House of Commons Hansard #26 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was industry.

Topics

Tobacco IndustryOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Etobicoke Centre Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, we shall do our duty. We are assisting British Columbia by providing it with the very documents we published yesterday and more. Those documents will help us to understand the adversary. They will help us to understand that the big tobacco companies have all along been focusing on young people and people who have been trying to quit.

Speaking of the insider, let us remember what he said. He said, “I work with them. I have seen firsthand how they target children. It is horrifying. Just leave the kids alone”. I say, “let us get them to leave the kids alone”.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of defence.

First, we had a series of weaknesses in the Sea King helicopters that embarrassed the Canadian air force. We then had the Hercules aircraft that took four attempts to get from A to B. Now a private contractor has discovered that our Aurora aircraft are so corroded they can only fly at one-third of their design altitude.

I do not know if there is any point where the government gets so embarrassed that it takes action or not but surely it must at this.

My question is for the minister of defence. What are the exact steps the department of defence will take to address these shortcomings in our aircraft in the Canadian Air Force?

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle Québec

Liberal

Robert Bertrand LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, on November 18, as a safety measure, a flight restriction was imposed on the Aurora fleet restricting the aircraft to non-pressurized flights under 10,000 feet. This precautionary measure was taken as a result of the discovery, during a regular overhaul, of corrosion on the external skin of one of the aircraft which could potentially lead to an in-flight depressurization.

Given that the Aurora's surveillance role requires the aircraft to patrol at low altitudes, below 10,000 feet, the impact of the Aurora's operation is minimal and the aircraft will continue to fly on its regular missions.

National UnityOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Independent

John Nunziata Independent York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are sick and tired of the destructive unity debate. At a time when polls suggest that support for sovereignty in the province of Quebec is declining, the Prime Minister wants to bring in rules for the next referendum, which is not likely in the foreseeable future.

Why now? Why is the Prime Minister stoking the fires of separatism? Is he not concerned that his move will backfire and in fact increase support for separation in the province of Quebec?

National UnityOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. It is very important for everybody to know exactly what the rules are. The supreme court decision said that it was the responsibility of the political people to make the decision about the clarity of the question and the clarity of the majority. That is what we are doing. We are making sure that everybody knows what is going on before the fact not after the fact.

Aboriginal AffairsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Calgary Southwest Alberta

Reform

Preston Manning ReformLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, when treaty No. 6 was signed, the minister responsible swore up and down that it was in the best interest of the Blackfoot people. When treaties Nos. 7 and 8 were signed, the government of the day insisted that those treaties were in the best interests of the aboriginal people. They were dead wrong in both cases.

Why does the government insist on going down the same road of race based segregation by imposing the Nisga'a treaty on the aboriginal and non-aboriginal people of British Columbia?

Aboriginal AffairsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Kenora—Rainy River Ontario

Liberal

Bob Nault LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the Prime Minister has said that the government has a legal obligation to aboriginal people to negotiate and to modernize treaties in order to bring effect to them in today's world.

Our position is very clear. I would like to know, for a change, what the Reform's position is on this.

Valérie Hould-MarchandOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Bloc

Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil, QC

Mr. Speaker, in the past, there have been glaring injustices in Canada's amateur sport. One only has to think about Sylvie Fréchette, the Villagos twins, the Duchesnays and many others. Because of that, some Canadian athletes are now competing for countries other than Canada, and this could eventually be the case for Valérie Hould-Marchand.

How long will the secretary of state ponder the situation? Will he wait until Valérie decides to swim for another country before taking action? Please order an inquiry now.

Valérie Hould-MarchandOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Bourassa Québec

Liberal

Denis Coderre LiberalSecretary of State (Amateur Sport)

Mr. Speaker, one does not pull on a flower to make it grow faster.

I have been saying from the beginning that this government has acted seriously. We proposed a mediation process, followed by arbitration. With regard to arbitration, Ms. Hould-Marchand herself said she does not want that. I will consult with both sides. We will check the facts, then I will make a decision.

