Debates of March 28th, 2000

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act

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

A very good scientist.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Yes, a very good scientist, as my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre just said. She was doing research on a particular drug called L1. She was trying to help people with a blood disease called thalassemia and who needed repeated transfusions. She worked very hard on this drug and came to the conclusion that the side effects might be greater than the actual benefits. She chose to inform the drug companies sponsoring this research about those concerns. As a result of that expression of concern, she was silenced. To this day, she is still fighting for the right as a scientist to operate with integrity and to ensure full disclosure of any information that would be important in terms of the public good and the public interest.

I do not need to tell members about Dr. Anne Holbrook, with the Centre for Evaluation of Medicines at St. Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton, Ontario, who was threatened recently with a lawsuit by a major pharmaceutical company when her findings showed that the company's widely sold ulcer medication had essentially the same effect as two cheaper medicines.

I do not need to tell members about the outcry from scientists in the government's own Bureau of Veterinary Drugs who felt pressured by representatives of one of Canada's largest drug companies, Monsanto Canada Inc., on the whole issue of reviewing bovine growth hormone, or BST.

I do not need to tell members about how the government, in one of its first initiative when it took office in 1997, eliminated the drug research bureau, the one independent body within government to provide ongoing analysis on an independent basis of drugs approved in this country.

I do not need to tell members about how the government gutted the food research laboratory and how the government has, at every step of the way, weakened the capacity of government to ensure ongoing, independent, science based research around the drugs Canadians must take, the food we eat and the medical devices that are essential for health and well-being.

I do not need to tell members about the auditor general's recent report, following its review of the most serious incident of food borne disease in this country to date. It documented very clearly the question of scientific investigation being influenced by owners of, in this case, a meat packing plant and documented interference right from beginning to end around the safety of Canadians when it came to food products being purchased in grocery stores today.

I do not need to tell members about the recent decision by the government to fast track drugs through a new provision that has no basis in law, the notice of compliance with conditions.

I do not need to tell members about how our whole Health Protection Branch has been under tremendous change and direction from the government to deregulate, privatize and off-load.

I do not need to tell members about how much danger Canadians are in because the government has made a decision to actually withdraw from the whole area of public research and independent science based investigation in this country today.

I raise all of this so that we can all understand just where this bill fits in with the broad Liberal agenda in the country today, and just how much is at risk because we are letting commercialization and privatization rule the day.

My plea today is for us to acknowledge the very important role of government to ensure that the public good is protected, that in whatever partnerships are developed between the private sector, the labour movement and the public sector, that we clearly understand and delineate the rules of government and realize its paramount obligation is, in the final analysis, to uphold the public good.

The whole issue of commercialization was one of our concerns. I see my time is going much more quickly than I expected.

My second concern has to do with the way in which this bill allows for appointments to the governing council. One way we can actually ensure that the public good is paramount is by having very clearly defined requirements in place with respect to appointments to the governing council. The bill does not provide for clear conflict of interest guidelines and regulations, something we tried very hard to get in our amendments that were, as I said at the outset, just ignored by Liberal members on the committee.

The bill permits the appointment of representatives from the pharmaceutical industry, the biotech industry and the medical devices private sector, which carries with it the potential for conflict of interest between the goal we have on one hand of improving the health of Canadians at the lowest possible cost versus the objective of increasing profits on the part of the pharmaceutical industry. This should come as no surprise when we realize that this government, when it was in opposition, promised to nullify the Mulroney patent protection legislation for drug companies but has failed to do so. Not only did it fail to keep its promise, it went a step further over the last number of years and has improved the conditions for brand name drug companies by giving them a greater share of the market and denying Canadians access to cheaper safe drugs.

We presented to the government some very concrete amendments for ensuring conflict of interest provisions were built into this bill to avoid precisely that kind of situation that all Canadians are worried about, and we failed.

We also made a concerted effort to ensure that the board would be more representative of the population by ensuring that smaller provinces, which do not have the ear of government the way stronger provinces have, would have a say on this governing council. We wanted regional balance. We wanted to ensure that the board reflected the population. We asked for gender parity, something the government claims is part of its ongoing philosophy and the way in which it governs as a political party. Did we get gender parity? No, we did not.

We tried to get a commitment from the government for a women's health institute to assist with their goals for promoting women's health policy. We were unsuccessful.

We tried to get the government to commit to addressing in a more serious way environmental and occupational health as part of one of these institutes. We were unsuccessful.

We tried to get a serious commitment from the government around aboriginal health, ensuring a very focused research endeavour in that regard. We were unsuccessful.

