Claude DeBellefeuille

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, time permitting, I will share my time with my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber.

I am pleased to speak today in this House during the opposition day of the Bloc Québécois on the motion calling for commitment to the objectives of the Kyoto protocol, an effective plan and an agreement with Quebec.

I note with satisfaction that all the opposition parties seem to want to support this motion by the Bloc Québécois. It is tangible proof and a clear expression of the importance most parliamentarians in this House give to the question of the environment, especially the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

There is, however, doubt as to the sincerity and real desire of the Conservative government with respect to the environment. In the latest federal election, their election platform contained three lines on environmental matters.

On December 17, 2002, Canada, following a majority vote in this House, made a commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012 by 6% on average over its 1990 level. Clearly, before the world, Canada made a commitment to meet the greenhouse gas reduction objectives defined in the Kyoto protocol.

It must be said that at that time, the decision greatly met Quebeckers' expectations. Everybody knows that Quebeckers are very concerned about the environment and its preservation. Rarely has an issue like the Kyoto protocol been the subject of such a large consensus in Quebec, with 90% of Quebeckers supporting it.

Here, in the House of Commons, I represent the riding of Beauharnois--Salaberry. The people of my riding have been at the forefront of the fight against greenhouse gas emissions, strongly opposing the building of the Suroît thermal plant in the city of Beauharnois. They won the support of Quebeckers, some 70% of whom rejected the Suroît thermal plant. This plant alone would have increased by 3% the annual production of greenhouse gas emissions in Quebec, when the province had committed to reducing them by 6% by 2012.

A tremendous mass movement such as only Quebec can produce, and such as we had not seen for a long time, swept through our territory. It must be said that Quebeckers have a great environmental conscience and are very worried about the future they will leave to their descendants and to future generations of the entire planet.

On November 17, 2004, Quebec's natural resources minister announced that the Suroît thermal power plant project would be dropped. The people of Beauharnois—Salaberry thereby allowed the rest of Quebec to take a long hard collective look at their energy consumption.

These people and people from all over Quebec were forward-looking by their resounding and unequivocal opposition to the Suroît thermal power plant project in Beauharnois. I want to mention that I am very proud of them. They said no to greenhouse gas emissions. In the same breath they said yes to the Kyoto protocol. They reiterated their support for the production of renewable energies such as hydroelectricity and wind energy.

Opposition to the Suroît project in Beauharnois, and everything that followed, is the epitome of the difference in Quebec's approach to the whole issue of greenhouse gases. Collectively we want Quebec to be green for our health and the health of all humans on this planet.

Pardon my personal aside about my riding, but it helps me express that the step backward the Conservatives are taking concerning the Kyoto protocol is perceived in Quebec as a lack of leadership and a lack of political interest in the environment.

Nonetheless, this perception is increasingly shared in Canada and soon might be by the rest of the world.

Two days ago in Le Devoir, Louis-Gilles Francoeur reported that a group of international ecological organizations has decided to criticize the Canadian position on the international scene.

I would like to quote one of the members of the group, Stephen Hazell, acting executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada national office, whose comments about the Conservative government's position were reported in Le Devoir.

He said, and I quote:

—if the Conservatives are short of funds to finance their tax reductions, why do they not cut the $1.5 billion given to the oil and gas industry or the $200 million to Atomic Energy of Canada?

As far as I know, he is not a member of the Bloc Québécois. I even suspect we are not alone, fortunately, in thinking like that in Canada. Quite the contrary, more and more Canadians are lining up behind Quebec's vision of a more environmentally responsible society respectful of the other residents of this planet.

The Bloc Québécois believes in and advocates a more responsible method of governing, that is, going beyond a political horizon of a few months and establishing the conditions required to ensure the safety, health and prosperity of the public for years to come. The Conservative government is doing just the opposite. It is following a short term political agenda. It hands out treats, like the 1% cut in the GST, increasing tax by .5%, handing out $1,200 cheques to some parents and not others, hoping thus to attract votes. Sad reality this petty and mercenary political jockeying logic that appears to be guiding this government. All too often, without an economic incentive to bring about change, nothing is done. The government has to change course, its actions need bite and must result in accountability and obligations for all of the polluting industries and all elements of society.

Thus, the Bloc Québécois is asking Ottawa for an implementation plan of the Kyoto protocol allowing for a reduction of 6% below the 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. We are asking for a series of measures in its jurisdictions: strict standards for the automotive industry in order to improve energy efficiency in vehicles; rebates for people buying green cars; financial support for the development of renewable energy sources, especially wind energy; the repeal of the tax benefits for the oil industry; subsidies for organizations which contribute to reaching the targets of the Kyoto protocol.

