Nicole Demers

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pretty certain that, if a pandemic were to break out in Ottawa, no one would want to save us; it would be an easy way to get rid of us.

All joking aside, I am glad that I was able to raise this question again in my speech on nitric oxide. At least we heard the beginnings of an answer. It seems very interesting.

I am also pleased that the hon. member mentioned the fact that the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP all agree on the need for a national vision. I have nothing against that idea. It is Canada's prerogative to want to have a national vision, which is legitimate.

We want to cooperate and coordinate our efforts in Quebec so that this may run smoothly. However, we want no part of this national vision. Even Premier Charest has said so. This could not be more clear. When a die-hard federalist states that he does not want this national vision, it must be because there is a problem with it.

I would also point out that one of the reasons why this does not work is perhaps because of the funding set aside when developing strategies. The hon. member mentioned the money being invested for aboriginal peoples. As I said earlier, whether another $200 million, $600 million or $30 million is invested in another program, we cannot forget that $2 billion was taken away this year. That is a lot of money.

Even if money is invested, it is not enough to adequately meet all needs. There are entire generations of people who are dying. We cannot allow this.

No matter where one lives in Canada or Quebec, everyone has the right to healthy living conditions and to have a roof over their head.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak about Bill C-5.

The first time we heard about this was under the previous government, when we were talking about another bill, on December 12, 2003. The Liberal government announced then that it would soon be creating the Public Health Agency of Canada, which would report to the Department of Health. There has been a great deal of debate since that time. Was the creation of a public health agency a logical step?

In the wake of the SARS episode in Toronto, the public was gripped by a number of fears and needed reassurance. The government decided that it was time to think about setting up a public health agency.

However, the Public Health Agency of Canada is mandated to step up its efforts to prevent injuries and chronic diseases such as cancer and heart disease and to act in public health emergencies and infectious disease outbreaks. The Public Health Agency of Canada will also work closely with the provinces and territories to help Canadians live healthy lives, with the goal of reducing the pressures on our health care system. That is the mandate of the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the government wants to justify and confirm the agency and make sure it works well here in Canada.

Yet as recently as this afternoon, we again had proof that Health Canada does not work, and the government wants to create another agency, duplicate mandates and put money into more structures.

As recently as yesterday, we learned that a drug had been developed with public funds. It was necessary, even essential, to the survival of babies born prematurely. It is a nitric oxide inhalation treatment, a drug that obtained a single patent. In fact, an American company took out a single patent. As a result, the price of this drug has quadrupled in the space of a year.

This is incredible. Hospitals that previously paid $30 a day to treat children are now paying $2,500 a day for the same treatment, the same drug, and an American company is reaping the profits.

The Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario was asked to demand an inquiry by Patented Medicine Prices Review Board Canada. But the Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario told us that it was not within his jurisdiction, as this was an independent quasi-judiciary body. However, section 90 of the Canada Health Act clearly states that the minister has the right and the duty to demand an inquiry when things are not going right in his or her department

We have also seen that, in various other areas of the health department like in the House of Commons, employees are not even covered under the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité au travail, or CSST. Yet, they want to establish a public health agency. They are not able to look after their own people, to look after the people working on Parliament Hill, but they want to create more duplication in terms of the mandates of the various departments.

Aboriginal people received no new assistance in the last budget to deal with the tuberculosis and HIV-AIDS epidemics. This prompted the auditor general, in 2004 and again in her latest report, to criticize the lack of follow up of the medication taken by Aboriginal people since 1999. She even strongly suggested that Health Canada implement enabling legislation to enable it to follow up, and ensure that the use of non-insured prescription drugs is rigorously controlled and that people are administered the appropriate drugs.

The annual increase of the budget for the federal health system for the first nations capped at 3%. We are talking about a budget of approximately $600 million for the Public Health Agency. That is a lot of money, which will be used to duplicate what the provinces are already doing. That is very unfortunate.

Cuts were made in health travel, access to medication and diabetes prevention. In addition, we learn from the May 10 report of the Canadian Institute for Health Information that, with respect to drug expenditures in Canada, the first nations represent the segment of population with the lowest percentage of funding per capita.

We also learn that, for Canadians in general, per capita expenditures total $750, as compared to $419 for first nations.

There have been incidences of tuberculosis in Garden Hill. Only 4% of houses have running water, and overcrowding in housing is three times higher there than elsewhere. Places like Kashechewan still do not have drinking water. There are places where there is no affordable housing. There is no adequate housing. Resources are lacking to help them.

