Debates of Nov. 23rd, 1999

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure there is a mistake. Would you check again please? I am sure that there is unanimous consent because we are now working in a spirit of camaraderie. We support the bill. Please check again.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is no unanimous consent.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate at second reading stage of Bill C-13.

At the outset, I will indicate that my colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party support the spirit and the intent of the bill. We appreciate the fact that this legislation represents a strategic repositioning of health research in Canada. In our view, it does seek to broaden the idea of health research and it appears to advocate and promote a new way of dealing with health research in the country today. It promotes a multidisciplinary, multisectoral and cross-regional approach to health care. It provides us with a way to look at the social, cultural and environmental determinants of ill health. These are all very important objectives and we support the intent of the bill in that regard.

We do, however, have some concerns with respect to the specific wording of a number of clauses in the bill. We look forward to a thorough analysis and debate at the committee stage of the bill. We also look forward to hearing the views of folks across the country concerning the bill. In that process, we hope that we can actually improve the bill and come back with a piece of legislation that has solid support right across the country.

Obviously, when one looks at a bill like this and addresses the whole matter of health research in Canada today, one has to ask the question whether or not it meets certain fundamental objectives.

Our task today is to take this legislation and square it with the government's agenda as a whole because the bill on its own, in isolation of a broader approach that looks at the absolute necessity of looking at health care in its most broadest sense, is doomed to fail unless we have a complete agenda.

Before I proceed to raise criticisms or make some constructive suggestions around this whole approach, I will also join with members in the House in acknowledging the work of those who helped create this evolution in the country around health research, and those who worked so hard in helping to draft the bill we have before us today.

I certainly want to add my thanks and congratulations to Dr. Henry Friesen, who has provided leadership to the country as head of the Medical Research Council for a long period of time, and who has worked very hard to move that model toward the one we have today, and who in fact talked himself out of a job.

I also want to acknowledge the work of the interim governing council that spent hours and hours on deliberations that led to the bill before us today. I understand that the work is just beginning. If one looks at the purpose of the bill, which is to create virtual institutes of health research, the interim governing council has already received somewhere in the neighbourhood of 150 proposals for such institutes. It will be the task of the new permanent governing council to weed that number down to, as I understand it, 10 to 15 institutes.

There are enormous challenges ahead for those experts who have been involved in the process, and very significant challenges for those who will have to take this legislation and implement it in a meaningful way that addresses the concerns of all Canadians.

All the best research in the world will come to naught unless we have the political will, the federal government leadership to actually implement the findings of research and to act on research that is pursued in the country.

Today, we are in an interesting position. We are on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the Ed Broadbent resolution in the House of Commons, supported by all members from all sides of the House, calling for the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000. We know, by all accounts, that rather than looking forward to an improved situation as we enter the new millennium, the situation has become much worse.

As my leader has said many times in the House, we have not only failed to stop poverty among children in the country, the government has also been responsible for seeing a huge number of children added to the rolls of poverty. We know that since 1989, one in seven children lives in poverty. Since 1989, 500,000 children have been added to the rolls of the poor.

Let me add something from a Winnipeg perspective. I come from a constituency that has a very hard-pressed community. In the inner city of my constituency, in the heart of Winnipeg, in a neighbourhood called Point Douglas, new statistics released this past week show that 60% of children live in poverty. Six out of ten kids in my community go to school with empty stomachs, are not able to learn and are likely to suffer health consequences.

My point here is that if we do not make the links between health research and action, we will not address the root causes of ill health and the spread of disease.

The government has had study after study showing the direct links between poverty and ill health. The minister himself released a study this past summer at the health ministers conference in Charlottetown showing that in many respects we have a much more serious situation than we have ever had when it comes to children, young people and aboriginal people. The facts are there.

We know from other centres, for example the centre of excellence in Winnipeg, the Centre for Health Policy Research and Evaluation, that there is a direct link between ill health and levels of income. The more money people make, the more income they have, the better their health. Knowing that, why has this government stood still? Why has it not initiated serious policies to address this matter and reduce poverty especially among children?

The Minister of Finance has told Canadians of the tremendous surplus of close to $100 billion over five years. Considering the benefits of the current economic situation, why has the government not moved to use some of that money to address poverty, to put meaningful policies in place, to look at a national child care program and meaningful early childhood development programs? On that score there has been virtually nothing. There has been no translation of a very significant research finding into action.

Another example that comes to mind shows the absolute imperative of translating research findings into action. As members know, today the Minister of Health is meeting with the tobacco industry's most celebrated whistleblower, Jeffrey Wigand.

Yesterday the Minister of Health released thousands and thousands of pages of documents that had been under lock and key in Great Britain. The documents show that the tobacco industry over the last number of years has deliberately targeted young people and has ensured the products they create will get nicotine into the system faster to ensure young people are addicted more quickly and that there is a lucrative market for the sale of cigarettes.

Hot off the wire I understand the Minister of Health has announced that he is hiring Jeffrey Wigand as an adviser to him and his department on matters pertaining to tobacco. Bravo. Good for him. I hope that is true. I hope that means the government is finally serious about acting on programs that will curb tobacco addiction and smoking among young people.

The government has known for a long time about those statistics and it has done nothing. In July 1997 I wrote to the Minister of Health and suggested to him that considering the gravity of the situation it would make sense to translate the results of the research findings into action by introducing higher taxes on cigarettes. This is something the government repeatedly refuses to do. I suggested to the minister that he had an obligation to launch a lawsuit against the tobacco industry as was done in the United States as a result of the work of Jeffrey Wigand and others in exposing the malicious intent of the tobacco industry.

I suggested subsequently that he not simply point to B.C. as an example of something being done in this country in that regard, but that he should actually take up the charge, show leadership, work with provinces like B.C. I am sure all provinces are interested in pursuing this. I said that he should put together a national suit against the tobacco industry to recoup costs to our health care system caused by that kind of irresponsible profit seeking agenda of the tobacco industry. To date, there has been nothing. This is a perfect example of where research and good findings do not translate into action. What we need today to go along with the bill is a clear commitment to act on those findings, to show political will and provide leadership.

Today we have have heard, and it is inevitable that we are going to get into this discussion, that this is tied inextricably to federal funding and national standards for health care. Clearly if we are serious about pursuing a holistic approach to health research and translating those results into improvements for our system as a whole and for the betterment of the health of all Canadians, then it is inevitable that we focus on the state of federal financing for health care. It is inevitable that we demand once again that the government look at its abdication of responsibility and its failure to ensure the full restoration of cuts in transfer payments for health care that it initiated when it came into power in 1993. It advanced this very specifically in 1995 with the implementation of the CHST. This elimination from our health care system was the single biggest cut in funds in the history of medicare.

It is very important that we address that point of view. I am tempted to call the Reform members on their attempts to disguise their true agenda. I think many of us in the House feel a sense of indignation when we know that the health critic for the Reform Party will stand up today and talk about the need for universal health care and ensuring that the most vulnerable citizens in our society have access to health care, all the while advancing a two tier American style health care system.

We are seeing a clever disguise from the Reform Party. I do not think there is any question about that. All we have to do is look at some of the quotes from the member himself going back a couple of years. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said in 1996, “In fact a two tiered health system will strengthen the public system, not erode it. In a two tiered system those who choose to go to a private clinic will receive faster and better care than their counterparts in the system. Is this an unequal system that provides for different levels of care? Yes”. His leader, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, did the same when he said, “If they are willing to pay, they could get themselves a higher standard of care and quicker access”.

