Joy Smith

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to address Bill C-5, an act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada. As my colleagues have indicated, this legislation represents a key piece in supporting the federal government's efforts to promote and protect the health of Canadians.

As members may know, following the outbreak of SARS, there were discussions and debates on the state of the public health care system in Canada. Two subsequent expert reports, one completed by Dr. David Naylor and other by Senator Michael Kirby, pointed to the need to establish a federal focal point to address public health issues. Specific recommendations included the establishment of a Canadian public health agency and the appointment of a chief public health officer for Canada.

In response, the Public Health Agency of Canada was created in September 2004 through orders in council. However, it currently lacks parliamentary recognition in the form of its own enabling legislation. As such, this legislation provides the statutory footing for the Public Health Agency of Canada and it gives the agency and the Chief Public Health Officer the parliamentary recognition they need.

Beyond the benefits to Canada are the benefits that this agency will bring to Winnipeg and my riding of Kildonan—St. Paul. I intend to touch upon how the legislation affects Winnipeg, Manitoba, and also how the agency will rank against other institutions all around the world.

Winnipeg remains the location of Canada's only level 4 microbiology lab for human health and a world leader in research, training, commercialization and innovation in addressing the threat and impact of infectious diseases. However, the agency will continue to maintain offices, staff and expertise all across Canada, including its federal laboratories, its surveillance networks, its regional offices and national collaborating centres. What this means for Winnipeg is that we will continue to experience the benefits of our leadership in combating infectious disease.

With regard to how the legislation will affect Manitoba, the legislation does not expand on the existing federal role in public health. Nothing that the federal government is currently doing in public health has changed.

Rather, the legislation simply provides a statutory footing for the agency and gives it a mandate to assist the Minister of Health in exercising his or her powers, duties and functions in public health. The minister recognizes the importance of continuing to foster collaborative relationships with federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments as well as international organizations and public health experts.

This is an objective that is clearly set out in the preamble of the bill. It is also why we have established the pan-Canadian public health network, currently co-chaired by the Chief Public Health Officer and the provincial health officer of B.C. The network is a forum for multilateral, intergovernmental collaboration on public health issues and it respects jurisdictional responsibilities in public health.

It is also important to note that the legislation does not explicitly define the functions and responsibilities of the agency. This was purposely done in order to provide the Minister of Health the necessary flexibility to assign powers, duties and functions in the area of public health, either to the agency or to Health Canada. This flexibility is further enhanced by not defining the term “public health” so that future governments will be left with the flexibility to define the federal role in public health in keeping with emerging issues and new challenges.

Both the American CDC and our Public Health Agency of Canada are part of their respective governments' health portfolios, working on core public health functions such as infectious disease control and prevention, emergency preparedness, chronic disease prevention and health promotion.

The CDC is not a separate departmental entity within the U.S. administration, but rather one of 13 major operating components within the U.S. department of health and human services. There are also some differences in the mandates of the two organizations. For example, the USCDC has responsibility for policy and programming on environmental health, occupational health and safety, and health information and statistics. In Canada, these issues are handled by Health Canada and other departmental agencies.

The director of the CDC in the U.S. reports to the secretary of the department of health and human services through the deputy secretary. In the U.S. the surgeon general, who has no direct connection to the CDC, has traditionally been the lead federal spokesperson on public health issues.

By contrast, Bill C-5 gives the Canadian Chief Public Health Officer a unique dual role. In addition to serving as deputy head of the agency reporting directly to the Minister of Health, the Chief Public Health Officer will also serve as Canada's lead public health professional, able to communicate directly with the public on public health issues.

I would like now to discuss the role of the Chief Public Health Officer, another critical element of this legislation.

One of the key recommendations from the Naylor report was not only the establishment of a Chief Public Health Officer for Canada, but that the Chief Public Health Officer head up a new Public Health Agency of Canada and serve as a credible, official voice on public health nationally. Actually, that is the deputy head; the minister heads it up. This legislation responds to his recommendation by formally establishing the position of the Chief Public Health Officer and recognizing this unique dual role.

First, as deputy head of the agency, the Chief Public Health Officer will be accountable to the Minister of Health for the day to day operations of the agency and will be expected to advise the Minister of Health on public health matters. Further, as deputy head, the Chief Public Health Officer has the standing to engage other federal departments and is able to mobilize the public health resources of the agency to meet threats to the health of Canadians.

In addition to deputy head, the legislation also recognizes that the Chief Public Health Officer will be Canada's lead public health professional with demonstrated expertise and leadership in the field. As such, the Chief Public Health Officer will have legislative authority to communicate directly with Canadians, to provide them with information on public health matters and to prepare and publish reports on any public health issue.

