Debates of Nov. 23rd, 1999

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's observations. I certainly appreciate his indication that in general his party supports the legislation.

The hon. member is quite correct that if there are specific concerns he or others may have, when the bill goes to committee they will certainly be able to discuss them.

I would indicate that the CIHR was enthusiastically supported after much consultation by a wide coalition of Canadian health research partners across the country in terms of the structure.

The hon. member pointed out some very specific concerns with regard to the Prime Minister, and if I understood the member correctly, the independence of this body. This is what has been suggested after much consultation. It would seem that many of the proposals and the structure itself originated in those consultations with the research community.

No doubt there will be witnesses before the committee. If there are those in the health community who have those particular concerns, as has been suggested by my hon. colleague, they will have the opportunity to present them to the committee. I presume that if the will of the committee is such, it will make amendments in its recommendations.

It is important to note that the interim governing council to the minister worked extremely closely with the health research community. I want to stress that in terms of what we have before us today.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased to work on an issue my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest is involved with. When he talks about health care, he really knows what he is doing. He has lived through things that gave him the opportunity to have a closer look at the issue.

When a government talks about research and development, it is obvious that people of good faith will find it difficult to oppose, in principle, a bill that deals with medical research and will promote the development of several regions of the country.

At the time I was sitting with my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest. We were talking about medical research, especially in the pharmaceutical field. We know what impact the bill passed at the time has had on the country as a whole, and particularly in the Montreal area. This is a example we like to give.

With regard to space research, I am pleased to see the government is also continuing its efforts in that direction, with all the impact research has had in areas where, a few years ago, we had absolutely no expertise. I am sure these examples will convince everyone that research is the basis for everything. This is true throughout the world. Without research, be it medical or any other type, there is no development.

I could give you other examples, one of which immediately comes to mind, namely aluminium. I will get back to the issue of health in a moment. I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec is here. There has been no job creation in the aluminium sector in Quebec. In fact, nearly 10,000 jobs were lost. The reason for that—and I am glad to see the secretary of state and the industry minister are aware of that reality—is that the lack of research in a primary sector always results in job losses.

Nevertheless, I am happy to say this bill will ensure that several cities in Canada will have the opportunity to take their place in the area of medical research, and we all hope this will create jobs.

There is not a city in the world that did not need research or labs for its development. I am thinking of Montreal, for example, and cities like Toulouse, where the aeronautical and chemical industries played a key role in the city's development, or Boston, with its technological institute. Research created tens of thousands of jobs in these regions.

Investors are attracted to places where they know they will be able to find a pool of qualified researchers. This applies to the health sector as well as any other sector. Take cities like Grenoble or Tours, in France, whose development was boosted by research in the transportation sector, particularly with regard to the high speed train. And let us not forget Bombardier, which helped us develop an expertise that makes us one of the best in the world today.

Unfortunately, there are still too many sectors where Canada does not put enough emphasis on basic research. I am thinking about the forest product industry, the aluminium industry and the health area, except for pharmaceutical research.

Our party supports the underlying principles of this bill and the funding of research projects that will be selected because of their excellence and in accordance with international criteria. The Progressive Conservative Party will support such initiatives. We are in favour of medical research that will help Canada maintain and increase its competitiveness in research activities, which are currently creating more jobs than any other area.

In Canada, we must stop relying only on jobs in resource-based industries. There is only one way to break out of that cycle, and it is through research. In improving the health of the population, medical research will play a key role in increasing productivity.

Of course, when dealing with an issue like this one, what we in our party hope for is that, once the bill is passed and the institutes are selected, the regions will not be forgotten, and I want to commend the minister responsible for amateur sport for his work in this area.

Several regions in this country are in deep trouble, because their natural resources have all been used up and no consideration was ever given to research that would have supported processing of these resources in major industries. What is happening now is that research is being carried out in Europe and the United States. For some fifty years, research was completely overlooked in Canada.

Now we are faced with the need to do some considerable catching up. That is why it is our fervent hope that the government, with the assistance of the opposition parties and members, will be able to ensure a fair distribution of the Canadian institutes of health research, and that the regions will not be left out.

We are in a position to do good things in the regions. We are not there just to be exploited. We are there to create worthwhile and well-paying jobs for local people. Introduction of this bill has created a great deal of hope in the regions of Canada and of Quebec, and more specifically in my region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

When this bill was introduced, many people in my region were quick to show leadership, one of the best in the country, in trying to show their elected representatives, both those in opposition and those in government, the importance of moving forward with basic research in the health field, and particularly of not neglecting the regions.