That is the true agenda of the Reform Party members. That is really what they are talking about. For them now to try to disguise it and to suggest that their support for Ralph Klein's privatization initiative will not do anything to contravene the principles of the health act and will not deny access to Canadians is absolutely fallacious and dishonest.

We in the House must work together to convince the government that it has to increase transfer payments for health. It has to show leadership. It has to ensure that we have an increased budget and a significant and stable funding base for health research, if we are truly going to improve the status of Canadians and be true to the principles of medicare.

There are some very specific concerns in Bill C-13 which I would like to quickly enunciate in the time I have left. One of our biggest concerns, and I am sure we will hear more about this in committee, is whether or not this legislation advances our agenda for independent scientific investigation into the root causes of ill health.

Time and time again we have been faced with cutbacks in funding and an approach on the part of the federal government to deregulate and offload wherever it can. Academics, researchers, universities and think tanks are put in a very difficult position of having to increase their reliance on corporate donations, meaning pharmaceutical manufacturers and private insurers. All of this undermines the very independence that is so necessary for the integrity of the system. It creates very serious possibilities for conflict of interest.

There is a litmus test to be applied to the bill. Does it ensure that we advance down the path of truly independent research? Does it involve a significant level of funding to ensure that we do not broaden the whole agenda to a series of private-public partnerships which will undermine the very objectives we have in mind as we pursue this bill? In that regard, we have three very specific concerns.

A clause in the bill refers specifically to “facilitating the commercialization of health research”. In our view that is vague and potentially dangerous phrasing. It would be our hope to hear from witnesses in committee to determine whether or not it would be worthwhile to reword that clause to ensure that the public interest is clearly paramount and that any kind of commercialization agenda is secondary to the public good. That is one concern.

The second concern has to do with the governing council as outlined in the bill. Our concern is that it is very loosely worded and not clearly prescribed in the legislation. Again this allows the possibility for control by the industry, particularly pharmaceutical manufacturers for setting the agenda.

It would not be unique or new to suggest that specifics on the governing council should be entrenched right in the piece of legislation. That can be done expeditiously at committee. We should be ensuring that the appointment criteria for members of the governing council are specifically defined and that the public voice be absolutely dominant in that configuration.

Finally, we have a concern about the whole issue the minister raised today pertaining to ethics. He suggested that the vague wording in the bill which says “will take into consideration ethical issues” is sufficient. It is certainly our view that it is too vague. It leaves too many possibilities again for corporations, pharmaceutical companies and other research institutions to pursue research that might be less than ethical.

I think that we will hear suggestions in committee about the need for an independent arm's length body that is directly accountable to government. Given the changes happening in our society today around reproductive technologies, xeno transplantation, human cloning, we will hear that we absolutely need an ethical framework for determining research of the future. We need an independent body to help us sort through what is the appropriate way one uses human research subjects, how one notifies individuals involved in this process and what protective measures can be put in place to deal with those concerns.

To wrap up, I would suggest that this bill is worth looking at in detail at committee. I hope the concerns I have mentioned will be addressed. All of us are interested in strengthening this bill so that there is a central focus on the causes and prevention of ill health, in particular the social, economic, cultural and environmental determinants that have a very direct impact on health and well-being in this country.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member was in the House listening intently this morning to the minister and the other members who spoke.

The health critic for the Reform Party concentrated a great deal on comments he and his party made last week in regard to a two tier health system. If I am not mistaken, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is very much opposed to that, as am I. I find it really strange that a member of parliament from an opposition party would stand in the House defending himself more than actually speaking on the bill that we are debating.

Basically, I would like the member's comments on the Reform Party's position with regard to a two tiered health system.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member who posed the question, I too feel offended by the way in which the Reform Party critic has portrayed his position to the public across Canada today.

I think, as I said before, that this is a clever disguise or a clever ruse for fooling the public, because the record speaks for itself. The Reform Party has time and time again been on the record saying that what this country needs is a parallel, private, for profit system, that what this country needs is a two tier approach to health care, that what this country needs is an avenue by which those who have the money can pay for the services that they need. It says this without addressing what happens to the universality of our system and without addressing the long term effects on comprehensiveness and accessibility.

I think it is appropriate that on the very day that we are discussing this issue and hearing that kind of doublespeak from the Reform Party that we look back to the architects of the Canada Health Act, Monique Bégin, Tom Kent and the daughter of Tommy Douglas, Shirley Douglas, all of whom are speaking out on this issue. In fact, as we speak a press conference is being held with some of those architects who are very, very concerned about Ralph Klein's proposal, very concerned about Reform's position and in fact have said that medicare, based on equal access to comprehensive care, will barely survive the beginning of the new millennium without dramatic corrective action on the part of the federal government.

First, the federal government must intervene immediately and stop the Klein government from contracting with for profit hospitals.

Second, the money cut from the federal transfer payments must be restored for investment in the public health system.

Third, the federal government must exclude health and social services from all trade agreements.

The architects of the Canada Health Act believe that the kind of proposal we are hearing from the Reform Party would be absolutely contrary to the principles of the act, would be a fundamental shift away from medicare as we know it today and would end up costing Canadians much more down the road.

I am glad to see that the Conservative critic for health care is with us on this one and we look forward to pursuing a consolidated, united position, holding the federal government to account and demanding that federal transfers increase and that we preserve the principles of medicare.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from the New Democratic Party. We have co-operated on a number of issues over these past couple of years as we have sat together on the health committee.

Of course on this whole debate on health care many proposals will be made. Many proposals are already being made. However, the fact of the matter is, and I think my hon. colleague will agree with me, that we have seen an abysmal lack of leadership on behalf of the federal government, which is supposed to be the custodian of health care in this country, to take any kind of initiative and to actually renew health care.

If proposals which have come from the Reform Party, or any other party, the member's own party for that matter, are not debated in a sensible way, where emotion will not run riot, we will not get answers.

In view of those kinds of comments, I ask my hon. colleague if she is prepared to lay at the feet of the government the responsibility for the demise of the health care system. Is she prepared, along with Canadians right across this country, to offer concrete solutions that are not embedded in 1960s philosophy, but really take into account what is happening in Canada today?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I am quite prepared, as the Reform member suggested, to hold the federal government to account for the crisis we are facing in health care today.

He knows that we have constantly spoken out about the cuts made to transfer payments by the government and how that has put enormous pressure on the federal system and opened the door to private sector health care. He knows that we have called the government to task for signing an agreement with Alberta in 1996 which allowed for the growth of private clinics in that province.

Yes, I agree that we are seeing an appalling and abysmal lack of leadership from the federal government. However, I would also say that we are seeing an appalling lack of leadership from the leader of the member's own party. In fact, just two days ago the leader of the Reform Party in response to a question said “I think there is room from the federal angle to open up the Canada Health Act so that if the provinces want to pursue other options, including greater involvement of private resources, they have the freedom to do so”. What the Reform Party, Ralph Klein and Mike Harris are talking about is retreating, going back to the old way of doing things before we had medicare when if we had the money we could get the care we needed and, if not, tough luck.

The member is saying that we are in a crisis today and we agree with that. The question for all of us is, how do we solve the problem? I would suggest that the only way to solve the problem is to work to innovate and strengthen our public system and ensure that the medicare model is preserved, not destroyed as the Reform Party would have us do. He asked for alternatives and solutions. I suggest to him that there are many.

