Debates of Nov. 25th, 1999

Municipal Grants Act

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The vote is deferred until next Monday at the end of government business.

The House resumed from November 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, to repeal the Medical Research Council Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill today. I want to say at the outset that the bill to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Act, introduced by the Minister of Health, is very positive. I will be supporting it and I believe my colleagues will be as well.

I should clarify that. I understand that their initial reaction is that they believe it is a very positive bill. They will support it until committee stage when they will have had an opportunity to listen to the research experts. They believe that the intention of the bill is in the right framework, but obviously they want to hear from the experts at committee stage. However, it is my understanding that we are supporting the bill at this stage.

There are a couple of points in the bill that I think are laudable. The bill will repeal the Medical Research Council Act, will bring forth more accountability for all budgetary expenditures and will be a vast improvement over the current system.

I listened to the Minister of Health when he introduced the bill. He talked about the brain drain and how the bill was an attempt to help the brain drain situation by bringing in more research dollars and by making sure most importantly that somewhere in the magnitude of 95% of the moneys would actually be used for research. I believe the goal is that between 4% and 5% will be used for administrative costs. That is a very positive aspect. It is so important for that the money issued for research actually gets down to the end user, the real benefit of which is to Canadian people in the areas of health research.

I will touch on a couple of areas I feel very strongly about that are directly tied into the bill. One of them is the brain drain. As the Minister of Health stated in his opening comments, he is very pleased with the Canadian institutes of health research act, Bill C-13, because it will help alleviate some of the brain drain issues by putting more moneys into research for our universities in the areas of health and will attract people from our universities to stay here.

Hopefully this is the first of many steps to come. Without question the brain drain is the emerging crisis in the country. I listen to the constituents who come into my office on a regular basis to tell me stories about how their children have graduated from university and moved down to the U.S. There is no doubt in my mind that the biggest problem is that they are the very best, the brightest, the entrepreneurs of tomorrow, the future CEOs, the people who would be the economic engine of our country 15 or 20 years from now.

I was with the finance committee in Halifax a few weeks ago. One witness, I believe he was from Ryerson, stated that the top 10 graduates of 30 in one IT program had all gone down to the States. We hear this over and over again. We heard it again this morning in the finance committee. It is a huge problem. It is even exponentially more severe because of the numbers. It is the best, the cream of the crop, that are going south, those who would be crucial to driving the economy.

Bill C-13 to establish the Canadian institutes of health research will at least be a very minimal step, the first step to possibly provide an opportunity for some of our top researchers to stay in Canada.

The brain drain is a huge issue with respect to taxation. We hear that over and over again. The government talked about a $95 billion cumulative surplus. I would argue that if we want to see more programs such as this one, if we want the research dollars and if we truly want to attract the very best, we have to cut taxes. If we want the best researchers not only from Canada but from around the globe, the bill alone will not do it. We have to cut taxes. We are one of the highest taxed of the G-7 countries. Study after study and witness after witness came forward with that thought.

I will go to the second issue the bill touches upon. When I looked at the bill and saw what the government was trying to do, I was very pleased that it was trying to keep the administrative costs of the new health research system at 4% to 5%. It will be accountable for how health research dollars are spent.

This brings us to the Canada Health Act. They are directly tied together. There we have a huge problem. There are over 200,000 Canadians on waiting lists, some of whom are waiting for very serious operations. Some are matters of life and death for many people. Some of these 200,000 people will not live to see the operating rooms, the doctors or the procedures they need. Because of our health care system they will not make it. That is very tragic.

We have seen $21 billion cut from the health care and social transfer payments to the provinces since 1993. When $21 billion are taken out of the pie it has an incredible impact on the services that can be delivered. It is no wonder that some of the 200,000 Canadians on waiting lists will die. There is absolutely no mistake; that is an irrefutable fact which is very sad.

