Claude DeBellefeuille

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill C-5, an act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada.

I would like to start by mentioning that I am a social worker by trade. I have worked in the Quebec health and social services network for 20 years or so. During that time, I worked in a residential and long term care centre for seniors. In this kind of facility, the risk of contagion and epidemics is significant, the clientele being extremely vulnerable. All that to say that, professionally speaking, I am very sensitive to the public health issue.

I witnessed firsthand how competently and expertly the public health authority in my region can handle epidemics, particularly a flue epidemic. I realized that Quebec had an aggressive and efficient response strategy that meets the needs of Quebeckers.

Bill C-5, which is now back in the House, is essentially designed to solidify the agency as an independent administrative entity that is an integral part of the Canadian health network, by giving it a number of powers and appointing a chief public health officer.

In fact, Bill C-5, an act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain acts, has put Bill C-75, introduced in November 2005 just before the 38th Parliament was dissolved, back on the legislative agenda. As I have said previously, by making this Liberal bill its own, the Conservative government is also adopting the Liberal vision of Canada: Ottawa knows best and will impose its views from coast to coast.

I think it is important to understand that, contrary to what it has said since it was elected, the Conservative government wants to make inroads into health, one of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

Is the government aware that Quebec has had its own Institut national de santé publique for eight years now, since 1998? It appears not, because if the government was aware, it would have inserted a provision in the bill at the outset to recognize the reality in Quebec and to recognize that the proposed Public Health Agency of Canada will duplicate services and cause confusion in Quebec.

To illustrate this, I invite all members to visit the Internet site of the Institut national de santé publique du Québec at www.inspq.qc.ca. I will provide some information that will help the members understand just how much confusion the establishment of this agency will create. The site says:

The vision of the Institut national de santé publique du Québec is to be the centre of expertise and reference centre for public health in Quebec. Its goal is to advance knowledge and propose intersectoral actions and strategies to improve Quebeckers' health and welfare.

In fact, when the Institut national de santé publique was created in 1998, the coordination of public health expertise in Quebec underwent a major reorganization. Achieving the institute's mission involves pooling and sharing expertise, developing research, disseminating and using knowledge and engaging in international cooperation.

In addition, in the field, the institute works to attain its objectives through various activities and specific services: advice and specialized assistance, research or development of new knowledge, training, information, specialized laboratories, international cooperation and knowledge exchange.

All Institut national de santé publique du Québec activities are part of a broad concept of public health, and aim for the highest possible quality standards.

To achieve the highest possible quality standards, the agency participates in three World Health Organization collaborating centres, including the Quebec WHO collaborating centre on the development of healthy cities and towns, the Quebec WHO collaborating centre for safety promotion and injury prevention and, finally, the WHO collaborating centre on environmental and occupational health impact assessment and surveillance.

By definition, a WHO collaborating centre must “—participate in the strengthening of country resources, in terms of information, services, research and training, in support of national health development”.

The preamble to Bill C-5 mentions that this proposed Canadian agency also plans to encourage cooperation in this area with foreign governments and international organizations, as well as with other interested organizations and individuals. Clearly, these functions will duplicate what is already happening in Quebec.

I understand that the government wishes to ignore this reality, but members of the Bloc Québécois were elected to talk about Quebec's reality, needs and distinct character here in the House of Commons. Do not be fooled into thinking that we are the only ones defending the interests of Quebeckers.

On May 11 during question period at the Quebec National Assembly, Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, member for Borduas and opposition critic for health, asked the health minister, Philippe Couillard, the following question, “Does the minister acknowledge that there is evidence of overlapping jurisdictions and that what the federal government is proposing is more than an exchange of information; that it is taking the place of the government that has the responsibility of applying Quebec's public health act and health and social services act? Does he acknowledge the overlap in responsibilities? Does he acknowledge that this is unacceptable? Will he tell us today that the Government of Quebec will strongly and completely oppose interference in jurisdictions that are strictly Quebec's in the area of health?”

Do you know what the health minister, Mr. Couillard, said? He said, and I quote:

Of course.