The National Forum on Health has made some very important observations about how to reform the system within the public model. It has talked about the need to look at a continuum of care and to move toward a community based model of holistic health care. It has talked about including home care, continuing care and drug care under our plan. That would address some of the costs and the pressures coming from the private sector. The New Democratic Party has put together a long set of recommendations and a very thoughtful analysis of this situation. I would be happy to share them with the member.

I would ask him to join with us in holding the government to account and preserving our publicly administered, universally accessible system, and not take one more step down the path of destroying and dismantling medicare.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate today. I remind the House that this is the first major health bill to come before this parliament. I think many of us were anticipating this and looking forward to the debate. I want to remind the viewing public that we are debating an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, what I will refer to as the CIHR, and to repeal the Medical Research Council Act.

The fact that this is the first major debate on a health bill before the House is significant. We have had many debates on health care in the last couple of years, but no bills of any significance have come before the House. I want to remind the House of some of the issues we have spoken about in regard to health care.

One of them, of course, was the hepatitis C issue, which the government completely mishandled. We went on for days and days seeking a fair, just and compassionate solution for all hepatitis C victims, and a generous solution on the part of government in terms of assistance to those victims. We fought and raged for days, but the government held its position. Today not one hepatitis C victim has received any support from the federal government. In fact, a huge number of them were left out of the package.

We also debated at length in the House the draconian cuts to health care, which goes back to the previous speech given by the NDP member. We are talking about a government which took $17 billion out of health care. I see you shaking your head, Mr. Speaker, but it is true. This year during the budget debate the government proclaimed that its budget was a health care budget, that it would return $11.5 billion of the $17 billion it took out. That will bring us back to the levels which existed 10 years ago.

The government does not have a lot to brag about. However, this bill is worthy of debate and it is worthy of support. I want to state very clearly from the beginning that I support it and the Progressive Conservative Party supports it. I think it is a very worthy initiative.

Because it is the House of Commons I guess we have to be a little political, but I want to mention some of the issues on which the government has swallowed itself whole from time to time. I will talk about the hypocrisy of government. One item I will talk about is the Drug Patent Act, which was brought into the House about 10 years ago when I was a member of parliament on the government side.

Mr. Speaker, do you remember that? You stood in the House and raged for hour after hour, condemning the government for bringing in the Drug Patent Act. I want to remind the public of that for one very good reason. The Drug Patent Act had a purpose behind it. It relates to the very bill we are talking about today. The bill that we are speaking about, of course, will bring research scientists together so that we will have a network of the scientific community sort of singing from the same song book, exchanging and sharing information, with some funding from the federal government.

The minister today mentioned the term brain drain. He said, and I agree with him, that this act will do something about the brain drain. That is what we had in mind when we brought in the Drug Patent Act in the early 1990s because what Canada was missing was a great deal of expertise in terms of scientific and medical research. Those people were leaving the country in big numbers and drug companies had no patent protection in this country in comparison to other industrialized countries in the world. We brought in legislation which provided them with that protection.

The argument of the day was, why would companies invest millions and possibly billions of dollars in research if someone else could steal their patent within a handful of years? It was a very deliberate attempt by our government of the day to bring in protection for the research community in this country and it has worked. This bill should go some distance in reinforcing that.

It will be remembered that the government promised to rescind or take away the Drug Patent Act, to change it dramatically. Obviously it has not done that because it would not be in its best interests. However, in opposition I suppose it was politically a pretty popular thing to say at the time and, of course, I have reminded you of some of the speeches you made, Mr. Speaker.

Taking office is something like a lynching in the morning. It sort of focuses the mind. That is exactly what happened when the Liberals took office in 1993. The government then decided that maybe this was not such a bad idea after all, and we still have it.

The government has tagged on to some of the initiatives we took in the past. Being totally honest, some of them were not very popular and some of them are still debatable. However, some of them were worth embracing and certainly the present government has done that, and I commend it for doing so. The government has gone one step beyond adopting what previous governments have done in actually grabbing and taking ideas right out of an election platform.

I would like to speak about Jean Charest's plan for Canada's next century. That is the platform on which I ran in the 1997 election. I will step through some of what we were talking about. I want you to listen carefully, Mr. Speaker, to see whether or not you agree with what I am saying. There is a direct link between the present bill and what we had in our platform in 1997. I am accusing the government of lifting the idea right out of our platform in 1997.

Mr. Charest spoke about health care for the future on page 27 of his plan. He talked about our health care system needing flexibility. He said we should continue to adopt new medical treatments. He said specifically that new pilot and experimental programs would provide Canadians with state of the art, cutting edge services and treatments and new technologies to improve the access to care in rural and remote areas of the country. The minister spoke specifically of rural areas today. He said there would be programs to test new integrated delivery systems aimed at providing health care based on the highest quality and best practices. Again, the minister mentioned that this morning.

Mr. Charest also spoke of the development and maintenance of a Health Canada worldwide website on the Internet to provide a state of the art health care information system, including advice on the prevention and treatment of illnesses to help hospitals and researchers link their knowledge bases. He spoke very specifically about linking the knowledge bases in the country. In fact that is what the new agency will be doing. He spoke about working closely with the provinces and territories to reduce unnecessary health care expenditures that result from duplication and reinvest the savings back into the fund.

This is almost word for word what we were saying in the 1997 election campaign. The Progressive Conservative Party said that it would create a national institute for health with memberships drawn from the health care field. The board would be co-chaired by the federal minister and provincial territorial ministers.

To conclude, we said we would co-ordinate the gathering and distribution of information on research and new medical technologies with an emphasis on disease control, ensuring that Canadians benefit from the best and the latest medical advances; assist in the development and publication of national health care targets and goals; and measure, evaluate and publish progress toward achieving these targets.

I think the message is pretty clear. The government obviously thought it was a good idea and it is adopting it. We are pleased to support it because the idea really came from our platform in 1997. I guess that is one of the advantages of being in power. They can just take whatever part of whatever works and call it their own. Maybe there is nothing new in that at all.

Canada has had a history of advances in medical science. I want to go through some of the names. The minister mentioned this morning Best and Banting. I would like to mention a couple more. One is Sir William Osler, who wrote the medical textbook Principles and Practices of Medicine . He introduced the idea of clinical care. Another is Dr. Wilder Penfield who established the Montreal Neurological Institute and made many discoveries in the area of brain functions.

Today we have that same excellence taking place in the country. One thing I ran across in The Economist , of all places, was a procedure. Maybe that is not the best word to describe it, but it was out of the Ontario Cancer Institute. It devised a way of using high frequency ultrasound to check within a few hours after the first dose of chemotherapy being administered to find out whether or not the anti-cancer treatment is working. The article went on to explain that most cancer treatment, despite the billions of dollars that are poured into it, is by guess and by hazard in terms of whether or not the treatment is actually working.

Dr. Gregory Ozamota and his colleagues devised a new method of detecting whether or not a cancer treatment is working within hours of administering it so that patients in the future hopefully will not have to go through some of the tough medicines, the harsh chemicals in terms of treating cancer, only to find out that the treatment is not working. That is an advancement that is taking place today in Canada. This new institute will foster that type of advancement.

