House of Commons Hansard #70 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-16.
Canadian Institutes Of Health Research ActGovernment Orders
Kenora—Rainy River Ontario
Liberal
Bob Nault Liberalfor the Minister of Health
moved:
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-13, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 22 and 23 on page 4 with the following:
“required,
(iii) work in collaboration with the provinces to advance health research and to promote the dissemination and application of new research knowledge to improve health and health services; and
(iv) engage voluntary”
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
moved:
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-13, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 26 on page 4 with the following:
“(iii) have the provinces participate in the choice of directions and decisions for research; and
(iv) engage the voluntary organizations, the private sector and others, in or outside Canada, with complementary research interests;”
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-13, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 4 with the following:
“(f) in collaboration with the provinces, addressing emerging health opportuni-”
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-13, in Clause 5, be amended
(a) by adding after line 24 on page 5 the following:
“(b.1) involve the provinces in the choice of directions and decisions and form partnerships with them;”
(b) by replacing line 2 on page 6 with the following:
“ships with persons”
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-13, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 6 with the following:
“the Governor in Council, with due regard for provincial jurisdiction over health, to achieve its”
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-13, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 6 with the following:
“6. Subject to section 7.1, the President of the CIHR shall be”
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB
moved:
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-13, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 6 with the following:
“appointed by the Governor in Council, based on advice taken from the Canadian medical research community, to hold”
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-13, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 6 with the following:
“office for a term of not more than three years. The President is eligible for”
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-13 be amended by adding after line 25 on page 6 the following new clause:
“6.1 (1) The Minister shall conduct an annual review of the performance of the President of CIHR.
(2) The Minister shall advise the President of the upcoming performance review within 30 days after the anniversary date of the President's appointment.
(3) A copy of the performance review, signed by the Minister, shall be forwarded to the President of the CIHR within 90 days of the anniversary date of the President's appointment.”
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
moved:
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-13, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 6 with the following:
“(2) Subject to section 7.1, each initial member of the Governing”
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB
moved:
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-13, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 6 with the following:
“appointed by the Governor in Council, based on advice taken from the Canadian medical research community, to hold”
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-13, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 38 on page 6 with the following:
“appointed by the Governor in Council, based on advice taken from the Canadian medical research community, for a”
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-13, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 43 on page 6 with the following:
“tion (2) shall be appointed to no more than two consecutives terms.”
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-13, in Clause 7, be amended
“(a) by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 7 with the following:
“(4) The Governor in Council shall appoint, based on advice taken from the Canadian medical research community, as members of the Governing Council women”
“(b) by replacing line 6 on page 7 with the following:
“nor in Council shall appoint, based on advice taken from the Canadian medical research community”
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
moved:
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-13, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 7 with the following:
“nor in Council shall provide for representation on the Governing Council that takes the demographic weight of the provinces into account and shall consider appointing”
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB
moved:
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-13 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 7 the following new clause:
“7.1 (1) The President of the CIHR shall conduct an annual review of the performance of each of the members of the Governing Council.
(2) The President shall discuss the performance review with each member of the Governing Council and shall provide a report to the Minister within 30 days after the completion of the performance reviews.”
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
moved:
Motion No. 37
That Bill C-13 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 7 the following new clause:
“7.1 The Governor in Council shall appoint the President of the CIHR and the initial and subsequent members of the Governing Council from lists of names provided by the provinces.”
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-13, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 7 with the following:
“8. Notwithstanding subsection 7(2) and section 7.1, the”
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-13, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 39 on page 8 with the following:
“for the management of the CIHR, with due respect for provincial jurisdiction over health, including”
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-13, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 9 with the following:
“(g) establishing policies respecting participation of the provinces and consult-”
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB
moved:
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-13, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 38 on page 10 with the following:
“the Advisory Boards, based on advice taken from the Canadian medical research community, women and men who are”
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
moved:
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-13, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 41 on page 10 with the following:
“of Canadians. The Governing Council shall provide for representation on the Advisory Boards that takes the demographic weight of the provinces into account and shall”
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB
moved:
Motion No. 47
That Bill C-13, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 42 on page 10 with the following:
“appoint, based on advice taken from the Canadian medical research community, women and men who”
Motion No. 51
That Bill C-13, in Clause 21, be amended
“(a) by replacing line 8 on page 11 with the following:
“21. (1) The governing Council shall review the”
(b) by replacing line 15 on page 11 with the following:
“Research Institute or terminated and shall provide a report to the Minister.”
(c) by adding after line 15 on page 11 the following:
“(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before the House of Commons on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives it.”
Motion No. 52
That Bill C-13, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 11 with the following:
“Research Institute at least every three years”
Motion No. 55
That Bill C-13, in Clause 31, be amended
(a) by replacing line 1 on page 14 with the following:
“31. (1) The Auditor General of Canada shall”
(b) by adding after line 4 on page 14 the following:
“(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives it.”
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here, even if it interferes with my presence at the Standing Committee on Justice.
I basically want to remind the House of the gist of our amendments in Group No. 2. The hon. parliamentary secretary and member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies knows that what we want first is that the provinces be closely involved in the development and implementation of Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
The Bloc Quebecois, a responsible opposition party intent on continuing to be responsible, is aware that the research community needs money, and significant amounts of money at that.
We have no qualms about acknowledging the injection of an additional $500 million, which will be available starting next year, for the creation of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which, as we know, will be virtual institutes. So, the money will not be invested in buildings.
The problem is that the health minister underlines the importance of having the researchers connect through a network, like the OCDE said it should be, and we agree, but the bill provides for an extreme centralization.