Finally, and this is a point I am sure my colleagues across the way will be interested in, we tried very hard, and were looking forward to measures being adopted at the report stage of this bill, to get more transparency and accountability. A five year review was something basic and something we expected would be adopted by the Liberal government when it came to report stage over the last couple of days. Did that happen? No, it did not.

The basic elements of transparency, accountability, protection of the public good over private interests, gender parity and ensuring that we actually have a new transformative research agenda based on population health, based on environmental illness and occupational problems, all of which have not been dealt with by this government.

The government had an opportunity to improve a bill that does make progress and makes an important transition from the Medical Research Council to a more holistic approach to health care but it failed in the final analysis to do what Canadians expected it to do, which was to ensure in that bill absolute guarantees of protection for public good, absolute accountability to the public and openness and transparency in the way it is run.

The government refused to give even a token of consideration to these very important amendments and to the testimony presented to the House of Commons by numerous experts and witnesses.

It is with great regret that we cannot support Bill C-13 in the final analysis. However, we will continue to do whatever we can in the days, weeks and months ahead to ensure that the translation of this legislation into research bodies and organizations that are reflective of the population will be carried out. We will be monitoring the appointment process and the way in which the institutes are established. We will be outspoken in our attempts to ensure that this bill in terms of its noble objectives are actually transformed into action so that the words and the reality are one and the same.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the debate that is taking place here today is one of strange interest because so far all of the parties have indicated that they will be supporting the bill but that they have some reservations about it. I sometimes wish we could actually sit down with each other, maybe in a circle somewhere, and hammer these different ideas out.

Of course, one always runs a danger when one expresses himself or herself in this Chamber. Come the next election even the slightest nuance of what one says can be misinterpreted, twisted and turned. Therefore, it is tough for me to formulate the question that I want to ask. It is, I suppose, a philosophical question: What is it that actually drives research?

I think of a number of friends who work not only in medical research but in other areas of research. It seems to me that Canada has a very great stifling effect on medical research, in particular because of the fact that we are so entrenched in the socialistic way of thinking. Somehow we do not think that we should reward those who come up with some really good ideas and inventions in the medical field, whereas we are quite willing to give those rewards to people in other areas where perhaps we are even more successful. Is there a Bill Gates on the horizon in the medical area?

I sometimes wonder why we have this great objection to the fact that somehow private enterprise should be involved in both the delivery of health care services and also in the development of new ways of doing things in the medical area.

I do not know whether the hon. member wants to respond. I believe that in the Canadian context we need to reach a balance. I would like to stop punishing people who do good work in medical research, sending them to the United States, which is the only place they feel they can get a reward for the magnitude of the good work they do. I would like that to end.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the very thoughtful issues posed by the hon. member.

With respect to his first comment, I too would have liked the opportunity to have avoided this kind of confrontational environment and found a place where we could sit down in a circle to seriously discuss where we are going in terms of health research and how we could balance the different interests in society today, one being the public interest and the public good, the other being the fact that, yes, we cannot as a nation deny that we need private sector involvement in the development of new products and new technologies, as well as ensuring Canada's commercial advantage in the world economy.

However, why do we see a role for the private sector in the bill in terms of driving the research agenda? Our point is very clearly this. There is a role for government to balance the private sector and the public research communities. This bill, in our view, does not make clear the lines. It does not differentiate between those priorities.

What we have said over and over again is that it is the role of government to ensure that the board, the governing council and the structure that will be put in place will not be geared to allow private commercial interests to determine the agenda or to use public funds for profitability.

I think that is something we surely can agree on, that it is the role of government to fund our academic community, to fund our health research organizations and to develop partnerships appropriate in that context, but not for a bill to outline from the start that the commercial sector in the country has an advantage or is able to set the agenda and use public funds to advance private gain. I think the member would have concerns with that.

I would hope that we would at least understand the role of government in terms of public funds for advancing a public health care system and working on public health research which addresses the root causes of ill health and ensures that we have a much more comprehensive and broad based approach to these very difficult issues.

No one is opposed to the private sector being involved in research. What we are questioning today is the role of government in supporting, aiding and abetting commercialization and privatization to the detriment of the public organization of health care and serving the public good in the final analysis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre for her remarks on this very important bill.

I would ask my colleague what distinguishes the New Democratic Party's view of health care from that of the Alliance-Liberal style government we have in the country. Could the member give us some pertinent information as to why we are at this point in health care and on the cutbacks we have seen over the years? Maybe she could give us some information as to actual numbers in terms of cutbacks and the pressures that have been applied to our very important health care system. Who basically drove the Liberal agenda? Was it the Reform Party's drive for two tier health care or the Americanization of the system? Maybe she could give us an overview as to how those positions differ from the NDP's.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question. It is very pertinent to the debate today. We are at a crossroads in terms of where our health care system will go.