He said, “Of course”, and he continued:

The proof is that we used legal recourse on the issue of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act and we are opting out—

Now listen to this.

—of every national Canadian strategy that will be introduced, for instance on cancer, mental health and health promotion. We will see what the final wording of the bill will be, if and when it is passed by the House of Commons.

This proves it is not just the Bloc Québécois that opposes such a bill; the Government of Quebec's health minister opposes it as well.

I suggest that, instead of creating new sources of conflict and overlaps in public spending, that money be paid directly to Quebec so that it can provide the health services the public has every right to expect.

Let us come back specifically to Bill C-5. In the preamble of the bill it says, “the Government of Canada wishes to take public health measures, including measures relating to health protection and promotion, population health assessment, health surveillance, disease and injury prevention, and public health emergency preparedness and response”.

Does the current agency not already assume, for the most part, this role the government wants to give it in this bill?

I also understand that the agency already fostered consultation and cooperation with the provincial and territorial governments and that it already encouraged cooperation with foreign governments and international organizations, that it is headed up by a doctor and that it seems to have a large team of officials at its service as well as a hefty budget.

Why do we need to invent a new structure for Canada?

I seriously wonder if we really need Bill C-5, which has several elements that I find worrisome.

I am wondering whether the consolidation of this agency is really necessary and whether it is in the best interest of taxpayers—an expression so dear to our Conservative government—to finance this administrative structure as a separate entity within the existing health care network.

I truly believe that this bill came about in direct response to the SARS crisis in the Toronto area in 2003.

In my view, the government thinks that this intrusion in health care, an area of jurisdiction belonging to Quebec and the provinces, is justified largely because of the serious and unfortunate experience with SARS in 2003.

We agree with the parliamentary secretary regarding the important debate on the state of public health in Canada triggered by the SARS crisis. Nevertheless, I would point out that, at the time, the various players in the Quebec health care system agreed that, if the crisis had happened in Quebec, it would not have been as serious as it was in Ontario. In fact, Quebec was ready. The well-established and well-structured Institut national de santé publique du Québec was there precisely to respond to that kind of event.

Quebec has an action plan ready to be carried out in the event of an emergency situation within its borders and it has well-established, responsible human resources.

Furthermore, Quebec has developed a public health culture and public health practices that are often cited as examples all over the world. Furthermore, the Institut national de santé publique du Québec was consulted for its expertise by members of the working committee from Ontario responsible for making recommendations regarding the creation of a health promotion and protection agency in Ontario. Their report was tabled in March 2006 and the agency should be created by 2007.

The SARS crisis in Toronto, in a sense, prompted the creation of that agency in Ontario. At first glance, the agency would seem to play the same role as the Institut national de santé publique du Québec.

In short, because in its area of jurisdiction Quebec has put in place what is required to respond to this type of crisis, because Quebec is rigorous and has developed remarkable expertise in its role as protector of public health, in addition to collaborating with the various players in this area, the Bloc Québécois does not feel it is necessary to give this status to the Public Health Agency of Canada, as provided for in Bill C-5.

I really do not see how the new status and the new powers of the Public Health Agency of Canada, which will have an office in Quebec, will help to better deal with a future influenza pandemic, for example. Each province must put in place its own public health structure, one that is well co-ordinated and well run.

I do not believe it necessary to squander large amounts of money on a heavier bureaucracy in order to establish and conduct coordination of provincial activities in the area of health promotion and prevention. I do not see how this agency per se will make it possible to react more quickly.

The parliamentary secretary to the health minister stated in May, and I quote:

—everyone in Canada can benefit by working together...if there were, heaven forbid, a pandemic influenza we would need to have a coordinated effort throughout Canada to deal with the issue.

He added that “we would need a coordinated effort throughout the world”.

The parliamentary secretary to the health minister leads us to believe that, at present, the provinces, territories and the WHO are not working together, and that Bill C-5 would solve this problem.

I would not want the parliamentary secretary to think that I am against collaborating and cooperating, or that I have anything against concerted efforts. I want him to know that what I am against is duplicating structures, creating another bureaucracy, unnecessary spending, duplication, and intrusion by the federal government in Quebec's areas of responsibility.

