Madam Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian institutes of health research and to repeal the Medical Research Council Act.
There is no doubt that health is the number one issue in the minds of all Canadians. It is unfortunate that over the last six years since 1993 the Liberal government has slashed $21 billion from health and education. It is in a way ironic to be talking about health research and new spending because we know it is necessary. I wonder how many people understand and realize the damage that has taken place over the last six years with the reduction in health care.
If health is the number one issue, then I ask the government why it did that. Certainly there are ways of reducing the budgetary deficit other than cutting $21 billion. It absolutely does not make sense.
As a country we not only promote but brag about our great health care system. Canadians expect good health care. Canadians also expect governments to deliver, to be transparent and to be honest in terms of how they govern.
It makes sense that good health care cannot exist without good research. Neither can good industries. Innovation cannot occur without good research and development.
In my own province, health care budget reductions have had a profound effect on the health delivery to individual citizens. I wonder if the government realizes the impact it has had on the little guy who needs health care, the grassroots Canadian. I know very well because I experienced it in my former position as a municipal leader. We had to wrestle with the whole issue.
Provincial governments because of health transfer cuts had to find creative ways of delivering health care. That usually meant if we had less money there was less we could do. What is the normal course of action for most governments? They consolidate, they regionalize, they sell a bill of goods saying that there is going to be the same service but at less cost, that it is going to be a more efficient system.
That is what happened in Manitoba. The problems that existed from the original cutbacks in health are still there today. I still meet with municipal leaders and health officials to talk about the mess that the health sector is in, certainly in the riding of Dauphin—Swan River, and it is throughout the province.
One of the concerns with this bill is about the patronage appointments of people serving on the board. That is essentially what the provincial government did as well. It had a good system. The people were elected at the local level. The boards were smaller and the hospitals more varied, serving local communities, but they were elected democratically. We went to a regional board. Hon. members can guess how these board members were chosen. They were not elected. They were patronage appointments made by the provincial government. As it turned out, people are still talking about these patronage appointments. They really do not represent the people at the local area. They do not know the concerns.
This is one of the concerns with this legislation. The government continues to appoint people without giving the citizens a say. The bottom line is that the people of this country pay the bills. They should have access to decision making.
I would say the same thing about the heritage portfolio, for which I am the chief critic. Again, my biggest criticism is the numerous boards that are appointed by government. They are not appointed by the people they should be serving. Even if they were elected by national organizations, that would be a huge improvement. Even if the government had a part to play, even if it advertised to the public that these positions were available, that would be better.
With the recent appointment of the new head of the CBC I made that very point. In fact, the chairman of the CBC board agreed that the board should make that appointment, not the Prime Minister's office. Who pays for the operation of the CBC? Obviously, the taxpayers, to the tune of about $900 million. Does the poor little taxpayer have any say in terms of who should run the corporation? Not at all. It is unfortunate. It is not real democracy. It is not grassroots democracy. It is hidden. It is not transparent.
My view is that the CBC position should have been advertised throughout the country. There are many well qualified people throughout the country who could have applied. It would have been a huge improvement if the CBC board would have done that, instead of having the Prime Minister's office or the Prime Minister decide who should be the head of the CBC.
I want to enunciate some areas of concern that Reform has about Bill C-13. Although the intent of the CIHR is to foster scientific research and promote Canadian initiatives, there has been little time to consult various scientific communities, to receive input, to scope the areas of research. Again, this is another example of a government bill where an idea occurred and the government did not take the time to do the research or consult the community. We know that the expertise is in the community. It is out there. It certainly does not exist in this room. We are the catalysts that bring people together. I do not know what the rush is. If we are going to do something, we should do it well.
Will the applicants themselves direct the bulk of the research, or will the nature of the research be directed by the advisory boards, which will force applicants to apply for funding in areas dictated by a central body? That is a good question.
Although the CIHR will strive to ensure that only 4% to 5% of the total budget will be spent on administrative costs, the new institutes will require a bureaucratic infrastructure to perform necessary functions. Can the CIHR avoid the trend of having a huge part of its budget administered for bureaucracy and not have sufficient funds to administer the actual research which is dictated under its mandate?
Given the wide scope of its mandate, will the initial budgetary expenditure be sufficient to carry out its entire mandate? If not, will parliament be required to allocate additional funds for the creation of this institute?
The president of the CIHR will make recommendations to the governing council as to who should be appointed to the advisory councils. The president will make recommendations based on a public selection process, but will the president follow the advice of the public selection process or bypass these recommendations and appoint members based on individual choice?
There are many good parts to the bill. It appears to be an excellent model for an institute which will remain at arm's length from the federal government and conduct research independent of the government. The consultation process for appointments will draw on leading experts from every conceivable field of expertise, and this should reduce the influence of high ranking government officials. These and other details I have mentioned can be addressed before the committee when the bill reaches that stage. There is also a strong need to consult the scientific and health communities for input as to the direction of the CIHR.