My colleague knows that the New Democratic Party has always stood for a universally accessible, publicly administered health care system. We have been strongly opposed to any move toward two tier, Americanized, privatized health care in this country. The same goes for health research. We are very concerned about ensuring that the public good is served at all times.

What is obviously the case in the House today is that the Liberal government has chosen the path of inaction and passive response in the face of those threats from the private sector, and has created the climate and conditions for the likes of Ralph Klein to proceed with the privatization of hospital service in the province of Alberta.

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

Did you say Ralph Chrétien or Ralph Klein?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

It could be Ralph Chrétien or Jean Klein. We are talking about two peas in a pod.

I have to say, that is an agenda, from all I have understood and heard recently, which is supported by the Canadian Alliance.

Our biggest worry is that the Liberal government will not be able to stand in the face of the extreme pressure from right wing forces in the country today who want to open up our health care sector to market forces, something which we know will destroy medicare and make the five principles of medicare meaningless. It will put us on a direct path to a system of health care in which, if people have the money, they can get what is needed, when it is needed and at the best quality, versus those who do not have the money, who will have to stand in line and wait for handouts from the government of the day.

Medicare is a model that is worth sharing with the world, not destroying and tearing apart at this critical juncture. The idea of making a system universally accessible to all citizens, regardless of income or where they live in this vast country, is as good today as it was when Tommy Douglas first pioneered the notion.

I would hope that somehow we could convince the Liberal government to address how it has created this situation, with its tremendous cuts to transfer payments to the provinces and its failure to apply the Canada Health Act in the face of the likes of Ralph Klein. Surely it can hear the voices of Canadians from one end of the country to the other crying out for the restoration of funding cuts, for leadership in terms of a new vision of health care and for holding firm to the principles of medicare and upholding the Canada Health Act.

We have a battle ahead of us and I would hope I could convince my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance to rethink their position around private sector involvement in health care and start thinking about how we could creatively develop a public health care system which would be, in the long run, more efficient and more cost effective.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my 20 minutes with our deputy House leader.

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate today. As my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest has said, it is the first major health bill to come before this parliament. The bill would establish the Canadian institutes of health research. It is worthy of support and we in the PC Party support it because we feel it is a very good initiative.

In the process of supporting it, my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest put forth a number of amendments. However, we know that government members have not been supportive of any of the amendments, even though they sought to make the legislation much better.

I am sure we all agree that this bill is long overdue. This initiative was taken by the United States and most European countries some 25 years ago. We are about 25 years behind the times in setting up these institutes for health research, so it stands to reason that we have a lot of catching up to do. It stands to reason that we have a lot of ground to cover if we want to be competitive with the rest of the world in terms of medical research.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party have other concerns, which include the makeup of the boards and who will pick the people who will sit on the boards. For example, the president of the Canadian institutes of health research shall be appointed by the governor in council to hold office at the pleasure of the government for a term not exceeding five years. The governor in council simply means the cabinet or the prime minister, who will, in the final analysis, appoint the president. As well, each of the 20 members of the governing council will be appointed by the prime minister.

We have a lot of concerns about the appointments. At the end of the day the prime minister has the ability to determine the agenda of the council. We are not saying that will happen on every occasion, but the prime minister does have the ability to determine the agenda of the council. It becomes a question of control. That is why the government is not willing to entertain any changes to the council, how it is set up and who will appoint the people to the governing body.

The bill is good news for Canadians, with the exception of the political overtones attached to it. As my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest has said on a number of occasions, it is incumbent upon the government to tell the House how these institutes will be guided in their work over the next number of years. That is our main concern and the main reason we have introduced the amendments.

We are suggesting that there is a better way to do this. The government had the opportunity to listen to the opposition, and I am told by my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest that many of these amendments were discussed in committee and voted down by government members. The government should take a very strong and a very long look at the makeup of these institutes and consider some of the amendments which we have talked about.

The Prime Minister has been around for a long time. He has a history of opposing appointments of this sort, whether appointments to a board, to a council or to the Senate. We are saying that the formula is flawed and the House of Commons is the place to change it.

The bill is good news for Canadians with the exception of who calls the shots. The question goes back to the arm's length relationship with government and the independence that we would like to see associated with these institutes.

Our party cannot see where there will be any independence for these institutes. We think that the strong arm of the government will still be present on the very bodies it has created. We ask the government, is there not a better way to set up a body that will take us into the 21st century in medical research? These are very serious concerns in my view.

Another concern the member for New Brunswick Southwest commented on was the reporting mechanism. There is no provision in the bill that will allow the House to debate the performance of the institutes. We are very much aware the minister will table a report of the institutes on a yearly basis, but that will be the extent of it.

