Mr. Speaker, when I read Bill C-13, my first reaction was “Finally”, because, since 1994, Canada has been the undisputed champion of cuts to research programs.
There is a very telling chart which shows that, between 1991 and 1998, for the United Kingdom, the United States, France and Canada, only Canada's investments in health research were lower than in 1991.
The figures for 1998 are in. For that whole year, Canada's investments were 10% less than what they were in 1991. Meanwhile, France increased its investments by 30% compared to 1991. The increase over the same period is 40% for the United States and 50% for the United Kingdom. This is why the Bloc Quebecois is saying “Finally”. Let us not forget that, during the 1993 campaign, the Bloc Quebecois candidates and their leader asked that more money be put back into health research. In 1997, the Bloc Quebecois candidates and their new leader asked the same thing.
This shows that in politics, tenacity eventually yields results. The bill before us is a case in point.
In 1990-91, per capita expenditures in Canada were at $8.71, compared to $39.71 in the United States. In 1997-98, per capita expenditures in Canada were at $8.23, compared to $66.64 in the United States. So, there has been a drop of $0.48 in Canada. We are now investing less than in 1991. No wonder there is a brain drain. Is it because we pay too much tax? Is it for some other reason?
Of course, if we do not invest in health research, health researchers will certainly go to places where they can get jobs.
We can applaud the principle of this bill. There were examples that were quite disturbing. Examples of the number of grants that are being given. In British Columbia, for instance, in 1996-97, there were 31 grants totalling $1.96 million, for which there was no follow-up. In Quebec universities, at Laval, there were 40 grants, for a total of $2.863 million. So there are examples that support the fact that some action finally had to be taken.
Our problem is that we realized that this bill, once we had read it in detail, requires many amendments. I tried to find where it mentioned the provinces and I found, in the mandate of the large institute, a reference to the provinces in clause 4. It says that in “encouraging health research”, the institute will
—engage the provinces and voluntary organizations, the private sector and others, in or outside Canada, with complementary research interests;
However, the bill does not indicate—and this is rather astonishing, since, in Canada, health is a provincial jurisdiction—that the research projects will be selected according to the goals set by the provinces. Quebec is about to implement a science policy, and we would like this bill to consider the various aspects of the science policy that the government and the people of Quebec will be implementing.
The current wording of the bill gives us little hope, in this regard. I hope some members of the Liberal majority and of the other parties will be sensitive enough to amend the legislation to make it bearable, in order to avoid absurd situations where the federal government would be investing in some areas, while the Quebec policy would be supporting other research projects or options.
In my view, that would be totally unacceptable, because Quebec's priorities in health research may differ from those of Canada. In the past, we have discovered cholesterol problems and genetic diseases that may differ widely from what is found in other parts of the country. There are population changes and regional problems and concerns that may be unique to Quebec or unique to other provinces in Canada. In its current form, I do not think this bill is to our satisfaction.
I have a very specific concern and it has to do with regional distribution of health services. For example, clause 4, which states the objective, talks about “fostering the discussion of ethical issues”. There are specialists in this field, in which the Université du Québec à Rimouski, among others, has developed an expertise. It has an ethics chair and professors who work in this field.
This is problem, particularly in the research field, and I have discussed it with some of our scientists. We must realize that getting a research contract is not like buying a chair. There are all kinds of representations that are made. Lobbying is an integral part of the process, and it is important that scientists in the various regions can have their say, the same way they would if they were in the national capital.
In that regard, lessons from the past have shown us that we will have to be vigilant and make sure that researchers, wherever they are, have an opportunity to get a research contract because it is also a development tool. Research contracts create a synergy which leads to the creation of other small businesses in the area. Small processing operations can get under way after 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. Hence our concerns in that area.
I also think we should make sure that institutes are not established in certain sectors without the consent of the provinces. We must make sure that, when institutes are established, it is done according to the provinces' priorities and that the members of the governing council are selected from lists provided by the provinces, so that they can be their eyes and ears. If, for example, a researcher in our region or at Laval University or the Université de Montréal is not satisfied with a situation or requires a clarification—there is a reference to transparency in the bill—there should be a mechanism in place to facilitate this.
—ensuring transparency and accountability to Canadians for the investment of the Government of Canada in health research.
For this to really happen, the members of the governing council must reflect the entire Canadian scientific community. In sectors such as health, their names must be provided by the provinces.
I believe what we have before us is a bill that is worthwhile in principle. I also believe that substantial improvements are necessary to make it into a tool for the development of health research in Quebec, not just one for the development of health research for all of Canada.
We know that a worthwhile outcome is possible. There is much talk of international standards in this bill. There may be some outcomes of global interest to be presented to our international colleagues, but we also need outcomes in this country that must be