Debates of Feb. 28th, 2000

Division No. 752

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion lost.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-13, which establishes the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. This bill is now at report stage, following the hearing of witnesses and clause by clause consideration by the Standing Committee on Health.

I will remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois supported the principle of the bill and voted in favour of it at second reading stage. First of all, I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and health critic for the Bloc Quebecois, for working so hard on the health committee to try to convince the government majority that this bill needed amendments to make it acceptable to Quebecers.

I also heard my colleague from the New Democratic Party, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, talk to us about all the amendments she proposed to the government because she wanted to see some changes made to the bill. In many respects, she finds it just as unacceptable to Canadians. However, members of the government majority have shown no openness with regard to the amendments proposed by the opposition parties and no co-operation whatsoever. Therefore, my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve had no choice but to bring forward his amendments here, in the House, at report stage, to give us at least an opportunity to talk about what is unacceptable in this bill.

Bill C-13 is important to us. However, as it is worded, it concerns us. In fact in its 52 clauses, it refers over 15 times to research into the health care system and health issues, which are without a shadow of a doubt provincial matters.

Thus, the amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois make it clear that the bill focuses on health research and not on the potential expansion of mandates beyond the field of research.

The Bloc Quebecois wants to make sure that it is the provinces making the decisions on the choices and principles underlying the health care networks and services to the public as is provided in the Constitution, which the Liberals claim they are defending and which they are blithely flouting with ever more obvious encroachment on provincial jurisdictions.

When the federal government was not at war with Quebec, when it respected its partners in the Canadian federation, when it was not led by individuals with complexes who need to go behind Quebec's back to reassure themselves that they are powerful, when it was guided by the values of public good and community welfare rather than political visibility, it passed laws in this House creating federal agencies such as the Medical Research Council or the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council that respected provincial jurisdictions.

It is therefore possible for the federal government to introduce bills without disregarding provincial jurisdictions, which also means that Bill C-13 could quite easily have been amended to reflect the distribution of jurisdictions at each level of government without watering content down. The government's bill ignores the distribution of jurisdictions. This negates the very principle of what a federal government should be.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois introduced amendments to allow the establishment of these institutes while also respecting the distribution of jurisdictions. These amendments also seek to ensure that what is being promoted is indeed the communication of information among researchers, so as to improve health networks, rather than the implementation of rules defined without the provinces' input.

Through Bill C-13, the government once again decided to invade a provincial jurisdiction and to legislate without having had the courtesy of inviting its partners in the federation to help develop this legislation.

Again, this government claims to know better than all the other governments what needs to be done regarding biomedical research. Once again, as was the case with the millennium scholarships or the transitional job fund, the federal government is finding ways to spend our billions, which are not its money, as it pleases, primarily to gain more visibility and buy votes in the process.

Sure, some will argue that the interim governing council that developed this bill included Quebecers, competent people, and I have no doubt that this was indeed the case. Through their experience and expertise, these people undoubtedly made a remarkable contribution while sitting on the interim governing council. However, they had no mandate to represent Quebec and, more importantly, these people's primary concern was not to be a watchdog for the Constitution and for the respective jurisdictions of the various levels of government.

Could it be that this government, which claims to be a champion of clarity, which wants to give lessons in democracy to the whole world and which boasts that Canada is the most decentralized federation in the world, is afraid of giving real autonomy to these research institutes? Is this government that afraid of true decentralization?

Once again, this arrogant, conceited, know-it-all government is refusing to listen to the opposition's call to reason.

It is not so much the creation of the institutes of health research that should put us on our guard but the fact that once the institutes come into being, even virtually, there will still be a serious risk that, with their federal mandate, they will conduct research into public health services without first consulting with the provinces, thus interfering directly in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The Bloc Quebecois is therefore proposing a series of amendments whose primary purpose is to emphasize the importance of respecting respective jurisdictions and to reaffirm that provincial jurisdiction takes precedence over federal jurisdiction when it comes to health.

Investment in research and development is necessary and very much desired in hospital and university research circles. In addition, it is important that Quebec receive its fair share of federal research and development grants.

In recent years, Quebec has been seriously neglected when it comes to research and development grants and it is high time that the federal government restored the balance by ensuring that additional funds are made available to researchers and universities so that they can pursue their work.

Historically, it is known that Quebec receives only 14% of federal government research and development spending with respect to infrastructures. However, it is well known that research grants are awarded on the basis of merit. It is also important to note that, under the peer assessment system, approximately 30% of grants go to researchers in Quebec. It must therefore be recognized that Quebec's researchers are good at what they do and that they excel, particularly in the fields of mental health, cancer, and genome and biotechnology research.

