Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier in my speech, I am very pleased to touch upon the topic of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. I was about to give a bit of background with respect to the bill.
The objective of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research bill is to establish institutes to excel according to internationally accepted standards of scientific excellence in the creation of new knowledge and its translation into improved health for Canadians, more effective health services and products, and a strengthened Canadian health care system.
We know that health care and health research go hand in hand. Without proper health research it is very difficult to have good health care. The health care that one receives has to be related to research and properly applied.
As was indicated earlier by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, we support the bill up to committee stage, at which time we will probably make some suggestions aimed at improving it. We will try to improve it with the best interest of Canadian citizens in mind.
I want to add my voice to the record in giving thanks to Dr. Henry Friesen and many others who contributed to bringing the bill forward.
Let us look at what happened between 1994 and 1997. We know that the government continuously cut its investments in health research. Between those years the per capita funding of health research fell from $9.14 to $7.92. Canada became less competitive in its funding levels compared to other industrialized countries including the U.S., the U.K. and France.
These cuts had several effects. They drove researchers, including established professors, recent graduates and post-graduate students, across the border in search of sustainable funding. We have heard much about the brain drain, and this is an area in which many of our skilled and talented people have moved from Canada because of the cuts that were made in research.
Coupled with the large scale withdrawal of federal funding and poor social programs, cuts in health research diminished the capacity of our health care system to care for patients and stifled the application of new research findings.
Coupled with the withdrawal of federal funding in post-secondary education, cuts in health research drove university administrations to foster commercial research partnerships with industry. These partnerships in many cases decreased academic freedom due to an emphasis on applied research, a trend on self-censorship among university researchers and a privatization of research findings for the purpose of profit.
We know the difficulties that research can get into if it is so closely tied in with corporate and commercial sponsorship that it loses its academic freedom and independence to come forth with accurate findings.
The bill is being brought forward to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. This has been done in an attempt to correct some of the past mistakes. The government has now endorsed a new model of health research funding, the CIHR. By and large, as I said, we welcome it as a replacement for the Medical Research Council.
We understand there will be new money and we support those efforts. By doubling the 1997-98 levels of research funding to $500 million in the year 2001-02 Canada will regain some ground it lost to the cuts over the past six years.
We think the legislation in its support for researchers and academic programs will help alleviate the problem of a brain drain in Canada, but the legislation needs to go further. Our reservation is that the funding levels under the CIHR will still remain disproportionate to the funding in the United States and other industrialized countries. We would recommend increased spending of $750 million annually, or 1% of the total annual health care expenditure.
Research in a social context is another very important area. The multidisciplinary, multisectoral and cross-regional approach of Bill C-13 will ideally contextualize hard research, acknowledging the social, cultural and environmental influences on health. Our reservation is that this emphasis needs strengthening so that there is a central focus on the causation and prevention of ill health, in particular on social and environmental determinants.
We know there are many problems in society that have to be addressed. I think, for example, of the high incidence of teen suicide. I would mention that in my riding of Halifax West and in the province of Nova Scotia a very strong effort is taking place right now to create a chair on mental health for adolescents. This is an area that is very important because we know that if young people who are suffering from problems do not get help then things just go downhill from there. We know the kind of research that has been set up has to support those efforts and move forward in a way that will help our young people.
The goal of the legislation to apply research and to connect health researchers to health providers is a significant development. Again we have a bit of a reservation because we know that to make this initiative more than an empty gesture on the part of the government the social transfers to the provinces need to be restored. How will new research results be applied without adequate health care funding, equipment and the staff to do so?
I mentioned earlier in my remarks at the end the unfortunate circumstance that my mother-in-law met and the kind of service she received when she was admitted to hospital. This was because of the cuts in health care funding where there is inadequate staff and inadequate facilities to accommodate the kinds of situations we see today.
My hon. colleague spoke earlier about commercialization. I will not repeat the remarks she made in that regard, but she also talked about the governing council that will be set up under the legislation. A governing council will be appointed to set the priorities and the goals of Canadian health research in all institutes. Each institute will have an appointed institute advisory board to set institute specific goals. The appointment criteria of these boards, however, are not specific and are insufficient.