Here is the link to this bill. The positive part of this bill is that the government has focused on putting 4% to 5% on administrative costs. Unfortunately, that $21 billion cut by the federal government from our health care system and social transfers has affected the end users, the patients, those Canadians who are on waiting lists for very serious medical procedures. Many families have a family member waiting for cancer treatment. We hear stories of people with lumps who are waiting for biopsies. The list goes on and on.

There are two things we need to look at. It was the government that agreed with the 50:50 split in the payment of our national health care system. Now it is contributing somewhere in the range of 10%. No wonder the system is crumbling before our eyes. The system needs to be overhauled. There are a few areas where that has to happen. Cash is not the only thing that is going to do it. We saw $21 billion taken out of the pie. When that much money is taken out it has a huge and devastating impact on what happens.

It is crucial that there is accountability to ensure that the dollars are reaching the patient. What happens when that much money is taken out? I would argue that the administration stays the same, and in many cases it might have grown. It is the patients who are affected. The money is taken away from the line users, Canadians. It is so critical that we make the system the most efficient it can be, that we maximize the money being put in, that we make sure it gets to the patient and that it does not get swallowed up by the bureaucracy or the administration.

Years ago when I was in law school, I looked at the new health care facility that was connected to the Vancouver General Hospital, which is a very old and incredible hospital. It was a brand new pavilion, a great big concrete tower, about 15 to 20 storeys high and very impressive from the outside. It can be seen when driving down Oak Street in Vancouver. This pavilion has been there for years. It is hollow on the inside because of a lack of planning, accountability and making efficient use of our dollars. It is not being used. That is frustrating.

It is important to give credit where credit is due. This bill is a very good first step with respect to health research. The government is focusing on the accountability portion and on having the administrative portion around 4% to 5%. That is a very good first step. I look forward to seeing what the research community has to say. When the bill comes before the committee for clause by clause review we will get its valuable input. Hopefully we will bring forward amendments at that time that will even strengthen this bill.

I am pleased to say that we will be supporting the bill but we cannot get stuck in a vacuum. We cannot forget to look at the real picture. We cannot forget that the Canada Health Act is failing the people of Canada. It is crumbling around them. There are 200,000 people on waiting lists and some of them will die because the Canada Health Act is failing them. It needs to be overhauled. There needs to be accountability. Most important, the dollars we invest in health must get to the patient. That is what has to happen.

The other issue which is directly tied to health research is the brain drain. I listened to the Minister of Health talk about this bill. He was pleased that it would help alleviate the brain drain problem and that some of our top research people will want to stay in Canada because of the new accountability and that 95% of the funds will be going directly to the research programs. That is wonderful. I support that whole theory but if he is not going to look at other problems of why people are going south to the United States in droves, if he is not going to look at the taxation system, this bill will not do it alone.

One of the witnesses in the finance committee this morning only three hours ago said that we are talking about a $95 billion “surplus”. I have always argued that there is no real surplus. It is not the government's money that it has taken out of the back pockets of Canadians. Canadians want it back. Until we give them that money back, that taxation surplus that is rightfully theirs, we will not be able to attract the top researchers the government wants to attract to the new Canadian institutes of health research. It will not bring those people here.

The highest levels of brain drain are not only in technologies but also in our health care and engineering sectors. The very best, the very brightest, the cream of the crop, the leaders of tomorrow are leaving not only because of the taxation levels. They are leaving for a whole host of reasons.

The United States spends more on a percentage basis of GDP per capita on the health care system than Canada spends. That is a factual number. Sometimes we are very quick to criticize our neighbours to the south. We should make no mistake that they actually spend much more than we do in Canada. That is why people are going there. Their taxes are lower.

I will finish up by summarizing my two key points. This bill is a great start but it is only the very first step. If we really want to move forward, stop the brain drain and keep our best researchers here in Canada, if we want to attract people, we had better look at our taxation system. Until we do, there is not a hope or a prayer for us. People will continue to go south and the problem will grow exponentially. The unfortunate part is we will not see the impact of this for five, ten or fifteen years. That is when these top people will have reached their peaks in their careers. They will be the leaders of tomorrow. Right now they are going south.