I am for better health protection for Quebeckers and Canadians while ensuring both efficiency and effectiveness. The most appropriate actors for this remain the experts designated by the provinces.

In Quebec, the public health action plans are coordinated by the director of the Institut national de santé publique, who is responsible for cooperating with his counterparts in the other provinces, federal officials and the WHO in the event of an epidemic or pandemic.

The problem is that people's needs in terms of health and social services are experienced in Quebec and the provinces, while the money is in Ottawa.

Take for example Quebec's ongoing planning activities in the area of health promotion.

In Quebec, every provincial, regional and local expert agrees that the top health promotion priority is addressing the problems of our overweight and obese youth. Allow me to quote the following:

The scope of this public health problem has prompted the Government of Quebec to identify obesity prevention as a government priority...The institute's work also contributes to the development of preventive interventions based primarily on changes to political, economic, socio-cultural, agricultural and food, and built environments that will make it easier to adopt healthy weight management behaviours while taking care not to intensify the excessive preoccupation with weight.

That is a rather concrete example showing that, in Quebec, we have identified among our health promotion priorities the issue of excess weight in our young people. The response methods selected and used are suited to the culture and values of Quebeckers.

If we visit the website of the Canadian agency, we can see that it too has national strategies dealing with weight and excess weight.

Thus, a Quebecker doing Internet research would come across a Canadian strategy and a Quebec strategy to battle excessive body weight. Personally, as a taxpayer and a citizen, I see this as a waste of public funds. Running a health promotion campaign involves all sorts of activities: brochures, flyers, radio and television ads. The federal government is spending money, and so is the Quebec government. This is a clear, blatant example that shows taxpayers that spending is being duplicated.

I have one more example. Even though I only have a minute left, I would like to take the time to provide one last example, which is about the fight against cancer.

These days, cancer is a very serious, increasingly common illness that affects many Quebeckers and Canadians. Quebec has its own strategy for fighting cancer. On the federal level, Canada has created its own national strategy. As a Quebecker, I find myself up against the same situation as in the other example I just gave. We are presented with two strategies, complete with different kinds of promotional and educational materials. This is another blatant example of unacceptable duplication of spending.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois is committed to supporting the other parties in this House when it is in the best interest of Quebec. However, we cannot support a project in which the government seeks to duplicate services and create new bureaucratic structures.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech, which I listened to carefully. I believe he comes from British Columbia. I would like him to tell me whether in his province there is an ombudsman, a public trustee whose mandate is to protect the rights of seniors and other vulnerable persons.

What the NDP motion is proposing are measures that are provincial responsibilities. I would like the hon. member to give me his version of what goes on in his province. What structures and services are available in British Columbia to help and support seniors and to defend their rights?

[Manufacturing Industry, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, since 2002, we have noted a downward trend in jobs in the manufacturing sector. There have been some blips in the trend, but the situation has continued to deteriorate.

Just last month, 11,800 jobs were lost in Quebec, bringing the total to 31,900 in the past year.

In my riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry, over the last year and a half, in textiles alone, 700 jobs were lost with the shutdown of Huntingdon Mills and Clyne & Tinker. These closures are in addition to those of other factories, including Spexel de Beauharnois, which resulted in the loss of some 100 jobs.

To date, the most effective decision for boosting employment was the one made by the municipal authorities of Huntingdon to purchase the buildings no longer in use and convert them into industrial condos.

The Bloc Québécois demands that the federal government take immediate action to stop this loss of employment, which is slowly destroying our economy and lives.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning on the motion introduced by the NDP. This motion proposes to rectify decades of underfunding of programs for seniors and, in the same breath, proposes a set of actions to achieve that.

Like my colleague, I am always surprised, not to say astounded, to see how centralizing an approach the NDP takes. Despite everything we have said, for the many years the Bloc Québécois has sat in this House, the NDP members do not seem to grasp, or simply do not want to acknowledge, that the provinces and the federal government have separate jurisdictions.