Parliament will not have the opportunity to review the operations of the institutes to determine if the body is making its mark or whether it is missing its mark totally. That is a very legitimate concern. We want the institutes to get off to a good start so that the body will not find itself in the same mess as the health care system finds itself in today.

Over the past few years the country has seen unprecedented amounts of money cut from health care and Canadians have suffered a great deal. The bill is welcomed as a much needed initiative aimed at improving the health of Canadians through a greater network of research institutes. However, it is clear that something must be done to improve health care if the health care institutes are to be successful because it all goes hand in hand.

The minister did not provide stable, long term funding for health care in the budget. Instead he provided a one shot infusion of $2.5 billion for health and education spread out over four years and spread out over 10 provinces.

The institutes should have their mandate expanded to examine the effect that all of this lack of funding has had upon health care. Funding has been spread pretty thin over the last four or five budget years, for which the Minister of Health has been responsible.

In my own province of Newfoundland, our share of the $2.5 billion which has been made available is only $10 million a year for a four year period. If half that money is used for health care, that will be $5 million spread over 34 hospitals and health care institutes in the province. That equates to less than $150,000 per institution, or about the cost of maintaining one extra doctor per institution.

Maybe these institutes should be examining the effect of the lack of funding on the province. Common sense will tell anyone that the amount of money that has been cut from the system today is having a devastating effect upon the provinces.

In short the minister's prescription for the health care system is the same as putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. The health care system needs money. The Liberals seem to run from that. They keep denying the fact that the system needs money saying that a new vision of health care has to be created for the country. It is something they will probably take into an election campaign. One has to wonder if the problem here is that the federal Liberals are more concerned about getting political credit for health care than they are about the actual delivery of health care to our citizens.

I see that my time has expired so I will turn it over to my colleague, the deputy House leader.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we can see, when the truth is debated and spoken in the House, nobody speaks. So I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague whose speech has provided, I hope, food for thought for the government.

Little time has been allotted to each member to speak to a bill as important as this one. As my hon. colleague from Newfoundland has said, we are going to support this bill, even though we would have preferred the government to be more open on certain amendments that the Progressive Conservative Party, the real conservative party in Canada, and the other parties, proposed. We would have liked the government to have been more open. I will elaborate a little bit on three or four main themes for discussion or comments on this bill.

First, the provinces were mentioned frequently. My hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois raised the federal-provincial constitutional and jurisdictional issue. This has been looked into. We are fortunate in the Progressive Conservative Party to have people with a good knowledge of federal-provincial relations and the Constitution. They considered whether, from a legal point of view, the bill was consistent with the constitutional laws of Canada. The answer is yes, it is legal.

However, even if it is legal in terms of jurisdictions, because shared jurisdictions do exist, as is the case here, we have no obligation to adopt the Liberal government's way of doing things, which is wanting to control everything and then saying to the provinces “Come to see me afterwards if you are not happy with something”.

The government missed a golden opportunity to provide in the bill for much broader participation by the provinces. It forgot about that. Is overlap or duplication of the money invested in research possible? I hope not, but when people do not talk to one another, it is like when a husband and wife go out to buy Christmas gifts. If they do not talk beforehand, they might very well come back with two identical Pokemons for the same child.

In our view, it would have been wise to establish a permanent process in this bill so that the provinces and the other players in research could be partners. It is a matter of attitude and, once again, we find it most damaging even if it is legal. We would like to see the government reconsider it.

Yes, there is more money for research, but I remind members that the bill does not mention any amount. We will have to go from budget to budget to discover the amounts of money that will be made available for research.

My colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador raised the issue of patronage, of what is referred to here as the “governor in council”, who appoints a lot of people. I do not know the exact number of people the governor in council is responsible for appointing. Some figures being mentioned are 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 or even 800 people. This includes, of course, the other house. It is a lot of people.

In this case, perhaps the government could have agreed to be a lot more open in appointing members to the governing council. It would have been nice.

Why did the Standing Committee on Health not take the time to look at the list and to listen to those whose names had been suggested? Some raised the question as to why, for example, 50% of the members of the governing council could not be suggested by the provinces. There could have been a certain number for each province or for each region. Why not?

Again, it is a matter of attitude on the part of the government, an attitude that, unfortunately, is not likely to change.

It would have been nice if parliament had been a lot more involved. With this bill creating the institutes, parliament will be involved once a year and we do not know exactly in what way. The Auditor General of Canada will make his rounds and will report to the minister, who in turn will report to both houses of parliament, but nobody knows what will happen after that.

