Mr. Chair, is it true that our nation's smallpox vaccine still requires 18 months of clinical trials?
House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2006, with 46% of the vote.
Supply November 23rd, 2004
Mr. Chair, is it true that our nation's smallpox vaccine still requires 18 months of clinical trials?
Supply November 23rd, 2004
Mr. Chair, why is the smallpox vaccine used by the Department of National Defence different from what we have on stock for Canadians?
Supply November 23rd, 2004
Mr. Chair, why are we not using second generation smallpox vaccine in this country? It has been recommended by the World Health Organization. Why are we not using it here?
Supply November 23rd, 2004
Mr. Chair, I am sharing my time with the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam.
My question for the Minister of Health is with regard to smallpox vaccine stocks. The health committee was advised by Health Canada officials on October 21, 2003 that Canada would have 35 million doses stockpiled by March 31, 2004. Several weeks ago our new chief public health officer told the committee that we only have 6.5 million doses on hand.
What is the minister doing to ensure this gap is closed?
Department of Social Development Act November 23rd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I was not elected until November 2000, so I was not aware of that report.
I take very well into account the report from HRDC at that time but it bothers me how this was done. The bill should have been brought to the House and debated before the government went ahead with reorganizing the departments. As I said in my speech, I believe we have put the cart before the horse on this. I think there should have been discussion on the floor of the House of Commons before we did this.
Department of Social Development Act November 23rd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-22, otherwise known as an act to establish the Department of Social Development.
Many of my constituents know the programs that fell under the old Human Resources Development Canada, or the HRDC department.
While it is tempting to speak to the mismanagement and boondoggles of the old department, I will spend my time today looking to the future.
At the time I was heavily involved with the human resources parliamentary committee and was witness to the fact that institutional changes would be required to fix many problems within the department. While the case was never really made to me that a full division, split and overhaul of the department was needed, there was no question that we could not afford a repeat of the boondoggles of the past. However, that being said, I am not sure this legislation prevents that either.
Normally departments are merged to save money, so one can only assume that splitting this department will cost taxpayers unnecessarily. During our briefing on this legislation this question was asked but not answered. Perhaps the government has an answer now. How much will these changes cost in addition to what we had before?
Unfortunately the Liberal government started the split long before it brought the bill to Parliament. In effect, it put the cart before the horse.
If I were to oppose the legislation, the cost of reversing the changes already made would likely cost more than the costs just to finish what it started. In effect, the Liberal government has failed to consult with Parliament on the change to HRDC and the creation of the Department of Social Development due to the fact that it is already too late to change course.
The Prime Minister has failed again to provide Parliament with an opportunity to become more involved and more relevant to the democratic process. Rather than consult us before, we are simply treated as a rubber stamp. This is unacceptable, not just because it silences members of the House, but it makes the people we represent irrelevant.
Luckily, not everything about the legislation is flawed or unnecessary. I am pleased to see that there is a significant amount of attention being paid to the protection and security of personal information. Identity theft is a growing problem in Canada and the developed world. Those least able to serve themselves or fund the legal hassles of identity theft are often the clients of this new department. They are counting on us to protect their information for them.
As an MP from Saskatchewan, I remember quite well the fear and uncertainty surrounding the accidental release of personal banking and financial information on an old computer. People watched their accounts like hawks, fearful of seeing their life savings disappear. As far as I know, there were no major problems as a result of the oversight, but it could have been disastrous for many families.
I do support the increased privacy protections in the bill. I only ask that the government monitor the situation to ensure that tougher standards are implemented as soon as the need arises. Our disabled, our challenged and low income Canadians are counting on us to protect them.
This brings me to my next point. I am also in support of the one stop shop concept for service delivery. The average Canadian is too busy to follow the jurisdictional complexities of the federal government. All they want is a single point of service to which they can go for programs that they need.
I would like to take a moment to let Canadians know of an important website that will assist them in assessing any benefits to which they may be entitled. The website lists almost every federal and provincial program there is. To make it easier to determine what applies to someone, there is a user-friendly feature. All someone has to do is answer about a dozen questions and then the computer will short list the programs. Everyone should get a pen because I will give the address in a second.
Before I do that, I want to stress that the website overcomes one of the most common complaints I get from those in need. They complain that it is too difficult to find, apply for, and access programs that already exist. The website can be found through a link on my website at carolskelton.ca or it can be accessed directly at canadabenefits.ca.
The government has a record of taxing the poor but not making it easy for them to get back that hard-earned money. Hopefully this website and the single service point delivery system will change this.
This new department has a massive mandate that is guaranteed to touch every single Canadian at some point in their lives.
Whether it is seniors, children, families, the disabled, volunteers or participants in the social economy, the new Department of Social Development will have an impact on them and most likely us. Even if we do not need to turn to the government for assistance, our pension plans will be administered by that department.
As always, I do have some serious concerns that a department this large could quickly balloon out of control for the government. I am concerned that such a large ministry will be sidetracked by a new, large social initiative. It will take the efforts of MPs, Canadians and especially Social Development employees to ensure that these radical structural changes do not fall off the rails and cost us billions.