I would like to list a few of the people in my region who have worked very hard to ensure that the regions may one day benefit from this project, particularly the region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

These include Jean-Guy Boily, who has worked very, very hard to raise the awareness of all stakeholders about basic research, health research in particular, in our region.

There is Robert Jacques, Jean-Eudes Girard, Réjean Lafrance, Yvon Perron, Dr. Houde, the researchers at the Hôpital de la Sagamie, Michel Perron, Dr. Daniel Gaudet, Dr. Bégin and Gérard Bouchard of the IREP, the Institut de recherches interuniversitaires sur les populations. The people at the CORAMH, the Corporation de recherches et d'action sur les maladies héréditaires, also do a lot of work on hereditary disease. What is interesting is that very often in my region so little is shared that everyone runs into the same problems.

I can say that, in our region, there is very close co-operation between the private sector, the medical sector and all the researchers, among the entire scientific community. This also applies to a large part of Quebec. These stakeholders work hand in hand to introduce projects that will be structural and that will lead to worthwhile discoveries.

I dare to hope, obviously, that the government will note the efforts of our regions so they may be taken into account in the establishment of these institutes.

What is interesting, and I am pleased to point this event out, is that the government has confirmed that, next June, in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, and more particularly in Jonquière, an international conference will be held on genetic determinants of health.

Our region is particular on the issue of genetic research. I am pleased that it can put forward publicly all the expertise it has developed laboriously in recent decades, very often with little support from national or provincial organizations.

I am obviously pleased to point out that we will take this event very seriously. We are not asking anything of Bill C-13. We are asking to be recognized as people who have succeeded in developing a very high level of expertise.

I am pleased to mention that the expertise developed by our region is beginning to make quite an impression both in political circles and among those who perform basic research throughout the country.

We hope the work done by CORAMH researchers on hereditary diseases in particular will be known to all.

The ÉCOBES group at the CEGEP of Jonquière is working very hard in co-operation with the people of CORAMH and IREP, who are internationally renowned. That is why an international conference will be held in our region in June.

Rest assured that we will submit extremely productive projects not only for Quebec, but for the whole country, and—why not—for the whole world. To many researchers, our region is an interesting laboratory for research on hereditary diseases, on genetics. We look forward to the creation of an institute for research in these areas so that we can have access to more resources.

Genetic research is no longer limited to hereditary diseases. Today, researchers are looking at genetic predisposition to cancer. God knows cancer affects all families. Every family is faced with this terrible challenge.

That is to say nothing of asthma and cardiovascular diseases. I am convinced that, if the members of the House, particularly government members, show that they are conscious of the importance of the research that has already been undertaken in our regions, particularly in the region I represent—I was not elected to represent the whole world but to represent the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, particularly the beautiful riding of Chicoutimi, the fjord—rest assured that we will follow this issue very closely.

We are confident that the research fostered by the establishment of these institutes will benefit all Canadians.

I would like to highlights comments made by Pavel Hamet, the director of research at the Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal. He was with us in Jonquière when the minister announced the international conference.

He stated that research is indeed being carried out in Saguenay and that it is of a very high level, because it has led to the discovery of several genetic diseases. “Moreover, he said, the Saguenay area is unique, because of its gene pool.”

It may come as a surprise to some of the hon. members, but he also said that the Saguenay is the only region recognized by the World Health Organization for its work on regional genetics.

Dr. Hamet noted that the region is home to the Institut interuniversitaire de recherche sur les populations, or IREP, as well as several researchers, and that a number of large families have yet to be studied, which the WHO considers highly valuable.

He went as far as to say that it was in our national interest to retain in the Saguenay region a group like ÉCOBES and researchers coming from the medical community like Dr. Paul Bégin and Dr. Daniel Gaudet, whom I and some ministers have had the pleasure to meet.

These issues are too crucial to be debated loudly in the House of Commons; one is even tempted to whisper when addressing them. People like animals normally cry in pain when they are suffering or have something to hide. As far as we are concerned, we have every intent to see this through and to ensure that this initiative benefits every region in the country, especially one of the greatest regions of Quebec, that of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

Researchers like Dr. Bégin et Dr. Gaudet are also members of the research centre of the CHUL. They are major partners in many projects, including research on high blood pressure and neurological disorders. According to Dr. Hamet, other collaborative projects will be carried out in the areas of breast cancer, cystic fibrosis and neurodegenerative diseases. God knows how important it is to look into these diseases.

The director of research explains that, in the genetic sector, the raw material comes from our region and that structural benefits are to be foreseen.

