Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about a bill that is actually a rerun of a bill introduced by the previous government. The wording is exactly the same.
Clearly, the political landscape has changed. My friend the parliamentary secretary, who was formerly in opposition, is now enjoying life in the government. We can imagine just how proud he is to be a parliamentary secretary, and we wish the best of luck to him and his whole team in their new duties.
I know that within him is a man who has deep respect for provincial jurisdictions and that his autonomist streak is just waiting for an opportunity to come out. That said, we must be very, very aware that, frankly, this bill is insultingly paradoxical.
If this were a bill about epidemics and quarantine or about patents and trademarks in the health field, all the Bloc Québécois members would agree that the government is fully within its jurisdiction.
But how can the government have the gall to introduce a bill on public health in this House? The very title of the bill is potentially offensive and shows no respect for provincial jurisdictions.
What is public health? Often, it consists of treatments for citizens. Public health often means a vaccination strategy. Who gives vaccinations? Not the virology lab in the riding of our colleague, the parliamentary secretary.
Of course, the Bloc Québécois members are not so simple as to think that viruses have borders. That is not our philosophy. That is why we want cooperation across Canada, across North America and around the world, as the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes stated.
However, where we part ways with the government is on the need for an agency with roughly $665 million in funding to handle this cooperation.
The government has a very clear urge to engage in nation building. When the Conservative government, the Tories, introduce a bill on the Public Health Agency of Canada, they are giving a nod to the Romanow report.
The Liberal's propensity to intrude and centralize was familiar to us; there is nothing new about that constitutional philosophy. But I find it surprising that the Conservatives are making the same kind of calculations in terms of nation building.
Why is there a Canadian public health agency? It was established because all governments are getting the same polls and realizing that, for the vast majority of our fellow citizens, health is the top priority.
At the time when the Liberals took office, back in 1993-94, and reduced transfer payments from $18 billion to $12 billion, with the inherent risk this had of destabilizing the provinces' public finances, health was less of a concern for the federal government.
Let us not forget that it took three conferences of federal, provincial and territorial first ministers, be they NDP, PQ, Liberal or Conservative, it took a totally airtight, monolithic coalition of provincial premiers to get the federal government to put money back into health care. This resulted in an accord providing $41 billion over 10 years, with the federal government's contribution being 18¢ on every dollar, whereas 25¢ were expected.
That is to say that the Public Health Agency of Canada exists for a political reason.
The reality is that, if ever there is, God forbid, a crisis such as a pandemic, actual help will not come from the virus laboratory in Manitoba, but from the CLSCs in Quebec and front-line services in Ontario or British Columbia. Those are the players working closely with health and social services, as my colleagues mentioned this morning.
We cannot support the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada. We know too well the cascade of events the federal government would put us through. Incidentally, the Public Health Agency of Canada took over a number of programs. I would not want our fellow citizens to think that the agency is only involved with issues relating to viruses and immunization. The Public Health Agency of Canada took money earmarked for administering HIV, AIDS and cancer programs and a number of other strategies.
The Government of Canada wants to engage in “nation building” through its health care system. I am willing to bet you, Mr. Speaker—a pint of beer or a glass of wine, if you have more refined tastes, which I'm sure you do—that the government is going to table a bill concerning a national pharmaceutical strategy. It wants to institute a common purchasing policy for all provinces and a common pharmaceutical formulary. We are heading down a slippery slope in terms of health.
Fortunately, the voice of the Bloc Québécois can be heard in this House. We would remind you that creating the Public Health Agency of Canada is no more effective nor does it respect provincial jurisdictions any more than Canada Health Act. The Canada Health Act proposes principles that are very familiar to us all, including universality, a public system, accessibility and a transferrable system.
Sovereignty is a very promising and liberating prospect for the future of Quebeckers. In a sovereign Quebec, if it were up to the Parti Québécois, the National Assembly would adopt legislation that would include the principles found in Canadian legislation. What would be different would be the actor, the one who votes on the budget and provides health care services.
I am fast approaching forty, Mr. Speaker. Did you say I had one or two minutes remaining?