It should therefore come as no surprise that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of increasing research and development budgets by creating virtual institutes and that it has supported this principle at second reading.

The federal government must respect the specific characteristics and strengths of researchers in the regions of Quebec in order to focus on their successes and their skills in the areas in which they excel.

The Bloc Quebecois says yes to the creation of a flexible and multidisciplinary structure to facilitate the organization of health research. The Bloc Quebecois says yes to increased R and D funding in the health field. The Bloc Quebecois says yes to all measures of such a nature as to provide more security to our researchers and to slow down the brain drain. The Bloc Quebecois does not, however, say yes no matter what the price.

We set two preconditions: the government must put an end to its diversionary tactics and re-establish the transfer payments, and it must respect the jurisdiction of Quebec and of all the provinces with Bill C-13.

We all accept, and understand, the urgency. But care must be taken to ensure that democracy does not suffer once again. We have had our fill of government urgency creating great upheaval in the entire process of this House and of the standing committees. Our duty as parliamentarians forces me to remind hon. members that the Bloc Quebecois is not prepared to vote in favour of just any bill, even one that acknowledges that the researchers of Quebec need funds.

In closing, I wish to state that the Bloc Quebecois is offering its co-operation to the federal government in getting this bill amended so that it will really serve the development of health research, while respecting federal-provincial divisions in jurisdiction and impacting on the health of the people of Canada and of Quebec.

If, however, our amendments should be rejected, then unfortunately the Bloc Quebecois will have to vote against this bill on third reading.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this important debate on Bill C-13.

I want to start by saying how very proud we are of our health care critic, the member for Winnipeg North Centre. She has done a great job in representing our concerns and interests in the various stages of debate on the bill. I notice that she moved some amendments.

I read with interest the speech she made on February 24. She cited the fact that while we are in favour of Bill C-13 and the whole concept of the proposed medical health research institutes, we have some real reservations not only about the process and how this bill came about but about the government's lack of willingness to entertain a number of the issues we raised. We thought they would augment the bill and add to the whole concept of promoting Canada as a centre of excellence for medical research which surely must be the ultimate goal in any bill of this nature.

Many groups made representations on the bill when it was before the committee not the least of which was the Canada Labour Congress. The Canada Labour Congress brought forward a very good point which we are disappointed the government did not automatically welcome and embrace. The issue it wanted addressed was that the one thing really lacking from a worker's point of view is that there is no medical institute specializing in occupational health and safety. One would think that in this day and age that would be automatic, an absolute given.

If we are concerned about occupational safety and health, which surely the government purports to be, it is a very timely recommendation. Part II of the Canada Labour Code is currently being debated and amended. That part of the labour code deals with occupational safety and health. Why would the government not have welcomed the recommendation that an institute be created that is dedicated solely to eliminating workplace accidents and lost time, injuries et cetera? Other countries have such a thing. The United States is way in front of us in terms of its research capabilities on occupational safety and health.

The government failed to respond to what we thought was a very creative and a very worthwhile recommendation.

[An hon. member]

That is too bad.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member next to me, it is too bad. We consider it a lost opportunity if the government were really soliciting input from the general public on this issue.

Other groups have welcomed the idea of dismantling the Medical Research Council of Canada and replacing it with the Canadian institutes of health research, the CIHR. The Canadians for Health Research wrote a letter recently to inform us, and I will repeat this publicly for the House, of a meeting that they will be holding here on March 22 to celebrate the creation of the new Canadian institutes of health research and the dismantling of the Medical Research Council of Canada. The letter from this organization reminds us that much of the country has been eagerly anticipating this development. It also reminds us that this will further Canada's ability to be seen as a world leader in terms of medical research.

It is not any secret that Canada's health system is the envy of the world and arguably the best not for profit and publicly funded health system in all of the world. The rest of the world watches Canada for examples of how to expand or improve their health care systems. This is another reason that what we are doing today with this bill is very timely.

This initiative expands the role of the public health care system. It is not just the delivery of medical services to people in need but the whole concept of medical research as a holistic approach to the well-being of all Canadians. Obviously this is the direction in which we should be going in the Canadian medical system.

I should repeat here some of the amendments to the bill that the member for Winnipeg North Centre thought it necessary to introduce. The government should welcome these amendments. They were made in good faith. We believe they help bring clarity to the bill and to improve some of its shortcomings.