All in all, I think it is essential that the government put some emphasis on core research. It is important in all sectors, including in the health sector.

I could obviously elaborate on that, particularly on the positive results achieved, which gave prominence to Canadian researchers who are now internationally renowned.

However, I cannot help but ask the government to pay more and more attention to a problem that has strong links with the medical and health sectors, that is poverty.

Lately, we have heard a lot about poverty and about how it is destroying Canadian families. It is important to see how the phenomenal increase in poverty is linked to health problems. Undernourished children cannot be in good health and cannot succeed in school. Fathers and mothers who do not earn decent salaries cannot feed their children properly and provide them with a minimum level of health.

That is why this is so important for this government, which has benefited from the structural measures put in place by the previous, Progressive Conservative government. Fairness is important in politic. We should recognize that each successive government normally makes a positive contribution that deserves recognition.

Through the structural measures it put into place over several years, the former Progressive Conservative government made it possible for the present government to do away with the deficit.

Free trade was the most progressive of measures at the time. It allowed us to raise our exports from $90 billion to $230 billion over five or six years. Imagine what that represents in net revenues for the government. We need only think of the GST, which will bring in $24 billion this year. I can understand them not abolishing it. I would at least ask them to make some choices for turning things around that are important to the public.

I trust that the government will be responsive to these crying needs, that it will make investment choices in areas such as poverty that will be extremely important for researchers in the health field, and this must start at the grassroots level. That means ensuring that mothers and fathers have enough money to feed their children. People are in worse health if they do not have the bare necessities.

This is why I say yes to basic research, yes to health research, yes also to a healthier population that is in better shape because it can afford the bare necessities of life. That is why I spoke yesterday about the importance of looking very seriously at inaugurating a guaranteed minimum wage. It is time we looked at that possibility, like the European Economic Community and Portugal will soon be doing.

There are dozens and dozens of programs to feed the poor. There has been a 50% increase in child poverty over the past five years. The problem is a serious one, and it is all interrelated with health research. War has been declared against poverty with a tool that strikes me as likely to be the only one that could be effective.

These are matters on which we could concentrate for hours. We are going to focus a great deal of attention on Bill C-13 as it relates to research. As a party, we have always believed in the importance of research.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on the structure of the CIHR. I think it is problematic, but I would like his opinion on this.

What we have is the Prime Minister appointing the president of the CIHR and the governor in council, which in turn will determine what becomes an institute. In other words, we do not know yet what these institutes are. There is no transparency as to how many there will be or what they will be.

There is a problem in terms of this arm's length relationship that we would like to see between the CIHR and the Prime Minister's office. This arm's length relationship I guess could be called independence. The member could possibly speak on this lack of independence, as I see it.

Also, regarding a reporting mechanism, none of us know whether or not the goals and objectives of the CIHR will be achieved, but there is no measuring stick and no reporting back to parliament. Once the bill leaves the House of Commons it is out there in bureaucratic land somewhere. In five years time, when this agency is reviewed, there will be no input and no ability of parliament to have any input on the structure of this new organization.

I am saying all this, believe it or not, in the context of supporting the bill. We do support the bill, but I think some of these questions of independence, arm's length from government and the reporting mechanism have to be addressed in the bill. I am hoping the member can comment on that from a Quebec perspective.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As I pointed out a moment ago, a bill is never perfect when first tabled. Obviously, our caucus, through our health critic, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, will certainly make extremely efficient efforts to put forward amendments concerning the administrative structure.

As part of my work on this issue, I met with many specialists in medical research, and it is true that these are people able to assume a lot of responsibilities. They do not want handouts. They are able to make interesting proposals, in relation to both the areas where research should be encouraged and management.

They will certainly have an opportunity to share their views with the committee, and my colleague will be able to propose amendments. This will allow us to come to an agreement on the main thrust of Bill C-13, which is to encourage health research by establishing research institutes. It will also enable us to create thousands of research application related jobs for young people looking for structural jobs.

We are dealing with a scientific community which is used to taking charge and which did not always get the support it needed. I am convinced that my colleague's wish will be fulfilled by the government, because the government's goal should be to encourage people who can carry out good research and create jobs. Ultimately, I am sure all Canadians will appreciate and benefit from that.

It would be interesting to give researchers more scientific responsibilities, and also administrative ones, so that politicians can step back from the appointment process.

We are entering an era where political appointments will become less and less acceptable. I have been reviewing the Canada Elections Act. Just yesterday, we talked about returning officers. For the last hundred years, they have been appointed by each successive governing party, but we are now wondering whether it would be better to have a process whereby the best candidates would be appointed to these positions.