It is not just the people that are going south. Another witness made this excellent point in committee. It is not just our top people that are going south; their positions are going with them and they are not coming back. Those positions are going south to the U.S. as well and they are not coming back to Canada. It is very important that we do not lose focus on that and that we deal with that.

Most important, all of this will be meaningless. It will have no impact. We can have the best research in the whole world and we can cut our taxes so that our researchers stay here. However, we must look at the Canada Health Act, bring in accountability, put the money back in so that those 200,000 people will not die on waiting lists. All of this will be meaningless if we do not bring back accountability, if we do not put back the $21 billion that has been taken out of our health care system. If we do not put that back in all of this will be meaningless and more Canadians will continue to die on waiting lists.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill today.

I would like to talk about two particular instances which have affected me regarding Bill C-13, health care and health care research. I am much in favour of this bill, however, I have two concerns. They are the research and support for the drug issue in the country. I also want to talk about something that strikes very close to home with me, Lou Gehrig's disease. A friend of mine has been personally affected by this disease.

I would like to read a letter to the House that Ron Martens' wife Carole has sent to appeal to the Minister of Health. After I speak about this, I am going to hand the Minister of Health a video from Ron Martens, a victim of Lou Gehrig's disease, in the hope that Ron can get both an audience with the health minister and action regarding not just funding research but funding for this particular disease.

I went to the minister's office about four months ago to get some assistance for research into studies regarding assistance in the rehabilitation of teenage female drug addicts. I got a warm reception in the minister's offices at Tunney's Pasture by the minister's executive assistant. I recall saying, “Now, you are not just going to give me some lip service here, you are really going to try to help out a particular organization that is trying to rehabilitate these young drug addicts”. “Oh, yes, yes”, was the answer.

I was put in contact with a lady in Vancouver who was temporarily in charge of this. I called her a number of times. When I finally got through to her, I did get the impression that I was being a bit of a pain by even calling. Notwithstanding that, I did manage to get her to meet with the organization and since then I have heard nothing about it.

When I talk about health care research in this country and about bills like Bill C-13, I wonder once again, and I keep bringing this up in the House of Commons, will this truly be a bill that puts something worthwhile into effect?

I spend a lot of time trying to assist those who are addicted to drugs, and trying to change things for the better for them. It seems that every time I go to the Minister of Health's office, I either get lip service or really nothing much at all in terms of assistance. If we pass Bill C-13, what really will be done?

I did receive some very good letters, which I respect, from the University of British Columbia and other universities saying to pass this bill because they need the funds for research. While I agree we should have more money for research, I am not certain in my heart that the philosophy or the grit to really effect change in health care is with the Minister of Health. He has not shown me this.

I would ask him here today if he would at least look at the one situation that I have been involved with regarding drugs and the rehabilitation of teenage female drug addicts. Could he not find it within the billions and billions of dollars that are spent to try to put research dollars into that aspect?

Periodically announcements are made in the House that some money will be thrown at the drug problem or at this centre, or they are to put it in Toronto where they have lots of seats and that sort of thing. Funding drug rehabilitation and trying to help drug addicts has nothing to do with partisan politics. It has nothing to do with what area one is from. It has a lot to do with doing the best we can for young people.

I will vote for the bill, but I am here on behalf of many people across the country to ask that the minister take seriously the issues of concern with regard to young people on drugs.

That being said, I want to read into the record for the minister and for all Canadians listening a letter from Carole Martens. I know Carole and I know Ron, her husband. I know what a good person Ron is. I understand the difficulties he is going through. I try to understand what Carol and their children are trying to live with and what the people in my community are trying to live with. However I do not think the Minister of Health or the government understands the dilemma individuals with this disease face. If they did, more money would be put toward trying to assist those with the disease. I will read from the letter, which is dated November 17:

Dear Mr. Rock:

Thank you so much for giving 11 minutes of your precious time today. I'm sure every day there are many valid needs that cross your desk. This past year in May 1999 Ron Martens, my husband, and I flew to Ottawa in hope to meet you. As it was, you were not in that day, and we had a very special visit with your secretary. You may remember the note I left for you. You may also remember Randy White's letter on July 7, 1998, requesting a meeting with you and Ron to discuss ALS, Lou Gehrig's Disease, and the tremendous need for research funding.