The first amendment was Motion No. 48 in which the member for Winnipeg North Centre recommended that Bill C-13 be amended to add the words “the members of the advisory boards shall not, directly or indirectly, as owner, shareholder, director, officer”—et cetera—“have any pecuniary or proprietary interest in any business which operates in the pharmaceutical or medical devices industries”.

That is a point which really needed to be made. I am very glad the member for Winnipeg North Centre made that point. Clearly it is a conflict of interest situation. She saw that the bill was seriously flawed. It did not say anything to preclude the idea that a lobbyist for a pharmaceutical firm could end up sitting on the advisory board of one of the research organizations funded by the government. We can see how this could be a disaster.

[An hon. member]

Pretty cozy relationship.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Certainly it would be a disaster. The publicly funded organization could be doing research that the pharmaceutical company wanted to have done. Let us face it. That is a glaring oversight.

[An hon. member]

It is Bill C-91 all over again.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I would certainly hope that the government would see fit to at least put in a basic safeguard so that none of the advisory boards shall have appointed to them anyone who has a financial interest in a pharmaceutical company or a medical devices company. It is common sense.

One of my colleagues mentioned Bill C-91. That nightmare surfaces again. We all know how powerful the pharmaceutical lobby is already. We certainly do not need it infiltrating the boards of our medical research institutes.

[An hon. member]

Like it does with the Liberal caucus.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

When the Liberals failed to deliver on Bill C-91, when they collapsed and succumbed to the powerful pharmaceutical lobby, it was the largest single cost to our health care system. The costs of pharmaceutical drugs exploded and the generic drug companies were unable to make a substitute at maybe one-tenth of the cost. Giving 20 years of patent protection to the pharmaceutical companies was hardly in the best interests of Canadians. It is certainly coming back to haunt us now.

I am very proud that the member for Winnipeg North Centre saw fit to add this safeguard for all Canadians. We will not see that kind of conflict of interest on the boards of directors of any newly established medical research centres.

In Motion No. 49 the member for Winnipeg North Centre also points out that the conflict of interest and post-employment code for public office holders should apply, with such modifications as circumstances require, to all the members of the advisory boards. It is a conflict of interest reference to make sure that the current post-employment code that exists for all public office holders shall also apply to these boards. In other words, not only should they not have a financial interest in the pharmaceutical company or some such thing, but there has to be a reasonable length of time to put them at arm's length distance from their former occupation.

The member for Winnipeg North Centre is standing up for the interests of ordinary Canadians by ensuring that this kind of conflict will not take place in the newly established institutes of medical research.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Where do the Liberals stand on this? Where does the Reform Party stand on this?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly hope that all the parties in the House can see the common sense in making sure that Canadians' interests are safeguarded in this respect.

Motion No. 50 that the member for Winnipeg North Centre moved says that within three months after this act coming into force, the governing council shall make a bylaw to establish and put in place a code of ethics for the members of the advisory boards. In the newly struck advisory boards and the newly established institutes of medical research, we want a certain code of ethics put in place. These are reasonable, basic measures we would expect all public figures to uphold.

We do not expect any objections to any of these motions because they are obviously put in place in good faith, in good will, to look after and safeguard the interests of ordinary Canadians.

In closing I will repeat what the member for Winnipeg North Centre said in her remarks on February 24. We support this bill. We support the idea of the Canadian institutes for medical research. We had some reservations concerning the structure of the advisory boards. We are satisfied that those will be remedied with the adoption of the amendments put forward by the member for Winnipeg North Centre.

We want Canada to be a centre of excellence for medical research. The academics, universities and scientists in this country are poised, willing and ready to take their place at the forefront of this burgeoning new industry and the commercial possibilities of medical research. We welcome the opportunity.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from most members regarding Bill C-13, a bill to establish the Canadian institutes of health research and to repeal the Medical Research Council Act.

We have heard from member after member on this side the frustration at the committee level concerning the bill. Many of us, myself included, have put forward amendments. I have put forward two dozen amendments. The frustration comes from the fact that the government does not want to listen to the opposition to make this a better piece of legislation.

The member who just spoke, the health critic for that party, alluded to the frustration. It is legislation which we could all embrace. We could support it. What we are attempting to do as opposition members is to improve the legislation, but we get the sense from government members that they want the legislation now. They will not entertain amendments, unless they happen to be put forward by government members, over which they have absolute control. The government's position is not to listen to the opposition, that the opposition should not tell the government what should be in the bill.