Rights Of ChildrenOral Question Period

3 p.m.

NDP

Wendy Lill NDP Dartmouth, NS

Mr. Speaker, over 50 community groups have condemned Canada for its treatment of children with disabilities under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In Canada children with disabilities are not getting enough early intervention, teachers' assistance, physio, occupational or speech therapy. Their families are not getting enough income support, home care, respite care or parental leave, and it is getting worse all the time.

This report says that the government does not care enough for the half million children with disabilities. When will the government start meeting our international obligations and make life better for children with disabilities?

Rights Of ChildrenOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Brant Ontario

Liberal

Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to report to the House and to the hon. member that at a recent meeting between the federal government and provincial counterparts of social services that the issue of children with disabilities was on the agenda.

It was very clear from that meeting that all governments need to make sure when they are building policies in support of our children that they are inclusive and that they do recognize the special needs of Canadian children with disabilities.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, to repeal the Medical Research Council Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research ActGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

When debate was interrupted before question period the hon. member for Halifax West had the floor. He has 16 minutes remaining in his allotted time.

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research ActGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS

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.

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned not knowing how many institutes there will be. I think that is worth more explanation by the member because we are all concerned about it. We are working in a vacuum, with not a whole lot of transparency.

We support in principle the bill, as I have mentioned before. However, I think that is something that has to be brought out in committee. We deserve more explanation than what we have been given in the bill and by the minister today.

The member touched on the fact that the appointments will be made by the Prime Minister. When we are talking about the governor in council appointing the president of the CIHR, we are talking about the Prime Minister appointing the president. Governor in council means a political appointment by the Prime Minister.

There has to be a better way to do that. Not only will the Prime Minister be appointing the president, he will be appointing the council as well. We are moving into the next millennium and we are still doing it the old way. Can something new not be considered in the appointment of these senior positions? Surely to goodness we can move beyond just simply appointing through patronage. I hate to say the word patronage, but is there not some way that we can move beyond the old way of appointing people?

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS

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 ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Mr. Speaker, I think we are on the right track in examining the bill.

I point out clause 17 of the bill to the hon. member, which is found at page 9. The Prime Minister will be appointing the governing council. Clause 17 states:

The governing council may

(a) appoint, layoff or terminate the employment of the employees of the CIHR; and

(b) establish standards—

That is the point we are making. I hope that the Canadian public is listening.

What this will lead to, and I think the member might agree with me, is the difficulty that Health Canada has had in the past. I bring to the member's attention the case of Dr. Chopra, who was one of the scientists who testified on the shredding of documents which had to do with the BST hormone issue. Basically he was silenced by the government. He was told to shut his mouth and go away quietly. But he did not. He appealed through the human rights tribunal, which sided with him. That was a huge victory for him and other public servants.

We want some safeguards built into the system so that we will not be confronted with the same type of situation where there is some independence being exercised which is arm's length from government. I cannot see that in the bill as presently written.

The member might agree with me. Obviously it is one of the changes that we would like to see in the bill and possibly entertain in the next few days as we go into committee. Maybe the member could comment on that specific section of the bill.

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS

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 ActGovernment Orders

November 23rd, 1999 / 3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Oak Ridges.

It seems like a long time ago, our first caucus in Collingwood, where indeed all members of the Liberals caucus were very, very worried about the state of medical research in this country. It was January 1998, and since that time we have come to a day where members of parliament like myself are almost on a daily basis receiving extraordinarily wonderful letters from members of the research community in our country.

I would like to quote Dr. Challis, from the department of physiology, in the faculty of medicine at the University of Toronto:

The mood of the research community at the University of Toronto has never been so positive. The announcement, in the February budget of more funding for health research and the creation of CIHR, the reference to health research in the Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's announcement of the 21st Century Chairs for Research Excellence have contributed immensely to our confidence in performing vital research in Canada.

In my view, the legislation is well balanced and enables the Governing Council to make all decisions necessary in terms of funding programs, creation of institutes, appointment of scientific directors and advisory board members.