The clock of life is ticking quickly, and as Ron's wife of 30 years, I'm attempting to communicate to the leaders of our country. Mr. Rock, will you consider the research dollars awarded to—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid I must interrupt the hon. member. He knows full well that we do not call members by their names in the House. This is the second time.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I believe your interpretation is incorrect. I am reading from a letter and I am not addressing any—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The fact that the member is citing from a letter or any other source is not good enough. You must editorialize, I am afraid.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, due to the nature of the issue I am not going to pose an argument with you at this point in time. I will understand what you are saying. It continues:

(Mr. Minister), will you reconsider the research dollars awarded to the cause and cure for ALS?

If you were my husband, I would travel, call, phone or write to the men of importance in government, knowing that if we don't speak up strongly, this thing will never be beaten.

Ron was president of a restaurant chain in western Canada for 22 years, franchising 35 stores. He is a father, a son, a brother, an uncle, a husband, a grandfather, a colleague and a friend.

My greatest gift to Ron, as his wife, is my time. My love for him drives me to help him reach his newfound goal, and that is to see millions given to ALS research. This would give every ALS patient, caregiver and family, hope, which is so vital in pressing on through this cruel and devastating disease.

Last year, we both wept as we heard on the evening news, you awarded $42 million additional dollars to AIDS research.

I'm so happy for them, but what about ALS? It is no longer an old person's disease. My husband was 47 years when diagnosed. This past weekend we had attended an “ALS international symposium” in Vancouver, where 500 scientists meet to communicate and pool ideas and findings, all for the great cause of ALS. I met at least 25 patients, all of them under 52 years of age.

And that's all I have to say. Thank you for your listening ears, (Mr. Minister). I leave you with these words from my heart. “Some days the stresses of life are so overwhelming that my heart can no longer hear a song and then I stop; knowing that if I cannot hear a song, I also cannot sing a song. Without a song there is no hope. Please, please give ALS a song, a song of hope”.

Thank you,

This is but one case. Carole and Ron are both trying to do what they can while there is time to convince people responsible for trying to help others to help research and fund the cure for ALS. I agree that there are many diseases out there that need funding, but it seems to me sometimes that we in Canada listen to the loud voice, the squeaky wheel, for instance AIDS. While I support much research for AIDS, I wonder why this is. I suppose those with ALS maybe do not speak loud enough. Maybe they do not cry out long enough. Maybe they do not have rallies like those who support the fight against AIDS. Nevertheless that does not preclude them from getting the same genuine support from a government that has the money.

I could spend time, perhaps be critical and show people across the country where the government fritters away millions upon millions upon millions of dollars. I have a long list here on my desk of projects on which it just escapes me why taxpayer dollars are even spent.

We are spending over $800,000 on fireworks for the millennium. Yet if we talk about $800,000 to ALS victims and researchers, we shake our heads at it. I cannot help but try to put this in perspective and wonder why that is. Why is it that we always seem to be spending our money on things that are not quite as devastating but have a higher profile, perhaps are more visible and make people feel good? We walk away with a good feeling, but the end result is that problems like ALS are really left to themselves.

I know that UBC, a great university where one of my children went, will do much with research as a result of Bill C-13 on many things, but I still say we are overlooking some of the obvious things that happen. It is just because people inflicted with such diseases as ALS tend not to be those who are outspoken, creating protests, being visible and that sort of thing. They tend not to be like that because they are basically tied up in their own problems and trying to get them resolved.