As required by the motion, Canada must take the necessary measures to meet its objective for greenhouse gas reduction established under the Kyoto Protocol. It must do so in an equitable manner, while respecting the constitutional jurisdictions and responsibilities of Quebec and the provinces. It must publish, by October 15, 2006, a plan for complying with the Kyoto protocol.

The Government must first establish targets for its polluting industries. Large industrial emitters of greenhouse gas will be responsible, by 2010, of close to 50 % of all greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, it is important to quickly establish equitable regulations for large emitters.

To conclude, I would remind you that, with the experience of the Suroît power plant, we were able to clearly see the true values of Quebecers. I know that these environmental values and the desire to improve our environment are very much shared by a growing number of Canadian citizens. Act before it is to late. The Bloc Québécois in giving you an opportunity today. Act in a responsible way and vote for this motion.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, could the member tell us what exactly would be the role of the Quebec office of this agency?

In concrete terms, what would that do to improve and better protect the health of Quebeckers?

[Laurent Pauzé-Dupuis, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honour the passing of a student from Hemmingford in Montérégie. Laurent Pauzé-Dupuis died on April 3 in Peking, China.

Laurent was 22 years old. Together with 1,300 other university students from all over the world, he was participating in a simulation of international debates using UN conferences as a model.

A student at McGill University in Montreal, Laurent was participating in the World Model United Nations 2006 as a representative of the Institut des sciences politiques de Paris.

Perhaps you may have seen him in the hallways of Parliament, as he was hired as a guide last year.

On behalf of the people of the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to his parents, Laurent and Michèle, his sister Gabrielle, and his partner Yumiko.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

When members speak for the first time in the House on a particular subject, especially newly elected members, they take the time to read on that subject and to consult their constituents. As a matter of fact, yesterday, I consulted a senior executive in a rather important health care institution located in the most densely populated part of the Montérégie region, in my riding. This public health specialist told me that, after reading this bill, she saw nothing in it that would improve the health of Quebeckers or Canadians. We are already doing what this bill proposes to do. I do not see how this new agency will put forward new solutions. It will just confuse people who will be the target of different health promotion campaigns on the same issues.

There is often a tendency to want to put in place Canada-wide promotion programs. We live in a vast country and each community has its own characteristics. Even in Quebec, response strategies in public health are not the same in the Gaspé Peninsula as in the Montérégie region. We constantly need to adapt our strategies.

In my opinion, the existing agency within Health Canada is acceptable and seems to work well. I do not see why there should be any other agency.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this important question.

To begin, I would answer that, just yesterday, I received three distress calls from textile workers in Huntingdon. They were all in tears and some of them were even suicidal. They reminded me of our role and responsibilities as government members. They also reminded me that the Conservative government will not commit to creating, as soon as possible, an income support program for older workers. I am referring to men and women aged 58 or 59. They are often couples who worked in the same factory. They often have low levels of education and are now suffering from mental health problems.

Creating an agency is not going to improve their health and prevent their problems associated with psychological distress.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his question. I do believe that my remarks were misunderstood. I said all along that were not against collaboration and cooperation. On the contrary, we think it is important to work together in a joint effort. We do not want structural duplication, increased bureaucracy, wasteful spending and overlapping.

Even though we want to become a country, we know that we do not live in isolation. We live in an era of globalization. I think Quebec has the ability and expertise to manage its own action plan, as do the other provinces. That does not exclude what is currently in place.

Let us take the avian flu, for example. The WHO has given directives to all the countries of the world to prepare for an eventual avian flu pandemic. The WHO gives directives to Canada, which in turn gives directives to the provinces, and each province, including Quebec, puts in place its own action plans at the national , regional and local levels.

We do not want to be isolated and work alone. We want a real partnership, real cooperation that respects our jurisdictions.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 5th, 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 and amending certain Acts.

I have some serious concerns about Bill C-5.

I was a social worker in Quebec's health and social services network. For the past three years, I worked in a nursing home and long-term care facility for the elderly. Such facilities have a high risk of influenza and other viral epidemics. I found that the regional public health authority acted competently and expertly to prevent and respond to epidemics. I am convinced that Quebec's response strategy is effective and rigorous, and that it meets the needs of Quebeckers.

Given that the Government of Quebec has the expertise and works with all parts of the Quebec health network, the Bloc Québécois believes that the provincial government should establish its own priorities and create its own action plan according to world-wide objectives developed by organizations like the WHO.

I do not share the opinion of a certain colleague from another part that Canada cannot have 13 different strategies and action plans. I believe that every province can create its own plan that corresponds to the particular activities and characteristics of its territory, particularly regarding prevention strategies for problems such as obesity, diabetes and injuries.

I do not believe that creating or changing the status of the current agency to coordinate the action of the provinces is necessary. I am not saying it is not necessary to coordinate what the provinces are doing in matters of public health. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health said, viruses do not have boundaries.