With all the scandals shaking up the government these days, it would have been nice if, while protecting the confidentiality of the research to be done, it had asked all parties to become its allies to avoid surprises. This government is beginning to have more than its share of scandals, but by involving other political parties, it could say “Look, if there are problems, it is parliament's fault and not the Liberal Party's fault”. There could have been a new way of doing things, but the government decided to keep on helping its friends.

We find that somewhat unfortunate. In the area of health and health research, which Quebecers, Ontarians and all Canadians believe is the most important, everybody could have been involved and could have worked together.

That being said, the members of the governing council will be appointed to hold office during pleasure, to use a phrase commonly found in bills. Members are appointed for three years, but during pleasure. In other words, they may be removed, if such is the pleasure of the governor in council or the Prime Minister. They will play musical chairs. It will be like a game of Monopoly where houses and hotels can easily be moved around. The membership of the governing council will be easy to change.

This was seen in government agencies. If someone dares to speak up and raise problems, they may removed in no time, unbeknownst to parliament. We find it unfortunate. Parliament has a constructive role to play. There are other very important points.

This is also a very complex bill. Reference was made to the role of the private sector. These last few years, Canada has become more open to the world because of free trade. Who was in office in the 1980s? Yes, indeed, it was a Conservative government, and this government implemented free trade. We have opened our business sectors to many more countries, particularly through free trade, but also under the World Trade Organization. It is important to bear that in mind when considering legislation.

I mentioned the private sector's role. Clause 26 of the bill provides that the CIHR may enter into a partnership with other government or corporate bodies, including private corporations. One thing will have to be monitored very closely, however, and the auditor general will certainly do so: the CIHR may incorporate by itself a corporation. When an institute is independent from the government and may duplicate itself, this causes problems. All our questions may not get answered.

I do not want to underestimate the people who will be there, but the bill states that the institute may enter into a partnership, or incorporate “by itself or with others a corporation, including a subsidiary”. It might decide to incorporate for a very specific purpose. This is dangerous, because we will lose contact with this institute.

It may also enter into a partnership with governments. I may not be a legal expert, but I was reading the bill and it does say “with any other government”. Great. May it enter into a partnership with the United States, France or agencies from these countries? Perhaps. Is this desirable? Why not? But once again, what is the quality of the parliamentarians' relationship, the representatives of those who pay taxes?

These issues would not be raised if parliament were much more involved. With regard to the private sector, we will have to look into the structure of the institute to see how royalties and patent rights will be divided. If the institute may incorporate by itself, without coming under the direct control of the auditor general, if it may enter into a partnership with the private sector or with any other government inside or outside the country, to whom will patent and licence royalties belong? These are issues we will look at over time, but it would have been important, to reassure Canadians in general, that parliament played a much greater role in this sector.

My time is up. As I said earlier, we will support this bill, a bill that is 20 years late compared to other major countries.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to make a few comments on what I believe to be a very important bill for Canada. Bill C-13 seeks to establish the Canadian institutes of health research.

By way of background so that hon. members will have an idea of some of the dynamics involved with the bill, the Canadian institutes of health research will create a series of institutes developed to link the research and health needs of Canadians. It is a very important concept. It means that we will make every effort to translate health research into health care for Canadians. This will improve the functionality, efficiency and effectiveness of health care. A very important principle is being espoused in the bill.

The institutes created under the Canadian institutes of health research will not be buildings. They will not be institutes that have bricks and mortar. In fact it is a virtual institute that will support the linking of researchers who may be located in universities, hospitals and other research centres to their colleagues in other institutions in other parts of the country and across all disciplines. In today's society linking people, not physically but technologically and through our communications vehicles, is extremely important to expand upon the synergy available to us so that people can share ideas and work for the common good of all Canadians.

A network of some 10 to 15 institutes will be established. It will bring together the top research minds to bear on the most critical health challenges and priorities of Canadians. There is no question at all that this is an important step for us to take.

One of the witnesses who appeared before the health committee described the institute as follows. This was echoed by many witnesses, but I thought this was well put. The witness said that this was a public body that would control millions of dollars, in fact about $500 million of research money, and would probably be “the most decisive institution in Canada with respect to the health of Canadians”. Many other witnesses also said that.

That should not be taken very lightly. This is a very important bill. Notwithstanding the fact that all parties in the House agree with the bill, they may have some concerns about some aspects of the administration of the bill. In fact, no witnesses came before the health committee to argue against the creation of the Canadian institutes of health research.

It is very significant. This will be the replacement vehicle for the Medical Research Council, which heretofore has been responsible for the granting of research moneys. We have to do this right, though. That brings me to basically the theme I want to talk about in my comments: who said other things at committee other than this is a great idea.

I thought it was very interesting that many of the witnesses represented the who's who of health care and health care research. They all came before the committee and they were talking about how important it was for their area of interest to be one of these new institutes.