The minister talks about institutes of health research, plural, but since there is only one governing council, we should speak instead of a single Canadian institute of health research.
The bill is so centralizing that the president and the chairperson of the governing council are one and the same. Just imagine if, in Quebec, at the baseball division of the Régie des installation olympiques—I take that example because of your athletic dispositions and your love of baseball—there were a president and a chairperson.
We asked the parliamentary secretary and the minister why it had to be the same person. In large public organizations, centralized or decentralized, the principle of checks and balances is considered essential, which means that there is a director general and a chairperson of the board who are not one and the same.
We know that research is an area that evolves rapidly. We want the scientists to be networked, to be linked together in networks. But why not involve the provinces in the definition of the health research institutes?
We are proposing an amendment to make this possible both at the governing council level and in the various advisory committees. We did the same thing when the Canada Labour Code was reviewed, and we also have the preliminary version of the code. My colleague, the hon. member for Laurentides, will deal with the present bill. But a few years ago, when the government chose to amend Part III of the Canada Labour Code, we also tabled an amendment in order to enable the Canada Labour Relations Board to take inspiration from lists proposed by the provinces. We have done exactly the same thing here. We brought in an amendment asking the minister “Why not take inspiration from proposals made by the provinces?”
Jean Rochon, the minister of scientific development, who everyone knows is a great friend of the hon. member for Québec, is in the process of bringing in a science policy. This policy establishes directions to be given developmental priority for health research in Quebec.
What are these areas of priority? Genomics and heredity. The hon. member for Jonquière, who can at the very least be described as a woman of determination, is working hard to get an institute facility in her region, because a pool of researchers, with their expertise and knowledge, are concentrated there.
Not only must there be recognition of the strengths of Quebec as far as genomics and heredity are concerned, but there is also much expertise relating to cancer, and AIDS as well. Quebec is home to some of the most highly reputed researchers in the fields of AIDs and virology.
What we are saying to this government is “If it is your objective to create linkages so that the various researchers can interact in the spirit of complementarity and multidisciplinarity, you stand to gain by consulting the provinces”. That is the type of amendment we presented.
Many people came to us saying “Please ensure that the $500 million to be made available is going to really go to research”.
The result of this bill will be to abolish the Medical Research Council of Canada. I would have liked the parliamentary secretary to be here listening—I am sure he will agree with me. Once the Medical Research Council of Canada is abolished, we must make sure that the administration costs that fall to the Canadian institutes of health research under the new structure do not exceed 5%.
We think it would be wrong for the administration costs to be 10%, 15% or 20%. We would not agree with that. I hope that this amendment will meet with the approval of government members.
There is one problem. Perhaps the hon. member for Québec would give us a little smile. There is one problem and it is as follows. There are 13 references to the health care system in the bill. We are prepared to admit that research is an area of shared jurisdiction. The federal government has invested in the research sector since the early 1990s; in fact, its involvement goes back to something like 1910 or 1915 and, with a few notable exceptions, there are very few parliamentarians who were around back then.
The health care sector, however, does not come under federal jurisdiction. We have some concerns that the bill as now worded, with its references to the health care system, will be a way for the federal government to get its foot in the door of jurisdictions where it has no business.
This is why, very candidly and in a spirit of clarity, we moved an amendment asking the government to specify that the health care system does not come under its jurisdiction. The government's determination borders on the obsessive and will make it look rather narrow minded if it does not support our amendment.
I still have hopes that the parliamentary secretary, who has a huge influence within the government, will manage to convince the Minister of Health, a future leadership contender, to support our amendments.
This is a major bone of contention, so much so that the Quebec Minister of Health, Mrs. Marois, and her colleague, Mr. Rochon, took the time to write to the federal health minister to express their concerns. I tabled a copy of that letter in committee. I will be pleased to circulate it if some hon. members are interested in reading it.
Since I have little time left, let me say that we support health research. We believe it is important that researchers be part of a network. We also believe that this bill cannot be part of a nation building process. It must not be the excuse for the federal government to try to get involved in health, particularly in the health care system and in the procurement of equipment at points of service, two areas which come under provincial jurisdiction.
If the government—and I will conclude on this note—supports our amendments, which are very reasonable and certainly not out of line, we would be compelled to rise, at report stage and at third reading, to support this bill, which has some merits, but which appears to promote federal hegemony somewhat.
I invite hon. members to make sure that the government supports the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. We worked hard in committee, we showed up consistently, we heard witnesses and we are very qualified to talk about Quebec's interests. We know that researchers want this bill passed and we are prepared to support it, as long as it respects Quebec's jurisdictions.
Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this bill at report stage. Health care is not my area of expertise. However, I have some concerns that I want to raise at this time. As Reformers, we are basically supporting the measures that the government is putting forward.
At the outset, let me state that the devil is in the details. Health care research can have tremendous benefits. It can alleviate a lot of suffering. We do not deny that and that makes it absolutely essential that we explore the area of health care research.
We can save a lot of money in health care spending by doing research in the proper areas and, therefore, adjusting our health care system accordingly. We need to use public money much more efficiently. However, if there is not a balance in the way the money is administered, the effectiveness of that money will be diminished. That must be obvious to all of us.
I feel that there is a bias in Canada today in the medical establishment and in health care research. We can have all of the best intentions in the world, as are outlined in this bill, and we can make all of the best amendments, as we have tried to put forward, and we agree with a lot of them, but if a bias exists in the administration of those funds we do a disservice to Canadians. That is what I mean by the devil is in the details.