It is important to protect the health of our citizens. However, I wonder about the means proposed and described in Bill C-5. In this bill, we see that the agency will have its own portfolio and that the main administrator will be accountable to the Minister of Health while still remaining impartial and non-partisan.

The detachment of the Public Health Agency of Canada from Health Canada worries me. I fear that significant amounts of money will be allocated to that agency rather than be transferred to Quebec and the provinces, which have jurisdiction over this.

Quebec has to be able to fund its priorities in prevention and health promotion. These priorities may not be the same elsewhere, in all the other provinces.

Having worked in Quebec's health and social services network, I have seen that the application of “wall to wall” programs does not always help in achieving objectives. This centralist formula being imposed on us is far from being unanimously accepted in Quebec.

The Premier of Quebec, Jean Charest, said in January 2004, on the matter of the possible implementation of the Public Health Agency of Canada that:

Quebec ... has created its own structures in these two areas and they work. They will work with those that will be created, but duplication is out of the question—

That is precisely what the government is proposing to us today: duplication of services to the public because, once again, it is interfering in one of Quebec's jurisdictions.

The federal government keeps bringing in more structures in the area of health. After the National Forum on Health in the 1990s and the Health Council of Canada, now they are adding the Public Health Agency of Canada.

The Bloc Québécois, together with the Quebec government, objects to the federal government's desire to interfere with health care in Quebec. How the Quebec government organizes and provides care and establishes priorities for health care and social services is strictly its business.

This does not rule out cooperation and coordination among the provinces.

Consider the contradictions of this Conservative government, which says one thing then proposes to do the opposite.

In a speech on May 1, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, citing the Speech from the Throne, said, “The government is committed to building a better federation in which governments come together to help Canadians realize their potential”. However, barely two weeks ago, his boss, the Prime Minister and only official spokesperson for the government, stated that the only federalism he would engage in would be open federalism, federalism that respects the areas of provincial jurisdiction and in which the federal government's spending power is monitored.

Thus, in order to make this Conservative concept of open, cooperative federalism a reality, we are presented with a Liberal bill, a bill that comes directly from a government that Canadians removed from power during the last election. This Liberal bill allows Ottawa to interfere once again in an area of jurisdiction that belongs to Quebec and the provinces, this time under the guise of public health.

To justify this interference, reference is made to the SARS crisis that hit the Toronto area in 2003. In his remarks to this House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health said that the SARS crisis “launched an important discussion and debate about the state of public health in Canada”. That is true, he is absolutely right. However, he forgot to mention that, at the time, all stakeholders in Quebec agreed that, had this crisis hit Quebec instead of Ontario, it would never have developed to the extent it did in Toronto. Why? Because Quebec's public health services already had an action plan in place for use in the event of such an emergency in that jurisdiction. Not only did Quebec have an action plan, but the human resources required had also been defined. That is why.

As an aside, I noted in my research that Ontario has just received, in March 2006, a report recommending that it set up its own public health agency, something similar to Quebec's Institut national de la santé publique.

In a nutshell, it is because Quebec has put in place what is needed to face this kind of situation and because Quebec minds its own business, which we would very much like the federal government to do.

By espousing this Liberal legislation, the Conservative government is espousing at the same time the Liberal vision of Canada: Ottawa knows best and will impose its will from sea to sea.

How will a new agency or specific entity, call it what you want, with offices across the country help us deal with any potential flu epidemic? What will it change in real, concrete terms? I would like to know.

We have no problem with the federal Department of Health instituting prevention and emergency response measures in its areas of responsibility, such as screening at the border. Not at all, that is its job. But to have the federal government establish an agency and spend public money on a new structure duplicating one that already exists and is working well, that is a problem.

The government repeated over and over during oral question period that it is committed to the interests of taxpayers. This is a fine opportunity to show concern for them by using their money efficiently and effectively.

Can someone explain to me what exactly the staff of the new agency will do in the offices in Quebec that employees of the health department cannot do here in Ottawa?

I would like an answer to that question.

How will information on new public health threats be any better coordinated with the creation of the public health agency than it is now with the health department, whose job it is to coordinate this information? I would also like an answer to that question.

The Conservative government plans to set up a new entity, separate it from the health department, give it substantial funding and personnel and set up an office in Quebec and the other provinces, all in order “to identify and reduce public health risk factors”, as the preamble states.

I cannot stress enough that the fiscal imbalance is the cause of the biggest public health risk factor in Quebec: overcrowded emergency rooms. The proliferation of resistant nosocomial bacteria such as C. difficile in some hospitals is one of the biggest threats to public health in Quebec.

To address these problems, the Government of Quebec does not need a new federal agency in Quebec, it needs money. The problem is that the provinces and Quebec have the health and social services needs, but Ottawa has the money. The government should stop creating new structures. Quebec and the provinces are cooperating already. Quebec coordinates with the other provinces on public health. I do not think that creating a new agency will make things any better.