Canadians, as I have mentioned, are not strangers to huge advances in medical science. Despite our small population base of 30 million people, we have had some very notable achievements within the country.

One of the things the new institute will do is sort of bridge the gap between what a scientist wants to do, or is driven to do, and the need within Canadian society for that service. There will be a linkage between the two so that we will not have a scientist going out on his own pet project, to simplify it, without any payoff to the greater society at the end of the day. Funds will be channelled in such a way that there will be a real identified need within society for the research to be ongoing. That is an important distinction to make, an important point to make.

The theoretical side of science and the absent minded professor are always talked about. I read an article not long ago about Einstein. It mentioned that sometimes scientists are so focused that they are focusing on their research without focusing on the greater need of society or where the research will actually take them. The new institute will give some of our scientists a little more direction to reach the goal at the end of the day.

The story goes about Einstein that he was so indifferent to his surroundings that on more than one occasion he arrived in his laboratory in his pyjamas. I am not sure if that is happening today in Canada, but focusing our funding in the directions as outlined in the bill is a very important part of the new institute.

Another thing we would like to see happen to which the minister has alluded in the past is the drug approval process. I think it can happen. The other day it was brought to my attention that there is a new drug out called Rituxan. It is a cancer treating drug that has been tied up by red tape in the drug approval process. I want to point out what has happened in other countries. This drug has had great success in the treatment of some cancers. In just about every industrialized country in the world this drug has already been approved and is on the shelf. I will give an example of some of those countries.

In Australia, Rituxan was submitted for approval in May 1997. It was approved in October 1998 and the launch date of the drug in that country was October 1998. Germany applied on March 21, 1997. The drug was approved on June 2, 1998, and went on the market on November 26, 1998. The United States moved a little faster. The drug was submitted for approval in February 1997 and approved on November 6, 1997. The launch date was December 15, 1997.

I have no way of knowing whether or not the information I have is correct. It was provided to me by the department. Rituxan will not be approved for use in this country until late in December, if in fact it does happen. That is two years after the United States. Many of our patients are going to the United States to get this drug.

I am hoping, and the minister has alluded to it, that the process in Canada can be improved upon. It is not that we want to do it in a hasty fashion because no one wants to see that happen. However, I get the feeling we get tied up in red tape and are not sharing information with other Canadian jurisdictions which might possibly lead to a speed up in the approval process. This is something I think we can look forward to.

There are many things we cannot mention, obviously. A Reform member went to great lengths today to distance himself from some remarks he made with regard to a two tier health care system in Canada. I might possibly face some questions on that point, but I was a bit dumbfounded by some of the comments made by the member last week, and this week in attempting to distance himself from those remarks. I mention this only in the context that we are debating a very important initiative by the government. I do not think we should be sidetracked by other issues despite the difficulties some members from time to time get themselves into when they pronounce policies and positions that are not sustainable.

With that I will sit down and entertain questions and comments from other members.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to our colleague's speech from inside and I gather that, before all parties can agree on a bill that would finally grant additional funding to health research, many concerns need to be raised, particularly with respect to the will to ensure that no research institute designation will be made with no regard to the provinces.

I would like to ask our colleague, through you Mr. Speaker, whether his party would support an amendment that would explicitly give, within the bill, a more active role to the provinces when it comes to the establishment of Canadian institutes of health research.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I think most of us will bring forward amendments on the basis of what we see in the bill. I think the point the member is making is a commendable one. It is one that we certainly have concerns about. I am glad that he did get on his feet because the structure of the Canadian institutes of health research lends some questions to the integrity of the system.

The minister tells us and the bill spells out that the CIHR will be led by a president and a governing council, who together will be responsible for the overall direction of the institutes. Members of the governing council will reflect the highest standards of scientific excellence and so on. It goes on to explain what they will do.

One of the concerns we have is that every one of these appointments will be by governor in council. In other words, cabinet will decide who these people are. I think that process has to be re-examined as to how these appointments are made. Are they there at the pleasure of the government? The act tells us that indeed they are at the pleasure of the government, up for review every five years. That is a major issue we should examine in committee and have more explanation on. As to the institutes themselves, nobody knows. It is not spelled out in the bill.

I will talk about Dr. Chopra from Health Canada who sued Health Canada under the Human Rights Act. He was one of the scientists who testified on the shredding of documents that had to do with the BST beef hormone issue. The word is the independence of this body and the independence of the governing council and the president. That is a very important issue that the bill has to address and that we need more clarification on by the minister.

If the treatment that some people have received from the government and the Department of Health is any indication of what might come, this whole process will have to be examined a little more closely and a little more transparently. We have gone through the difficulty of where one person basically is making the decisions. It is the Prime Minister of Canada who decides who the president will be and who the members will be. There is a real danger in doing that. I hope we can move beyond that.

I thank the member again for allowing me to get back up based on his question. The other consideration is the review process, who is accountable and the measuring stick. Are we going to wait five years to determine whether or not the new body is functioning efficiently without any reporting to parliament other than tabling the document?

It is not a question of coming into parliament and reporting to the committee on the structure and whether or not it is working. It is simply blindly giving the government a blank cheque to set up a process which I think should be reviewed very thoroughly every year for the next five years to determine whether they have done it right or not. Those are some very important points that have to be made and that will come out in committee.

My party, along with the Bloc and his members, will be bringing forth some amendments that we think will strengthen the bill.

At the end of the day, we support the initiative. We think it is very credible. With some of these little deficiencies, if the government is willing to look and listen, I think we can strengthen the bill dramatically. We will then have a bill that will indeed work for all Canadians.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Bill C-13, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Act. I am particularly pleased because, along with many other hon. members, I have been working on this issue for more than a year. We were very happy to hear about the establishment of these institutes in the 1999 federal budget and we are also very pleased to have this bill before the House today.

I believe the establishment of the Canadian institutes of health research is a truly visionary and forward-looking initiative that will directly address one of the major concerns of Canadians: to increase our knowledge of health issues in order to try to get rid of illnesses and health problems affecting so many Canadians.

Bill C-13 is a huge step in the right direction, since it will ensure Canada's competitiveness in the knowledge-based global economy.

In fact, this bill, along with the 21st century chairs for research excellence in universities across Canada that were announced in the Speech from the Throne, will give Canada a competitive edge as we move towards the next century. Canadians will be world leaders in the generation of new knowledge.

I am also pleased to speak about the bill because of its importance to the city of Montreal and to the people in my riding of Pierrefonds—Dollard.

Montreal is a world-class health research centre. Health research and development is playing a major role in revitalizing our economy, creating jobs for our citizens and securing a future for Montreal in Canada in the new economy.

Montreal is home to some of Canada's leading centres of academic research. McGill University and the University of Montreal are at the leading edge of Canadian health research. Research at those universities is at the highest standards of excellence. McGill and the University of Montreal are the second and third largest recipients respectively of the Medical Research Council's MRC funding in the country.

Researchers in those universities are extremely competitive in funding competition. Their research is at the highest standard. Concordia and the University of Quebec in Montreal should also not be forgotten. Their research in the social aspect of health is opening up new fields of knowledge about our health.

Given the excellence of science in Montreal and the quality of our research, Montreal is the most successful of any city in Canada in MRC funding competitions. The MRC invested $59.6 million in 1998-1999 in Montreal alone.

In Quebec, the Medical Research Council, or MRC, is allocating $76.5 million for health research. That amount is proportionally a greater part of the MRC's budget than Quebec's population is in relation to Canada's.