With respect to the establishment of institutes, the best would be to have an objective mechanism in place to appoint the people with the greatest expertise, who can deliver and achieve the goals set out in the bill.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to remind the House and the viewing Canadian public that this is the first major piece of legislation the health minister has had before this parliament, going back now over two years.

The government has hardly a presence here. I am asking for a quorum count.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I do not see a quorum. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

I now see a quorum. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Surrey Central.

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I simply want to point out that upon the quorum call, the hon. member from the Conservative Party left saying, “Okay, let's leave”. It is a little disingenuous.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I know that the Minister of Industry may have a grievance, but I do not think he has a point of order. The hon. member for Surrey Central has the floor.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central and on behalf of all my colleagues to respond to the government's proposal to replace the Medical Research Council and create the Canadian institutes of health research.

The objective, as I understand it, is to create new knowledge and then translate it into improved health for Canadians. Before I go into the details, I would like to extend my appreciation for the work of Dr. Henry Friesen, who is the president of the interim governing council, and other members of the council who have cared about the importance of cutting edge research and who have worked hard to put this idea together.

We want, of course, to provide Canadians with more effective health services and products from a strengthened health care system, not a weak system as the government has made it.

I hope the Liberals can do this with Bill C-13, which is one of the major pieces of legislation they have proposed before the House. I have some problems with what they say they can do, what they will actually do, and what they will cause to be done. These are the three different things I am concerned about.

Before I go into the details, I have many questions in my mind that I would like to have answered by the government members. Why are we not extending the mandate of the previous organization, the Medical Research Centre? Why are we not putting it on the right track? Why do the Liberals not give the current institution the vision and the tools to get the job done? Why are the Liberals reinventing the wheel? Perhaps it is cash-strapped because of the $23 billion the government cut from our health care spending. Maybe it is because of the lower morale and the confidence of the health care providers in the system. Maybe.

Is the Medical Research Council failing because of the brain drain that the government has caused? Are doctors, nurses, scientists and researchers leaving our health care system and research facilities in such large numbers that we are falling behind in research? Maybe.

Is it that the researchers and scientists cannot afford the technology necessary and the tools required in order to conduct their research?

All these questions have remained unanswered so far in this debate. I have been listening very carefully.

Why would the government allow that to happen to our research? Did it destroy our research capabilities in order to balance the budget? Maybe.

How much democracy is going to be created with this new institute?

The government members should be answering these questions during the debate today. Canadians want to know the answers to these questions. Canadians want accountability in our research system. The Medical Research Council has 85 employees and it costs about $14 million per year. However, instead of creating a new entity, why do the Liberals not work with the 85 scientists we already have in the system and give them the tools and the technology they need to get their work done?

The Liberals will have 20 directors to appoint if this bill passes, 20 patronage-ridden appointments which shows from their record. Will they be awarding these positions based on merit? Will these positions be advertised? I doubt it, that is important.

There is much work to be done on the bill and many considerations to be made. There has been very little time to consult with the various scientific communities. Who will co-ordinate, integrate and focus the research? How will this be handled? Will the applicants themselves, the people allowed to do the research, direct the bulk of the research, or will the nature of the research be directed by the advisory board forcing applicants to apply for funding in areas dictated by a central body?

Again, there are many areas that the health committee of the House will want to investigate. Witnesses will need to be called in to clarify certain aspects of the bill.

I recently received a letter from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada asking to appear before the health committee of the House. They are looking forward to appearing before the committee because they want to express their support for the bill. They also have concerns that they want to put on the table. They want to bring the foundation's unique perspective to the work of the committee.

The represent Canadians in the cardiovascular community: doctors, nurses and patients. The Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada speaks for many Canadians, including those who have died from cardiovascular diseases. We hope they will be allowed to give testimony before the committee, unlike the Nisga'a hearings in B.C. As we see, the government stacked the witnesses on the list.

The Liberal dominated committee makes it very difficult for us to work with it. We on this side of the House want to help the Liberals. We know they cannot see they do not have vision. We know they do not listen to Canadians. We will hold the flashlight for them and give them direction in their darkness. We will try to help them do the government's committee work. However, it is very difficult to work with the partisan-ridden committee system that we have in the House.

We would like to support this bill. We would like to support whatever we can that will improve, develop and facilitate medical and health research in Canada because we know that is very important.

