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.