could not agree more.

The member for Surrey North may agree with me when I say the Minister of Health provided the leadership to the people of Ontario at that most difficult time. He has received a lot of praise for the work he did during that crisis. Canadians can take a lot of comfort in the fact that the Minister of Health will oversee the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Chief Public Health Officer. He will be at the helm, God forbid, should another crisis such as the SARS outbreak take place.

This important legislation is key to the implementation of the government's vision of a renewed and strengthened public health system for Canada. As we all know, preventing and managing chronic and infectious diseases, as well as promoting good health, is key to a healthier population and to reducing pressure on the acute health care system.

The legislation underlines the government's commitment to promote and protect the health of Canadians. It would not only bring greater visibility and prominence to public health issues, but it would also support policy coherence across the health sector.

The bill also responds to the recommendations made by Dr. David Naylor and Senator Michael Kirby in the wake of the SARS outbreak. In their report both Dr. Naylor and Senator Kirby recommended that the Government of Canada establish a new public health agency. Further, provinces and territories and public health stakeholders have called for a federal focal point to address pubic health matters with the appropriate authority and capacity to work with other jurisdictions in preparing for and responding to public health threats and emergencies.

The legislation responds to those recommendations by establishing a statutory footing for the Public Health Agency of Canada. It would establish the agency as a separate organization within the health portfolio. In this regard, the agency would support the Minister of Health in exercising his duties, powers and functions in public health. In doing so, the minister recognizes the importance of continuing to foster collaborative relationships with federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments as well as with international organizations and public health experts. The preamble of Bill C-5 further reinforces the agency's desire to work in cooperation with the provinces and territories.

A key aspect of the Naylor and Kirby report was their recommendation to appoint a Chief Public Health Officer for Canada. Specifically, Dr. Naylor recommended that a Chief Public Health Officer head the new agency in addition to serving as an independent credible voice on public health nationally. The legislation responds to that recommendation by formally establishing the position of the Chief Public Health Officer. Specifically, the legislation confirms the position, duties and powers of the Chief Public Health Officer and recognizes his unique dual role as both the deputy head of the agency and Canada's lead public health professional.

As the deputy head of the agency, the Chief Public Health Officer will be accountable to the Minister of Health for the day to day operations of the agency. In this role the Chief Public Health Officer will support the Minister of Health in fulfilling his public health mandate. He will be expected to advise the minister on public health matters and to inform policy development in these areas, along with the deputy minister of Health Canada and other deputy heads within the portfolio.

As the lead adviser to the minister on public health matters, the Chief Public Health Officer will help to ensure that public health issues are well represented in the health policy making process. At the same time, provisions within the proposed legislation will ensure greater policy coherence across the health portfolio by reinforcing the responsibilities of the deputy minister of Health Canada for supporting the minister in coordinating efforts across the portfolio.

Further, as a deputy head within the federal system, the Chief Public Health Officer also has the standing to engage other federal departments on key public health issues. As one example of this kind of work, over the past several months Dr. Butler-Jones has been working closely with the deputy minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada and the president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to strengthen Canada's pandemic and avian influenza preparedness.

As the deputy head, the Chief Public Health Officer is also able to mobilize the agency's considerable public health resources to respond quickly to emerging threats to the health of Canadians. This departmental model gives the Chief Public Health Officer considerable responsibilities while ensuring continued ministerial accountability for federal activities in public health.

In addition to his role as deputy head, the legislation also recognizes the Chief Public Health Officer's role as Canada's lead public health professional, with demonstrated experience in the field. As part of this role and in response to the strong expectations of public health stakeholders and Canadians, the Chief Public Health Officer will also serve as a credible and impartial voice on public health issues.

To ensure his or her credibility with stakeholders and the public, the legislation would give the Chief Public Health Officer the authority to communicate directly with stakeholders and to provide Canadians with information on public health matters. I think that addresses one of the concerns the member for Surrey North, that the Chief Public Health Officer has the authority to communicate directly with Canadians. He or she would be able to prepare and publish reports on public health issues.