We have been talking about a number of national strategies, yet we cannot even take care of our own responsibilities. It is very disheartening to see that the government wants to establish a public health agency—which would merely duplicate what Quebec already has—yet it will not even take care of children, adults and the elderly.

Thousands of people in first nation communities are denied access to basic health services that are taken for granted by others. They have no official recourse.

Our soldiers return from dangerous missions raw, traumatized and suffering from post-traumatic stress, only to be denied the services they have every right to expect.

The poor and the very vulnerable can do very little to improve their situations because we do not have the resources we need to help them do so.

Some military women in vulnerable situations start drinking more, thus endangering the health of their current and future children. They are also endangering their own health.

There are even people from Health Canada who are rather zealous, although not at the right time. A veterinarian was punished by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for doing his job. When he found hogs unfit for human consumption in line for slaughter, he took them off the line. Instead of someone punishing the company that produced those hogs, the veterinarian who was preventing people from eating tainted meat was punished. This is outrageous.

Yet, in a speech given on April 20, 2006 in Montreal, Prime Minister Harper touted his open federalism:

Open federalism means respecting areas of provincial jurisdiction. Open federalism means limiting the use of the federal spending power—

In the same vein, the health minister declared, in reference to guaranteed wait times:

We have to respect the jurisdictions of the provinces, even if it means taking a little longer to act.

This proves, once again, that their actions do not match their words.

Quebec has had its own public health agency since 1998. This agency takes care of everything under its jurisdiction. The Institut national de santé publique du Québec already has plans that are working well and that are shared with the public on a regular basis, for example, plans for SARS, mad cow disease, the West Nile virus, infectious diseases, nosocomial diseases such as C. difficile infections, the Quebec plan for an influenza pandemic, a blood surveillance and immunization plan and, recently, a plan to fight avian influenza.

All of this was done on our own, with the little money we have received from the federal government since 1994. In fact, health care budgets have been reduced by several million dollars, if not billions. The federal government added a little bit last year, but it still has not returned to the sums being invested in health care in 1994.

My colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and myself feel that, since it is the Government of Quebec that has the expertise and can intervene with all the establishments in the Quebec health network, it is the Government of Quebec that should set the priorities, develop the action plans for its territory and integrate them with the international objectives developed by organizations such as the WHO.

The Conservative Party said that it would respect the jurisdictions of the provinces. It repeated this during its campaign, in its electoral platform and in the throne speech. However, establishing this sort of agency is not going to make people really believe that this government wants to respect the jurisdictions of the provinces. This is just duplication and some very cumbersome new structures.

In a television interview a few weeks ago, an Indian grand chief was saying that of every five dollars invested in the first nations, only one dollar actually reached them. The other four were absorbed by structures.

Do we really need this? We need money in the health field. People are asking for care every day. Some are on waiting lists. People need surgery and treatment. We do not need a public health agency; we need a health department that functions appropriately and efficiently. For that we do not need more structures; we need to make the existing structures more efficient. That is the problem.

This has nothing to do with whether one thinks there are too many public servants or not enough. I will not get into that debate. However, as long as we are unable to adequately improve the efficiency of our structures, as long as we do not recognize the provinces’ jurisdiction in the fields of concern to them, as long as we do not return the money to those provinces so that they can meet the needs of their clientele and their population, as long as we take no action, we are on the wrong track. Indeed, it is not an agency that we need. Of course there are certain needs. But what we need is money so that services can finally be provided to our fellow citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I assume that I do not have much time left, as I see that you are rising. But as you are indicating that I still have five minutes, I am pleased that I have some time to tell you more about this.

You are a young family man, Mr. Speaker. I perhaps should not say that. I do not know if I have the right to say it. I know I do not have the right to talk about others, but I may perhaps tell the Speaker that he is a young family man.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the health of your family is dear to you. I am sure that it is very important to you that the medication, treatment and care that your family may need be available in a timely manner. That can only be possible if we agree to increase health transfers, if we agree to respect provincial jurisdictions. I would go so far as to say the following. Mr. Charest, the current premier of Quebec, who is not known as a separatist, said not so long ago:

The premiers dealt with other matters, such as the establishment of a public health agency capable of coordinating a national response to a crisis caused by an infectious disease such as SARS. The two levels of government will also examine the means of coordinating their efforts in the event of a natural catastrophe. Quebec, has created its own structures in these two areas, and they are working. They will collaborate with those to be put in place; however the issue of duplication—

Therein lies the problem. We will again lose money because of this duplication.