He continues with his thanks.

It was shortly after that Collingwood caucus that I had the opportunity to go to Winnipeg to meet with Jon Gerrard, who had previously been the minister for science and technology and who, on a napkin in the local deli, described to me his vision, with that of Dr. Henry Friesen, of what the Canadian Institutes of Health Research could look like.

Today we look at all of the concerns that were expressed and what was not happening in the previous model. There are concerns about a pure medical model in health research. We did not have an evidence based practice. The social determinants of health, poverty, violence and the environment were not being adequately dealt with in our present system. There was just not enough money for even the pure biomedical research that would actually get us a cure. These were huge concerns back in the spring of 1998.

From that day until February 1999 when we signed the health accord and the social union contract there have been commitments to move toward accountability, transparency and best practices.

It means that we get to finally move to the whole issue of what we do to keep the country healthy and how we move to be truly accountable in the outcomes of health care delivery. The solution is clear.

With regard to Canadian institutes of health research, Bill C-13 speaks of health research as the way to the future. A national coalition made up of the industry, the volunteer sector, the scientific community, universities and colleges, governments, hospitals, health care centres, venture capital, the research council and consumers, supports the CIHRs.

It is very important to take this opportunity to transform research, to fragment it into a truly integrated system.

The goal of the CIHRs is very clear. Their mission is excellence in accordance with recognized international standards of scientific excellence in the development of new knowledge and in using it to improve the health of Canadians, provide better health products and services, and strengthen the health care system in this country. The challenge is huge.

It is truly important that we move in a system that is integrated in terms of research. There will clearly be cross-cutting research themes, the basic biomedical science that must be peer reviewed and must be appropriately funded, and the applied clinical research that we must have to know whether what we are actually doing enables better outcomes.

The research in health services and health systems delivery is imperative in the fact that we no longer spend money in a way that does not work. We have to move to true accountability and stop the unnecessary surgery, unnecessary prescribing and unnecessary testing that are costing the government a huge amount of money.

There is the whole idea of society, culture and health of the population which can be a part of any integrated system of research. As well, there is the cross-country processes of peer reviews, knowledge management, ethics and partnerships which are so important.

It is clear to all researchers in the country, to all voluntary health sectors, and particularly to consumers that this is indeed a benefit for Canadians. CIHR will indeed help improve the health of Canadians and their families with new health discoveries, treatments and practices, and a much better understanding of the broad determinants of health.

The improvements to our health system and services will mean the ultimate sustainability of our health care system. It is a made in Canada solution for made in Canada research and products and an amazing opportunity for Canadian research excellence to be put forward on a global frontier.

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke has all kinds of credentials in the medical profession. We understand and appreciate that.

I am sure she would want to refer to page 9, subclause 17(1) which deals with the governing council. I remind her that the governing council will be appointed by one person, the Prime Minister of Canada. In part the subclause reads:

17(1) The Governing Council may

(a) appoint, layoff or terminate the employment of the employees of the CIHR; and

(b) establish standards, procedures and processes governing staffing, including the appointment, layoff, or termination of employment—

It goes on and on. If we turn to page 10, subclause 20(1) reads:

The Governing Council shall

(a) establish, maintain and terminate divisions of the CIHR, to be called Health Research Institutes;

(b) create an Advisory Board for each Health Research Institute...and

(c) appoint a Scientific Director for each Health Research Institute;

The question again goes back to the arm's length relationship with the government and the independence we would like to see in these institutes. I cannot see where there will be any independence. The strong arm of the Prime Minister will be on the very body that is being created.

Is there not a new, a better way, a more creative and more intelligent way to set up a body that will move us into the 21st century in terms of medical research?

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker, I reassure the hon. member that the research community has been extraordinarily consulted in the setting up of these institutes.

The interim governing council of the institutes has had subcommittees working on all matters from programs to peer review ethics, to knowledge management, to institute design, partnerships and commercialization. The subcommittees will be reporting and there will be a process by which there will be public feedback on those matters.