That is where this whole exercise falls flat. None of us in the House wants to be seen as running in the face of the legislation because it is long overdue.

We are simply modelling what has been done in the United States and most European countries for the last 25 years. We are about 25 years behind the times in setting up these institutes for research. We do not have a whole lot to be proud of. We have a whole lot of ground that we have to gain if we want to be competitive in terms of medical research with the rest of the world, so let us get on with it.

Again, it goes back to the frustration of the Liberals not listening to what we are saying in terms of how we can strengthen the legislation. Let me give the House an example. This is the way we have always done things in this place, especially the Prime Minister. We will go through the makeup of the institutes, how the board is created, who picks the people to sit on the board and who will determine what institutes we will have, because as we speak we do not know. The president of the Canadian institutes of health research shall be appointed by the governor in council to hold office during pleasure for a term of not more than five years.

When we hear the term governor in council it simply means that the Prime Minister of Canada will appoint the president of the council as he appoints senators. We have heard just about everyone in the House from time to time rail on about the appointments of senators, how they happen and how they might be improved. Here we go again. The Prime Minister will determine who the president of the council will be. Not only that, each of the 20 members on the governing council will again be appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada.

Why would the government not consider rejigging that formula? It is very obvious the government wants absolute control as to how this will be set up, how it will run and who will be the boss. At the end of the day it will be the Prime Minister of Canada determining the agenda for this council. In my opinion and in the opinion of many members on this side of the House it will be he who will have absolute control. That is why the government will not entertain any sense of change in how these councils will be set up, how the president is appointed or how they will conduct business.

Unfortunately, the government has the opposition in a corner on this one, because just about every think tank, every university, every research institution in this country wants us to move on and get this thing on the road, as do we. The frustration, of course, comes from the fact that the government will not listen to anything which might slightly rejig the formula.

The Prime Minister has been around this place longer than any other member of parliament. When he was in opposition he would rail on about these types of appointments taking place in this country, whether he was talking about a board, a council or the Senate of Canada. Only when he takes office does the tune change. I do not think he is going to change in terms of how these institutes will work and how these appointments will be made.

Talk about arrogance. The Minister of Health is criss-crossing the country under the old health research council, giving away money, grants, as if this bill had already passed, knowing full well that it has not. It is an insult to this Chamber, to this institution called parliament. The Liberals are assuming this bill is going to be passed and they are assuming it is going to be passed post-haste.

I would suggest that something is wrong with the formula, and this is the place where it has to change.

This bill is good news for Canada, with the exception of who is calling the shots. Unfortunately there is a political overtone to this bill which I do not like. I think it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister and those who sit on his side of the House to say a word or two on this issue of appointments and how these institutes will be guided in the work they will do over the next number of years.

There are over 50 amendments to the bill. The government has simply decided to railroad us, forget about the opposition, forget about anything that might improve this bill. It simply wants to get the bill passed. We are suggesting that we could pass a better bill.

The government has the opportunity to listen to the opposition in the Chamber. Many of the amendments were discussed at committee, but were voted down by members of the government. However, now we are in a bigger, wider forum where Canadians will have a chance to hear us debate the bill.

I would suggest that the government take us seriously, take a look at the makeup of these institutes and consider some of the amendments that we have put forward in terms of the selection process.

This is reminiscent of the Liberal way of doing things. The Liberals, with this legislation, have stolen page for page, clause by clause, from the very platform which this party ran on in 1997. If we look at what Mr. Charest was talking about in his platform in 1997 we would find that the Liberals have basically modelled these institutes on what we were suggesting. That is not new for the Liberals, is it? They adopt the ideas of other parties, claim them for their own and back off only when they have to.

Let us get on with it and continue to engage in debate. I would like the government to take seriously a number of our amendments before we give our approval to pass this legislation through the House.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13, which we are debating this afternoon is important and significant. It should be approved by all parties, but, the government being what it is, there are concealed flaws.

Bill C-13 concerns the creation of institutes of health research in Canada. These institutes are to replace the existing medical research centres.

One reason it might be tempting to support this bill is the fact that the Department of Finance must substantially increase the amounts allocated to research. However, the problem lies in the intrusion this government is preparing to make once more into an area of provincial jurisdiction.