One of the things the government is responsible for is genuine programs for all people, not just for those who holler loudest or holler longest, not just for those areas that vote Liberal, not just for those areas where there is a potential vote, not just on the issues where they think they can win the next election but sometimes on those hidden votes. Those are the votes of people who may never elect politicians, but deep down their votes are for trying to keep people alive and keep people going for just a bit more time.

I ask in the House today that the minister take the video I have and spend 11 minutes of his time looking at the contents to try to understand the plight of some people, without fanfare, without a grandstand or a soap box upon which to stand. He should take time in his office, put on this video and think about it.

No greater deed can be done by people in power and politics today with billions and billions of dollars at their disposal than that which can help people who do not have a large voice in society. If that is what Liberalism is about or Reform or any other politics, that is what must be done.

I have tried to give the minister two issues that perhaps will not be talked about in the House. In fact, I doubt very much whether drugs and ALS will even be discussed throughout this whole debate. They are two issues that I hold dearly, and I say that if we cannot help young people who are addicted, young people who do not want to be addicted; if we cannot help with those problems and consider them health problems, and if we cannot do more in research for them, we should not be here in the House of Commons. If we cannot help those with ALS who cry out quietly, we should not be here.

I ask finally one other thing. When agencies and organizations are set up in terms of health care and drugs across the country to help our citizens, we should always be looking at the best qualified people, those people with the skills, abilities, qualifications and past performance to head those efforts. We should not be in any circumstances putting our friends, those who work for us politically, into those positions. I do not believe it serves the client who is the drug addict, who is the ALS victim, who is a parent waiting for some assistance. I do not think it helps those clients whatsoever.

Having looked at a lot of the appointments lately from the government, it seems that what pervades our system in Canadian society today are government appointments. I know in some of those cases that the people who are appointed to positions are not the best qualified.

I only ask these three things: (a) let us do a lot more for young people who are becoming addicted and who are addicted; (b) let us do something constructive, for a change, to try to do more for ALS victims and try to help people like Ron Martens; and (c) let us make sure that we appoint those in positions of responsibility on the basis of skills, ability and qualifications with regard to health care.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Reform Party member who just spoke on his excellent speech.

Like him, I am concerned about young people with drug problems. It is an issue that I care about. But I do not think that Bill C-3, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, will do anything to help these young people.

Like him, I think that a bill like Bill C-13 would be a good idea, although I have some reservations about the bill.

I would like the member to give me his version of the facts. Does he not think, as I do, that Bill C-13 interferes in provincial jurisdiction?

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I agree with one thing. I believe that today drug addiction is a health problem and not a criminal problem. Individual addicts in this country, in this day, are driven to becoming criminals because of being addicted. I could cite case after case that I have been involved with which would prove that.

I believe that Bill C-13 is part of the answer for research and that is why I support it.

The question of whether Bill C-13 is a provincial responsibility or a federal responsibility is an interesting one. I think the federal government has a responsibility to participate in research. If it does, and if it helps addicted people, if it helps people with Lou Gehrig's disease, I for one will not be involved in any discussion as to whether this is a provincial or a federal issue. I for one will be saying to the government “Let's just get the job done and stop squabbling about who has ownership”.

In the case of British Columbia, there are very few people who do not know that I have no use whatsoever for the provincial government of British Columbia, the NDP. It has taken our province into the lower depths of the economy and everything else. However, when it comes down to a sloppy government like that trying to help with health care, I support it if it helps people with various diseases like ALS or even drug addiction.

I am no friend of these guys across the way here either, the Liberals, but when it comes to the federal government trying to help or the federal government properly putting funds into research, I have no problem whatsoever with it and I would not take sides. The only side I will take is that of the victim or someone waiting for us as politicians to get off the fight of provincial and federal and get on to the fight of trying to help others.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thought the member made an excellent speech, in particular when he spoke about these things touching someone close. We tend to make statistics out of people. It is nice to get in touch directly with the plight of an individual person. It sometimes helps to put things in a better perspective.