To repeat the letter I received from a researcher at U of T, the legislation is well balanced and enables the governing council to make the necessary decisions. It is important we understand that there will be a scientific advisory capability and a filter by which true scientists will be made heads of the institutes, true scientists will be put in positions of authority. It will be a process that scientists, and particularly the interim governing council, will be extraordinarily comfortable with. It really is important that it work.

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Reform

Gurmant Grewal Reform Surrey Central, BC

Mr. Speaker, Canadians thought or at least assumed that medical or health research was already being done by the Medical Research Council, or at least that is what the Medical Research Council was supposed to do. Now the Liberals are creating the new research institute called the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to do probably the same job and same work as the Medical Research Council was supposed to do.

Why are we reinventing this wheel? Can the member shed some light on this and answer this question? Why was the previous organization not doing its job properly and why is the new organization expected to do the same job in a better way?

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member needs to understand the difference between health research and medical research. What is very clear is that medical research in the old biomedical model was not satisfying all our needs in understanding all the determinants of health.

The Social Science Research Council was doing the work on poverty, violence and the environment. The Medical Research Council was merely looking at biomedical kinds of research.

It is imperative as we move forward that we have an integrated way of looking at all these issues because we know that poor people do not live as long. What are we to do to sort that out and figure out what we can do about it?

The National Forum on Health was very clear about the social determinants of health and how we have to move in these trends from hospital to community care, from doctor to multidisciplinary and to patient as a full partner in care, and from traditional to complementary medicine.

There was no place in the old Medical Research Council for these kinds of questions to be answered and they are the questions that Canadians want answered. We now have a solution as to how to do that without compromising the extraordinarily important biomedical research that needs to be done. In so many issues we just really want a cure.

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Liberal Oak Ridges, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Members of the House have had the opportunity to hear about the important transformation CIHR will bring to health research in Canada. Increased funding will make more resources available to find Canada's best researchers in making the discoveries that will make a difference to the lives of people around the world.

The structure of the institutes will provide a mechanism for developing a strategic vision for research in thematic areas that will meet the needs and priorities of Canadians.

It will be the focal point around which all partners in the health research process will gather, including those who fund research, those who perform it and those who use its results. CIHR will provide the support that is needed to make Canada the place to be for the best and the brightest health researchers in the world. The result will be better health for Canadians, a better and a more efficient health care system, and economic growth and job creation in the burgeoning life science sector.

If my hon. colleagues will excuse what is sometimes a trite phrase, let me say that the whole of CIHR will be much greater than the sum of its parts. The reason for this is the way that CIHR will mobilize resources in every region of the country.

CIHR will make its impact felt in the regions through mobilizing increased funding for health research in research centres across Canada. It will make its impact felt through its direct effects on the efficient and cost effective operation of Canada's health care system. It will make its impact felt by building the research capacity platform in centres across Canada and it will make its impact felt through a new focus on community.

Through its focus on partnerships CIHR will take the increased federal investment in health research and make it grow even more. Partnerships will bring more research funders to the table to embark on jointly funded collaborative projects. These projects will result in an even greater level of research activity in many centres across the country.

The Medical Research Council of Canada has had tremendous success with its partnership programs, so much so that for every federal tax dollar invested in health research $1.36 was spent on health research. I have no doubt that the integrated and co-operative structure of the CIHR will continue this successful leveraging of our tax dollars to create an even better dividend for Canadians. The CIHR is designed to work in partnership with provincial and territorial health departments, with our universities, with our health science centres and with our research agencies.

As every member of the House is aware, responsibility for delivering health services is the responsibility of the provinces, but CIHR will have the potential to have a strong positive impact on provincial health care systems. Creating new knowledge is important, but CIHR is designed to facilitate the process of translating research results into application and innovation.

CIHR will establish links with provincial and territorial health service agencies and with those responsible for delivery of health information and health care in each province. Through these links CIHR will help provinces acquire the evidence they need to make important decisions about how best to deliver health services to their residents.