This bill could address the concerns of the brain drain. It could be used to attract and retain Canada's brightest young researchers. It is going to be hard enough to keep them in Canada because they are overtaxed. It is shameful that many successful young medical science graduates would go immediately to the U.S.A. to make some serious money and pay very little tax on the six-digit salaries they make there. It is going to be difficult for the Liberals to convince our finest young minds to stay in this overtaxing country. Maybe Bill C-13 could be used to expand what we have to accommodate our scientists.

Another issue is that Bill C-13 promises a clear and concise statement in a yearly plan that promotes the development of research in health and science. We know that the auditor general is continually calling on the government to be more transparent in its reports to parliament. There are many examples of the government not being overly forward in terms of providing the House and Canadians with the facts and figures concerning many initiatives.

The performance reports that the Liberals offer as supplementary budget estimates on a semi-annual basis are not all they are cracked up to be. They are a sham.

Let me give the example of CIDA. Parliament is quite far removed from its operations. CIDA is left running wild, out of control, while the government provides parliament with as little information as possible about the mismanagement and lack of—

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the member, but since what he said is so interesting, I find it most unfortunate that there is no quorum.

Could you call for quorum so that the Liberal members can come and listen to what we, on this side of the House, have to say?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm has requested that the Chair call for a quorum. We do not have a quorum. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have a quorum.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is such an important bill that I was surprised only two Liberals members were listening. It is an important bill. In the last few minutes quorum had to be called twice.

In any event, I was talking about the government reporting to parliament. We hope that the annual report of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research will really provide information to the elected representatives of the country so that we may decide whether our constituents' tax dollars are being spent wisely. We will be anxiously awaiting the auditor general's report.

I know that time is limited and there are many things I want to say about the bill. I cannot even pretend to deal with the process of research grants that will be administered by the new institutes. The selection process could attract foreign participants who would provide us with a wealth of new perspectives, experience and products.

We also know about agencies created by Tories and Liberals that are at arm's length from the House of Commons. We see the terrible waste of tax dollars squandered on million dollar dinosaur statues, pornographic movies, free flags and hundreds of thousands of dollars for constructing dead trees and many other things.

We hope that these new institutes, created to operate at arm's length from the government, will not turn into pork barrels that the Liberals will use to pay off political favours and other things. Hopefully high ranking scientists will be allowed to make decisions without interference from the government.

This reminds me of the BST hormone fiasco. The government pressed hard for scientists to approve and declare that the bovine growth hormone was safe, but the scientists refused. They ended up leaving their jobs over the issue. Liberal senators on the Senate committee dealing with this were appalled at the situation.

The effort in Bill C-13 represents our federal government's single largest investment in research and knowledge. We want to develop affordable and accessible health care. We need to work on the prevention of disease, detection of disease, health care services and treatment, new discoveries, new products and new patents. We need to meet the health challenges of the future, including new treatments for new strains of bacteria. We need to fight those new strains with new antibiotics. We need to be innovative and evaluate and improve our health care resources. We need to deepen our understanding of health care issues and services. We need to identify and fill in the gaps between what we have and what we should have. We need to confront questions of ethical standards. We need to research all of those things. We have to work closely with the provinces, territories, our universities, health institutions and numerous NGOs.

The minister talks about a cutting edge research centre. We hope he can deliver it. Canadians want to see accountability, not more bureaucracy. The minister said today that 95% of the funding will go to research and 5% toward administration costs. We will hold him to those figures. We will see if that happens.

When President Reagan met President Gorbachev at the first nuclear disarmament meetings, he said trust, but verify. We have to verify whether the government sticks to its promise before we start trusting.

Let us look at the record. We have seen the Liberals drop the ball on an organ donor transplant system. They did not deliver. They continue to study it while Canadians die.

We have seen the government ignore the head start program which was supported by all sides of the House. That motion was introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, who has worked hard on the issue. The Liberals have done nothing about extending the head start program from aboriginal children to all Canadian children, even though it has been a successful initiative elsewhere.

We all know about the Moncton and Hawaiian head start programs. It is said that for every dollar invested there will be a saving of $6, there will be fewer youth dropping out of school, a reduction in teenage pregnancies and a reduction in youth crime. It increases the bond between children and their parents. These are all the things we know the head start program will deliver, so why do the Liberals not go ahead with it? We will have to wait to see what they will do on research.

Another example is smoking. We saw the government raise taxes on tobacco and then lower them because it could not do anything to stop tobacco smuggling. The Liberals caved in. They did not have the political will to tackle the problem of smoking, particularly as it concerns our children. Why not tackle the cause of smoking related diseases by working to prevent people from starting to smoke? Why do the Liberals limit work on smoking problems and merely treat the diseases that flow from chronic, long term tobacco use?