Stakeholders have made it clear that they expect the Chief Public Health Officer to be a credible trusted voice able to drive real change by speaking out on public health matters and issuing reports. Providing the Chief Public Health Officer with the authority to speak out on public health matters and ensuring that the Chief Public Health Officer has qualifications in the field of public health will help confirm this credibility with stakeholders and with Canadians.

This dual role of the Chief Public Health Officer may be unique, but it is not without precedent in certain provinces as it brings certain advantages. For instance, as deputy head, the Chief Public Health Officer has the standing to engage provincial ministries of health and work with the Canadian public health network to receive the best advice from his provincial and territorial colleagues.

At the same time, with the authorities granted in legislation, the Chief Public Health Officer is able to communicate with the Canadian public and provide them with the best public health advice on key issues.

I have spoken on how the legislation represents a critical piece in the ongoing improvements the government is making to strengthen our public health system.

By giving the agency its own enabling legislation and positioning the Chief Public Health Officer as a credible voice on public health, the government will not only bring greater visibility to public health issues or threats facing Canadians, it will have taken a key step to renew and strengthen the public health system as a whole.

[Child Care, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, even out of government, the Liberal culture of entitlement and arrogance festers like a sore spot on Canada. This time the Liberal leadership candidate from St. Paul's is making spurious attacks upon parents who choose to raise their own children.

While attacking the Conservative choice in child care plan, she said and I quote, “It's a good job they're putting more money for prisons in the budget, because we're going to need them if we don't get this early childhood right”. She has just slandered every parent who chooses to raise their kids at home, every parent that believes in choice. Of course this type of attack is nothing new to a Liberal Party that claimed parents would rather waste child care dollars on beer and popcorn.

Canadians told the Liberals that they wanted the Conservative choice in child care. It is time for the Liberals to end their arrogance and listen to Canadians.

[DNA Identification Act, May 3rd, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-249, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes).

Mr. Speaker, I am introducing this bill entitled an act to amend the DNA Identification Act concerning the establishment of indexes because I believe that our law enforcement agencies should be able to assess every tool necessary in order to help them do their jobs.

The enactment would amend the DNA Identification Act to provide for the establishment of a human remains index and a missing persons index to help law enforcement agencies search for and identify persons reported missing. I urge all members to support this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-248, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sex crimes and violent crimes).

Mr. Speaker, one of the key commitments of our government is to strengthen our criminal justice system. This bill, entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code (sex crimes and violent crimes), would do exactly that by amending the Criminal Code to preclude persons who commit sex offences and offences involving violence from receiving conditional sentences under that code.

It is imperative that this bill pass. I encourage all members of the House to support it.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Income Tax Act, May 3rd, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-247, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction for volunteer emergency service).

Mr. Speaker, I rise for first reading of my private member's bill, entitled an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction for volunteer emergency service). This enactment would amend the Income Tax Act to allow volunteer emergency workers to deduct $3,000 from their taxable income from any source. As we are all aware, volunteer firefighters and emergency workers provide over 75% of all emergency services in Canada.

As a country, we need to encourage people to enter volunteer emergency services. I encourage all members of the House to support this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Income Tax Act, May 3rd, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-246, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (vitamins).

Mr. Speaker, this bill, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (vitamins), is important to all Canadians who use vitamins and other supplements to maintain their health. The purpose of this enactment is to expand the list of allowable medical expense deductions in the Income Tax Act to include expenses incurred for vitamin supplements, mineral supplements, dietary vitamin supplements or dietary mineral supplements.

I urge all members to support this bill. We all know that Canadians need to stay healthy and this bill encourages that through a tax break.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I believe that in situations such as this one all of us feel very disheartened many times because we do not feel enough has been done. I think the common feeling is that we want things done a lot faster.

What I am heartened about this evening is that Canadian parliamentarians are standing together with one voice and saying that we need to address this immediate concern in Darfur. When the Minister of International Cooperation announced tonight an additional $10 million, that was concrete evidence. We know that the feeding of these people and the solutions we want to bring to help Darfur are very apparent.

With regard to the peacekeeping process going on right now, we are sitting in a very tentative situation, just hoping and praying that it comes to fruition because after that we have to go on further and give additional support.

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I must say that I am really heartened tonight by the fact that all members on all sides of the House in Parliament have shown a deep concern for a bad situation in Darfur at this point in time. In my riding of Kildonan—St. Paul there are different faith based groups that are working very hard and rallying to send aid to Darfur. They have met with challenges over there as well. I must commend Canadians as a whole for the heart they have right now.

We remember the terrible Holocaust, the loss of life, and the pointless genocide that occurred with the Jewish people. We remember Rwanda. Unfortunately, we have many examples throughout history.