We have to think about it for a while, but then we come to the conclusion that there are not enough institutes to provide for all people, all agencies and all groups in health research to have an institute. In other words there will be winners and there will be losers. That is an important aspect of the bill. As a result of the creation of these Canadian institutes of health research there will be losers. The losers will be fighting viciously to make sure everything they can possibly do is done to get their health research area on the agenda of the Canadian institutes of health research.

The very fact that there will be losers means that somebody's interest is not being addressed. It could very well be the interest of Canadians. It could be the interest of the broad majority of Canadians that may not be fully represented. It is a possibility. I do not anticipate that would be the case, but the fact is we will not be able to do everything through this new concept.

A number of other witnesses came before the committee that wanted to talk about the administration of the act which deals with the Canadian institutes of health research. When we consider how so many had come before the committee and praised the creation of this new body, there were some who had some other observations and concerns. Members should ask themselves why anyone would have concerns. What is the motivation?

There are some reasons. It could very well be that what happened under the Medical Research Council was a situation that they were not happy with. They did not want us to take one institution and roll it over into a new institution and be faced with the same kinds of frustrations or problems. In fact some of those concerns were expressed. We have to be honest. As legislators we have to ask questions about why they are raising these issues.

The president and chief executive director of the Canadian Healthcare Association, Mrs. Sharon Sholsberg-Gray, said in her testimony:

To further strengthen this transparency and accountability, we recommended that Bill C-13 include the provision for a parliamentary review every five years. Given what is at stake in terms of innovation, global competitiveness, the health of Canadians, the effectiveness of our health care system, and the enormous amounts of money that will be involved—we hope they'll be even larger amounts those predicted now—a regular parliamentary review seems necessary and appropriate.

It is a signal that something needs to be addressed. Many of these agencies obviously have longstanding linkages with the health care system, with Health Canada, with the Medical Research Council and others. They were obviously very cautious not to be critical, but in a very diplomatic way they were trying to raise issues which might suggest to legislators that we have to be careful about how we are doing this and to make sure that we get it right.

There was also an intervention by Dr. Mary Ellen Jeans of the Canadian Nurses Association who said:

We believe the criteria for the selection for the proposed institutes, for their evaluation and monitoring, should be articulated in the legislation. We'd encourage the addition of a parliamentary review process to ensure true accountability to Canadians. We recommend that it take place very five years.

The theme comes up again. In Dr. Jeans' response to some questions she referred to historical inequities and lack of balance in health research. It is a question that has been posed to legislators to assess what happened and what is happening in the Medical Research Council, and what it is we want to ensure does not translate into the Canadian institutes of health research. She said:

I mean, I would anticipate, five years from now, a significant increase in research that addresses caregiving, quality of life, relief of pain and other symptoms, coping with aging and chronic illnesses, and so on.

This is the vision of this group of caregivers, the Canadian Nurses Association. She went on to say that we should see that vision being reflected in the mandate and the actions of the Canadian institute of health research.

That is why they recommended a parliamentary review, so that they would have a place to go and tell legislators that they did not get it quite right and ask what changes could be made to make it right. That is why review and evaluation are critical. It was another reference to a concern about what has been going on historically and what should go on in the new institutes of health research.

I want to look at this issue from the standpoint of whether or not there was sufficient opportunity for parliament to have a review. Today the health critic of the Canadian Alliance rose to speak in favour of a five year review. I was absolutely shocked because just last night when I rose to put that motion in the House and ask for a vote on it, the whip of the Canadian Alliance looked me straight in the eye and said no. Unanimous consent was not granted by the Canadian Alliance, yet its health critic rose today and argued quite the opposite.

We need to know why it is that members of the Canadian Alliance can play political games with the health care system of Canada in parliament. Why can they not be consistent? Why can they not stand and be consistent in terms of what they believe in? If they believe in accountability and transparency, they should not have said no last night to the review by parliament. Canadians should know that when it suits their purpose they play politics with important issues related to Canadians. I think that is shameful.

Report stage Motion No. 56, which I had put on the order paper and which was in order, was not moved during report stage. The finance committee was meeting at the same time. I sat in my place at the finance committee and was unable to be here to properly move that motion. I came to the House during report stage debate, still having ample opportunity to put the motion on the table. All parties at that point agreed to provide consent to allow me to move that motion, but members of the Bloc Quebecois said no.

They said no for one simple reason, because my motion said that the review would be conducted by parliament. As we know, parliament as defined includes the House of Commons and the Senate. They withheld their unanimous consent to move this important motion related to accountability and transparency because they wanted me to amend the motion to exclude the Senate. They wanted me to say that the review would be done only by the House of Commons and not by the Senate, so I would have had to eliminate the word parliament to effectively exclude the Senate.

