Gordon Earle

[National Defence, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general said projected savings from alternative service delivery may have been overstated.

The first supply chain business case projected a 15% to 30% saving, but the second revised case projected only 4% to 14% savings, and even that would not start to accrue for seven years, a lifetime in business terms.

Will the minister tell the House exactly what the expected savings will be?

[National Defence, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, regarding alternative service delivery the auditor general said that the Department of National Defence had real problems identifying baseline costs for projects, CFB Halifax being a case in point.

The report also clearly showed that in-house bids met all the criteria of the good business case while outside industry bids fell short of the requirements.

Would the minister ensure that an in-house bid would be welcomed and considered for supply chain projects?

[Racism, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, racism is an odious and infectious disease which continues to thrive in our world. Unfortunately, we see racism here in Canada, even in places where we would least expect it.

The United Nations has recognized the urgency of eliminating racial discrimination with its convention for the elimination of racial discrimination. This convention has received the support of many countries, including Canada. However, while other countries supply annual reports providing information on actions taken against racism, the Government of Canada has failed to make submissions to the United Nations for the past two years. Just what is this government hiding?

I call on the Liberal government to file a report for Canada before the end of 1999 outlining initiatives to combat racism, but more than that, to go beyond filing a report and take real action to fight racism in our communities. Let us enter the new millennium with something to show on fighting racism in Canada.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, indeed I will comment on that particular section. I think the hon. member has drawn out a very valid point about which we ourselves have concern.

As he mentioned, there is a governing council, and if we look at clause 7 of the bill, the governing council shall consist of not more than 20 members, one of whom shall be the president. When we go to the next subsection we see that each of those members will be appointed by the governor in council, which means cabinet, which means the Prime Minister, and that is where the concern comes in.

When we look at clause 17, which the hon. member cited, it does not really matter what powers that governing council has if it is not independent from those who appointed it. That is the point. There has to be a clear method of appointment which allows for independence. That is why I mentioned earlier in my speech that we recommend that the appointment criteria be specifically defined and that a public voice be dominant.

We feel it is very important, and I am sure the hon. member who asked the question will agree that the public should have a say in how these things function. Therefore, I am hopeful that we can change the appointment aspect at committee stage so that we will have a proper method of appointment which will enable a true public voice to have a say over these councils.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to comment upon the issue of fairness when it comes to appointments and the issue of ethics. As members may know, I introduced in the House a private member's bill on a code of ethics for parliamentarians. A key part of that bill involved the whole concept of an ethics counsellor who would be independent and who would be accountable to parliament, not to the Prime Minister or to any minister of the House.

That to me is an essential part of the democratic system, that we have accountability, as well as openness, transparency and fairness. That is something which has to be built into this legislation as well.

The hon. member was quite right in pointing out a concern about how the appointments will be made. I would certainly support the idea that these appointments should be made in a manner that will be fair, open and transparent and will be accountable to the people who will be the end users of this new service.

I commend the hon. member for making that point. In my remarks I mentioned some of the groups that had written to me expressing their wish to be involved in the governing council. I mentioned the palliative care community wanting to have representation on the governing council. There are many other groups which are concerned about this as well.

These are the details we will be bringing forward at committee stage to try to bring forward amendments to ensure that kind of fairness.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier in my speech, I am very pleased to touch upon the topic of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. I was about to give a bit of background with respect to the bill.

The objective of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research bill is to establish institutes to excel according to internationally accepted standards of scientific excellence in the creation of new knowledge and its translation into improved health for Canadians, more effective health services and products, and a strengthened Canadian health care system.

We know that health care and health research go hand in hand. Without proper health research it is very difficult to have good health care. The health care that one receives has to be related to research and properly applied.

As was indicated earlier by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, we support the bill up to committee stage, at which time we will probably make some suggestions aimed at improving it. We will try to improve it with the best interest of Canadian citizens in mind.

I want to add my voice to the record in giving thanks to Dr. Henry Friesen and many others who contributed to bringing the bill forward.

Let us look at what happened between 1994 and 1997. We know that the government continuously cut its investments in health research. Between those years the per capita funding of health research fell from $9.14 to $7.92. Canada became less competitive in its funding levels compared to other industrialized countries including the U.S., the U.K. and France.

These cuts had several effects. They drove researchers, including established professors, recent graduates and post-graduate students, across the border in search of sustainable funding. We have heard much about the brain drain, and this is an area in which many of our skilled and talented people have moved from Canada because of the cuts that were made in research.

Coupled with the large scale withdrawal of federal funding and poor social programs, cuts in health research diminished the capacity of our health care system to care for patients and stifled the application of new research findings.

Coupled with the withdrawal of federal funding in post-secondary education, cuts in health research drove university administrations to foster commercial research partnerships with industry. These partnerships in many cases decreased academic freedom due to an emphasis on applied research, a trend on self-censorship among university researchers and a privatization of research findings for the purpose of profit.

We know the difficulties that research can get into if it is so closely tied in with corporate and commercial sponsorship that it loses its academic freedom and independence to come forth with accurate findings.