Appointees, I might note, at the discretion of the Prime Minister need only reflect scientific excellence and relevant background. What guarantees do Canadians have that industry or pharmaceutical interests will not override the public interest? We recommend that the appointment criteria be specifically defined and that a public voice be dominant. This is very important.
In this regard I received a letter in June of this year from Dr. Stan Kutcher who is with the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada. He pointed out with respect to these health institutes that they would like to see an institute of mental health and mental illness established as well. There is another whole area that has to be considered with respect to these institutes.
As well, with respect in particular to the governing council, I received a letter from the Palliative Care Association of Nova Scotia in which it indicated that it would like to have someone on the board of that governing council. Again, there is a lot of interest in this particular concept and a lot of support from the various associations and the various communities. They want to have a say in how these institutes will work so that their concerns will not be overlooked.
We talked about ethics a bit earlier and the importance of ethics in this whole concept. To us and many in the bioethical community, including the National Council on Bioethics in Human Research, the consideration of ethics is inadequate. It has to be a dominant part of this legislation. Ethics, particularly in dealing with human research subjects, should override all research projects. We think this is a very important point that has to be taken into consideration. This protection should be entrusted to an independent, arm's length body which will be directly accountable to government.
As we look at this whole issue of health research institutes, we realize that health care is not something that is looked at in a vacuum. There are many things that tie into proper health care. It brings to mind many other concerns in our society that we must deal with in a meaningful way if the creation of these health institutes is to be meaningful.
For example, something we have heard a lot about recently is child poverty. We know that tomorrow we will celebrate the 10th anniversary of the all-party motion passed in 1989 to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000. We know that poor children have health problems. Again, there is a tie-in. If children are living in poverty, they are due to have health problems. When we think about the creation of the health institutes we have to take into consideration child poverty.
Homelessness is another very serious issue that is confronting our society. Many of the people who are experiencing homelessness are people who were institutionalized. They were released from institutions without the proper supports being in place. The cuts that have taken place do not allow the proper follow-up facilities for a lot of these people and they end up on the street. This is another area that ties in very closely with the whole concept of health care and research.
If we look at the problems of health in our aboriginal communities we see high incidents of diabetes and various other diseases. We see a shorter life expectancy among our aboriginal people. All of these issues are very serious health concerns.
There is the high incidence of teen suicide in aboriginal communities and a lot of other communities throughout the nation. These are all things that have to be looked at very closely if we are to make a very meaningful inroad with respect to health care.
Then we have the environmental issues. We see spraying taking place. People who are sensitive to chemicals are quite often prisoners in their own homes. There is one lady in my riding who is not able to go out during certain times of the year because the people next door spray their lawn with pesticides and chemicals to which she is very susceptible. It is almost life threatening for her and for many others.
These are very important issues, all of which can be dealt with through proper scientific research and proper health research. That is why these institutes are very important, but we must see the connections and we must be able to bring the whole thing together in a meaningful way.
I also think of the example of gulf war syndrome. We hear about a lot of soldiers coming back from tours overseas and the sicknesses they are experiencing because of exposure to various toxins and substances. In many cases they are trying to get help, but they are not able to get the kind of help they need. These are very serious health concerns which come to mind as we discuss this issue.
I also think about the anthrax vaccinations. We are putting substances into the bodies of our soldiers who go overseas. They do not have the right to say no, they do not want to be vaccinated, because they will be court martialled for disobeying an order.
These are all issues that tie in very closely with the whole concept of health and these are all things which we have to give very serious consideration.
I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to this bill. As I indicated earlier, having followed it from its inception, I see it as a very important tool to enable our society to move forward in a progressive way to address some of the health concerns of Canadians. However, we must do it with a sense of fairness so that the people who will be affected will have an adequate say in how these things move forward. We want to keep in mind fairness in representation on the boards, fairness in process, transparency and all of those very important things that go along with making our country truly a democratic system.