We have the federal government to thank for Quebec's underfunded health services. By its actions, the current federal government is doing everything it can to take up where the previous government left off. Emergency rooms will not become less crowded overnight. In my opinion, in addition to recycling a Liberal bill, the Conservative government is clearly also recycling the arrogance of the previous government, which tried only to penetrate further into areas of Quebec and provincial jurisdiction.

I would like to clarify another point. The preamble to Bill C-5 states that “the Government of Canada wishes to promote cooperation and consultation in the field of public health with provincial and territorial governments”. In his speech yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health added that his government plans to strengthen its collaboration with municipal governments. While he was on the topic, why did he not tell us right away that the next step—under the guise of cooperation and consultation— would be direct interference in the administration of health facilities? Let us not forget that history repeats itself.

Let us talk about health services for aboriginals, which fall under federal jurisdiction. Services provided to first nations communities cannot be considered adequate, to say the least. This government should tread carefully; look where meddling in other people's affairs got the previous government.

The Bloc Québécois is committed to supporting the other parties in this House on issues that are in Quebec's interest. The government again plans to duplicate services and create a new structure whose only purpose in Quebec would be to spend public moneys for no good reason. We cannot support that.

That reminds me of the two anti-tobacco campaigns aired recently in Quebec.

In Quebec a campaign was launched to help people wanting to quit smoking by giving them the tools and a service to help them in this endeavour. While this was going on, the federal government flooded the Quebec media with ads giving a different message with a different telephone number and different contact information on the same issue. What wonderful collaboration and use of public funds.

In closing, I want to make one last point on the issue of direct communication with the public. In Bill C-5 respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada, it stipulates that the chief public health officer “may communicate with the public, voluntary organizations in the public health field or the private sector for the purpose of providing information, or seeking their views, about public health issues”.

It is quite clear that with its independent administration and its offices spread out here and there, this agency will end up justifying its presence by regularly implementing communication plans for all Canadians, including those in Quebec. It seems clear to me that this type of duplication is counter-productive. It is not what citizens and taxpayers want. In any case, it is not the wish of the people of Beauharnois—Salaberry, whom I represent in this House.

I would like to draw your attention to a more specific aspect. I read and listened to various speeches by colleagues in this House. There was a great deal of discussion about health prevention in terms of epidemics and pandemics. However, I noticed that there was less discussion about health promotion. An expert in this area knows that it is important for local communities to identify their problems and to find solutions that will work in their areas.

Take obesity, for example. In my area, we decided to fight child obesity by approaching cafeterias in secondary schools, convincing them to offer more nutritious foods, and thus help youth develop better eating habits. We did not talk to youth about diet or try to make them feel guilty. In terms of promotion, we know that individuals are not always solely responsible for their health given that their environment and everything around them also have an impact.

In Quebec, we have made choices. There are campaigns to prevent obesity, to reduce the number of low birth weight babies, and others. We have our own way of communicating with our communities and, what is important, we have a decentralized approach. Each community can promote and work on improving the health of Quebeckers. This is done at the local level. Naturally, everyone does not just do what they want, leading to chaos. We are bound and guided by broad directives issued by the Institut national de santé publique du Québec. It provides instructions and directives to each of the 16 regional branches in Quebec.

This is my first speech in the House and I would like to conclude by stating that I hope to discuss my concerns with the parliamentary secretary. Above all, I would like to impress on him that we believe that the public health agency, as proposed, is not the best means to protect and promote the health of Quebeckers and Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the member know that every administrative region in Quebec has its own public health authority? These administrative regions are united through a national public health authority. They have their own national health promotion and prevention objectives. Does she not think that Bill C-5 contradicts this and intrudes into Quebec’s jurisdictions in view of the objectives set for it and that the Department of Health and Social Services has adopted?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know my colleague's position on a specific issue.

What does the member think about the fact that Bill C-3 has removed the measures relating to the powers of the Canadian Transportation Agency to receive complaints concerning noise resulting from railway activities? The clause in question, which was part of Bill C-44, has been removed in Bill C-3.

[Volunteer Week, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the theme of Volunteer Week 2006, held in Quebec until April 29, is “Volunteering for all tastes”.

Let us acknowledge the importance of the work carried out by the thousands of men and women who spend time and energy helping and supporting others in society.

In Quebec alone, there are 526,000 volunteers working in social services and health agencies, 359,000 volunteers working in culture and entertainment, 133,000 in education and almost half a million who lend their passion, generosity and knowledge to other sectors of society.

Every second of the day there are people around us who do something to bring a moment of happiness to someone else. Every day, hundreds of our citizens volunteer to defend the rights of the most vulnerable.

On the occasion of volunteer week, the Bloc Québécois wants to say thank you to each and every one of them.