Debates of March 23rd, 2000

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act

[An hon. member]

The breaking of the Liberals.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Or the breaking of the Liberals.

In that case, economic development can be promoted on the basis of that research. This is what concerns me, and rightly so.

I learned a long time ago that, on the Liberal side, everything that shines is not gold. For the Liberals, chairs do not always have four identical legs. When they tell me about a chair, I have learned to be suspicious, because it does not mean there is an horizontal seat and a vertical back. In the Liberals' mind, a chair is not at all what you are sitting on, Mr. Speaker, so be careful. The Prime Minister has spent his life, his entire career, playing with words, concepts, and principles.

Yes, we are pleased about Bill C-13. But, for heavens sake, do not use it as an opportunity to once again fool about 80% of Canadians.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we are dealing with Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian institutes of health research.

As a member of the health committee, I listened intently to the witnesses and to their observations and recommendations. I am pleased to report to the House that the overwhelming consensus was in support of establishing the Canadian institutes of health research.

There were many witnesses with regard to lobbying, as it were, for hopefully consideration to become one of these institutes, which is the responsibility of the executive body of the new institute.

There were, however, other concerns raised. I know that all members were aware that accountability was a very significant issue with regard to the new Canadian institutes of health research. The Canadian Nurses Association and the Canadian Medical Association suggested that parliament was establishing these Canadian institutes for health research and not providing, within the legislation, any mechanism for review other than a review of the public accounts and the overall report of the auditor general.

The new Canadian institutes for health research will ultimately involve the appropriation and spending of some $500 million each and every year compared to about $250 million currently appropriated to the Medical Research Council, which currently discharges these responsibilities.

In my view, the representations made by the CMA, the CNA and many other groups were that transparency and accountability were issues that this place should take very seriously. Their recommendations were that this legislation and, more importantly, the administration of this new body called the Canadian institutes for health research, should be subject to a five year review by parliament.

I proposed report stage Motion No. 56. It was to reflect the testimony of witnesses who were dealing with the issues of accountability and transparency with regard to this piece of legislation and particularly the administration of $500 million of taxpayer money with regard to a most important area of health research.

Through my own error, for which I have apologized to the House, Motion No. 56 is no longer on the table. However, I believe that the House would agree that the principles of transparency and accountability are paramount for parliamentarians and that a five year review, after the enactment of this particular bill, would be appropriate so that we could see how we did in crafting a new agency, a new organization and then to determine whether there were any modifications necessary. With guidance from parliamentarians, from the witnesses that we would call and with input from Canadians, we would be able to determine whether it was doing the job that we wanted it to do.

I want to propose an amendment to Group No. 2, Motion No. 55 which concerns clause 31 of the bill. The motion I propose is that at the end of existing clause 31 of Bill C-13, the following sentence be added: That parliament shall also conduct a review of the administration of the act after five years and submit a report to parliament thereon, including a statement of any changes parliament would recommend.

[The Speaker]

I would judge that the amendment put forward by the member for Mississauga South to Motion No. 55, as stated here, is not in order because it changes what this motion was set up for. I reject the amendment. The member still has three minutes for debate.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do understand the ruling of the Chair but I will be seeking support from the House to find a way in which we can incorporate into this bill a review by parliament.

I believe the House concurs with the importance of transparency and accountability. When the expenditure of $500 million of funds is involved, it is important that parliament have an opportunity, at least after the first five years, to see whether or not the legislation and the institution we are establishing are achieving the objectives that parliament intended. It is our only opportunity to check and to influence whether or not a brand new agency is doing what parliament had intended.

If we do not have this mechanism, parliament is seconding to third parties, just like it did with the Medical Research Council, the full authority to spend $500 million.

I would therefore ask for the unanimous consent of the House, for the second time today, to move that my original report stage Motion No. 56 which asks for a parliamentary review.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member is asking for unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have permission to put the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In relation to the member's request and in reading from Beauchesne's, there will be an opportunity, based on the rules of the House, to put an amendment at third reading. I hope the member considers that. I guess I do not have to quote from Beauchesne's in this regard, but I think on page 214 he will find the solution to his problem.

[The Speaker]

No doubt the hon. member will thank the member for New Brunswick Southwest if indeed the information is helpful to him. At this point, I have not been asked to make any ruling on that. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, we are still in debate and we are still on Group No. 2. If there is no further debate, is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.