Bill C-13 is an extremely important piece of legislation for the people of my riding of Oak Ridges and for the residents of the city of Toronto. It is about our health. It is about innovation in our community and it is about our position in the knowledge based economy. Toronto has had a long and proud history in health research. Torontonians have a tremendous record of contributing to the health of Canadians and to people around the world through their research discoveries.

I think most obviously about Frederick Banting and Charles Best, researchers at the University of Toronto who through their investigative spirit and genius discovered insulin, a discovery which has saved millions and millions of lives in Canada and around the world. There is little doubt that it is among the greatest Canadian achievements of the past century. To this day it evokes tremendous pride among people in my riding and among people across the country. The University of Toronto has named one of its research centres the Banting and Best Institute in honour of this historic achievement.

More recently I think of Lap-Chee Tsui, a world renowned researcher at the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children, who discovered the gene for cystic fibrosis. His research in genetics and genomics is truly opening up a new world of knowledge about our health which promises new and effective tools to promote health and treat disease.

Toronto's research community is dynamic and vibrant. It has researchers across the full spectrum of research, from basic molecular biologists to social scientists looking at the broad determinants of health.

The University of Toronto is Canada's largest research university. Given the quality of its science and the excellence of its research, it is the most successful university in the MRC's peer review funding competitions. This past year the University of Toronto and its affiliated institutions received $55 million in research funding from the MRC.

The research infrastructure in Toronto contains some of Canada's most prized research institutions: the Hospital for Sick Children, the Mount Sinai Hospital, the Toronto General Hospital, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, the Institute of Clinical Evaluative Studies, just to name a few. The health research conducted in Toronto is of the highest standards of scientific excellence.

The objective of the CIHR as set out in Bill C-13 is 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 health care system.

While its standards of excellence may be international, its impacts will be felt in every region of the country, whether it is in Toronto or in the maritimes. For example, in Halifax at Dalhousie University a doctor is studying stimulant use among adolescents. In Montreal Dr. Thomas Hudson of the Montreal General Hospital is examining the genetic causes of common human diseases. It is also going to flourish in Vancouver where at the University of British Columbia Dr. Janice Eng is studying balance and other problems experienced by patients with Parkinson's disease. It will flourish in centres right across the country.

I commend the bill to the House. I hope all parties will support this very important initiative of the federal government.

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification and observations from the member on this issue. I know he has looked at this bill carefully.

The point I have been attempting to make and which I will continue to make is that there is a lack of an arm's length relationship between the CIHR and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will be appointing the president of the CIHR and the governing council of the CIHR. The governing council, after it is appointed by the Prime Minister, will appoint the advisory boards. There is linkage between every level of this organization and the Prime Minister's office. I am concerned that these people should be able to exercise their independence and they probably will not because of the Prime Minister's hand on the very institution we are talking about today.

In addition to the other points I have made, I remind the member and I want to tell the public especially that the governing council will appoint, lay off and terminate employees and establish all the standards. It will terminate employment at will. It will determine the organization and classification of positions within the CIHR. It will set the terms and conditions of employment. The list goes on. The governing council will establish, maintain and determine divisions in the CIHR to be called health research institutes, create the advisory board and appoint the scientific director.

I am looking for some sense of autonomy between this organization and the Prime Minister's office. In this piece of legislation I do not see that.

These are serious concerns that have to be addressed in the committee. As I said, we are prepared to support the bill, but the major concerns in terms of how this is set up, the structural component of this institution, have to be closely examined.

Before I sit down, the other point I will make for the hon. member to reflect on is on the reporting mechanism. There is no provision in the bill, other than for the minister to table a report in the House, for the House to debate the performance of this institution. We will not have an opportunity to do that.

In five years time, the government will review its operation, but in the meantime, the control has gone beyond parliament completely. Members of parliament will no longer have the opportunity to determine whether it is meeting its mark, whether it has missed it by a mile, or whether there has to be a rejigging of the configuration of the organization. So many different things are missing from this bill that should be addressed and can be addressed. I would like to have the member comment on that.