The bill is being brought forward to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. This has been done in an attempt to correct some of the past mistakes. The government has now endorsed a new model of health research funding, the CIHR. By and large, as I said, we welcome it as a replacement for the Medical Research Council.

We understand there will be new money and we support those efforts. By doubling the 1997-98 levels of research funding to $500 million in the year 2001-02 Canada will regain some ground it lost to the cuts over the past six years.

We think the legislation in its support for researchers and academic programs will help alleviate the problem of a brain drain in Canada, but the legislation needs to go further. Our reservation is that the funding levels under the CIHR will still remain disproportionate to the funding in the United States and other industrialized countries. We would recommend increased spending of $750 million annually, or 1% of the total annual health care expenditure.

Research in a social context is another very important area. The multidisciplinary, multisectoral and cross-regional approach of Bill C-13 will ideally contextualize hard research, acknowledging the social, cultural and environmental influences on health. Our reservation is that this emphasis needs strengthening so that there is a central focus on the causation and prevention of ill health, in particular on social and environmental determinants.

We know there are many problems in society that have to be addressed. I think, for example, of the high incidence of teen suicide. I would mention that in my riding of Halifax West and in the province of Nova Scotia a very strong effort is taking place right now to create a chair on mental health for adolescents. This is an area that is very important because we know that if young people who are suffering from problems do not get help then things just go downhill from there. We know the kind of research that has been set up has to support those efforts and move forward in a way that will help our young people.

The goal of the legislation to apply research and to connect health researchers to health providers is a significant development. Again we have a bit of a reservation because we know that to make this initiative more than an empty gesture on the part of the government the social transfers to the provinces need to be restored. How will new research results be applied without adequate health care funding, equipment and the staff to do so?

I mentioned earlier in my remarks at the end the unfortunate circumstance that my mother-in-law met and the kind of service she received when she was admitted to hospital. This was because of the cuts in health care funding where there is inadequate staff and inadequate facilities to accommodate the kinds of situations we see today.

My hon. colleague spoke earlier about commercialization. I will not repeat the remarks she made in that regard, but she also talked about the governing council that will be set up under the legislation. A governing council will be appointed to set the priorities and the goals of Canadian health research in all institutes. Each institute will have an appointed institute advisory board to set institute specific goals. The appointment criteria of these boards, however, are not specific and are insufficient.

Appointees, I might note, at the discretion of the Prime Minister need only reflect scientific excellence and relevant background. What guarantees do Canadians have that industry or pharmaceutical interests will not override the public interest? We recommend that the appointment criteria be specifically defined and that a public voice be dominant. This is very important.

In this regard I received a letter in June of this year from Dr. Stan Kutcher who is with the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada. He pointed out with respect to these health institutes that they would like to see an institute of mental health and mental illness established as well. There is another whole area that has to be considered with respect to these institutes.

As well, with respect in particular to the governing council, I received a letter from the Palliative Care Association of Nova Scotia in which it indicated that it would like to have someone on the board of that governing council. Again, there is a lot of interest in this particular concept and a lot of support from the various associations and the various communities. They want to have a say in how these institutes will work so that their concerns will not be overlooked.

We talked about ethics a bit earlier and the importance of ethics in this whole concept. To us and many in the bioethical community, including the National Council on Bioethics in Human Research, the consideration of ethics is inadequate. It has to be a dominant part of this legislation. Ethics, particularly in dealing with human research subjects, should override all research projects. We think this is a very important point that has to be taken into consideration. This protection should be entrusted to an independent, arm's length body which will be directly accountable to government.

As we look at this whole issue of health research institutes, we realize that health care is not something that is looked at in a vacuum. There are many things that tie into proper health care. It brings to mind many other concerns in our society that we must deal with in a meaningful way if the creation of these health institutes is to be meaningful.

For example, something we have heard a lot about recently is child poverty. We know that tomorrow we will celebrate the 10th anniversary of the all-party motion passed in 1989 to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000. We know that poor children have health problems. Again, there is a tie-in. If children are living in poverty, they are due to have health problems. When we think about the creation of the health institutes we have to take into consideration child poverty.

Homelessness is another very serious issue that is confronting our society. Many of the people who are experiencing homelessness are people who were institutionalized. They were released from institutions without the proper supports being in place. The cuts that have taken place do not allow the proper follow-up facilities for a lot of these people and they end up on the street. This is another area that ties in very closely with the whole concept of health care and research.

If we look at the problems of health in our aboriginal communities we see high incidents of diabetes and various other diseases. We see a shorter life expectancy among our aboriginal people. All of these issues are very serious health concerns.

There is the high incidence of teen suicide in aboriginal communities and a lot of other communities throughout the nation. These are all things that have to be looked at very closely if we are to make a very meaningful inroad with respect to health care.

Then we have the environmental issues. We see spraying taking place. People who are sensitive to chemicals are quite often prisoners in their own homes. There is one lady in my riding who is not able to go out during certain times of the year because the people next door spray their lawn with pesticides and chemicals to which she is very susceptible. It is almost life threatening for her and for many others.

These are very important issues, all of which can be dealt with through proper scientific research and proper health research. That is why these institutes are very important, but we must see the connections and we must be able to bring the whole thing together in a meaningful way.