For example, we see in Canada a heavy emphasis on research into the effectiveness of drugs and other very intrusive procedures in the handling of health care problems when there is a lot of evidence to indicate that there are very effective alternatives. That is why I feel, when we look at this bill, that we have to ensure that all of these concerns which Canadians have are addressed. Research should not exclude the exploration of these other areas. We need protection in this bill to ensure that happens.
Our health minister made the statement that our health care system needs more than just money to fix it. I could not agree more. However, he then went on to condemn the provinces which explore alternative means of doing just that.
One of the concerns I have is with the group of people who will be administering these health care research funds. Who will be on the selection committee? How will we ensure that there is a balance, that we do not have just the so-called traditional experts, that we have people who represent all parts of society and all of the concerns which people have?
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 and other communities which have a great interest in this to receive input as to the scope and area of research. For example, will the applicants themselves direct the bulk of the research or will the nature of research be directed by advisory boards and force applicants to apply for funding in areas dictated by the central body? That is what I mean by getting down to the details.
Although the CIHR will strive to ensure that only 4% to 5% of the total budget will be spent on administrative costs, a new institute 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, and it is very broad, will the initial budgetary expenditures be sufficient to carry out its entire mandate? If not, will parliament be required to allocate additional funds for the creation of the institute?
The president of the CIHR will make recommendations to the governor in council as to who should be appointed to the advisory council. The president will make recommendations based on public selection processes. However, will the president follow the advice of the public selection process or will he bypass these recommendations and appoint members of individual choice?
As I have said, there are many good parts to this bill. It appears to be an excellent model of 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 I hope that remains the case. That should reduce the influence of high ranking government officials. However, that sometimes is eroded over time and we have to ensure that does not happen.
These and all of the above-mentioned details can be addressed before the committee when the bill reaches that stage. There is a strong need to consult all of the health care communities and all of the people who have an interest in this research. We need their input into this whole area.
We basically support the direction of the bill, but we would hope that the government would take our concerns into account. I could give examples of some of the areas in which we have made huge mistakes by not looking at all areas of health care which need to have research. Sometimes, because of political correctness, we exclude some of those areas.
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB
Mr. Speaker, for the record, we support the establishment of the Canadian institutes of health research. Listening carefully to the previous speakers, most parties support this bill, but not without reservation. The reason for this is the cynical use of politics which the Prime Minister has displayed in recent years with regard to health care. It makes many of us nervous, especially if we look at the budget which was recently brought down.
When I read the budget and listened to the Minister of Finance introduce it, the first thing that came to my mind was that it was not an election budget. Why? Because health care was the missing equation in the budget with the paltry $2.5 billion over the next three years that was committed, which will be split between health care and education. That will mean that most provinces will get enough out of the new budget to run their systems for an average of two or three days a year for the next three years. The Liberals just simply paid lip service to health care.
Getting back to the issue before us, I have some problems with the establishment of the institutes. One of my problems is the cynicism which we see in the Prime Minister's approach to health care. He has created a problem and he knows full well that he has the capacity to fix it. He probably will, just slightly before the next election, probably on the eve of the next election, which is rumoured today to be called for October 16. We can expect some recurring announcements in the health care field between now and the end of the summer. The Prime Minister has created the crisis and now he is going to employ Machiavellian politics to fix that very crisis to make himself popular. I do not think it is going to work.
We have a problem with the construction of the institutes. For starters, all of the appointments will be made by the Prime Minister. At page 6 of the bill, line 21 states: “The President of the CIHR shall be appointed by the Governor in Council—”. What does the term governor in council imply? It simply means that the Prime Minister, along with the cabinet, will appoint the president. What it boils down to is that I do not trust the Prime Minister to make these appointments. I do not think any of the other party members on this side of the House do either.
The interesting thing is that the governing council, of which there will be no more than 20 members, will again be appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada.
Many of the amendments that we have put forth in this bill address that very concern. We think these changes are necessary to the bill and will result in the Prime Minister consulting the health community before these very appointments are made. We actually defined in my amendments what we mean by the health community. I think we have to get away from one man determining how this institute will be set up.
One of the things I mentioned in committee was that this is not new in terms of what other countries in the rest of the world have done with institutes like this in the past. In fact, this is modelled after the U.S. example. The biggest difference in the U.S. example is that the president of the United States does not appoint the president of the institute, nor does he appoint the members of the institute, that is the governing council. That is a very important point and I am glad the member picked up on that. The United States operates under a different system. What it has effectively done is depoliticize the process.
I would like to see that done in this bill but the government will probably just give short heed to the amendments on the floor that would actually change the way this committee is structured and the way it is set up.
The other thing is the fact that once this body is established, we have no idea how many institutes there will be. We do know there will be virtual institutes but we have no idea how many there will be and what they will be. There is no indication in the bill what the government is considering.
I think what the Canadian people are demanding today is transparency in everything. What we would expect as opposition members is to see some openness in the selection process so that we in the House can have some input and that the medical community can have some input. There is no evidence of that in the bill. I would say that is the essential flaw in this piece of legislation before us.
We do favour the replacement of the Medical Research Council with this institute. However, if we are going to make a change, let us make a change that will work to the benefit of the health community. I believe the health community and the health care system in this country have suffered greatly under this administration, going back some seven years.
Mr. Speaker, you were sitting in that chair when the government took the biggest cut ever from the health care budget at the expense of every single person in Canada. Now we have a health care system that is under siege because of the neglect by the government. Now we will see the use of what I call Machiavellian politics in the next short number of months to fix a system that the government broke.