I can clearly recall, in 1978 when the current Prime Minister was the Minister of Finance, that he attempted an unprecedented intrusion into the provincial jurisdiction of municipal affairs. We in Quebec had just elected René Lévesque, and the federal government was trying to deal directly and by mutual agreement with the municipalities in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

The Quebec municipal affairs minister at the time, Guy Tardif, had systematically blocked the federal government's attempt to deal directly with the municipalities.

You can see how tricky the Prime Minister was at the time, in 1978. To get around that, he sent a cheque for $85 directly to all Quebec taxpayers. To annoy and ridicule the government of René Lévesque, he took another tack and gave each taxpayer $85.

At the time, I was a member of the Parti Quebecois. In our funding drive we collected not all of federal government cheques for $85 but a few of them. People said to us “What the government is doing at the moment is so stupid, we will give the same amount, or $85, to the Parti Quebecois”.

The Bloc Quebecois cannot endorse Bill C-13 as it stands. My colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has prepared a series of amendments in this regard, which we tabled in the House together on Thursday. We will try to talk members opposite into accepting them. We hope to see the majority of these amendments passed, because the bill would then reflect the spirit and the letter of the charter that is a part of the Constitution the Prime Minister himself patriated when he was Minister of Justice, without Quebec's agreement, following the “night of the long knives”.

When we watch the little guy from Shawinigan, the member for Saint-Maurice, in action, we get suspicious. We are also suspicious about the amount that Quebec will receive out of the budget allocated to health research, to discover new treatment techniques. We are concerned because we wonder whether Quebec will get its fair share.

Traditionally, Quebec has only been receiving 14% of the moneys allocated to research and development. The federal government's track record is not good. This is why we have serious concerns. We would like to see a framework where Quebec receives at least 24.2% or 24.3% of the budget earmarked for research and research centres located in Quebec benefit from these amounts.

All this is very nice, but members are well aware that, unfortunately, Quebec has not been getting its fair share of federal investments.

Today, all opposition members are proudly wearing a red heart on the left side. This is because today is budget day.

The Minister of Finance has made deep cuts to provincial transfers. I remind this House that the Minister of Finance who, in a few hours, will be tabling his seventh straight budget, cut $1.7 billion in social transfers to Quebec for fiscal year 1999-2000.

If the minister wants to create duplication and a structure that will interfere with provincial jurisdictions, he should be reminded that, this year, in Quebec alone, he made cuts totalling $850 million. That is close to $1 billion in the health sector alone. Since 1993, he has cut health transfer payments by $3.4 billion in Quebec alone.

Earlier I was listening to a conversation. He seemed a bit disappointed that we are not giving our support for Bill C-13 so that it can be passed quickly. We in the Bloc Quebecois are only too familiar with the Liberal Party and the agenda of the Prime Minister and there is no danger that we are going to give him our blessing and make it easy for him.

I was reading the newspapers on the weekend. What is going on at HRDC is scandalous. The Prime Minister said that only $2.59 was unaccounted for. The RCMP is investigating two cases right now and, in one alone, $100,000 is involved. It is no longer $2.50. In another case, close to $166,000 is unaccounted for. It has literally been lost track of.

The $166,000 was supposed to go to a relatively poor riding in East Montreal, Rosemont to be precise, the riding next door to Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, and the hon. member for Rosemont had signed the agreement with HRDC for a grant to create 45 jobs in Rosemont. I was going to say “transfer this money” but that is not quite it. It has disappeared. The RCMP should conduct an investigation.

In any event, Saint-Maurice won out, supposedly because it was closer to the border with the United States. But it is not—it is further away. If the Eastern Townships had been considered, that would have been smart, because the Eastern Townships are very close to the U.S. border.

Right now we are looking at a government that is rotten at the core and the rot is starting to spread outwards.

Last week, I read the speech given in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health in support of Bill C-13. In the not-so-distant past, I was a teacher and the president of our union was the man who is now the hon. member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies.

It is terrible to see how someone can change in a dozen years. I do not know if it was the year he spent with Marcel Pépin and Ti-Louis Laberge in his cell in Orsainville that so altered him that he is now defending the very policies he once so vehemently opposed. He even took his orders from Colonel Khadafi.

Today, this man rises in the House to speak about the virtues of Bill C-13. This just does not make any sense, and the mere fact that he is defending this bill today should make us suspicious.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I add my voice to those of the hon. member for Frontenac—Megantic and our health critic, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, to say that after having supported the principle of Bill C-13 at second reading, the Bloc Quebecois now prefers to reserve judgment because of what the government intends to do about the amendments which were moved by the Bloc Quebecois to ensure that the Constitution is respected.