I do not know whether this is true in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, but in Quebec we are having a hard time making ends meet with our health budgets because we do not get the necessary funding. The population is aging everywhere and is having problems everywhere. However, particularly in places where we want people to be healthy, governments need to be given the means to do so, the means to take their responsibilities.

I will close by saying that Health Canada's responsibilities are to take care of soldiers, veterans, the first nations, the Inuit, to take care of their own matters and give money to the provinces to ensure that they in turn can take care of their own affairs. It is not Health Canada's responsibility to implement national strategies on cancer, Alzheimer's disease or diabetes. Health Canada has to help the provinces set up their own strategies because every situation is different.

I hope my colleagues will take what I have said to heart and vote against Bill C-5. I am not against health, but I am against outright waste.

[Health, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question to the minister as I believe he did not understand it.

The Minister of Health is authorized to refer matters to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board for inquiry and to establish the time limits and terms of reference pursuant to section 90 of the Patent Act. What is he waiting for to take action?

[Health, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question yesterday about the increase in the price of nitric oxide, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health maintained that he could not take action because the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board is an independent quasi-judicial body.

I would like to point out to the Minister of Health that section 90 of the Patent Act authorizes him to refer matters to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board for inquiry and to establish the time limits and terms of reference. What is the minister waiting for to take action?

[Health, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let him explain that to the families of those who have died waiting for answers about their drugs.

Are we to understand that through its lack of control over the distribution of breast implants, Health Canada is much more interested in protecting the industry than in protecting women's health?

[Health, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, people infected with HIV-AIDS are fighting all the way to the Court of Appeal. Some are dying as a result of not getting drugs that are essential to their survival. In the meantime, surgeons, through the special access program, have no problem getting silicone implants to perform breast enhancement procedures.

How can the Minister of Health explain denied access to drugs that could save lives while there are no limitations on implants that could make thousands of women sick?

[Martine Talbot, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the day after Quebec's 10th annual Week of the Disabled, I would like to pay tribute to Martine Talbot.

She was born in Chicoutimi on February 15, 1952. At the age of 22, she became a paraplegic as a result of an automobile accident. Nevertheless, she decided to visit the west coast, from British Columbia to California, and then travelled to Mexico and Central America.

She has been involved in several wheelchair sports as both an athlete and coach. In 1978, she won two silver medals in swimming at the Pan American Wheelchair Games. That same year, at the Canada Games, she won four gold medals and beat two Canadian records in track and field and in swimming.

Today she works for the Regroupement des organismes de promotion de personnes handicapées de Laval. She is an accomplished woman, a mother and grandmother, doing exceptional work, and is considered a real Renaissance woman who has broken down many barriers.

The Bloc Québécois congratulates Martine.

[Criminal Code, June 2nd, 2006]

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

Indeed what we have seen in Quebec is a success story thanks to the various reintegration and rehabilitation programs that have been put in place for young people. In fact, we believe that when young people get in trouble with the law, it is often because they come from a very difficult background created by poverty.

Therefore, if there is one problem that should be dealt with here, it is poverty. It is the cause of most crimes committed by young people as well as by adults. If people had enough money for food and housing, if they had access to adequate housing, they would be a lot prouder and would not be so much inclined to commit various types of crimes.

In Quebec, we made a point of putting in place adequate programs to help young people who have taken a wrong turn to get back on the right track, so to speak. I do believe that government funds would be put to a much better use if they were used to fund similar programs in the other provinces.

[Criminal Code, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's concerns. I also understand the helplessness one can feel when dealing with such situations. However, judges have always shown their competence in sentencing.

We must also recognize that some accidents happen without alcohol being involved; they are caused by speeding and other factors. Over the last few years, contrary to what my colleague is claiming, there has been a significant decline in the number of accidents caused by excessive drinking, thanks to the great wisdom shown by the Government of Quebec and to Éduc'alcool, that put in place very interesting programs to educate young people about the problems related to excessive drinking.

[Criminal Code, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some degree of concern that I rise in this House today to speak on Bill C-9. I am concerned because the government's recent policy statements are aligning us increasingly on American policies and because prisons, which account for 25% of Quebec's spending on policing and criminal justice, do little to reduce crime overall.

According to a study by Pierre Lalande entitled “Punir ou réhabiliter les contrevenants?”, which discusses the merits of punishing versus rehabilitating offenders, mass incarceration does take a toll on the lives of those who are imprisoned and those around them. Some authors suggest that there are very well-documented categories of collateral effects of imprisonment.