What it really boils down to is that I do not trust the Prime Minister hand-picking who will sit on these institutes and then exerting influence on what institutes will be established and how the governing council will function.
I think this is open to some debate within the House. I would love to hear some of the other members address those very concerns over the next few minutes.
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to say that three words summarize today's debate: encroachment, encroachment and encroachment.
And the government is encroaching in a particularly iniquitous way because we all know the very serious problem cuts to transfer payments have created for the provinces.
This issue has been discussed at length in Quebec. Quebecers did not realize that the problem is as acute in other provinces. We have seen a whole series of absurdities. Believe it or not, people from Saint-Jean have to go to Plattsburgh to get treatment, and this costs Canadian taxpayers a bundle.
So much so that the hospital in Plattsburgh has just bought very sophisticated equipment because of the large number of Quebecers who are going for treatment to the United States. All this because the government decided, a few years ago, to cut transfers to provinces, including Quebec.
The shortfall for last year was $1.7 billion, a tidy sum. Members can understand why the Government of Quebec found it so hard to achieve zero deficit while, at the same time, managing a health care system where demand is rising while funding is dropping.
We have to see how the government is feathering its nest, because that is just what it is doing. The Minister of Finance talked about a potential surplus of $95 billion over five years, but according to our estimation it will be more like $130 billion over the same period.
This surplus was accumulated by means of the Canada health and social transfer. The government has cut transfers to provinces, including Quebec, and by doing so it has created a terrible crisis for them. Waiting lists show how people are paying for this now.
We should not forget that the government is feathering its nest even more with the employment insurance fund. It still has ultimate control over the unemployed, limiting access to the employment insurance plan. Today, only four out of ten workers have access to the plan; before the reform it used to be seven out of ten. While the government is paying out less to the unemployed, it is still taking in just as much from employees and employers. Not only will it not upgrade the plan, it will not adjust it so that benefits are equivalent to the period worked.
The government is still feathering its nest, putting more money aside and, when it sees fit, it uses that money to encroach on areas of provincial jurisdiction. I do not know whether the premiers of the other provinces are listening to us today, but I believe that with the signing of the social union such federal encroachments on provincial jurisdiction are going to increase.
I remind the House that Quebec did not sign this agreement, precisely to protect its jurisdiction over health care. Normally in Canada, under the Constitution, everything social is a provincial responsibility, but often things are called a different name.
For instance, with regard to the bill before us today, the name used is health research institutes; the government says it is not necessarily about health, but really about virtual research, or some other kind of research. There has been no consultation with the provinces. In fact, the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois are aimed at remedying this. We want the provinces and Quebec to be consulted.
What about the health research institutes? In 2001-2002, $500 million will be invested in these institutes. When we look at how research and development are evolving in Canada, we see that we have big problems. When it comes to research and development in Canada, Quebec is at a disadvantage.
I often indicate that Quebecers represent 25% of the government's tax base. In the Outaouais region, let us not talk about institutes of health research but only about research centres; they are 43 of them, 42 on the Ottawa side, one of the Hull side. And yet, Quebecers foot 25% of the bill.
When it comes to research, we must also see all the economic benefits of a research centre, of an institute of health research. This is important. First, these are highly paid jobs; second, these research centres award a lot of contracts and subcontracts. A lot of people will be supplying the research centre, and that creates jobs. This is the new economy.
When we look at the way the money has been distributed for several years, even several decades, Quebec is always on the short end of the stick. I have the statistics with me. They prove that as far as research and development is concerned, Quebec receives only 14% of the money. We are paying 25%, but we are receiving only 14%. Is the same thing going to happen with the institutes of health research? Are we going to pay 25% of the bill and let Ontario reap the benefits? That is more or less how things stand, right now.
Is it Liberal ridings that are going to benefit from the institutes of health research? We know about the scandal at Human Resources Development Canada. Is the Liberal government not inclined to say “We have done all the necessary studies. First, it so happens that, in Quebec, you will not get 25% of the institutes. Second, those you will get will just happen to be in Liberal ridings”?
We might get two or three research institutes in Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies. Unfortunately, as usual, Saint-Jean will end up empty-handed. These issues are a big concern to us.
Finally, the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois say two things: yes to research, because we think it is important, and no to interference in a provincial jurisdiction Quebec is proud of. I say hats off to the Government of Quebec. Mr. Landry just brought down an excellent budget. Finally, he is able to reinject money in health, and this is also due to the economy. If we had been in a recession, Mr. Landry would have had a hard time reinjecting money in the health system.
The federal government did not do it. Mr. Landry just reinjected in the health system 14 times more than the federal government; in the field of education, Mr. Landry just gave 7 times more than the federal government to education in Quebec.
It is important that Quebecers know these facts. Before the Government of Quebec's budget was brought down, I had said that the Minister of Finance's budget, here in Ottawa, came up short and gave nothing to Quebec, and that Quebecers should now get used to the idea that they have to rely on only one government as far as health and education are concerned, and that is the Government of Quebec.
The federal government has missed an opportunity to redress the severe injustices I was talking about earlier.
All this boils down to one single thing: encroachment, encroachment, encroachment. It is not too late to do the right thing. They only have to support the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois and say “Yes to research, we think it is important. However, we agree that this is under provincial jurisdiction, so we will consult the provinces”.
This is roughly what the Bloc amendments are all about. We do not oppose the research aspect of it, for all the reasons I have just given. Within the federal system, we know that the government is the one that has the money, it collects the money from the taxpayers and never gives any of that money back. With it, it pays part of the debt, and by going half and half in new programs that encroach on provincial jurisdictions.