Since this debate is about health, and even health care, which is a provincial jurisdiction, and since Quebec is particularly concerned about federal encroachments in this area, encroachments which this Liberal government has sought to multiply since 1993, the Bloc Quebecois will feel an obligation to express its dissent about this bill establishing the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, if the amendments it moved are not carried.

The Bloc decided to take this position after a thorough examination of the bill, after having consulted the members of the community and having reached the conclusion that, again, this bill was a manifestation of this government's bad habit, a habit it could never get rid of, to use its spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Besides, this government might want to do the same today, when the Finance Minister tables his budget, since it has accumulated billions of dollars on the back of the poorest in our society and on the back of the provinces by drastically reducing social transfer payments.

So this government could well be tempted again today, in the area of health but also in education or social programs, to spend money it has accumulated that should be given back to provinces, and among them Quebec, which wants, with the means it should have at its disposal, to fulfil its responsibilities in areas which are under its jurisdiction.

This does not mean that the Bloc Quebecois does not support this budget increase for research and development. It does support this budget increase. It also salutes the efforts of researchers—and there are many researchers in Quebec who want to see an increase in research budgets.

In fact, health researchers in Quebec are among the most effective in Canada. They are the ones who succeed in obtaining the largest financial support, which proves that health research in Quebec is very dynamic and can rely on the support and the exceptional work of researchers in the major institutes that already exist in Quebec, in our major laboratories and also in our universities.

These researchers, who have helped in the drafting of this bill to obtain innovative tools to improve the sharing of health information and to support the development of advanced health technologies, must understand the Bill C-13 in its current form—and that is what the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve tried to explain to be very transparent with regard to the position the Bloc Quebecois is putting forward in the House today—could seriously encroach on provincial jurisdictions in the area of health.

Beyond health research per se, the bill often refers to health related issues without ever recognizing the provinces' responsibility with regard to delivering health services to the public, which I think is worth mentioning in the House.

In fact, the provinces' role is reduced to that of any other player. As in the case of any person or organization involved in the area of health, national mandates are given. In fact, the word national is being used more and more in the House. Everything the federal government does now is no longer federal but national. They want it to be national because they consider Canada a nation, whereas Quebec has always considered itself a nation and continues its efforts to make Quebec an open and pluralistic nation, one in which all citizens are equal and can play their part in building the Quebec nation.

There is another competing project, however, that of a Canadian nation, a nation that of course calls upon a national government, one which has a tendency to consider the provinces as municipalities—one of the first Prime Ministers of this country, John A. Macdonald, considered provinces to be big municipalities. This is unacceptable to the Bloc Quebecois, and our opposition is just one more instance in a long history of opposition by all the governments of Quebec, one after the other, which have constantly raised the importance of respecting the division of powers in the health field as in all areas that fall exclusively under provincial jurisdiction.

It will come as no surprise that this is, once again, a reason for the Bloc Quebecois members to defend the interests of Quebec in this House, but it is also an opportunity to remind people of something: the alternative to an endlessly centralizing federalism, of which Bill C-13 is just one more example, is a project to make Quebec sovereign and able to be its own master over health and other areas, able to freely control its future, to create research institutes in the way that it wishes, and able to ensure that Quebec researchers can have access to what is required in order to carry out the innovative research they plan to do.

The Bloc Quebecois cannot, therefore, endorse this bill as presently worded, and it insists on stating in this House that the problem does not lie with the creation of institutes per se. Research and development might fall within the category of residual powers and thus, theoretically, under federal jurisdiction. In the end, after careful analysis and reading, the bill provides for a real possibility of direct infringement of provincial jurisdiction in public health services, infringement that will, as happens all too often, not involve proper consultation with the provinces.

I may be permitted to remind this House that a few weeks ago, the start of this month, marked the first anniversary of the agreement, the framework agreement on social union, an anniversary that was not celebrated in Quebec, because the formula in this case too will permit the federal government—as the Minister of Health himself has said—to unjustly claim jurisdiction over health care and to impose its views on Quebec, even though Quebec opposes this bill's application to Quebecers and the agreement's application to it.

The Bloc Quebecois is therefore proposing a series of amendments aimed primarily at underscoring the importance of respect for the division of powers and at reaffirming the primacy of provincial jurisdiction in the field of health.

In closing, I would point out once again that in this House, despite claims of concern over health care, the government has unilaterally—it has the habit of doing things unilaterally—and irresponsibly stopped funding the health networks put in place in 1993 by its famous Canada health and social transfer program.