I also think of the example of gulf war syndrome. We hear about a lot of soldiers coming back from tours overseas and the sicknesses they are experiencing because of exposure to various toxins and substances. In many cases they are trying to get help, but they are not able to get the kind of help they need. These are very serious health concerns which come to mind as we discuss this issue.

I also think about the anthrax vaccinations. We are putting substances into the bodies of our soldiers who go overseas. They do not have the right to say no, they do not want to be vaccinated, because they will be court martialled for disobeying an order.

These are all issues that tie in very closely with the whole concept of health and these are all things which we have to give very serious consideration.

I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to this bill. As I indicated earlier, having followed it from its inception, I see it as a very important tool to enable our society to move forward in a progressive way to address some of the health concerns of Canadians. However, we must do it with a sense of fairness so that the people who will be affected will have an adequate say in how these things move forward. We want to keep in mind fairness in representation on the boards, fairness in process, transparency and all of those very important things that go along with making our country truly a democratic system.

[Diabetes, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, November is International Diabetes Month. Health Canada suggests that Canadians pay up to $9 billion, mostly through taxes, on costs associated with diabetes and related complications including lost productivity.

The members of my family with diabetes are not alone. Over two and a quarter million Canadians have diabetes. Canadians with diabetes not only face the day to day demands of diabetes but are also four times more likely to have heart and vascular disease, 250% more likely to have a stroke, more likely to have end stage renal disease, likely to have mild to severe nerve damage, and face a 15 year shorter life expectancy.

The Juvenile Diabetes Foundation is committed to helping improve the lives of diabetes sufferers and to finding a cure. Every year over 60,000 new cases of diabetes are diagnosed in Canada. I urge the government to do all it can to support both finding a cure for diabetes and to review its support for care for those diagnosed with the disease.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-13 concerning the Canadian institutes of health research. I am pleased for many reasons, but I would like to take members back a bit.

In November 1998, when this concept was first being looked at through a task force, I had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Howard Dickson who was the scholar in residence for the Medical Research Council of Canada. We discussed this concept in quite some detail.

I also received correspondence later from Dr. Paul R. Murphy of the faculty of medicine at Dalhousie University in my home province of Nova Scotia and from Dr. Timothy H. Ogilvie, the acting dean of the Atlantic Veterinarian College at the University of Prince Edward Island. They were also interested in supporting this particular concept of the Canadian institutes of health research.

In November 1998, I wrote to the Minister of Health saying:

The concept of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research is a nation-building initiative, bringing together the best of Canada's researchers to work in harmony for a better health care system. It certainly seems to merit consideration for appropriate funding in the upcoming federal budget. In fact most, if not all Canadians, would support health care as the number one budgetary priority.

I am respectfully requesting that you give appropriate consideration to the need for investment in health research in Canada, and seek proper funding in the upcoming federal budget, in response to the concept presented by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Task Force.

I am very pleased to see that the concept has moved beyond the point of just studying it and that legislation has now been brought forward in the form of Bill C-13. I am sure that most, if not all Canadians, will agree with the principle that I mentioned in the letter to the minister that health care is one of the number one concerns of many Canadians. It is in fact the top concern for many people living in our country.

I can tell the House of a personal experience. Just a few weeks ago, my 83 year old mother-in-law had a fall. She ended up going into the hospital because she broke her pelvis in two places. The sad part is that she ended up on a small cot in the the hospital hallway and for a couple of days or more was unable to be admitted into a proper room where she could be cared for. Imagine the indignity for a person her age lying out in a hallway on a small bed that she could hardly move in. These are some of the conditions that exist in our hospitals across the country because the health care system is still in a state of much needed repair.

Let us put the bill in context. I want to talk a bit about some of the background and indicate where we stand with respect to the bill.

[Petitions, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, over 500 residents of the Espanola area have signed a petition raising concern over possible government involvement in what appears to be aircraft emitting visible aerosols. They have found high traces of aluminum and quartz in particulate and rain water samples. These concerns combined with associated respiratory ailments have led these Canadians to take action and seek clear answers from this government.

The petitioners call upon parliament to repeal any law that would permit the dispersal of military chaff or of any cloud-seeding substance whatsoever by domestic or foreign military aircraft without the informed consent of the citizens of Canada thus affected.

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech. I noticed he spoke about everybody sharing in the blessings of this great nation and the importance of that happening. In order for some communities to share in the blessings that this nation has, there is a need for basic infrastructure within a lot of small communities right across Canada.

In my riding of Halifax West many small communities could certainly benefit from the Canada infrastructure works program. Quite some time ago I wrote to the Prime Minister on that issue and got a response that indicated it would depend largely upon the provinces and the municipalities wanting to have such a program. My understanding is that the provinces have now come on board and want the program. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has written to support such a program.

The evidence has shown from the past program that it is a useful way of getting very basic infrastructure such as roads, sewage and water systems into many communities that would not otherwise be able to have them.

Does the hon. member see anything in the throne speech that would give any hope for a program that would address the basic infrastructure needs of our communities?