I do not think that this is the best way to manage money. We have always been against duplication, overlapping and encroachments. It would certainly be more cost effective to respect jurisdictions, to stop assigning an army of public servants to deal with matters that are already being dealt with by the other, to stop treading on each other's toes.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favour of the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. To sum up, as I said earlier, we say yes to research, but no to encroachment.
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is with great concern that I heard my colleague talk about the distribution of funds in Canada. I would like to remind him of two things: equality and fairness.
It is very important to look at the way the government spends Canadian tax dollars in our society. Those two elements both have to be taken into account as a priority every time.
The issue of equality suggests that the Canadian government must treat all Canadians in the same way. In the case of the research institutes in the bill before the House, when the government starts hiring people to work in these institutes, it should try to find those people who have the most talent and who are best able to serve these organizations and Canadian interests, no matter where they live in the country.
It should not even be mentioned that one candidate is from Nova Scotia, another from the Lac Saint-Jean area, another from the Ottawa area or another from British Columbia. Each application should be judged on its own merit, and the person who is best qualified should be hired to do the job. All Canadians are equal before the law and they must be treated equally.
Earlier, my colleague touched on the subject of fairness. Of course, we have look at the regions of Canada where people need help from the government. For example, in the case of HRDC programs, people in certain ridings, such as mine, do not benefit from these programs. We did not ask the government for the riding of Ottawa Centre to get more money from DHRC because assistance was provided to some other riding in Quebec or British Columbia. I have no right to ask for that as a member of parliament, because I have to take into account the issue of equity.
In our region, the unemployment rate is under 10%. Therefore, we do not qualify. However, if some of my colleagues' ridings need these programs, it is the federal government's responsibility to help these ridings and regions.
My colleague knows very well that most of the ridings in the province of Quebec, for example, received much more money from Human Resources Development Canada than others in Ontario, because this government wants to ensure that every region that needs help and qualifies for it receives it.
We must always look at things objectively, not only in a subjective way. That is why I say that my colleague was wrong to say that this is how things should always be done, with a province that gives 25% of the taxes it collected to the federal government getting 25% of benefits. Unfortunately, it does not always work like that.
We would like it to work. We hope that, someday, in our society, every Canadian will have equal opportunities and equal responsibilities, which would mean having the same tax rates and the same level of service.
The way our Confederation works, the government takes from those who have and gives to those who have not. The federal government has a responsibility to act like a reasonable mother or father. When a region of Canada is in need, it is our responsibility to provide assistance.
I was a bit annoyed when my colleague said that here, in the capital region, there will be a research institute on the Ontario side and not on the Quebec side. I want to point out to my colleague that there is no discrimination in this region. There are often agencies located on either side of the river where people go to work, and these people are Canadians from Quebec or from Ontario.
It does not make any difference here, in this region. This region is a model for the rest of the country. This is the national capital region, where all people are equal before the law, where all people know full well that we have a model capital and a model centre, and that we are proud to be citizens of this capital.
Regardless of where the research institute will be located, whether on the other side or this side of the river—I would be delighted if it were located in Aylmer or Gatineau—but wherever it is located, what matters the most to us is to have such an institute and that it does the work we hope and trust it will do.
The other issue my colleague raised earlier is the jurisdiction issue. I am proud to say that this government is meeting these demands and needs to clarify the jurisdiction issue. I am told that one of my colleagues will meet this need to really clarify the jurisdiction issue. Later, we will dot the i s and cross the t s, confirming that the provinces will continue to assume their jurisdictional responsibilities and the government should continue to do what it has been doing.
I say that this government listens and responds. I look forward to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, to meet these needs.
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow my colleague from the government party. The hon. member said that it is not always possible to get back 25% of the taxes contributed and he added that, in some cases, it can be pretty difficult.
When we look at the research centres in the Outaouais region, we see that the score is 43-0, that all the research centres are located in Ontario, and not one in the Outaouais region, none—the last one closed only three months ago. We get far less than 25% of what we pay in taxes in different areas under the jurisdiction of this government.
We should not digress too much from today's debate, which deals with the virtual research centres that would be created with a budget increase of $500 million over three years. The Bloc Quebecois is all in favour of this $500 million investment and it supports the efforts made by researchers to develop a bill providing for the networking of universities, researchers and individuals concerned with health care.
This social issue forces us to satisfy the much more acute needs of an ageing population. For instance, because of new diseases, research must be at the leading edge in this area.
That is not the problem. Today, the Bloc Quebecois proposed amendments to bill that would give the federal government powers over health matters. The federal government has a propensity to centralize, and to interfere in provincial jurisdictions.
The government has a tendency to reduce the Canada health and social transfer to the provinces and to invest in health, education and income security. This morning, we are dealing with health. All the provinces, Quebec included, have been short-changed.
For the Government of Quebec, the shortfall since 1993, when the government took office, stands at $3.8 billion. This government has a tendency to reduce the financial assistance to the provinces, and this has put them in a bind in terms of the services they provide to the population.
We know that we have excellent researchers and research centres in Quebec and Canada. We are not questioning that. We know we have an international reputation. In Quebec, we have a reputation for cancer, mental health and genetic research.
It is essential that the procedures for the designation of the institutions take into consideration the strengths and expertise in provinces. We represent Quebec. It is essential that the provinces be there to assist their researchers and be involved in the designation of these institutes.