In the vote on the motion they are introducing today, they will surely be surprised to see that the Bloc Québécois is not supporting it. We will in fact not support this motion, laudable as its intentions may be. The point is not that seniors’ issues do not interest us, quite the contrary; but this motion tramples on the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, as my colleague who spoke before me demonstrated.

The interference in matters under our jurisdiction is so great and so flagrant that the Quebeckers who are watching us on television will be astounded. While we may live in an uncertain world, Quebeckers live with the certainty that the federal government does not meddle in its affairs, and once again, the NDP is encouraging interference and confusion.

We must remind our colleagues that seniors’ issues, specifically when it comes to health care, education and income security, are not the business of this House. In fact, as one of my colleagues put it so well last night, a number of aspects of the motion are very attractive, but unfortunately it has been introduced in the wrong legislature! Bizarrely, those aspects of seniors’ issues that do fall under federal jurisdiction are missing from the motion. What explanation is there for the fact that, for example, it has nothing to say about the guaranteed income supplement, or the older worker adjustment program for people who are the victims of mass layoffs? And yet these are two programs that do fall under federal jurisdiction. This is incomprehensible!

I think that I have said before in this House, I worked for 20 years as a social worker with the seniors’ office in the network of community and public services in Quebec before being elected as the member for the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry.

I am going to use my speaking time to explain to my colleagues across the aisle, using some of the points in their motion, how Quebec provides services to its seniors. I hope that they will understand that Quebec and the provinces are in the best position to provide services to their seniors, and what they would be able to do if they had sufficient financial resources. It can never be said often enough: the money is in Ottawa and the needs are in Quebec and the provinces.

Let us take, for example, the aspect of the motion that proposes that a seniors’ advocate be created. The motion is so finely detailed that it even describes what this advocate’s job will be.

In Quebec, there is the Public Curator, whose primary responsibility is to protect people who are determined to be temporarily or permanently incapacitated. The Public Curator also steps in to protect vulnerable individuals against all forms of abuse: physical, psychological and financial. Here we have the first duplication of powers.

As my colleague mentioned, we also have the Conseil des aînés. This senior citizens' council advises the minister on planning, implementing and coordinating government policies, as well as programs and services designed to meet seniors' needs. It is important to understand that this council is also mandated to suggest that the minister set up specific programs to address elder abuse. The council even produces and distributes documentation and information about seniors and the services and benefits available to them.

In addition, every health administrative region in Quebec has its own seniors round table, with representation from various local and regional organizations that serve seniors. Most of the council members are themselves seniors, and they come from the public, community and private sectors. These round tables defend and take a stand on issues that relate to seniors and make recommendations to the council.

Each region of Quebec—there are 18 in all—has local community services centres, which we in Quebec call CLSCs. These are public bodies funded with Quebeckers' money. Each CLSC has local committees whose function is to screen seniors who are victims of abuse. Social workers support these seniors as they report their abusers or make the decision to do so.

These local committees, once again, are made up of representatives of various groups: the police, hospitals, public seniors' homes, volunteer bureaus, in fact, all the local organizations that are concerned about elder abuse.

I am proud to describe what is done for seniors in Quebec and to talk about the quality of the services and initiatives in Quebec. If you will allow me, I will continue in the hope that my colleagues opposite will grasp what I am saying and will learn more so that they understand that Quebec does not want duplication and new structures. Quebec wants the financial resources that are sitting in Ottawa, in order to maintain and develop its own services and its own structures for seniors.

Quebec passed legislation that requires all public health and social services centres in our public system to make available to any user who so desires a quality-control officer or what could be called, in the jargon, a complaints commissioner. This person reports directly to a board and handles all complaints on a confidential basis. I myself worked for three years in an extended care facility for seniors and can say that this is a very important position that enables residents, most of whom are seniors, to express their complaints or dissatisfaction and request the necessary changes.

