Bob Rae

[Air Canada, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that, by the time the government gets around to doing anything about it, these jobs will have long been gone to El Salvador or somewhere else. That is the problem with the government's answer.

The government spent $300 million moving a military base from Dubai to Kuwait because it alleged it would be protecting, in the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, tens of thousands of jobs in Canada. The government cannot avoid its direct responsibility with respect to what is happening to Air Canada.

Air Canada is the government's baby. Aveos is Air Canada's baby. When is the Government of Canada going to take some responsibility—

[Air Canada, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when Air Canada was privatized under a previous Conservative government, the deputy prime minister of the day, Mr. Mazankowski, said, “The Act would have to be amended if there were going to be any modification concerning the transfer of AIR CANADA's Overhaul Centres to another location”.

That is a very clear indication as to what the deputy prime minister of the day said was in the law and the protection provided to workers.

I would like to ask the government spokesman today if he could tell us this. Does he agree or does he disagree with the statement that was made by the deputy prime minister?

[Air Canada, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious. The government is not prepared to do what is necessary to protect both public safety and jobs. When the bill was passed, they promised to protect two things: public safety and job security. Why is the government not prepared, right now, to guarantee that Canadian law will be obeyed and that Canadian jobs will be protected? That is what must be done.

[Air Canada, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that answer is complete nonsense and the minister himself knows it.

Twenty-five hundred people, not hypothetical jobs, not theoretical jobs of what might have happened in 1985 if something else might not have happened, but real people, with real jobs, with highly skilled jobs and real lives are on the street because the government has taken absolutely zero action. Referring a matter to a transportation committee does nothing for the workers who have been laid off.

When is the government going to take Air Canada to court and enforce the legislation, which is—

[Air Canada, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to simply ask the minister a question again on the Aveos issue.

If the law is the law, the law is very clear. The law requires Air Canada to maintain its operations for maintenance and overhaul in three cities, in Montreal, in Toronto and in Winnipeg. The minister himself said the law is the law, and so the question for the minister is very clear. When is the Government of Canada finally going to step up to the plate and enforce the law, which is the law of the land and the law of Parliament? That is the question.

[Business of Supply, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the situation in France and the United States, pharmaceutical companies have a legal obligation to clearly report any time there is a shortage of pharmaceutical products. It is mandatory, not voluntary. If there is a drug shortage, companies must clearly report it to governments.

In my opinion, this problem is not uniquely Canadian. It does not stop at any borders; it is a global problem. That is one more reason for this government to fulfill its responsibilities. Indeed, it will be the government that goes before the World Health Assembly to work with the UN and the international institutions in order to really try to understand this problem.

I am not saying that it is a simple problem; not at all. What I am saying is that, so far, the federal government has adopted the position that this does not come under its jurisdiction. I hope I have clearly demonstrated that, from a legal standpoint, from a constitutional standpoint, this is a shared jurisdiction and the federal government does have considerable responsibilities here.

[Business of Supply, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that is a serious question.

It is simplest just to say that in addition to some other political responsibilities I had that the member may know about, I also served for three years on the board of the University Health Network and was chairman of the quality committee of the hospital.

I have said all the way through that of course the provinces have a responsibility. If the member would stop interrupting, she might want to hear what the answer is.

Of course the provinces have a responsibility. What I take exception to, and will continue to take exception to, is the notion that the federal government has no responsibility. The federal government has a key responsibility. The drugs are traded internationally. The federal government receives the warnings from the companies with respect to shortages. The federal government approves the drugs. It has a regulatory responsibility for the drugs, and it has responsibilities under the Canada Health Act. All of those things just happen to be true.

[Business of Supply, March 14th, 2012]

It is the problem because it is not addressing the problem. The federal government cannot hide behind its lack of jurisdiction. It has jurisdiction, but not exclusive jurisdiction because the provinces have their responsibility. Of course the provinces have responsibility. However, what does it tell us when the health minister of the Province of Ontario says, for example, “The federal government knew about a problem and did not tell us for a matter of weeks”? It tells us there is a regulatory failure. There is a regulatory issue that is not being addressed. I do not think it is good enough for the federal government to simply say it is now going to provide some kind of early warning system. It has to go further than that.

The federal government could establish a task force. It could get the provinces together and ask how to address this issue, how to solve the problem and how to deal with it more effectively. The federal government has had a long time to do all of those things. When we try to understand why it has not acted, the answer is very simple. It has not acted because the Prime Minister does not want, in any way, shape or form, to own any aspect of the health care issue.

Let us not forget the federal government is the fifth largest provider of direct health care services in our federal system. The federal government is a player, bigger than New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia or Manitoba. It is a big provider of services to aboriginal people, veterans and others. The government has now decided it can beat up on Sandoz because it is the one company everybody is singling out as being the problem, People might like to know that Sandoz is also a major supplier of drugs to the federal government. The company provides over 100 drugs listed on the first nations drug benefit list.