I should also point out that the federal government and the provinces are co-operating in the area of health research.

In Quebec, the MRC is actively funding research, while the provincial organization responsible for health studies, namely Quebec's Fonds de la recherche en santé, is developing programs that complement those of the MRC. These two bodies have established close relations which have obviously benefited health research in Quebec.

I should also point out that the chair of the Fonds, Dr. Michel Bureau, has been actively involved in the development of the concept of health research institutes.

Since the MRC will be integrated into the research institutes, and since these will further promote health research in Canada, Bill C-13 is of paramount importance for Montreal and for all of Canada.

Researchers in Montreal are working on new discoveries and treatments that will benefit people across the country. The Montreal Neurological Institute, the Institut de recherche clinique de Montreal and the Royal Victoria Hospital are all world-class centres of research addressing the key health concerns of Canadians.

Private sector companies such as Merck Frosst and Astra have secured worldwide research mandates at their research centres in Montreal.

I will give one example of research in Montreal. Many people might not know that one of the leading experts in the area of genomic research is actually working in Montreal. It is widely accepted that genomics, the decoding of human genetic structure, potentially unlocking the keys to the treatment of disease, is the leading edge of health science.

Dr. Tom Hudson is a major participant in the work of sequencing the human genome. He is an associate physician at the Montreal General Hospital and a director of Montreal's Genome Centre. He is also the associate director of the Whitehead Institute at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the leading genomics research centres in the world. He is also under 40 years old. In fact, last year he was named one of Canada's top 40 people under 40.

Instead of leaving for multiple opportunities in the United States, Dr. Hudson splits his time between Montreal and Boston working tirelessly to advance science in Canada.

Bill C-13 will support people like Dr. Hudson and continue to provide opportunities for him in Canada.

This investment in research has an extraordinary impact on Montreal and on all other Canadian cities. All researchers hire laboratory technicians, graduate students and other staff, thus creating more jobs in this innovative sector of our economy.

Research spinoffs may be the most critical factor for Montreal.

It is generally agreed that health industries will be one of the key sectors of a knowledge-based economy. The pace of innovation is very fast, and new research methods, such as genomics, are opening the doors to new areas of knowledge.

As hon. members know, basic research is the foundation of health industries, because it helps produce innovative goods and services. This research activity is the engine of our economy while also ensuring our competitiveness.

One only needs to look at the example of BioChem Pharma in Montreal. BioChem Pharma has its roots in a research grant years ago at McGill University. This research led to the discovery of 3TC which is one of the drugs which has turned HIV into a more manageable disease. In fact, 3TC is now the leading HIV-AIDS treatment in the world. BioChem Pharma now employs over 1,000 people in Montreal providing an innovative force to our economy.

There are hundreds of small Canadian start-up companies that are seeking to move the knowledge gained from research into products and services that meet unmet health needs. I think of Neurochem, which is looking at treatments for Alzheimer disease. There is Methylgene, which is developing leading edge anti-cancer compounds.

The interesting aspect is that these are companies located not in Boston, not in San Diego and not in Seattle. They are based in Montreal.

The Globe and Mail recently had an article about how young people are now coming to Montreal to participate in the innovative economy. It mentioned the aerospace, the animation and the biotechnology sectors. Montreal is well placed to be at the leading edge of the knowledge based economy.

Bill C-13 is an important piece of legislation to achieve this goal. The Canadian institutes of health research represent a major investment in the knowledge and innovation needed to drive our innovative economy forward.

It is also important to note that it will fund research, first and foremost, that will seek to improve the health of Canadians. The objectives in the legislation make that clear. It will fund research that will promote the highest standards of ethics in research. It will work in partnership with all sectors of the research community to advance Canadian science. It will also work to promote economic development and the translation of research into benefits for Canadians.

The creation of a system of virtual research institutes is an important innovation for Canada's scientific community. It will bring together researchers and networks, ensuring that the results of research can be used and further developed more quickly.

The creation of institutes in sectors essential to Canadians will focus research, bringing together studies from different disciplines and making it possible to attack today's complex health problems.

Increasingly, cancer research is predicated on genetic studies and cellular studies, but it also requires analysis of the environment's impact on cancer, as well as studies on the most effective treatment of cancer patients in the health care system.

Bill C-13 will make it possible to channel research strategically.

Last month, with other MPs, I attended a breakfast meeting at which Dr. Patrick Lee of the University of Calgary spoke about some very encouraging observations he had made in his cancer research.

He has discovered mechanisms in reoviruses that can destroy cancerous cells. The new cancer treatment he has come up with has made headlines worldwide. Breakfast with Dr. Lee was a fascinating affair; I was delighted to hear about the work he is now doing in Canada. He turned out to be an excellent ambassador for Calgary, Alberta and Canada.

Bill C-13 will support people like Dr. Lee, who are truly on the cutting edge of health issues that concern Canadians.

In closing, it is important to mention that the Canadian institutes of health research is first a question of health and its funding will be through peer review. This is the only determinant for excellent science.

I have no hesitation in supporting this bill, which will represent a major investment in the health of Canadians and in a more effective and innovative health care sector. I urge members of the House to support it as well, so that Canadian institutes of health research can begin their important work for the well-being of all Canadians.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased today to join the debate on Bill C-13, the Canadian institutes of health research bill.

At this time of an overall failing health care system in Canada, I am pleased to see some encouraging news contained in this bill. I also wish to offer a critique of Bill C-13 and to offer some points on what I believe are the bill's shortcomings. I raise the points of concern only in an effort to improve the bill. Overall I believe that the bill is worthy of further support and my colleagues in the Reform Party would want to give that support at least up to committee level.

As I understand the bill, it is intended to take the place of the Medical Research Council and provide a more direct and systematic approach to research in Canada. Furthermore, the primary objective of the Canadian institutes of health research is to excel and build upon internationally accepted standards of scientific excellence and research through the creation of new knowledge and its translation into improved health for all Canadians.

One of the primary methods that will be used is that of virtual institutes through the Internet and other high tech communications. The institutes will be made up of experts in their selected fields.

The promise of addressing a portion of the Canadian brain drain is a worthwhile discussion. I would agree that one of the reasons we are losing our best and brightest from Canada to the United States is the research dollars that are available. To lose our best means that while they may have been educated in Canada, we are losing them to a foreign country. The consequences of this failing is like a row of dominoes. As the first person leaves, the process becomes easier for the next person, and so on and so on. Before we know it there is a flood of people leaving Canada which is virtually impossible to stem, unless there is a major change in the reasons that people are leaving.

Why are people leaving? May I suggest that it is the lack of incentive to contribute to our own medical and health research, a lack of financial support for the employees and institutes that they work at, and higher taxes.

We need to take corrective action. With some constructive fixing I believe that the bill could be one small piece of the solution to the brain drain, particularly in the medical professions in Canada today. I believe there are a number of concerns and ways that the bill can and should be improved.

I note that by the end of the second year the CIHR will have a proposed budget of $500 million. This is up from the current budget of $300 million. The addition of $200 million is a substantial amount of money. However, I believe it to be prudent to put some reasonable restrictions on the use of this money.

I fail to believe that without legislative regulations the intent of today's debate will carry over to reality tomorrow.