In addition, there are all the Associations québécoises de défense des droits de personnes retraitées et préretraitées, what we call the AQDR. Each looks after the interests of seniors in its region in regard to any matter at all and before any body. As a matter of fact, in my riding the AQDR, Valleyfield section, celebrated its 25th anniversary last Sunday with 400 seniors who are strong and proud to be members of this association.

The Government of Quebec also invests large amounts in its community network. I think that it is a model of its kind throughout Canada. The Quebec government realized that the best way to serve the citizens is to get down to the grassroots level. There is also a lot of funding in Quebec for an array voluntary community organizations that deal with seniors. These include the volunteer centres which provide a variety of services offered by volunteers supervised by professionals, thus enabling seniors to remain in their homes as long as possible. I could point as well to meals on wheels, informal caregiver groups, a long list. In Quebec and surely in other provinces, there are a lot of initiatives to help older people or anyone having a hard time.

I cannot finish my speech without saying more specifically how disappointed I am not to see any mention in this motion of the income support program for older workers who lost their jobs as a result of massive layoffs. Everyone knows that this program is close to my heart. In my riding, workers who are 55 years of age or more are in despair because they see the Conservative government abandoning them and failing to establish a program that would enable them to live their richly deserved retirement years with some dignity and respect. They are workers who are 55, 59 or 60 years of age and are finishing their days in a precarious financial state that is completely unacceptable.

In view of the Government of Canada’s current financial condition, the Bloc Québécois, all the people in my riding and I myself fail to understand why it cannot take some simple, concrete action to finally establish the program we are asking for. I am getting to the connection with the NDP motion.

We would have been very pleased if this had been included because it is a federal jurisdiction and it is important for all the seniors in Quebec and Canada.

[Agri-Food, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue.

Just this week, the minister was defending supply management in this House. How can he claim to be working with this system while permitting the violation of one of its three basic principles, the protection of borders, by limiting the import of goods that are supply managed?

[Agri-Food, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food tabled in this House the first report of the committee, which calls on the government to limit imports of milk protein concentrates through regulatory means, namely Article XXVIII of the GATT.

Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food simply answer this question: does he intend to respect the will of the committee and of the House, which voted unanimously to fully protect the supply management system, and take definitive action on this matter?

[Huntingdon Textile Workers, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on May 18, hundreds of textile workers from Huntingdon came to Parliament Hill to voice their distress.

After being victims of international treaties that led to massive plant closures in their industry, these workers saw the federal government terminate the Program for Older Worker Adjustment without replacing it.

Most of these workers spent their whole lives working in factories that are now closed. A few years away from what they hoped would be a happy retirement, many are left with nothing. After contributing to our collective wealth for their whole lives, these people feel betrayed.

Many of them are watching the time slip away, waiting for the day they have to go on welfare. That day is fast approaching.

The Bloc Québécois hears this cry from the heart and urges the government to immediately put in place a support program for workers who are victims of mass layoffs.

[Privacy Protection, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, many EXPRO TEC employees are from my riding. They are very concerned that, as a result of this sale, their records will be sent to the United States.

In view of the very special and delicate nature of this problem, should the Prime Minister himself not put the matter to President Bush at their meeting planned for July 6?

[Older Workers, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because the government did nothing for the textile industry that businesses have had to close their doors completely, as Huntingdon was forced to do last year.

Given that the federal government is partially responsible for these closures that affect hundreds of workers in my riding, because it did nothing to help the industry, could it not at least immediately implement an income support program for older workers who face particular difficulties when businesses in our region, like Huntingdon, are forced to close?

[Older Workers, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, older workers who are losing their jobs were abandoned by the previous government. They are now desperate, given the indifference of the Conservatives.

In a letter addressed to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, a former textile worker expressed her distress as follows:

I worked for 47 years in the textile industry, including 45 years at Cleyn & Tinker and two years at Huntingdon Mills. I started working when I was 14 years old and I am now 62. Like me, my entire community has been hard hit by the closing of the textile mills and the resulting job losses. It is impossible to find other work; no one wants us. We have paid our taxes and paid into EI our whole lives.

Workers are on the Hill today to remind the Conservative government that it must immediately implement an income support program for older workers. This is an urgent matter.