Here again are politics coming into play. I will not question the motivation of members of the Bloc Quebecois on why they wanted certain amendments. I am a backbench member of parliament. I came before the House to put a motion to amend the legislation so that the administration of the act dealt with the concern of witnesses and we would have a five year review of the administration of the act. The health minister, after consultation over several weeks, finally agreed and we worked out a way to bring in the resolution in a manner that would be constructive and useful for parliament to add to accountability and transparency.

Ultimately the bottom line result was that the Canadian Alliance, known then as the Reform Party, and the Bloc Quebecois said no. They both said no to transparency and accountability in parliament. They then said no to Canadians with regard to supporting the health care system and supporting research. It was all due to politics, and Canadians should know that.

During the review of report stage motions, and the critic for the New Democratic Party articulated this, a number of resolutions or suggestions were made on how to improve the bill. I thought there were some very interesting questions.

Under the bill the government will make order in council appointments to the Canadian institutes of health research, a governing body. Because they are order in council appointees, they are subject to the conflict of interest guidelines for the public service.

However, clause 10 of Bill C-13 says that the governing council may establish by bylaw an executive committee and other committees of the governing council. It goes on in paragraph 2 to say that the bylaw establishing a committee other than an executive committee may provide for the committee's membership to include persons who are not members of the governing council. In other words, in such an important body which will be responsible for about $500 million worth of health research expenditure, there will be people who are appointed by the governing council who in fact will not be covered by public service conflict of interest guidelines.

It was an important and valid discussion. Generally in the terms of reference guiding the objectives and the operations of the governing council, certainly something like establishing conflict of interest guidelines for people who are not order in council appointees is an important element. I am sure they will do it. The request was to put it in specifically and I did not disagree. It is on the record.

I am sure the governing council will understand because of the importance and the sensitivity of the institutes of health research, that these kinds of measures are needed. Conflict of interest guidelines are needed to ensure that inappropriate actions are not taking place with regard to commercialization or special interest groups infiltrating committees by virtue of their lobbying of members.

I understand that these people will be of the highest integrity. They will be the best in Canada, guiding the shaping of research in Canada. They will be beyond reproach.

We are talking about an enormous virtual institution that will be influenced daily. If hon. members do not believe that those people will have any influence on the decisions, why is it that so many of them came before the health committee to lobby for one of the institutes to be for their special interest? They came before the health committee for one reason, because they believe they have the opportunity to influence.

We should never risk exposing ourselves to undue influence particularly when it comes to matters of importance. It is not debatable. We have to make sure that all the tools are in place. When I conclude my speech I will outline how I feel that parliament will still have the levers, notwithstanding that we do not have a five year review.

The bill lays out for parliament and Canadians what the governing council will do. The call was that health research objectives, priorities, et cetera should not be tied up with the legislators. They should be independent and at arm's length to make sure that our health care givers, those who are involved in the science of research and development in our health care system, are the ones who will measure the priorities and the importance to Canadians and develop a vision that will not be driven by political interests. That is why it will operate at arm's length.

These are the buzzwords of some of the governing council's objectives: to exercise leadership; to create a robust health research environment; to forge an integrated health research agenda; to encourage disciplinary integration in our health research; to promote and assist in undertaking research that meets the highest international scientific standards; to address emerging health opportunities; to foster the discussion of ethical issues; to promote the dissemination of knowledge; to encourage innovation; to build the capacity of the Canadian health research community; to pursue opportunities providing support for the participation of Canadian science and international collaboration; and to ensure transparency and accountability generally.

The governing council will have the opportunity to run its own show. But as I said, we need to make sure that the vision of the governing council of the Canadian institutes of health research is compatible and consistent with the needs of Canadians and with the objectives and the visions of all the stakeholders in health care in Canada.

We already have mechanisms in place. In January 1999 the Public Policy Forum published a proposed governing structure for the Canadian institutes of health research in anticipation of the importance of this to Canadians. This might be the most important institution driving the health care agenda in Canada. We need to think about the governance model.

The Minister of Health is going to be the primary lead on this matter in terms of accountability to parliament. The Canadian institutes of health research are going to be responsible to the Parliament of Canada. The minister has the opportunity to make or to cancel the order in council appointments. The auditor general is going to do an annual review. His report will include tests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

The report also recommended a five year review and appearance before committees. We do have the annual review of the estimates. I believe committees will have the opportunity to have the chair of the governing council come before them to talk about the success the Canadian institutes of health research have had in meeting the health care objectives of Canada and of all Canadians.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before asking my question, I would like to set the member who has just spoken straight on a few points.

