Rodger Cuzner

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

Mr. Speaker, the evidence is overwhelming. We want to ensure these agencies and federal departments can deliver services more efficiently. We must also look at the cost of renting office space and having a well-trained, highly motivated workforce. I know great work is being done in Citizenship and Immigration by committed employees in Sydney and Cape Breton. I agree wholeheartedly that the regions make a great contribution to the country and this is one way that we can.

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

First, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I see the merit in the member's point and I certainly agree with him. I think that as a society we have come a certain distance with regard to pollutants or carcinogens. I think we have become much more aware of their impact. Most provinces now hold portfolios for ministerial positions for health promotion. I also think there are steps toward addressing obesity.

That is what this agency is all about. With the establishment of this agency, we have a number of different opportunities. There is an opportunity that will focus on public education. There will be science based evidence that will support public education programs. The agency will look at legislative initiatives that will allow this country to go forward and make wise investments to secure the future health of our citizens.

I am not in disagreement with the comments that my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has expressed to the House today.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join today's debate on Bill C-5.

Enhancing the public health care infrastructure is the key in combating disease and possible pandemics that may threaten our societies and our nation at large. The lessons we have learned from SARS serve as imperative in restructuring and enhancing our public health care system.

Bill C-75, introduced by the Liberals in the last parliamentary session, was an initial step toward strengthening the ability to protect the health and well-being of our citizens. It is important to keep our public health system and the health of our population a priority at all times, not only in times of unpredictable disease. A key element in enhancing our capacity for disease prevention as well as emergency response lies within the intergovernmental infrastructure of public health.

A sustainable public health system encompasses a comprehensive and cohesive measure of cooperation, not only across governments but within governments as well, in addition to non-governmental organizations, the private sector and of course the public at large.

In general, every level of government, from local to federal, must collaborate and assume their roles and responsibilities in order to achieve a functional, integrated public health care system and an effective emergency response capacity. The SARS outbreak managed to articulate and highlight the weaknesses of our public health care system and the defects of managing health crises.

Toronto followed China and Hong Kong as another region hardest hit by SARS. As of August 12, 2003, there had been approximately 44 deaths and 438 suspected cases of SARS in the Toronto area. These figures, along with the panic that occurred because of SARS, put great pressure and stress on the health care system and inevitably on society at large. There were high numbers of patients in need of intensive care. Hospitals had to be shut down. Elective procedures were cancelled. Most important, appropriate and adequate supplies necessary to combat the disease were woefully lacking.

Luckily, the public health care workers were able to contain SARS and prevent it from spreading to the larger community. Nonetheless, such health crises should not be subject to and depend on luck or a committed staff. Rather, they should be tackled by a cohesive public health care system with the regional capacity for outbreak containment, information management, surveillance and infection control.

Overall, the SARS outbreak illustrated that Canada was not ready to deal adequately with a pandemic. The Government of Ontario was certainly at no capacity to withstand simultaneous SARS attacks, and the rest of the provinces did not represent a better stance either.

Learning from these lessons, the former government's initiative in introducing Bill C-75 was aimed at creating an agency with the ability to protect the health and safety of all Canadians. Such an agency was meant to create the leading role in federal collaboration with the provinces and territories in order to achieve a sustainable public health care system through the renewing of the system as a whole.

The Public Health Agency of Canada assumes the role of working closely with provinces and territories by being part of the public service and working to combat and prevent chronic diseases, such as heart disease and cancer, in addition to injury prevention, public health emergencies and, notably, infectious disease outbreaks.

The distinction of the agency is in its functional structure and interconnectedness. It liaises as follows. The agency is to be headed by the Chief Public Health Officer and includes two direct reporting bodies: first, the agency's corporate secretariat, which houses the executive and ministerial services, and second, the agency's scientific director general, who is responsible for the agency-wide mandate of science and coordination.

The agency has a number of branches. I will do a brief run-through of them. Of course, as with any good federal government agency, there will be a number of acronyms.

There is the infectious diseases and emergency preparedness branch, IDEP. Within this branch, there are number of different responsibilities. The centre for infectious disease prevention and control, CIDPC, is within this branch, as are the centre for emergency preparedness and response, CEPR, the national microbiology laboratory, NML, and the pandemic preparedness secretariat, PPS. They all fall within IDEP's responsibility.

Other branches are the health promotion and chronic disease prevention branch, HPCDP, as well as the public health practice and regional operations branch, PHPRO, which encompasses public health practice in all regions throughout the country.

Finally, there is the strategic policy, communications and corporate services branch, which encompasses the strategic policy directorate, the communications directorate, the finance and administration directorate, and the human resources directorate. Really, they are the logistical support behind the branch.