Every dollar the government wastes on a new program is a dollar lost to a program that is already in place and often underfunded. As I said before, I hope the government stays on top of the costs associated with this change to ensure that they do not get out of hand.
The bill also contains many legal and housekeeping amendments to ensure that it complies with existing legislation. This is good but it also highlights and brings me back to one of my earlier concerns. The new department was born from the split of HRDC into Social Development and HRSDC. The minister and his staff have taken great steps to point out to me the cooperation and interconnecting relationship between the two new departments. Where I come from, that sounds like duplication and overlap.
As I said before, single points of service delivery are good but I am still not sure these changes are the most appropriate.
I look forward to the minister perhaps clarifying some of the reasons that the old department could not do what the new ones can and also how much it will save Canadians. I suspect the savings do not exist. I cannot see how a new letterhead, computer systems, websites and the like save money. In fact, the departments already carry lots of overlap and duplication of information on both the SD and the HRSDC websites. Yet again, it begs a simple question of why a single department does not make sense.
I will let the government come up with a creative answer for that.
My colleagues will speak about these issues too. They share the same concerns as I for Canadians in need. The government needs to ensure timely and properly supported services to those under duress. When someone walks into our MP offices asking for help, they often do so as the last resort. They do not want hassles, delays and excuses. They want help.
I just hope all this bureaucratic reorganization actually changes the problems experienced at this level at reasonable cost. The Liberal government's experience has indicated otherwise.
Department of Social Development Act November 23rd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the consent of the House to split my time with my hon. colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam.
Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act November 22nd, 2004
Madam Speaker, as someone who used to work for the Canadian blood system, I look at his answer in faith that he will ensure that the system is properly funded so we can properly protect Canadians. I know there is a concern in certain areas about how the funding will go to that.
I want to say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health that I feel all victims should have been compensated with the money that was put in the trust fund. It belongs to them. It should be given to all victims of this. It has been overwhelmingly stated in the House over and over that the money should go to the deserving people and it should be done now. It should not be allowed to sit there any longer.
Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act November 22nd, 2004
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today as a follow-up to my oral question on October 15 regarding the hepatitis C compensation restrictions. At that point in time, the Liberal government reiterated its desire to keep thousands of hepatitis C victims from receiving compensation. Why? Simply because they did not get infected on the right day.
This policy was beyond simple discrimination. It was a blatant example of political indifference toward those who are often too sick to fight for themselves. When members of this House voted against extending the compensation to all victims, some members of the Liberal Party shed crocodile tears in an attempt to show some sort of sympathy for the thousands of innocent victims.
Instead, all they did was show how cold-hearted and spineless they were when it came to standing up for their constituents and their convictions. Their hunger to remain in control of Parliament to feed the Liberal appetite for power proved to be the key to their integrity. Amazingly, many of them looked their electorate in the eye and told them they did the right thing. Unfortunately, many voters mistakenly believed them.
Nonetheless, several years later we find ourselves at today.
A few weeks ago, the health committee, dominated by opposition members, discussed having the matter raised again. The health committee again brought this to the floor of the House of Commons. The Liberals once again stalled at making the right decision. Now, to deflect criticism, they are starting another consultation with victims. This is not because they suddenly got a heart transplant themselves, but more because of the fact that they have not used the compensation money that was set aside.
We know there is enough money in the original compensation fund to compensate all victims. Failure to do so before now is inexcusable. All the delay has done is deny compensation to thousands of victims who died before today.
This government will likely take another few months to do the right thing and in the meantime more will die. Yes, they will die. Hepatitis C kills and this government tried to pretend that it does not. It failed to protect the national blood supply, which killed Canadians.
Today we have a much safer blood supply, but a lack of vigilance over the safety of the system could cause problems again. This government has shown a preference to protect itself before it protects the general public. Canadians need to be made aware of this before they trust the Liberals to oversee their safety.
We in the Conservative Party have been calling for fair and complete compensation for all innocent victims of the tainted blood scandal. We have always said that those unknowingly infected with hepatitis C should not have to suffer anymore than they have already.
Today the health minister indicated that he will discuss compensation for the excluded group of victims. Last time the lawyers got involved, it cost $60 million. I am sure the same will be true this time too. I hope the minister will make sure the victims get the compensation they deserve and I hope he makes sure this does not become a financial boost for the legal community.
If the minister can find a way to minimize legal costs and delays and get compensation to all those who deserve it, I will applaud his efforts. If he does not, I will not hesitate to tell every hepatitis C victim that the Liberals still care more about their party's survival than their survival.
On a final note, I would like to thank my Conservative colleagues and those from the other opposition parties for continuing to stand up for what is right. A special thank goes to Dr. Grant Hill, a former--
Question No. 4 November 22nd, 2004
What public safety and emergency preparedness plans does the federal government have to safeguard the capacity of treated water reserves for cities with populations over 50,000?