The bill, as worded, leaves a minimal role for the provinces. That are on the same standing as other stakeholders in the area of health. We have brought forward amendments that I think are reasonable and realistic. If the government wants to work with us, if it recognizes the jurisdiction of the provinces in that area and gives it priority, then it should just say so in the bill to show its willingness to recognize the provinces, but not with words like the ones we find in the preamble to this bill, which 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;
We do not want the federal government to support the health care system. This preamble should talk about support for research. If we give the federal government responsibility for supporting the health care system, we know what that means. It means that it will interfere and play a centralizing role by imposing nationwide standards that will not take provincial priorities into account.
We know that some provinces have certain research and development priorities. Quebec may want to be a leader in certain types of research, and Ontario may want to favour other types of research.
It is always dangerous to want to impose standards that would cripple the ability of certain provinces to get grants. The wording of certain paragraphs is too diluted and undermines the importance of the provinces by putting them on an equal footing with other stakeholders.
The government wants to consult with the provinces and with persons and organizations, and not to consult in agreement with the provinces. This bill should fully involve the provinces in all the decisions made by the universities and the researchers. We might think today that we are doing a fine thing by passing Bill C-13, but in the long run, it could very well turn out to be detrimental to provincial jurisdiction over health.
The federal government is being called to order. Certain quotes are really based on social union, establishing that only provinces would be consulted. The government's will to recognize provincial jurisdiction over health has to go further than that.
This is what the Bloc Quebecois really based its amendments on. The Bloc Quebecois is not happy with the provinces' role in social services. I am sure that there are other opposition parties that are not happy with the wording of the bill either.
The preamble should have read as follows “Whereas Parliament recognizes the full jurisdiction of the provinces over health services” and not “recognizes the role of the provinces in health care”. Their full jurisdiction has to be recognized and this is the purpose of one of the amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois.
If the federal government agrees with provincial jurisdictions, all it has to do is say so in this bill. It can show that it is willing to recognize provincial jurisdictions. We all know that the federal government is trying to nibble away at them. This is why we have seen the government withdraw huge amounts from the employment insurance fund, for example, gaining considerable financial leeway while reducing the provinces' financial leeway.
This is like treating the provinces like children. This will prevent them from responding to the urgent needs of the population in health, education and income security. These areas are much too important to let the government have its way. If we let the provinces be weakened, they will not have enough money to allow their institutions to provide good service to the population, the day the federal government decided to stop supporting social measures and compassionate measures.
Quebec is often praised for its vision and for looking after all social policies. The leeway the provinces now have is very important for them. Our actions of today should not be viewed as a refusal to support research institutes.
The stakes are crucial for the future. We know that we are falling behind in health research and development funding and we recognize that the federal government has a role to play in that funding. We also recognize that the federal government wants to establish institutes, to set up networks between universities and scientists. However, we do not support the management role the federal government wants for itself. It is clear it wants to stick its nose in the provinces' business.
The former President of the Treasury Board said “When Bouchard, in Quebec City, has cut everywhere in social programs, health and education, we, in the federal government, will show the population how we care about the social security net. We will be the leaders in those areas”.
What is happening is very harmful and, in the long run, parliament would be well advised to recognize the expectations contained in the amendments proposed by the Bloc.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask for the consent of the House to move my report stage Motion No. 56 with regard to Bill C-13. I regret that I was in committee at the time when Group No. 2 was called.
There have been consultations with all the parties to explain my mistake. There has also been consultations with regard to an amendment to this motion, which I understand will be tabled by the parliamentary secretary should the motion be put on the table. It has to do with the words the House, the Senate or both houses of parliament, et cetera. At this point I am simply asking for consent of the House to move Motion No. 56.
Canadian Institutes Of Health Research ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The hon. member for Mississauga South has asked for unanimous consent of the House to move a motion. Is that agreed?
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
moved:
Motion No. 56
That Bill C-13 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 14 the following new clause:
“32.1 (1) The administration of this Act shall be reviewed every five years by any committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament for the purpose of subsection (1) shall undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within a reasonable time after the review is completed, submit a report to Parliament thereon including a statement of any changes the committee would recommend.”
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to debate Bill C-13. I am from London West. London is a city that has many medical research centres, wonderful researchers and 22,000 people who work directly or indirectly in the health community.
We have to go back to basics. This legislation is about Canada in the 21st century, talking and learning about health. The Prime Minister said that we are in a global race where national vision is essential, where global thinking is a must. In a changing world where new health challenges are emerging we have to do more than just keeping pace. Canadians must lead in the global knowledge economy, in the marketplace of ideas. This is about ideas concerning health and the value for Canadians. Health research is an area where Canada can not only do its work but can excel at its work, provided the conditions are right to cultivate the strengths in this area.
Historically Canadians have done very well. They are in the forefront of health discoveries and advances throughout the world. I remind the House that Canadian research generates more scholarly citations per dollar spent than that of any other country in the world. Canadian research ranks fourth in the world in terms of academic publications per capita ahead of both the United Kingdom and surprisingly the United States.
Canadians have broken new ground, creating the kind of knowledge and understanding that has improved the health and well-being of people the world over. In other words, there are no geographic boundaries when we discover things and we share them with those who need to have this understanding.
Groundbreaking work has been done by the likes of Nobel laureate Dr. Michael Smith in the field of genetics, on the anti-cancer drug of Dr. Charles Thomas Beer, and by the new generation of geneticists and biotech pioneers. This is but a few of the researchers who have put Canada on the health research map. They are numerous in my riding. I would like to name them all but that would be unfair because I would probably leave out some young new researcher whom we are trying to attract and let flourish in the country.