One area of concern that I have with Bill C-13 is that it sets up yet another bureaucracy. The intent of the bill is that it will keep the administrative costs to 4% to 5% of the total budget. Reality says that is not what turns out. Once we start creating a bureaucracy, more and more of the money intended to help people ends up going to drive this great bureaucracy.

I wonder if my colleague could touch on that and advise as to whether he has any concerns about the way government structures these types of things and how it uses money which should be going to help people, such as those he described.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. He is right. Four per cent to five per cent of the budget will be for administration. I do not think we have ever seen in this country a provincial or a federal government, no matter what party runs it, that has not been totally enamoured with the idea that there should be more bureaucrats than actual operations.

In most of the organizations I have been responsible for, the administrative costs have usually been around 3%. I think that 4% to 5% is high. If 4% to 5% of the total budget is used and the total budget keeps expanding, I have a problem with that. Five per cent of the original amount of $374 million is a lot of money. But if we put more money into research it is not necessarily appropriate to have 5% of $500 million or 5% of $800 million. We are adding to a major bureaucracy.

I know the difficulties Ron Martens has as an ALS afflicted individual. For Ron Martens and many of the other ALS people, and for all the young people addicted to drugs, we have to get off the petty politics, we have to get off trying to build a bureaucracy and trying to appoint our friends and we have to get on with doing more research. We must find solutions to these problems.

I hope the Minister of Health is listening to me. This is what we expect. We do not have any authority to follow up on bureaucracy in this country. It seems to survive by itself. However, I hope for once we do the right thing and put the vast bulk of money into research and helping others.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member's speech from the lobby and I wish to congratulate him.

I ask him whether he shares my view that the government should have been much quicker to introduce a bill such as this, because Canada has now acquired an international reputation for trailing behind in research.

Does the member agree with me that the government was slow to act, that it should have introduced this bill when the House first came back and, finally, that it did not assume the responsibilities we were entitled to expect of it?

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I will go further than that. I think the government moved too slowly on this bill in terms of years. It should have been part of the 1993 election platform when the government first came in. The Conservative government before this government missed the boat.

We have been saying for years that not enough research is being done on many things, including cancer. Although additional funding has been provided to cancer research through heroes like Terry Fox, we still have a long way to go. Diseases are cropping up every day. This has not been slow in terms of months or weeks; it has been slow for years.

Let us not forget other research in this country. For goodness sake, we are trying to find answers to the combustion engine. We are just frittering around, with a few small companies looking at things like the fuel cell and that sort of thing. We should be spending a lot more money on research.

Where we should not be spending money is on those foolish damned grants that do nothing but pay off people who are friends and relatives and have helped out government parties. That is where we are going wrong.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say. It seems to me that the Canadian institutes of health research represent not only a very, very large injection of new money into health research, and I agree with my colleague that it is needed, but it is a totally new way of looking at research across Canada.

The hon. member just mentioned cancer. We have the Peterborough Cancer Society in my riding. I am sure there is a cancer society in his riding. I was the chair of our cancer campaign. Can the member explain how this new structure, of which I know he approves, will bring a group like the Peterborough Cancer Society into the research network of Canada?

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure just how it would, but what I am sure of is that it would go some way toward the co-ordination of the effort.

The government has to understand what we are saying about administration. We have to establish a program, standards and ways in which co-ordination can take place, and we have to ensure that the money for research stays in the programs and develops. What we do not want is a bureaucracy that makes this whole process overburdened and awkward. It is hard enough these days to have research undertaken on anything. I think what we are looking for is simplicity, not complexity.

As far as co-ordination, it is not just the Canadian Cancer Society. I spent 15 minutes talking about ALS. There are too many problems out there for us to be wrestling with a large bureaucracy that looks after itself rather than the people it calls clients.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I rise to speak to Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, to repeal the Medical Research Council Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Following on the speech by my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, our party's health critic—and I will take this opportunity to congratulate him on the excellent job he is doing—I would first of all like to revisit what he asked our Reform colleague just now. He asked him whether he admitted that this bill ought to have been introduced long ago and that there ought to have been more investment in medical research.