First nations people who are receiving cardiac surgery or cancer care surgery or other serious surgery, by and large, do not receive it in hospitals that are run by the federal government. They receive it in hospitals that are in the provincial jurisdictions that are then paid by the federal government for those services.

If first nations people are being denied health care services because of a drug shortage, that is the responsibility of the federal government. If it knew about this problem, as a party that is paying millions and millions of dollars to the provinces to provide health care to aboriginal people who are receiving serious surgery, that is a responsibility of the feds.

When the federal government and this minister turn around and say that it is all about sole-sourcing and provincial responsibility, that is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the administration.

[Business of Supply, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Vancouver Centre for very generously sharing not only her expertise but also her time with me this afternoon.

This is an important subject. I wish the resolution had been a little stronger, and I will explain why. I do not think the resolution goes far enough in setting out what the legal requirements really are for both hospitals and insurance plans across the country and the federal government with respect to access to what are necessary health services. When we look at the drug shortage, this is the context in which we have to see it.

It is absolutely no accident that this crisis is happening on the watch of this particular government, a government whose philosophy does not include support for the Canada Health Act. It campaigned hard and long against the Canada Health Act when it was first introduced in 1984. It campaigned against medicare when it was first introduced in 1968. The Prime Minister's vision of the responsibilities and jurisdiction of the federal government is the most limited view that we have ever had in the history of the country. The members opposite repeat over and over again that the federal government has no responsibilities in health care, that the provision of insured services is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. The only problem with that is it is not true, because it ignores the clear statements in the Canada Health Act that are set out as follows. Section 3 of that act states:

It is hereby declared that the primary objective of Canadian health care policy is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers.

The provision of medication in a hospital for the purposes of an operation is a necessary health service. The fact there is not sufficient access to medication required for anaesthesia and the control of pain, because those drugs are not available due to a shortage, or for whatever reason, is as much the responsibility of the federal government as it is of the provinces.

The hon. member for Mount Royal has always told me that it is not true that the federal government has no responsibilities in the area of health. Nowhere is it written that health falls completely within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Yes, the provinces are responsible for managing hospitals and for health insurance. Yes, the provinces have a huge responsibility in the area of health. Health care represents between 35% and 60% of their budget. Yes, it is their responsibility. However, the federal government has its own responsibilities. That is why we have the legislation against which they fought. I can say this on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada. We think that the government has obligations in the area of health. It is clear and the government cannot deny it.

Section 12 says:

In order to satisfy the criterion respecting accessibility—

Which is one of the five key criteria that is set out in the Canada Health Act:

—the health care insurance plan of a province

(a) must provide for insured health services on uniform terms and conditions and on a basis that does not impede or preclude, either directly or indirectly whether by charges made to insured persons or otherwise, reasonable access to those services by insured persons...

Everyone has to understand that, yes, the provinces have a responsibility, but the federal government has a responsibility for enforcement as well. To suggest that the federal government has no responsibility in this area is the old Reform ideology. It is so deeply ingrained in the heart and mind of the Prime Minister that he is not prepared to accept responsibility. I almost feel sorry for any minister of health in his administration. He is constantly going to be asking the question, “Why are we getting involved? It is not up to us. It is all about sole suppliers. It is all about the provinces. It has nothing to do with us. It's not our problem”.

We can look at other jurisdictions around the world: the federal government in the United States, issues in the European Union, countries in Europe. This shortage issue is not simply a matter of sole suppliers. This shortage issue is caused, as much as anything, by the fact that the generic producers are constantly telling the authorities that the more the authorities negotiate tough on price, the more the generic producers are going to say, “Sorry, we are not making that drug any more”.

There are issues of collusion worth analyzing, which is why President Obama asked that it be done. This problem did not arise last week. It did not arise because of a fire in Boucherville. It did not arise because of one incident. It is a general problem that has become increasingly serious. The government's response is to simply repeat the mantra that it is all about sole-source suppliers, it is not its problem and some of the provinces were wrong. If the government believed in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 that the provinces were wrong to have sole-source contracts, why did it not say so over the last five years? Where was it? I can say where it was. It was asleep at the switch and hiding behind the fact that it did not have any responsibility. It did not want to own this problem.

[Health, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of the drug shortage issue, I would again like to ask the Prime Minister a very clear question.

The Prime Minister has stated on a number of occasions, and he did it again today, that it is essentially the responsibility, indeed the fault, of the provinces as to why there is a shortage of drugs.

This view is not widely shared. A drug shortage around the world is affecting every country. Why is it that of the countries dealing with this crisis, whether it is the Europeans, the Americans or us, we are the only ones who do not have mandatory regulations? We are the only ones who do not have prior notification. Why is our regulatory system so pathetically weak?