Another example is fetal alcohol syndrome. Why not stop the syndrome instead of merely dealing with the results? That is what the government has done on so many other issues. It addresses the symptoms but not the cause.

Another important issue is the drug problem. Governments at the municipal level, the provincial level and the federal level are not dealing with this issue. The federal government could contribute a lot to this issue. I have not seen any strong initiative from the federal government to deal with the drug problem. Drugs are being imported into this country and nothing is being done. Nor has anything been done to effectively treat drug users. The government is turning a blind eye to this serious issue.

Other problems stem from it, for example AIDS and HIV, but nothing is being done by this government. It believes in looking at symptoms but not treating the causes. We hope this will not continue to be the case.

We know that we need to work with, consult and include our scientific community in the work that our federal government does in the field of health. We need the input of our scientific community to direct the research. On this side of the House we hope that this bill will result in the creation of successful research institutes. We want to help the Liberals achieve this if we can.

Another example is the Surrey and White Rock Home Support Association, which is in my riding. In Surrey Central we are trying to establish a wellness centre for seniors. The energy behind this effort is Mr. Ron Watson and the Surrey and White Rock Home Support Association. Ron is a wizard when it comes to matters of health care. He is one person who many people in our community, myself included, look up to. The Surrey wellness centre will benefit the elderly in our area. There is a need for this type of accommodation.

So far the Liberals have refused to allow Surrey to use millennium project funds to get this going. The Liberals have financed dinosaur statues, tree statues, all kinds of parties and other things, but they will not allow the spending of millennium project funding on such an important project that will help our seniors. The Surrey wellness and health centre will have 1,000 beds. It will serve Alzheimer patients, geriatrics, the general population and the terminally ill.

As I said, there is a need for that facility, but this cold-hearted Liberal government has no vision and will not help us. Instead, it insists on trying to get us to build a dinosaur statue for $1 million or have a big party. We cannot use the millennium project funds to get the home care unit going. It is absolutely incredible.

On another issue, Alberta is creating a health care system to try to keep Canadians from having to go to the U.S. to get medical treatment because the health care in this country is not working. This country has a sickness care system, not a wellness or health care system.

There is already a three tier health care system. One tier is regular treatment which is status quo and only in a medical emergency. The second tier is a waiting system and 200,000 people are waiting for various treatments. The third tier is when people do not get the desired health care and they have to go to the U.S.

In conclusion, it is very difficult to trust the government knowing its misguided priorities and propensity to mismanage whatever it does.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part today in the debate on Bill C-13, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Act.

I must say that I am all the more delighted to do so following my colleague from Jonquière and my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who spoke this morning and made a very good case for these institutes.

In principle, we cannot be against the establishment of these health research institutes in various areas of public health.

Naturally, my speech will focus on Bill C-13, as presented by the government, but I will also clarify the more problematic aspects of this bill.

The other matter I will address is the whole issue of research and development. There is much to say on this subject, but I will confine myself to a few points because, for a long time, Quebec, and Montreal in particular, did not get its fair share of federal grants for research and development. I will come back to that later because Montreal has been a poor cousin when it comes to investment in research and development by the federal government.

To have a strong metropolis, attract brains and stimulate productive investments, what is required is investment in that metropolis, so as to develop the various areas on which Montreal based its economic recovery. Biotechnology is one major area in Montreal in terms of recovery. Yet, we are still waiting for federal productive spending in that area.

The fact that only 16% of R and D expenditures are made in Quebec certainly raises questions. No wonder Montreal lost its title of Canada's metropolis to Toronto. It is because the federal government did not spend and did not want to invest in areas that were crucial to Montreal's development.

Without basic, crucial, productive and job creating investments, Montreal will never meet its economic recovery objectives. I will come back to R and D later.

I now turn to the priorities of Quebec and the Quebec government. These need to be addressed because it is not true that the federal government is the only one to promote and give priority to scientific and technological research. It would be a mistake to think that, with its bill, the federal government is the only one to give priority to an area that is crucial to Quebec's economic and technological development. So does the Quebec government.

I remind the House that the Quebec government created a ministry of research, science and technology. This ministry is working on a draft science policy which will be made public in a few months. It focuses on such critical issues as aging, and other important areas Quebec has been working on and for which it never received a cent from the people across the way.

I will come back to Quebec's priorities later on. At the end of my presentation, I will give a rather telling example of what public investments in research could accomplish.

I introduced a private member's motion to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. We are still waiting for money from Ottawa to start clinical trials in phase III, which would allow us to go ahead with it, thereby allowing patients to take their drugs legally. I will also come back to this later.