Canada stands in the forefront of the development of new research approaches which examine areas of complex less obvious factors that determine health. We are indebted to the pioneers like doctors Evans, Hertzman and Stoddart for their work in identifying why some populations have a lower incidence of disease, regardless of their access to medical care.
Every day in Canada researchers are at work in our communities, universities, hospitals and research labs taking on diverse challenges. Every day we fight disease and help unlock the mysteries of health. Every day we are working to help Canadians keep healthy and ensuring that when they need care it is delivered in the best possible way thanks to innovative methodologies and approaches in health services and research that improve our health care system. The government applauds this as I am sure all opposition members do.
Through the creation of the CIHR and the substantial new investments in health research we want to ensure that Canadian research talent has the necessary tools to be among the top tier in the world.
It is impossible to speak about what the CIHR will do and how it will do it without acknowledging the stellar work that has been done by members of the interim governing council. In an extremely short period of time they have brought together the entire health research community across the country to put forward the vision that is embodied in the CIHR.
In guiding and shaping this initiative they have ensured that the CIHR is an organization in which all health researchers feel they have a stake and in which all researchers feel that their views have been taken into consideration. They applied and will continue to apply the same standards of excellence to the creation of the CIHR as they have toward their own research that has always been peer reviewed. It is a considerable accomplishment and one that deserves our appreciation.
The CIHR will literally change the way we fund and organize health research in Canada. It has virtual institutes and CIHR will focus on the critical health issues affecting Canadians. CIHR institutes will identify specific research themes or areas of focus, attracting the brightest research minds in Canada to work together in various communities to address specific health research priorities and gain new knowledge.
These virtual networks will link our researchers, our research funders and research users with their colleagues in different institutions, different disciplines and different areas of the country. It is not a parochial vision. It is one on which we are united across the country. Institutes will be the key mechanism by which the CIHR engages some of the most creative minds in Canada to address the specific health research priorities of Canadians and to improve understanding and knowledge. Each institute will have a separate advisory board, giving people an opportunity to help shape the research agenda and priorities.
Second, CIHR will unite the four themes of health research. I would like to review these areas: biomedical research, clinical research, research in health systems and services, and research into the determinants of health which have for too long operated in isolation in their separate spheres, depriving us of the benefits that come from collaboration and the shared approach we get with common problems and common initiatives.
Bringing all areas of health research together in this way will result in a multi-disciplinary approach to health issues. Researchers from each area will work with their colleagues from other areas, sharing ideas and insights on a regular basis. The very perspectives to which they are exposed will strengthen the work of researchers in all disciplines.
CIHR will now break down the old barriers and open up new opportunities. The result will be an accelerated discovery of cures and treatments and a deeper understanding of the complex factors which influence health. This integration will help ensure that we are receiving the best possible value for health care dollars. More research dollars spent more effectively is the pledge of the government.
The third difference that the CIHR is about is the breadth of its mandate. One of the objectives of the CIHR sets out explicitly in its mandate not only to fund excellent research but to ensure that the knowledge gained as a result of this research is shared widely, adopted and applied. Research knowledge will be translated more directly into better health care and better health products with the ultimate achievement being improved better health of Canadians. Who could argue with that?
CIHR will also help to ensure that the health and economic benefits of Canadian research are realized right here in Canada. In the past Canadian researchers have watched as the world class knowledge and insight generated in this country with our brains and talent have been taken up and developed into useful products and services by companies elsewhere. When we take the research process one step further the rewards will be clear: faster access to new treatment and products for Canadians, more jobs, and greater economic growth for Canada.
Achieving these goals requires significant and sustained investment. This is happening. The government is nearly doubling its contribution to health research over the next two years for a total budget of nearly $500 million. In October the Minister of Health announced $65 million for the first year of CIHR programs. This response has been positive but the kind of creative collaborative research proposals that are being put forward, proposals that would not have been possible before CIHR, demonstrate that the capacity exists to do much more.
The fourth reason that CIHR will make such a large difference is that it will be a catalyst for change, improving not only the funding but also the management of the research process in this country. In simple terms this means better co-ordination and a more effective use of research resources.
Given our complexity today, the complexity of those who do the research, those who fund it and those who use the results, this move toward greater co-ordination and I must emphasize co-operation, is fundamental. It is a major step forward. It will facilitate new partnerships and provide greater opportunity for the voluntary sector and other health partners to have a say in identifying and meeting the health priorities of Canadians.
CIHR will build on our strength in the knowledge economy and contribute to the overall goal of enabling Canadians to succeed in the marketplace of ideas. It will provide a strong ethical framework for health research in Canada. Ethics committees will help develop the standards and procedures to ensure that the interests of the most vulnerable are protected while funded research will examine new and emerging ethical considerations and issues. These are important to Canadians and cannot be underestimated.
The next step is getting this legislation going including getting through all these amendments. I know there are other members who wish to comment on these amendments and perhaps adjust them.
I believe that people in my riding and people across Canada will benefit. We need the viewpoints of all stakeholders and members of the public. We need all of their co-operation and hard work.
I want to thank all members of the House who have worked toward this goal. We have all worked very hard to do this.
Canadian Institutes Of Health Research ActGovernment Orders
Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies Québec
Liberal
Yvon Charbonneau LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank the members of the House of Commons for their hard work on this bill.
Including the time the standing committee spent reviewing this very important bill, we have spent over 50 hours on it. During this time we were able to improve the bill in several respects, and through the work we are doing now, and the second group of amendments, we will improve it even further.
