Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-13. Since I am not the first member of my party to speak in this debate, you probably know already that the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill.
Our colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who is responsible for this issue as the health critic for the Bloc Quebecois, already announced that we would be proposing amendments. As all the members who spoke before me said, regardless of their political affiliation, even if we applaud heartily the government's decision to invest in research, we have some concerns about how the institutes will be established and managed.
Why do we applaud investment in research? For one simple reason. Since the 1993 election campaign, based on an OECD report that blamed Canada for trailing behind in research and development, the Bloc Quebecois has been using every opportunity to remind the government that it must make major investments in research in general, but more specifically in health research.
If we look at the figures provided to me by my colleague from Mercier, whom I wish to thank most sincerely, we can see—and there is a very significant table—that research investments made in Canada since the Liberal Party came to power in 1993 have fallen below zero and are now just over 10%, while they have increased by 30% in France, 40% in the United Kingdom 40% and 80% in the United States.
Unfortunately, under our rules and procedures, we cannot show this document, but it would be interesting if those watching could see how disastrous Canada's actions have been as far as investments are concerned since that party took office.
A Bloc Quebecois dissenting report, presented with the industry committee report entitled “Research Funding-Strengthening the Sources of Innovation”—a report published recently, in June 1999—states as follows, and I quote:
From 1984-85 to 1996-97, the federal government's share of total government funding for the main fields of university research in Quebec fell from 55% to 37%, while the Quebec government's share remained steady at 23%.
Funds from the private sector made up much of the difference, as its share increased from 10% to 26% , primarily in the form of the partnerships that are the focus of the Committee's report.
What information or lessons can be drawn from this situation? The Canadian government uses buzz words in its Speeches from the Throne—indeed, this was not the first time. It talks of managing knowledge. It has bored us stiff with that. For the government, managing knowledge means reducing research funds invested in the various sectors of research, allowing the private sector to invest even more money in research, with all the risks that represents.
Let us consider Monsanto, for example, which sponsors research by academics, then says “You have to answer our needs”. With this sort of attitude, one has every right to be concerned.
Now, a look at the proposed organization chart for the governing council and the proposed organization for these institutes, we once again have a wall-to-wall, Canada-wide institute, which will cover all provinces and territories. We are told it will be more virtual than real and that it will link researchers within information networks. Wholly integrated buzz words, again, but what will it mean in reality and what will the result be?
Naturally we are told that the institutes will have to work from four perspectives, in each case: basic biomedical activities, clinical research activities, health services and systems and impacts on society, culture and public health.
We might ask what happens with these things. Let us look at a specific example for our viewers, who are wondering what it all boils down to.
In order to have some sense of the operations of an institute, let us take the example of an institute on ageing. Its multidisciplinary research program could concern the problems caused by the ageing of Canadians. As part of its mandate, the institute could work on Alzheimer's disease from biomedical perspectives in terms of the molecular mechanisms of Alzheimer's disease.
In the clinical field, what are the most effective drugs or treatments? In the case of health services: is it preferable to treat someone suffering from this disease in the community, and if so, how, or is it preferable to treat them in an institution?
Health determinants, the fourth sector, are the societal, cultural and health factors involved. Are there elements of lifestyle, environmental factors or dietary factors that contribute to disease?
By bringing together researchers working on common goals, the institutes will promote creativity, generate new ideas in the area of health research and promote strategic policy to take Canada into the new millennium. That is what the government says. To that end, it is investing $65 million and has already decided how it will be allocated.
In the meantime, however, what has this government done? It has cut billions from health care. It is probably assuaging its guilt. It has been doing so for a while. It cut nearly $7 billion, to round off the figures.
Again yesterday and today, the finance minister had the nerve to say “We are so generous that we reinvested $11 billion”. Hogwash, if members do not mind my saying so, since the government had announced it would make further cuts and that $42 billion worth of cuts were still to come. And now the minister is saying “I am so generous, I am so good, I will only cut $33 billion”.
He wants people to believe he is putting money back in when in reality the government is still making drastic cuts there is $33 billion more in cuts to come.
Since I am being signalled that my time is about to expire, I will say in conclusion that I believe the government is chiefly responsible for the difficulties the provinces are experiencing in health care. We will see to it, when the time comes for us to introduce amendments, that the bill gives a larger role to the provinces.
They have jurisdiction over health care, and we will defend the point of view and interests of Quebec, since Quebec has several areas of excellence and we want our scientists' contribution to the management of knowledge in Canada and Quebec to be properly recognized.