It is imperative that we set out a framework for the governor in council to work under. Therefore, I believe the administration costs arising out of the CIHR need to have a cap. Currently the Medical Research Council administration portion of its $300 million budget is 4.5%. May I suggest that this level could be maintained and perhaps even capped at 5%. To allow otherwise often leaves open the door for future abuse of taxpayers' dollars.

Under Bill C-13, clause 26(2), the CIHR “may borrow money, issue debt obligations or grant or receive a security interest only with the approval of the Treasury Board”. I fail to see why the CIHR needs to have this capability. With an annual budget approved by parliament, it is imperative that all ministries, departments and crown corporations live within their allocated budget needs. The future for any organization is built upon the available resources. I can see no benefit in allowing the CIHR the ability to borrow money even with the approval of Treasury Board.

Remaining on the issue of finances, I would draw attention to clause 26(1)(f), whereby the CIHR may for the purpose of achieving its objective, license, assign, sell or otherwise make available any patent, copyright, industrial design, trademark, trade secret or other like property right held, controlled or administered by the CIHR. While I do not disagree with the premise of this clause, I would like to see the financial benefits accrue back to the Canadian taxpayer. In other words, when the above types of licensing agreements are granted, the revenues revert to the CIHR and this lowers the financial burden on the Canadian taxpayer.

I agree that individual Canadians do not need to take a back seat to anyone or any other country when it comes to research and development. They simply need the chance and the environment to continue and complete their work. While I believe that Canadians are willing to fairly contribute and ensure that innovative medical research is undertaken in Canada, it is fair to say that those same Canadian taxpayers want to see a return on their tax dollar investment.

I am also interested in the individual projects themselves. It appears there are two distinct and different ways of selecting the projects. One approach is for the governing council to ask for proposals on a given area of research. The governing council would then review the submitted proposals and select them according to peer review.

The advantage of this approach is that the issues of the day will be sure to receive a given amount of research resources. The disadvantage however, is that without strict guidelines, the governing council runs the risk of being swayed by the political agenda of the day. We must remain vigilant on this and ensure that politics do not interfere and compromise our medical research.

In consultation with health officials, it was confirmed that there is an alternate route for those who wish to submit proposals. Anyone may draft a proposal and submit it to the governing council for peer review and selection. The advantage of this process is that new cutting edge medical research will find a forum for peer presentation. Individuals without connections to major universities and other research centres need to have an opportunity to present projects for research funding.

While meeting with the minister's staff regarding the selection of the individual projects themselves, it was indicated that there would be a balance between these two alternatives. I am pleased to support this aspect of the bill, but believe that the advantages and disadvantages need to be accounted for in the regulations. This could easily be included within the operating guidelines and subject to review by the Standing Committee on Health.

Most recently, the present government has been in the debacle of definitions concerning pay equity. The issue of scientific merit enters into this debate. It is important that the preamble also include a statement that indicates “Whereas parliament believes that health research should provide support for research on the basis of scientific merit”. This should be interpreted as research funding based upon the validity of the project, not on the basis of employment equity groups.

One aspect of this bill that requires strengthening is the matter of ethics. We all recognize today that technology has made great leaps forward. The minister has stated that this is an important part of the bill. I believe it can be further strengthened.

It was not that many years ago that some of the routine procedures used today would have seemed like science fiction: organ transplants, fetal surgery, gene therapy and open heart surgery, to mention only a few. Much can still be learned in these matters. They routinely occur in many parts of the world today.

I do not wish to use scare tactics and I certainly cannot predict the future, however I believe it would be in everyone's best interests to strengthen the ethical portions of the bill. Let us have a process whereby when new issues arise which have not yet been contemplated that researchers do not find themselves lost in a morass of bureaucracy. Let us ensure that the future is safe from deviation and questionable ethical decisions. Let us ensure that these decisions are not left in the hands of any one person or indeed in the hands of the bureaucracy.

One other aspect of the bill which I feel is important to draw further attention to is clause 21. It states:

The Governing Council shall review the mandate and performance of each Health Research Institute at least every five years after it is established and determine whether its mandate or the policies respecting its role and functioning should be amended or whether it should be merged with another Health Research Institute or terminated.

The importance of this particular clause lies in the history of other government programs. All too often a valid government program has been initiated with no end in sight. It just goes on and on.

It is imperative that when this bill is enacted that clause 21 remain or even be strengthened. When a program has outlived its usefulness, then it is time to eliminate it. The program may act as a catalyst, however the program should not be an industry in and of itself. Where a government program is not worthy of further funding, then we simply must end the program and move on to something else that is bigger and better.

The CIHR information states that there will be 12 to 15 institutes. I would ask that the future governing council and Minister of Health bring this matter before the Standing Committee on Health for input and development. If the CIHR is to work effectively, it must not only have the support of the government, but the support of the taxpayers as well. In order to accomplish this the research must be seen to be without political interference, without the view by the public regarding validity and necessity and with the broad based support of Canadian medical researchers.

While I favour the concept of private-public relationships, stringent regulations must be built into this legislation. We must be certain that such a partnership does not become an opportunity for the government of the day to have the private sector do its bidding. For any such program to work, there must be a transparent, accountable process. Clause 4 states:

The objective of the CIHR 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 Canadian health care system, by—

One manner in which the bill sets this out is in subclause 4(l):

(l) ensuring transparency and accountability to Canadians for the investment of the Government of Canada in health research.

Let us remember that the Government of Canada represents the taxpayers of the country. As such, the taxpayers will not accept any more Shawinigan shenanigans. I want to stress to the government that it should get it right this time. When the bill states “transparency and accountability”, let us have clear regulations set out for the research institutes involved. Let the bill and regulation adhere to standard acceptable accounting procedures. Let the recommendations of the auditor general be attended to immediately and not on a never-never plan.

While I believe that the intent of the bill heads us in the right direction, I want to stress that since its introduction and the subsequent briefing, there has not been sufficient time to draw together an independent body of medical researchers to vet the promises and premise of the bill.

I realize that the Medical Research Council has played a large role in this development. However, I feel it is imperative that those outside the system also be given an opportunity to review the bill and to give their input.

If the CIHR is intended to promote health and medical research across the country then let us take sufficient time now to ask researchers if it is in their best interest. If the researchers who will be involved find that the proposed system will not work or will work better in some other way, let us find out now and change the system at its inception, not partway through the process. Hopefully we can do this at the committee stage when the bill comes to committee.

One aspect of the bill I have not yet addressed is the high level of taxation that exists in Canada today. While the bill addresses one part of the brain drain, even though the Prime Minister refuses to take his head out of the sand and acknowledge the serious problem, it is clear that high taxation is a problem for medical research in the country.

As we go through this debate I would call upon the finance minister to take direct action on the high rate of taxation rampant in Canada today. Enough of the smoke and mirror shows with promises one day, only to be reneged on the next. We need lower taxes so more Canadians will stay in Canada to begin with and those in the medical profession can do the research we so urgently need.

No less of a body than the International Monetary Fund has stated that Canada needs to devote the majority of the surplus to lower our debt and taxes. I ask that the finance minister heed these words and assist in the elimination of Canada's brain drain, particularly in the medical professions.

Over the last 20 years our health system in Canada has been failing Canadians. It is common knowledge that the government has torn $21 billion out of the Canadian health care system in the last six years. It is only prepared to put back a small portion of that $21 billion into it. Canadians are paying a very real price for this failing. The failing rests squarely on the shoulders of the health minister, the finance minister and members of the Liberal government.