First, there are various effects on the future lives of individuals who are incarcerated, in the sense that they will have a harder time finding work when they are released.

Then, there are effects on their physical and mental health, including psychological problems inherent in spending time inside, and risks associated with the numerous communicable diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis, encountered in penal institutions.

With respect to family life, there are consequences on the relationship between spouses and consequences on the children.

The consequences on family, employment and income make the risk of reoffending high.

Finally, the community at large is made to suffer because of mass incarceration. Money is spent on that at the expense of higher education and other public programs and services, which could otherwise be much more extensive, thus countering poverty and giving people less of a reason to resort to petty theft to feed themselves and their children and put a roof over their heads. Add to that the problems experienced by prison staff.

In addition, there is a lot of research on the effectiveness of imprisonment to suggest that, upon release, offenders are just as likely to reoffend as they were when they arrived.

The conclusion is obvious: prisons do not ensure the rehabilitation of offenders. Some limited experiments have shown that carefully planned programs might reduce recidivism, provided that they address the situations and attitudes that have landed offenders in jail or prison in the first place.

In 2002-03, the average annual cost of detaining an individual in a provincial or territorial institution was $51,454, as compared to a mere $1,792 to monitor an offender within the community.

Conditional sentencing has a significant effect on the rate of fresh detentions, which have decreased by 13% since conditional sentencing came into effect. Thanks to this measure, some 55,000 fewer offenders were in custody. They were able to take part in rehabilitation programs.

According to a study on victims of crime and their attitude toward conditional sentencing this type of sentence had several advantages. Among other things, most rehabilitation programs can be more effectively implemented when the offender is in the community rather than in custody.

In my previous work, before I was a member of Parliament, I often dealt with people conditionally sentenced to do community work. This was always a success. Furthermore, most of these people did not go back to prison later.

Prison is no more effective a deterrent than more severe intermediate punishments, such as enhanced probation or home confinement. Keeping offenders in custody is significantly more expensive than supervising them in the community.

The public has become more supportive of community-based sentencing, except for serious crimes of violence. I can understand why. The Bloc Québécois has always been an advocate for victims of serious crimes of violence.

Widespread interest in restorative justice has sparked interest in community-based sanctions. Restorative justice initiatives seek to promote the interests of the victim at all stages of the criminal justice process, but particularly at the sentencing stage.

The virtues of community-based sanctions include the saving of valuable correctional resources and the ability of the offender to continue or seek employment and maintain ties with his or her family. After having been incarcerated in their youth and receiving a prison sentence, it is very difficult for persons to find work when they leave prison when they have no work experience and have problems as a result of a troubled childhood. If, however, they have had access to rehabilitation programs, it is much easier because they have already gained some work experience in the community.

David Paciocco, who is a criminal law professor at the University of Ottawa, said:

It is inconceivable to think that all the offences that lead to a 10-year sentence or more are invariably serious offences in every concrete case.

He added that preventing the use of conditional sentences for all such offences would not only send many people to prison who do not belong there, but it would also likely lead judges and lawyers to find ways to get around the restriction. Judges could increase the requirements in terms of evidence of guilt, while prosecutors could lay less serious charges in order to leave the option of a conditional sentence.

Furthermore, the executive director of the John Howard Society of Saskatchewan, Mike Dunphy, said that 33% of the criminals sentenced to house arrest in 2005 would have ended up in prison under the provisions of Bill C-9. Thus, prisons would need 33% more beds, employees and programs to serve the inmates.

At this time, conditional sentences are often longer than prison sentences. When prisoners are released early on parole, they move freely in the community under conditions that are less rigorous than if they were under house arrest.

Offenders also have a better chance if they are reintegrated into the community by living at home under strict conditions rather than languishing in prisons, exposed to the influence of other criminals. Long periods in prison without other rehabilitation programs tend to increase the risk of recidivism after release.

Moreover, the cost of prolonged incarceration would invariably lead to cuts in social services, educational services and employment opportunities.

The United States punishes its criminals more severely than Canada, yet its crime rate is five times higher than here.

Since the victims of violence are always at the core of our concerns and given that the Bloc Québécois has always defended the importance of taking them into consideration, especially when it comes to setting parole conditions, if Bill C-9 had been reasonable and had limited its effect to excluding the more violent crimes that are not already excluded, such as kidnapping a person under age 14, sexual assault with a weapon or aggravated sexual assault, rather than drawing up an arbitrary, endless list of offences, the Bloc Québécois would have undoubtedly supported such a bill. However, in its current form, we will vote against this bill.