It is commendable that it is investing more in research, but it must not lose sight of the need to re-establish the transfer payments to the provinces. The research institutes must not be a means for the federal government to meddle in areas of Quebec jurisdiction.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before addressing Bill C-13, I would like to first make a short digression. I know that you are very tolerant and that you will give me a few seconds to do that. You also probably know that if it were the hon. member sitting next to me who was rising, it might take a long time.

On behalf of my myself and my colleagues, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans for his very long and most interesting speech delivered on Thursday, from 5.15 p.m. to 10.15 p.m., to members, to Canadians who were watching on television, and to the legislative committee on Bill C-20. Our colleague deserves a good round of applause from all the members of this House.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I will not repeat what the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve said jokingly, but he too must be commended for his exceptional work to improve a bill which could be a good piece of legislation for Canadians and Quebecers, for researchers in health and bioethics, etc. However, given the narrow-minded obstruction tactics used by members opposite, these efforts will unfortunately be useless if Liberal members do not show some openness.

Earlier, the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic said that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health should be able to inform his minister, since he is from Quebec and has a clear understanding of Quebec's concerns and freedoms, which he defended for a long time, even going to jail for a few months in the process. The Bloc Quebecois' message is aimed primarily at him. I have also listened to the speeches of the opposition parties. Not just the Bloc Quebecois' message but the opposition speeches in general are aimed at him.

Regardless of party, Reform, Conservative, or New Democratic, we are all agreed that the bill is fine in principle. It is only normal that more money be invested in research and development. However, for reasons that differ for each party, the bill as it now stands is not acceptable.

As the member for Rimouski—Mitis said earlier, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the principle of creating institutes of health research. The Bloc Quebecois also agrees that research and development budgets should be increased. But the Bloc Quebecois does not agree with the bill in its present form for the reasons stated over and over again by all parties, more specifically by the Bloc Quebecois, because, among other things, of the blatant intrusion into provincial jurisdiction.

We are proposing a number of amendments, as are all the opposition parties, designed primarily to ensure that jurisdictions are respected, not to change the core purpose of the bill, which is to provide assistance to research and development and to increase research and development grants, but to respect the Canadian Constitution and the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments.

I will quote from the bill. As it now stands, it refers to an interest in health. “Health” is vague, and we know that the wording of a bill absolutely must be very clear.

This is why the main thrust of our amendments is to change the expression “an interest in health” to “an interest in research”, because the purpose of the bill is to establish research institutes. When someone knocks at the door and says “trust me”—my colleagues have already been very eloquent on this—it is hard to trust someone who does not just put a foot in the door but pushes in all the way, both feet, both hands and so on, into areas of jurisdiction reserved for the provinces.

We have an absolute duty to delineate a clear definition of what a research institute is and what its objective is. Its objective, as set out in Bill C-13 introduced by the Liberals and analyzed by all the parties, is too vague. We want this research institute to really deal with research.

If the government wants to invest money in this research institute, it might need reminding of our major concerns about finances. Before reinjecting money into research, which is, as I said, something with which we are totally in agreement, the government needs to be reminded of its poor financial record.

For the fiscal year 1999-2000, which is about to end, it is estimated that Quebec alone had a shortfall of close to $1.7 billion under the Canadian social transfer. This shortfall for the year 1999-2000—and I am not talking about all of Canada, only Quebec—amounts to $850 million per year in the health sector alone.

One can imagine how much easier negotiating with Quebec nurses would have been if this $850 million had been available to the Quebec government, if the provincial government had not been deprived of that money by the federal government.

Similarly, imagine how helpful it would have been to have an additional $850 million for health when so many people had the flu and emergency rooms were overcrowded in Quebec, and also elsewhere in Canada. It is important to remember that.

Looking back not just to the last year, but since this government took office in 1993, we see that Quebec's health sector has not suffered a shortfall of $850 million, but of $3.4 billion.

This is what enabled Jean Charest, the Quebec Liberal Party leader, to say “Who is responsible for the problems in the health sector? It is not Lucien Bouchard, it is not Mike Harris, it is the current Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance”.

This statement was not made by a mean separatist. It was made by Jean Charest during the leaders' debate, adding, in reference to this $3.4 billion in cuts to health over a seven year period, that, as far as he was concerned, the main responsibility lies with the people across the Ottawa River.

As concerns the first group of amendments presented here, I believe the bill must refer especially, as I said, to health research and not to the health care system and services to the public.