This is an area of the utmost importance. I now understand, seeing the government members' lack of interest in commenting on it, why the Canadian government has not rushed to invest more in medical research.

Speeches and debate coming from the government side have been lacklustre debate. A few government members spoke for form's sake. The ones doing the work are the opposition members. Is this due to lack of interest, lack of courage or a bit of cowardice? One might well ask.

I would like to give a little scenario in connection with the bill. Last February, the present Minister of Health announced that he would be injecting new money into the creation of what may be termed virtual institutes of research.

It must be understood that no infrastructures will be created. There will be a kind of networking, as is already being done in certain sectors in each of the provinces. For the medical research laboratories, there will be an attempt to create a network so that these people can speak to each other and co-ordinate their research, in order to enhance its effectiveness.

The main thrust of the bill we are looking at today is the outcome of recommendations made by an interim committee, comprising 34 members of the scientific and academic community. Hon. members who heard the speech by my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve a few days back will recall that he listed the scientists and academics on that committee. These people have great reputations.

To simplify things, the Canadian institutes of health research will replace what used to be called the Medical Research Council. These institutes will have a broad research mandate. They will develop new approaches to research in biomedical matters and on issues more directly affecting the social sciences.

In his budget, the Minister of Finance announced that the government intended to double funding over three years for the health research institutes. Funding will amount to $500 million in 2001-02. That is not insignificant, and we applaud this budget increase. The research laboratories needed it. The institutes' permanent governing council is expected to be operational by April 1, 2000.

What we understand from this networking is that the institutes will deal with four major sectors of health research. They will focus their work on various types of research in four sectors specifically.

The first sector is the very important and vital field of biomedical research. At least 60% of the biomedical research in Canada is done by pharmaceutical companies in Quebec.

The second sector is clinical research. It too is very important. It also plays a basic role in the discovery of pharmaceuticals.

The third sector is that of health systems. Currently, all provincial governments are dealing with health care reforms. They have had to move toward ambulatory care. They are trying to see if their system is well organized to make it as effective and efficient as possible, and thus provide the public with the quality of care and services it deserves.

The fourth sector covers cultural society and population health. Research institutes will bring about a strategic repositioning in health research to solve major medical issues. Moreover, we will also have to invest in research on heredity, genetics and the human genome.

The House had the pleasure of listening to the speech by the hon. member for Jonquière, who is intensifying her efforts to have a genetic engineering research institute established in her riding. It would be a good thing if the government such research could be carried out in the riding of Jonquière.

In short, Bill C-13 seeks to formally establish the Canadian institutes of health research to organize, co-ordinate and fund health research at the federal level. It also repeals the Medical Research Council Act and defines the structure, role and mission of the institutes.

We support the bill as regards its purpose and the virtual establishment of such institutes. It is appropriate for the whole research network, all researchers and scientists to co-ordinate their efforts and talk to each other to truly ensure effective research, and we must also provide them with the most effective tools to enable them to carry out their research. We have no problems with that, and we agree with this way of repositioning medical research.

But we do have a problem with the preamble of the bill, because instead of recognizing the provinces' exclusive jurisdiction over health care, the government merely recognizes the fact that they play some role in that area. Indeed, 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;

But it should have indicated that it is the responsibility of the provinces to manage health care services within their territory and that their agreement is necessary when their jurisdiction is involved.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. It is the same old story. Health care is a provincial responsibility. Why is the federal government always bent on extending its tentacles and constantly eroding provincial jurisdiction?

Health care and education are provincial responsibilities. In Quebec, we are determined that we will never allow the Liberal government to interfere in our areas of responsibility.

If any money is to be invested in medical research, it must take the form of social transfer payments, so that we too can double our grants to researchers in our universities and medical research institutions. So—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member has indicated that she would be sharing her time, so her ten minutes are now up.