In keeping with the government's focus on strengthening accountability, the Chief Public Health Officer will also be required to submit to the Minister of Health, for tabling in Parliament, an annual report on the state of public health in Canada. This requirement will not only provide greater transparency to Canadians, but it will also support the government's direction for an increased role for deputies in strengthening government accountability.

As the House knows, Dr. Butler-Jones has been serving in the Chief Public Health Officer role since September 2004. He brings to this position a considerable background in public health practice and years of demonstrated leadership in the field, in government settings at all levels, as well as within the non-profit sector. The proposed legislation gives parliamentary sanction to office of the Chief Public Health Officer, confirms the appointment of Dr. Butler-Jones for the remainder of his specified term and gives him the legislative authority to speak out on issues of public health. The Chief Public Health Officer must be an impartial, credible voice on public health matters.

Stakeholders have made it clear that they expect the Chief Public Health Officer to be an independent voice, able to drive real change by speaking out on public health matters and issuing reports. Making the Chief Public Health Officer Canada's lead public health professional and ensuring that future chief public health officers have qualifications in the field of public health will help confirm this credibility with stakeholders and Canadians.

The credibility of the Chief Public Health Officer is also reinforced by the fact that he can communicate directly with the public and stakeholders and can report on public health problems and solutions. The Chief Public Health Officer's expertise, status and power to communicate make him a visible symbol of the federal government's commitment to protect and promote the health of Canadians.

The dual role of the Chief Public Health Officer is unique among deputy heads of departments at the federal level. We acknowledge that there will be a healthy tension between these two roles.

On the one hand, the Chief Public Health Officer will be an integral part of the health portfolio with direct responsibility for the operations of the agency, for providing advice on public health to the minister and for carrying out the policy direction of the government.

On the other hand, the Chief Public Health Officer will be an impartial spokesperson on public health with an interest in maintaining the scientific and ethical credibility of the office. For example, the Chief Public Health Officer can work with his provincial colleagues in the pan-Canadian public health network to receive information and advice. With the authorities granted to him in legislation, the Chief Public Health Officer can then communicate and provide Canadians with the best public health advice.

We see this dual role being inherent in the nature of the office, but one that is manageable and demonstrates this government's commitment to accountability.

It is also not without precedent, as Dr. Naylor has noted in his report that the chief medical officers in both Manitoba and British Columbia have the authority to communicate and act independently when they deem it to be in the best interests of the health of their citizens, while remaining accountable to the governments they work within.

More recent, in 2004 the province of Ontario made amendments to its legislation to grant the chief medical officer of health more independence.

In light of the many potential threats facing Canadians from a possible influenza pandemic, to combatting chronic diseases such as cancer, to dealing with the persistent challenges of obesity and other health risk factors, public health is an important priority of this government. As such, the government considers that the dual role attributed to the Chief Public Health Officer by the proposed legislation will ensure the attainment of the two policy objectives mentioned above.

The Chief Public Health Officer will be firmly situated within the health portfolio where he or she can advise the government and play a meaningful role in a coordinated government-wide response to ongoing and emerging public health threats and issues. At the same time, it is very clear that Canadians want and expect the nation's lead public health official to have both the necessary qualifications and the mandate to speak out on matters affecting their health.

Canadians can be assured that the government understands the importance of having a Chief Public Health Officer whose overriding interests must be the health of Canadians. I believe the legislation strikes the correct and necessary balance between the dual roles of a chief public health officer, ensuring that the office has the ear of the government and the independence to first and foremost be a servant of the public interests.

I would like to take a moment to thank Dr. Butler-Jones for the great work that he has done. He has an extensive background in public health. Most recently, he served as the medical health officer for the Sun Country Health Region in my home province of Saskatchewan, only approximately 100 kilometres from my home town of Estevan, Saskatchewan. Sun Country is located in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. The public health care of Canadians is in good hands with Dr. Butler-Jones.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Transport. In the post-9/11 world, the security of these 24 bridges and tunnels and five rail tunnels, I am guessing, is a crucial part of what is driving the bill. Could the minister comment on that, and the importance of the security and the safety of these vital networks to this country?