Now is the time to fix it. Now is not the time to lay blame where blame does not deserve to be laid. Premier Klein is not the problem. He is attempting to solve a problem in his province that has its root cause in Ottawa. By finding innovative solutions the failing of the Canadian health care system can be reversed and better health for Canadians will come about. The status quo is not acceptable. We must move forward and seek out real, new and innovative solutions. This bill may be a part of that but we know that we can all do better.

In conclusion, I reiterate that at this time the Reform Party will support the bill up to committee level. I believe that I have enumerated ways in which the bill could be improved and strengthened. Let us work together collectively to build a better health care system, seeking ways to improve it and certainly seeking ways to improve medical research that is so important to the health of Canadians.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the second reading of Bill C-13, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Act, to quote its short title.

I am very happy to speak about the institutes of health research, because this is an issue very dear to me, that I have been following now for a long time.

In fact, as early as December 1997, I wrote to the federal health minister to inform him of a genetics research project being proposed by a research team from the area I represent. I asked him to assess the merits of this research project to determine if a grant was warranted.

In June, I once again wrote to the health minister to invite him to take the opportunity, while he was visiting my region, to meet a research team interested in working at a proposed research institute that could meet its needs.

Also, in October, in a letter sent to the health minister, I asked if the federal government could provide some clarification about the proposed establishment of a health research centre in my riding of Jonquière. I stressed in that letter that I was very open to any investment in a specialized research centre.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member because I am listening intently to the debate, but we have two government members and we do not have quorum in the House. This is the first major health bill in the House in this parliament. The government should be ashamed of itself.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That aside, is the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest calling for a quorum?

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I am doing. That is what I request that you do.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have a request for quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is now a quorum. Debate shall continue.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Progressive Conservative colleague for calling to order this government, which tables bills and goes on to show its “keen interest”. As we have seen, it had to be called to order. Hear, hear.

I will now start where I left off. Last October, I sent a letter to the health minister asking that the federal government give some clarification on an investment project to establish a health research centre in my riding of Jonquière.

In this letter, I indicated that I would be very receptive to the idea of investing in a specialized research centre. In a release in relation to this letter, I made the following statement “If the government wants to announce major investments for health research in Jonquière, I will be very happy. My party and myself have long been asking that Quebec get its fair share of investments in research and development. Good for us if our region benefits from those investments.”

I will conclude this recapitulation by saying that, last week, I sent the health minister another letter, in which I deplored health care cuts imposed by the Liberal government since 1993 and the longstanding lack of equity in the distribution of federal R and D investments in Quebec.

I added that, naturally, consistent with the provinces' jurisdiction over health, we supported the idea of receiving a fair share of these new investments.

The reason I am taking this time to give a history of my remarks and positions on this issue is that I want to make it very clear that the Bloc Quebecois and myself have long been supportive of the idea of reinvesting in research.

I also want this debate to be exempt from any partisan comments. Following the dubious attempts of Liberal and Progressive Conservative members to make political hay with this issue—I could give a history of that, but I would probably run out of time—I stated that this initiative should be judged on its merits from a scientific point of view.

That is why I said, back in July, that it was clear to me that researchers in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region were the players, not Liberal or Progressive Conservative members. I added that without researchers there would be no such initiative and that it would be thanks to the excellence of the projects and the quality of the team of researchers, and nothing else, that the region could emerge as a winner.

As for the legislation before us today, the House probably knows by now that the Bloc Quebecois agrees with its principle. I believe every member recognizes that health is the most precious gift we have and that research in this area will result in improving the quality of life of our fellow citizens either by preventing diseases or by curing those who are suffering from diseases.

While the intent of the bill is laudable, it is nonetheless ironical to see the federal government suddenly so concerned about health issues, when we know how drastically it has cut transfer payments for health to the provinces since 1993 and reduced funding to the granting councils that allocate money to scientists in the health field.

I remind the House that in 1993 the federal government unilaterally and irresponsibly withdrew from health care networks when it introduced the Canada health and social transfer. In fiscal 1999-2000, Quebec's shortfall in social transfers is estimated to be close to $1.7 billion, $850 million of which is lost every year in the health field. Since 1993, the cumulative shortfall in the health field alone amounts to nearly $3.4 billion.

The Liberal government claims times were tough and it was fighting the deficit. To this I say that people did not stop being sick, and it is health workers and the sick who have been hurt by federal cuts.

Diseases did not suddenly disappear when the Liberals came to power, and yet they slashed research grants. By so doing they delayed new discoveries and medical technologies that would help us take better care of our fellow citizens at a time when ageing will require more resources.

I am wondering where all these Liberal members who come parading around in my riding were, when their government was making these drastic cuts to health care.

Did they fight to make sure that the health of the population be considered a priority and be spared from these cuts? I have not seen them very often, in hospitals or emergency wards in Quebec, praising the health budget cuts made by their colleague, the Minister of Finance.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the hon. member opposite would let me make my speech. When she makes her own, I will listen.

While we agree with the intent of the bill, we do not accept everything in it. The Bloc will put forward amendments to make the bill more acceptable.

For example, just to give members a general idea, in its preamble, the bill does not recognize the provincial governments' exclusive jurisdiction in the area of health but presents them as mere collaborators with the federal government. Here they go again with their mania in the area of health.

It should have been stated in the preamble that it is the provinces' responsibility to manage health services within their territory and that their agreement is needed in order to encroach upon areas under their jurisdiction. We will ask that this be specified.

Clause 14 of the bill provides that the governing council is responsible for the management of the Canadian institutes of halth research as a whole, unless it decides to delegate some of its powers, duties and functions.

In the bill as it currently stands, provincial governments do not have the authority to choose the research institutes and they do not have their say in the strategic direction, objectives and policies of the institutes.

Furthermore, even though clause 5(c) says that the institutes of health research are to consult other stakeholders, including the provinces, to collaborate and form partnerships with them, the wording of the clause is very vague et clearly dilutes the importance of the provinces by putting them on the same footing as other stakeholders.

So, effectively, nothing will allow the Quebec government to ensure that the institutes of health research will respect its health priorities.

Moreover, it is important to point out that, throughout the bill, reference is not made simply to health research, but the more general phrase “issues pertaining to health” is used, opening the door to an involvement that goes beyond the simple research realm.

I will say once again that it is not the establishment of institutes as such that is a problem for the Bloc Quebecois, but the fact that there is a possibility of direct encroachment on provincial jurisdictions in the field of health services to the public, without serious consultation with the provinces.

It would seem that the federal government wants to put in place parallel structures instead of supporting approaches taken by the provinces. If this is not its intention, the federal government should take advantage of the hearings on this bill and co-operate with the Bloc Quebecois to make it clearer, to the satisfaction of the provinces.

Through the Canadian institutes of health research, the federal government must not try to get involved in areas that come under provincial jurisdiction while forgetting that it is in large part responsible for the indecent cuts and the dire straits faced by the provinces in health care.

It is important that the legislative framework be properly developed, because it must not infringe on provincial jurisdictions, but rather complement these.

For instance, in Quebec, there is a science and technology ministry that is currently finalizing a new scientific policy and which identified its strategic areas in health research, namely mental health, cancer, genome and biotechnology.