I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the amendments in the second group and, in particular, move two amendments, on behalf of the government, which are in keeping with the concerns expressed by several opposition members, including members from the Bloc Quebecois.
The Bloc members have stressed that the provinces have primary responsibility for health care and have insisted that it be made clear in the bill. We believe it was already very clear, but there are ways to improve on it as suggested.
Motion No.4, the amendment before us, will help reinforce the bill in terms of respecting or taking into account provincial responsibilities over health. This motion will amend the preamble to the bill. By virtue of being at the beginning of the bill, the amendment encompasses the whole bill and we will not have to pass 25 further amendments, since it will be made clear right from the beginning.
With this amendment, we say explicitly that:
—Parliament recognizes that the provinces are responsible for the delivery of health care to Canadians—
It could not be clearer. Moreover “that the Government of Canada collaborates with provincial governments to support the health care system and health research”. This explicitly and clearly recognizes the role of the provinces in this area.
Not only are we moving this first amendment, but we are adding a second one, to clause 4, which deals with the mission of the institutes. This amendment, Motion No. 16, answers the concerns of several members.
We are saying that, to meet their objective of using research results to improve health and health services, the institutes will have to work in collaboration with the provincial governments, which are responsible for the delivery of health care to Canadians.
We are adding a new paragraph to make a clear distinction between the responsibility of the provinces and the collaboration that we will also have to get from voluntary organizations and the private sector, since it was an issue of concern for our colleagues opposite. They said that voluntary organizations and the provinces were all on an equal footing. We have rewritten that clause to make it very clear that the jurisdiction of the provinces will be recognized, with all that entails, and that there will also be some collaboration with the private sector and voluntary groups.
It seems to me that these two amendments address the concerns we heard from the other side of the House. I would also like to make a few comments on certain amendments brought forward by the opposition.
Before I get into that, since it is often said that the provinces were not consulted, I would like to mention the fact that the interim governing council that made the recommendations that led to Bill C-13 included three high calibre provincial representatives, namely Jeffrey Lozon, the Ontario deputy minister of health, Dr. Matthew Spence, from the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, and, from Quebec, a distinguished researcher who is at the forefront of everything that has to do with health research, Dr. Michel Bureau, executive director of the Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec. So the provinces' point of view was integrated into the whole process.
I would like to talk about certain other amendments brought forward by the opposition. Some of them tend to restrict the scope of the research to be conducted by the institutes. Some amendments say that it should be restricted to medical research. For this bill, the government's view is that the institutes will be involved in health research in general, in all aspects of that field, and not be restricted to the medical aspects.
There are also amendments dealing with the appointment processes for both the president and the members of the advisory boards. These processes were explained many times. There was very broad consultation and public notices were posted regarding the appointments to be made, whether for the presidents or the members of the advisory boards.
Amendments were proposed regarding the president's mandate. We feel that a five year mandate is appropriate and we see no reason to change that provision. We also think that the president must be appointed at pleasure, which allows the minister and the government to review the appointment. This is standard procedure for governor in council appointments.
Other amendments had to do with accountability, either that of the president or that of the advisory boards. We think the bill is already clear enough regarding the relation between the CEO and the department or the Minister of Health. Each year, the Minister of Health and the Standing Committee on Health will receive a report from the institute, through its president. Committee members will be able to ask questions and to recommend to the minister and, therefore, to the institute, any change that may be important. Consequently, we do not need the proposed amendments, because they do not add anything to the substance of the bill.
I will conclude by proposing an amendment to the motion tabled by the hon. member for Mississauga South. Our colleague has just moved a motion calling for the act establishing the institutes to be reviewed, to be re-examined by parliament every five years. I would like to move that parliament review the act once, after five years.
The intent of my colleague's motion was for the review to take place every five years, and the intent of the amendment is for it to take place only once, at the end of the first five year period.
I move:
That Motion No. 56 be amended as follows:
By replacing all of the words after the word “reviewed” with the following:
“after five years by Parliament.”
I believe that, with these amendments, the government is showing that it is totally attuned to the key concerns of our colleagues in the opposition, and to those of certain colleagues on the government side as well.
We believe that it is appropriate to review this legislation at least once, after five years, so that we may be really comfortable with the way the research institutes will operate subsequently.
We understand that it may take five years for learning and working out the kinks, and that a review may be required. Thereafter, there will be the annual reports, which may offer an opportunity for discussions and exchanges of views with all members of this House who are on the Standing Committee on Health.
As for our first amendments, I believe they focus attention on a very significant effort to honour the provincial governments, to appreciate their contribution and collaboration and the research efforts carried out in each province, but also to try to properly preserve the general co-ordinating role assigned to the institutes.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. So that I have this clear, earlier we gave our unanimous consent to allow a colleague who was not in the House to move a motion. We were told that this motion essentially had to do with a review that would done by the House of Commons.
As I understand his amendment, the parliamentary secretary wants to include both the House of Commons and the Senate, because he mentions parliament. Is that the government's intention—to have the amendment moved by a member who was not present and to which we gave our consent a few moments ago cover not just the House of Commons but the Senate? Will the parliamentary secretary tell me whether my understanding of his amendment is correct?
Canadian Institutes Of Health Research ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Just so that everybody is certain of what has taken place here, first the parliamentary secretary has moved an amendment to the motion before the House. As such it is not required to have the unanimous consent of the House to move the amendment.
I will try to explain the effect of the amendment on Motion No. 56, as I understand it.
Motion No. 56 provides that Bill C-13 be amended by adding a new clause whereby the act would be reviewed by a committee every five years.
The amendment provides that parliament review the act after five years.