Now, Canadians and parliamentarians, with one voice, are having a late debate tonight over our very deep concern about Darfur. We have heard about the work by many parliamentarians on all sides of the House in trying to come up with a solution. We know about the situation there and we want to do something about it.

Despite the presence of the African mission in Sudan, the security situation in Darfur continues to deteriorate. Furthermore, the tense security situation in Chad has the potential to further destabilize the already extremely fragile region. Right now, in Abuja, the peace process has recently gained momentum and we have a very few short hours left to find out whether this peace process will come to fruition.

Tonight, I was gratified to hear the Minister of International Cooperation in the House commit another $10 million in aid for Darfur. This is a significant commitment over and above all the concerns that are voiced about the killings, rapes and terrible circumstances in which these people are living right now. It has touched the hearts of our nation. The world's eyes are now on Darfur and they are also on us, as Canadians, because our hearts are being taken to a country far away. We are reaching out and it seems like it is just next door. It is because we are so aware of what has gone on there.

Traditionally, Canadians have always been the peacekeepers of the world. In May 2005 Canada launched a major initiative to support AU efforts to resolve the conflict in Darfur, making Canada one of the top international donors in the world to that cause. There was $170 million of logistical, financial and equipment support for the African mission in Sudan, including a provision for contracted helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. All these things were deployed to Darfur.

There was $28 million of humanitarian assistance and government support through CIDA and $20 million to support the Canadian diplomatic engagement and the support of the AU peace talks in Abuja. There were peacekeeping initiatives throughout Sudan, including $500,000 to support the International Criminal Court to address war crimes and crimes against humanity.

We now hear on a daily basis about those continued crimes against humanity. This is what has touched the hearts on Canadian soil. We believe that children have a right to go to bed at night without fearing what might happen to them. We believe that women and men ought to be safe and fed. I will say with a very sincere heart that Canadians need to stand at the forefront, and help solve this problem and its immediate need.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I congratulate you on your appointment.

Tonight we are having a very important debate. We want to show our support for our troops in Afghanistan, and tell them that we are with them. Their very important work is making a difference all across the Afghan nation. The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission has written quite clearly that there are many conditions within Afghanistan that need to be addressed. Our troops are over there fighting for a better life for the people of Afghanistan.

I would like to speak very briefly about the women and children. Trafficking and kidnapping of children in Afghanistan has become a major problem for families and the government. Sexual exploitation, forced labour and the removal of organs and limbs are issues that the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission is very concerned about as outlined in a document that the commission put out in 2005. Looking through the document, it is so compelling to see the importance of what our troops are doing over there in making sure that families and children have better lives. One child out of every five dies before the age of five. The life expectancy in Afghanistan is 44 years. Only 12% of the population has access to clean, drinkable water.

Our troops are working under very difficult conditions. These very valiant men are compelled not only to protect the people, but to build. Earlier tonight we heard on this side of the House a very compelling speech about the better lives that are built for women and children because of the input that our courageous Canadian troops have made in Afghanistan.

Can the members across the way give absolute 100% support to our very courageous troops abroad who are doing this compelling job to make lives better for the people of Afghanistan?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first occasion to be on my feet here in the House of Commons I would especially like to thank the people of Kildonan--St. Paul for re-electing me and the faith they have shown in the job I have been doing in the House and in Kildonan--St. Paul.

I listened with great interest to the member's speech. As I listened to all the speeches I heard sort of the same themes: a renewed interest in very key issues like day care, aboriginal issues and Lake Winnipeg.

My daughter lives and owns property on the waters of Lake Winnipeg. The lake has had a lot of problems over the past 10 years. Everything was silent until very recently this year when there was a renewed interest in Lake Winnipeg.

The member opposite talked about day care. There is a very strong interest in a national day care program. What we have chosen to do is give parents choice. Parents will receive $1,200 a year for every child under the age of six and we will also create 125,000 new spaces, which is a lot of spaces.

As a new government we have addressed certain things.

On the aboriginal issues, my daughter-in-law is aboriginal. She is an Ojibway girl. She was so dismayed at what the Liberal government had presented for the aboriginal people. Our new minister for aboriginal affairs has done an absolutely astounding job, immediately before the House was even called back, to address the water problems.

The Canadian people have spoken and, with all due respect, they have said that they want a new leaf turned over and that they want a new government.

Does the member not believe that parents should have choice? Does she not believe that 125,000 new day care spaces is something to rejoice in and to support the government? Does she not believe that the water situation on the reserves is something that is of paramount importance? Can she not understand that these kinds of things need to be supported by all sides of the House so we can work together, instead of doing the partisan toe to toe thing day after day?