The current minister, in an open letter today to La Presse, expresses his considerable concern about becoming directly involved in home care and in public health care. However, throughout the bill, reference is made not only simply to health research but more generally to health.

So the amendments introduced by the Bloc Quebecois serve to make it clear that the bill applies to health research and not to the potential expansion of mandates beyond such research.

They are intended to make sure that the decisions related to the choice and principle underlying the health networks and services to the public are exclusively under the aegis of the provinces and within appropriate jurisdictions.

Given that there was the bill establishing the medical research council, which the research institutes will replace, or, in the field of education, the bill establishing the Canadian council on social sciences and the humanities, we can see that the distribution of jurisdictions may be respected without watering down Bill C-13.

No one wants the wheel to be reinvented. What we are saying is that there are two councils with jurisdiction in this area. Therefore, we are asking the government to honour and implement what has already been done. The government's bill is ignoring the distribution of powers. It negates the federal principle.

When the federal government wants to administer everything and we see how badly it administers money allocated to Human Resources Development Canada, we can see that the Bloc Quebecois' amendments must be accepted so that the provinces, in their individual jurisdictions, may administer until the moment we have full jurisdiction over all our powers in Quebec.

[The Speaker]

It being nearly 2 o'clock, we could now proceed to Statements by Members and thus hear more of them.

Climate Change

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a debate in the House, Reform Party members came out against climate change. They produced a lot of hot air while failing to prove their case.

Human induced global change is a self-evident fact. Just look out the window today. Every sane person knows that increasing population combined with technology is transforming the planet. This has been the warmest decade on record and 1998 was the warmest year on record.

Glaciers around the globe are becoming smaller. At the same time, more people are finding it difficult to breath. Our atmosphere has changed and is still changing at a frightening rate.

The Kyoto protocol to control greenhouse emissions is a small step in the right direction. Canada should take the lead in showing that we can have a healthy economy and a healthy atmosphere. Let us meet our Kyoto commitments.

Justice

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve a fair and just legal system. Yet this week marks the 17th anniversary of Patrick Kelly's incarceration for the murder of his wife.

Six years have passed since the key witness admitted she lied during the trial bringing the entire investigation and conviction into question. Since then Patrick Kelly has been fighting for a new trial.

In a split 2:1 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Judge Goudge felt Kelly had been denied justice because of the false testimony of the key witness and called for a new trial.

Last December I asked the justice minister to use her power to order a new trial or, at the very least, refer this case to the Supreme Court of Canada. We are still waiting for the minister's response.

This issue is not about guilt or innocence; it is about a fair and open justice system. Canadians, including Patrick Kelly, expect nothing less.

Mélanie Turgeon

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a Canadian downhill skier, Mélanie Turgeon, delivered two outstanding performances at the Women's World Cup on the weekend.

After winning the gold on Saturday, Mélanie pulled off an amazing second-place finish in the Super-G, taking the silver medal in that event. She is the first Canadian to win a World Cup event in seven years.

Mélanie worked hard to reach these heights. We offer our heartiest congratulations and encourage her to keep up the great work.

Canada is proud of the achievements of this young Quebecer. Brome—Missisquoi and all of Canada celebrate her victory.

Mélanie is an example of tenacity and perseverance for young people. Bravo, Mélanie.

Fight Against Racism

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Canadian government launched a Canada-wide tour as part of the Action Canada 2000 “Racism. Stop It!” initiative.

This special millennium event will build on the growing success of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination held annually on March 21 by inviting young people in Canada and throughout the world to fight against racism.

Canada is recognized world wide as a model of non-violent and respectful cultural integration.

Young Canadians have an important role to play in Canada's future. As part of this year's campaign, young Canadians will get together with other young people from Australia, Austria, Brazil, the Caribbean, the Philippines, the U.K. and the United States.

We wish them good luck and reiterate our support for this movement, which is to the credit of all Canadians.

Community Access Program

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 17, the Government of Canada announced the results of the most recent Community Access Program competition, which will help establish public Internet access sites in 71 rural Quebec communities.

The Government of Canada is committed to equipping Canadians with the tools to gain the skills they need for today's knowledge-based economy.

This announcement is an important one for Quebec. The CAP sites will give the selected rural areas residents affordable convenient access to the Internet and thus to communication.

The Government of Canada aims to help establish up to 10,000 access sites in remote, rural and urban settings nationwide by March 31, 2001.

What is involved is, of course, economic development and communication, but primarily the quality of life of all Canadians.