During the committee hearings, we are determined to ask the federal government to respect the particularities and the strengths specific to researchers in Quebec regions, in order to build upon their success and their skills in areas where they excel. The federal government should not designate any institute of health research in Quebec without the consent of the Government of Quebec.

Improving the network for researchers in order to facilitate information transfer is desirable. However, this should not lead to federal criteria being applied or provincial areas of jurisdiction being infringed upon. This is why it is crucial that the Quebec government, which has jurisdiction over health issues, take part in selection and management, in these institutes.

I will attend the hearings of the Standing Committee on Health concerning this bill and ensure that representatives of the provincial governments and the researchers in outlying areas like the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean are heard, so that this bill can serve the interests of science and reflect Quebec's priorities before serving the federal government's political goals.

In the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area where I live, we already have prominent scientists who, these last few years, have been carrying out research in genetics and the human genome. We also have researchers like Michel Perron, who is part of Groupe ÉCOBES. Mr. Perron studies populations. As the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve said this morning, I think that the expertise of the researchers from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region has reached quite a high level. Their expertise should be recognized through a health research institute. I will do what is humanly possible to see that they get recognition for their work.

The Bloc Quebecois is offering its support to the federal government so this bill will really promote health research while respecting federal and provincial jurisdictions and improve the health of all Quebecers and Canadians.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss this very important legislation dealing with the Canadian institutes of health research as introduced by the Minister of Health earlier today.

As Canada enters a new century, the Government of Canada, along with the research community, recognizes that there is a tremendous opportunity to transform the funding of health research in Canada.

In 1998, a national task force on health research drew on the views of leaders and stakeholders in the granting councils, the teaching hospitals, the universities, the health charities, the provincial health research agencies, the health institutes and the business community. The task force proposed a major transformation in our approach to health research and recommended the creation of the CIHR.

By creating the CIHR, the Government of Canada has taken the first step toward creating a national health research strategy aimed at engaging all health research partners. This will position Canada very well as we move into the 21st century and, as such, is a very exciting proposition.

Canada's health research community has been given the chance not only to create Canada's premier health research enterprise, but also to do something very important for our country. In the next few months, the vision of a cutting edge, integrative and collaborative health research community in Canada will take shape and thus become a reality. That too is very much in keeping with what Canadians want.

The CIHR represents a revolutionary approach to health research in the country. It will reposition health research in a strategic way, funding and co-ordinating all federally supported research around an integrated health research agenda. This integrated approach will help to identify gaps in current research and lead to new strategies to address research shortcomings.

A priority of the CIHR will be to make a good link between health policy and good health research, in step with national health objectives, which is very important. It will incorporate the best of current approaches and practices to capitalize on existing strength while avoiding disruption of the excellent research work already under way.

There is a growing appreciation among stakeholder groups that an environment is needed where all sectors of health research are simultaneously welcomed, where areas lacking in capacity can be bolstered, and where all health researchers are encouraged to work together to solve complex and multifaceted health problems. The opportunity to exchange ideas and findings with fellow investigators is rare in the research world. Through this collaborative approach, research results will be shared to greater advantage and ultimately the creation and application of new knowledge will in fact be accelerated.

Canada's diverse health research community has rallied around the CIHR because they know that by transforming Canada's health research sector, everyone wins. They continue to play a key role in building this new organization as participants in a national dialogue in the CIHR development, leading up to the establishment of this key organization. In fact, this whole exercise to create and design the CIHR has been done in a very transparent and open manner.

The CIHR will bring together Canada's best investigators from a full spectrum of health research under a single umbrella to form a national brain trust of health researchers. This multidisciplinary approach will be organized through a framework of virtual institutes, each dedicated to a specific area of focus, linking and supporting researchers pursuing common goals. New synergies and networks will be forged across disciplines, including basic biomedical research, applied clinical science, health services and health systems and society, culture and the health of populations.

CIHR is an example of Canadian innovation and will mean a brain gain for Canada. New investments and better training will keep Canadian researchers in the country and maintain Canada's ability to develop world-class researchers in health in this area. The CIHR will bring the best and the brightest minds together to unlock then the mysteries of health.

As we see in the legislation, Bill C-13 will establish in law the federal government's commitment to the full range of health research inquiry. This will include an area of explosive growth, research into the social, cultural and environmental factors that affect the health of all Canadians. How, for example, does the health of Canadians who live in my part of the country differ from those who live in other parts of the country?

Through its support of both medical and social research, the CIHR will ensure that we as Canadians have a better understanding, not only of disease but also of health status. This latter field is a growing field of interest and has profound consequences in terms of health prevention.

There will be 10 to 15 virtual institutes that will support and link researchers as part of a national team based in numerous institutions where excellent work is being conducted across Canada. For example, an institute may be established to focus on aging, another on women's health or dedicated to mental health or the treatment and prevention of diseases such as cancer or heart disease.

To offer a sense of how a virtual institute might work, let me provide members with an example. Consider an institute on respiratory ailments in which a focus is on the growing incidents of asthma among Canadian children. It could bring together a multidisciplinary research agenda to address the following: basic genetic research on asthma at a hospital in a city centre; clinical trials and evaluations of asthma therapies in various provinces; research by social scientists and public health officials on factors leading to asthma in children in rural areas; or evaluate local pilot projects to improve how our health system responds to childhood asthma. Any of those or all of those would be in play.

This integrative approach will build on the research base in our universities, our health and research centres, our teaching hospitals, federal and provincial governments, voluntary and private sectors, and all of these working in conjunction and with each other.

The CIHR will effectively transform Canada's research sector in this way. Research that has traditionally been performed in disciplinary separation will now be integrated across scientific disciplines.

Research that was once conducted in a context that was separate from delivery will now be performed with a view to the integrated health system. Research performed under a multitude of agendas will now be integrated into a national health agenda.

By creating a robust health research environment in Canada, the CIHR will build the capacity of the Canadian health research community and promote the discussion of ethical issues, the dissemination of knowledge and the application of health research.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, thousands of highly skilled Canadians are employed in the health sector. The CIHR will provide expanded training and career opportunities for our scientists and clinicians in all areas of research, inspiring a whole new generation of Canadians to view health research as a viable career choice. The CIHR will ensure that funding levels are competitive with other countries and that our best and brightest minds remain in Canada.

Keeping our researchers here in Canada is definitely a top priority, but this is not the only benefit of the CIHR. Canadians will benefit from the development of technologies, products and services and practices that will lead to new treatments and preventative measures. The CIHR will be a solid return on their investment.

Health research plays an important role in providing new information and analysis upon which the effectiveness of the health care system can be judged. It will contribute to the advancement of national standards and provide valuable support of the decision making process.

Collaboration and partnership will lead to the sharing of information among researchers wherever they reside and among stakeholders, thus improving dialogue across different frontiers and creating a transparent and inclusive process for the setting of the health research agenda.

A climate of innovation and discovery will stimulate research investment in the health and biotech sectors. The number of made in Canada breakthroughs will multiply and will multiply fast.

In closing, I would like to emphasize again, because it is important, that the CIHR will be focused on results, on knowledge creation, on discoveries and enhanced base of knowledge to improve the health system. It will create more highly skilled jobs in key sectors of the economy and, above all, it will create healthier Canadians.

As exciting as this venture may be for researchers, in the end all Canadians will benefit and the Canadian institutes of health research will be very good for Canada. As a result, I urge all members of parliament to support this very important piece of legislation in the interests of all of Canada.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

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.