The purpose of Bill C-13 is to establish institutes of health research. In his last budget, the finance minister gave some indication to this effect. Today, the basis on which these institutes will be built are set out in very concrete terms. To establish these institutes the government acted on the recommendations made by 34 university scientific experts.

They included Quebec and Canadian academics and scientists. Bill C-13, which establishes these institutes, is based on the recommendations made by these 34 experts.

Needless to say the issues that might be raised are important. They are crucial to the people in Quebec and Canada. Among other issues, there is the whole issue of population aging.

We are in a demographic situation where the population in Quebec and Canada is getting older. The aging curve is going up. To a certain extent it is harmful. In the context of renewal and of our ability to secure the future of the Quebec and Canadian society, technological alternatives will have to be developed to ensure that the life expectancy of Canadians will increase.

The issue of aging is fundamental and it encompasses various areas. Obviously, it covers every disease. I am thinking of diseases like Alzheimer and various mental diseases as well as various surgical procedures. Technology in that area in essential to increase the life expectancy of Canadians and Quebecers.

Another area of research could be arthritis. I think a lot of Canadians suffer from this disease. I know what I am talking about. One third of the people in my riding are over 55. This disease affects an increasing number of people everywhere in Canada.

The issue of clinical evaluation and evaluation of technologies also seems essential to us. Technologies cannot be developed scientifically without verifying their accuracy at some point and finding ways to apply them. In terms of technological development in Canada, useful applications must be sought for new technologies because, in the end, our goal is to improve the quality of life of the people we represent.

This issue of clinical evaluation and evaluation of technologies is another area in which the institutes could be called upon to work.

In budget terms, we got a surprise. It was a surprise for me, at least. But I discussed it with my colleague from Drummond, who has been the Bloc Quebecois' critic on the subject for many years. I would say that she spearheaded the entire Bloc Quebecois strategy in the request for transfer to the provinces, in the desire of Quebecers to have their loot, as one of our former premiers put it. The member for Drummond said to me “We could summarize the government's initiative in two words. I was in attendance at the standing committee and aware of all that was happening. It is a praiseworthy but virtual initiative”.

So the principle is praiseworthy, we will support it, but at the same time this is a technocratic or bureaucratic blur, something the government opposite always arranges for the various health issues.

The budget is a surprise no longer, we know it now. The minister was clear. In February 1999, it was made clear that there will be a $65 million investment for the 2000-01 fiscal year. We also learned that there would be $175 million more for the following year.

That is a lot of money, and we must agree. But the members on this side of the House must see to it that this money really serves the needs of the people of Quebec. I have said this, there is a policy currently being developed at the Quebec department of research, science and technology and we must make sure that these investments really meet the needs of the people of Quebec.

The mandate is clear. It is written in black and white and in the preamble to the bill. It appears a little further on in the bill: it is to organize, co-ordinate and fund health research in Canada.

As we can see, there is a willingness to organize, but there is more. Earlier, I was reading part of the preamble and I was somewhat surprised to see what it said. The preamble reads in part as follows:

Whereas Parliament believes that health research institutes should be created to coordinate, focus and integrate health research based on—

I feel it is essential at this point to tell you that there is a problem within the problem, with this notion of focus. These are the issues I want to raise, because while I said we agree with the principle, there are some problems. The first one is that the bill does not recognize the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces in health and social services. This should be pointed out.

I will read another part of the preamble, which sheds light on the role of the provinces under this legislation. The second “whereas” reads as follows:

Whereas Parliament recognizes the role of the provinces in health care and that the Government of Canada collaborates with provincial governments to support the health care system and health research;

So, the role of the provinces is recognized, but the federal government continues to collaborate strongly and to focus, as they say in the preamble of the bill. I think care must be taken to recognize that provincial governments, including the Government of Quebec, have exclusive jurisdiction in this area.

Another important aspect of this bill, and one that I have a problem with, is that, despite any statements of policy the provinces might issue, including those from the Government of Quebec, they do not have the authority to choose CIHRs. The bill makes it clear that the future governing council will have final authority. This is important, and I will read paragraph 5(c), among others, which says:

(c) consult, collaborate and form partnerships with the provinces and with persons and organizations in or outside Canada that have an interest in issues pertaining to health or health research;

In other words, the CIHR will collaborate with the provincial governments, but never when it comes to administration. The Government of Quebec will never be able to define the general direction it would like its institutes to take. I find this very worrisome from certain points of view.