The new structure's functionality and collaboration and the division specialties created by this agency are essential for the renewal of our public health care system. With specific specialized fields and care divisions, each health oriented topic will be dealt with effectively, efficiently and rapidly.

For example, let us take into consideration the centre for emergency preparedness and response. This unit, under the infectious diseases and emergency preparedness branch, was created in March 2006 for the specific purpose of coordinating and facilitating pandemic preparedness and emergency response activities in a cross-governmental and nationwide format. This is an advanced unit that has brought together the lessons learned from SARS and was able to put them into use when dealing with the possible outbreak of avian flu.

By providing leadership within the Public Health Agency of Canada, next to working with key partners and stakeholders, the secretariat served as the focal unit of emergency preparedness. It provided internal and international capacity of outbreak containment, information management, surveillance and infection control. It also achieved clarity in defining the roles and responsibilities within the decision making process, enabling effective, efficient and integrated federal and national health pandemic preparedness.

The success in controlling and disqualifying the breakout of avian flu in Canada serves as an indicator that this agency and its particular branches serve as assets to the betterment of the health care system here in Canada.

Canadians want to live in a safe and healthy environment, with a reduced risk of disease. Certainly these branches and the work undertaken by these branches will go a long way in doing that. That is why I believe Bill C-5 should be supported.

[Fisheries, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in recent months, a number of factors, including a strong Canadian dollar, influence from offshore processors and a reduction in some quotas have placed significant pressures on the fish processing industry in Atlantic Canada.

When the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was on this side of the House, he pushed the government to introduce a retirement plan for older fish plant workers. Now that the minister holds the power, when will he introduce the retirement program, and not retraining program, he demanded while he was in opposition?

[Veterans Affairs, June 9th, 2006]

I will, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of Joyce Carter and the widows, why were those promises broken? Why did the Prime Minister break those promises?

[Veterans Affairs, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows, everyone in this House knows and anyone who has done any work on Veterans Affairs knows the name of Joyce Carter. She is a constituent of mine who is a strong advocate for veterans' issues. She has a signed copy of a promise from the leader of that party to immediately institute the broad based VIP.

When I sat in her kitchen last week she had one question. She asked, “Rodger, why did the Prime Minister lie to the widows? Why did he break his promise to the widows?” My question, on behalf of Joyce Carter and the widows--

[Veterans Affairs, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last fall, during a rush of promises to garner votes for an impending election, the Prime Minister unequivocally promised to:

...immediately extend Veterans Independence Program services to the widows of all Second World War and Korean War veterans regardless of when the Veteran died or how long they had been receiving the benefit before they passed away.

So far the promises are nowhere to be found and in fact were not even mentioned in the budget. Has the Prime Minister changed his mind or by “immediately” does he mean when he gets around to it?

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that was a tremendous intervention by my colleague.

When we think back several years ago, I know the major concern that was shared across this country with regard to education, really lending itself to productivity, was the fact that there was an ongoing brain drain, and some of our best and brightest were going out of our country to seek research opportunities in the United States.

I know that the previous government had invested considerably in trying to maintain the best and the brightest here in Canada, and give them opportunities. For the most part there was significant progress made on that piece.

Does the hon. member see the folly in the government's action or inaction in this past budget, where it is not getting out ahead of the trend, ahead of the curve, in preparing the country and preparing Canadians for what is further down the road?

[Petitions, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I present on behalf of the people of Cape Breton—Canso a petition that has been echoed in this chamber, evidenced by a number of similar petitions that have been presented. It is with respect to the cancellation of the agreements struck across the country for the benefit of young families in early education and child care.

The petitioners call upon the government to honour the agreement that was struck between the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia on early learning and child care.

The petition is signed by a great number of residents from Cape Breton—Canso who are very concerned about the cancellation of that agreement.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we hold in high regard our performers. The performers in the Cape Breton—Canso area have made a significant contribution to the whole mosaic of Canadian culture, certainly the Celtic culture all the way down to the town of Canso, where again this year it will celebrate the Stan Rogers folk festival. I know people from across the country and beyond look forward each year to celebrating the life of one of our great Canadian artists.

What troubles me is if we are not committed to allowing these entertainers to perform for a broader audience. John Allan Cameron was a great ambassador for Celtic music. There was a great fear that this music would not be passed on and not make a resurgence. We have had the Rankin Family, Natalie MacMaster and some of the great new Celtic performers. I am very concerned that those performers will not be given the opportunity to show their skills on the broader national scale through support of the public broadcaster.