Another important aspect is that the provinces are not on an equal footing with the other partners. Just now, I read paragraph 5, which made this abundantly clear. Basically, certain agencies will be placed on the same footing as a province, which has a duly elected government and which provides services. In the worst case scenario, agency X could be considered on an equal footing with a province of six to seven million people.

In this regard, I think the federal government has not really taken into account the role of the provinces in the provision of health care services. This is nothing new, because the provinces have never really been considered in the overall picture of services provided. Since 1993, the federal government has cut $3.4 billion in provincial transfer payments for health. In the 1999-2000 budget, the shortfall in social transfer payments will be $1.7 billion for Quebec.

It is true that Quebec and the provinces are partners, but it needs to be understood that we are not all equal partners. Some of those partners, like the provinces, have duly elected governments and certainly deserve to be involved.

I am pleased however to see that the secretary of state responsible for the economic development of the regions in Quebec has stayed to listen to my speech. He is the member for Outremont, a member from Montreal. He should be aware that various development axes and sectors have contributed to the economic recovery of Montreal.

There was, for instance, the very dynamic sector of biotechnology that has created a lot of jobs without any federal support. Given the huge amount of money announced by the finance minister for the creation of the institutes of health research, I am concerned about the money that will be spent in Montreal in these sectors. It is rather surprising.

The Government of Quebec currently gets only 16% of all the structuring spending in R and D. The industry minister brags about all the huge achievements made in Montreal and Quebec.

I see the industry minister across the way and, naturally, the hon. member for Outremont is agreeing with the minister. It is incredible that the man who should be protecting the interests of Montreal and Quebec would accept that only 16% of the structuring spending in R and D is handed over to Quebec, which has 25% of the overall Canadian population. This is unacceptable, and I look forward to seeing how the hon. member for Outremont will defend this position at the next election. I can understand the Minister of Industry; he is not a Quebec MP, but I have great difficulty understanding the hon. member for Outremont.

You are indicating that I have only two minutes left, Mr. Speaker. I is a pity, because I could go on for a long time.

I will conclude with something that, while not personal, is very close to my heart, the whole issue of the use of marijuana for medical purposes. I have been saying for a long time that we needed to invest in research. Canada has lagged far behind other countries for a long time, compared to what has been done in the way of research in California and in England. Canada has never been able to catch up, to resume its role as an initiator, able to provide its sick people with medication that meets a whole set of medical criteria.

I will close on that point, for I see you are about to interrupt me, but I must assure you that we are in agreement in principle. And as my colleague from Drummond has said, it is a praiseworthy bill, but one that is still a virtual one.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, I will take a few minutes to explain, not in great detail but in general, what the Government of Canada is doing to contribute to the development of the province of Quebec, particularly of the Montreal region, with regard to research and development.

I would like to say that my colleague the Minister of Industry and myself were somewhat taken aback by the comments made by the opposition, particularly by the Bloc Quebecois, but I think this is part of a normal pattern whereby these members try to suggest to the people of Quebec that the federal government is not doing anything positive. Of course, they do not want people to see what we are really doing because it certainly does not serve their cause. What they want is to break up the country.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I hear them shouting on the other side, which obviously means it hurts.

My colleague the Minister of Industry rightfully reminded me a few moments ago that one of the best research and development tools we have in Canada is the tax credit, which is administered by my department, Revenue Canada. This tax credit represents about $1.4 billion for the Canadian economy as a whole, and a good part of that money is invested in Quebec.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Moreover, I would like to come back to—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

If the members opposite will let me continue, I would like to talk about biotechnology.

Biotechnology, in Montreal essentially, was established with the assistance, the indefeasible support of the Canadian government and of my colleague in industry, especially through the creation of the biotechnology research institute, which gave a lift to biotechnology in Montreal.

The greatest number of researchers in the field of biotechnology in the world may be found connected with the BRI.

In the space sector, the Canadian space agency, which is in the greater Montreal area, is also a source of pride for the people of Quebec and our government.

On the subject of aeronautics, through technology partnerships Canada, my colleague at the Department of Industry intervened with Pratt and Whitney, Bombardier and CAE, and others. And those people over there will tell us we are not supporting development in Quebec. We are doing a lot and will continue to do so.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I like what my colleague, the hon. member for Outremont, is saying. Because that is what he is, first and foremost, the hon. member for Outremont. He should remember that.

The secretary of state can list all the things the federal government announced in research and development, he can talk about billions of dollars and millions of dollars—I admit that— but in terms of net amounts, Quebec receives 16 % of federal spending.

Overall, Quebec does not receive its fair share—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

—and that is rather unfortunate. The Bloc will always be here to demand that Quebec receive its fair share of federal spending on goods and services.