He talked about moving Motion No. 56. First, he was not in the House. Second, he had presented the wording to our House leader, who had agreed to its being moved, even in the member's absence, on condition that certain words be changed. Third, after the motion was discussed or debated and brought forward with unanimous consent, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health arrived with a proposal to again amend what had been agreed on with the member who has just spoken.

So, when he accuses the Bloc Quebecois of playing political games in this connection, I think he is showing obvious bad faith.

As for the bill itself—and this is my question—when the president of the governing council of an institute of health research is also the organization's president—even an ordinary caisse populaire does not make this kind of mistake and the director of the board of directors of a caisse populaire is never the caisse's director because of the potential conflict of interest—I would say the government would do better not to present its bill as the best thing since sliced bread. In my opinion, it should—and this was suggested by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve in one of his many proposals—separate the functions of president of the governing council and president of the organization. There is no need to look very far; it is immediately obvious. This is something that is open to criticism.

What can the member say about this without getting into political games? I would remind him that we are in parliament and that we are just as entitled to express our views as he is. I would point out to him that 66% of Canadians did not vote for the Liberal Party of Canada in the last election.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me refer the member to Motion No. 56.

The member knows that I had to leave the Chamber and go up to the Bloc House leader's office on the fifth floor to discuss this matter. The member was not there. I will not breach our conversation and relate it to the House. All I can say is that a proposal was agreed upon as to how we would deal with it in terms of getting consent. The member also knows that I can only move my own motion, I cannot amend it. Another member is responsible for delivering that amendment.

I came back to the House and got the consent of the parties to move the motion. Subsequently the member who was to move the amendment was not able to move the amendment in the form that the Bloc had it. There was no way to undo that other than to do the right thing which is exactly what I did. I rose in my place and asked for the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the motion because I could not deliver on the deal. I did that. I wanted the motion badly and I think the House wanted the motion badly, but unfortunately as a backbench member of parliament I could not be running between the fifth floor and the lobby to figure out the deal.

I wish that rather than playing politics the parties would get together on matters of importance to ensure that we understand what is in the best interests of Canadians. I found it disgusting. I was very sad to see that politics overrode the best interests of Canadians.

With regard to the member's comments, I understand the points. We do not have time to debate it. I can say I have done my best as a parliamentarian to assess whether conflict of interest situations could arise and whether there was a control mechanism. I assure the member and all Canadians that I have satisfied myself as a member of the health committee and as a member of parliament that mechanisms are in place that are sufficiently appropriate to ensure there will be no reasonable possibility of any conflict of interest without parliamentarians knowing about it and having the tools to deal with it.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my privilege to talk about why we support the bill.

The previous speaker said that the health critic for the Canadian Alliance was guilty of some charge or other. I would inform the House that I am the health critic for the Canadian Alliance and that I have not spoken today about any issue. I would ask the member to clarify that.

It is rather interesting and rather amazing to hear the—

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has just raised the matter that his party member did not speak. The Canadian Alliance spoke second in this debate. If he would check the blues, he would see his information is incorrect.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I do not think that is a point of order. I think it is a matter of debate but the point has been made.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we do not need to debate this. The fact is he did suggest the critic for the Canadian Alliance and I was just straightening him out on that item.

It is amazing to hear the double-talk from the member about how we should not play partisan politics. If anyone is playing partisan politics with health care I believe it is the member himself in his comments in the tirade he was on. Canadians are sick and tired of playing politics with the health care issue. Health care is too important to people to play partisan politics with it.

I also want to clarify the position of the Canadian Alliance. We are opposed to two tier U.S. for profit health care. We believe in universal health care for Canadians as all Canadians do. At no point has anyone in this party advocated two tier for profit health care where there is one system of health care for the rich and another for the poor. We are opposed to that and will continue to be opposed to that. Canadians are opposed to that. It is important that Canadians hear that firsthand.

To talk about the issue at hand, Bill C-13, the main thing is that we are creating research, we are creating an organization which will provide think-tanks and research which is so essential to improve our health care system.

Canadians tell us there is something wrong. The status quo of health care is not acceptable and it is not sustainable. We have to fix that problem. We have to do it in an unemotional, intelligent and scientific way.

That is the message which all of us as parliamentarians should be getting. This bill does that. It provides us with an opportunity for research to flourish in the country. For that reason it is important that all parties support it because the widening of research is important to us in the 21st century.

It is important to look at what the bill attempts to accomplish. There are some things lacking which should be pointed out. The themes of the health research will involve basic biomedical research. In that area, in talking to some of the scientists who are working on things like reproductive technology and gene therapy, we have not seen anything yet in terms of what will be possible in the future to help provide a healthier, longer living Canadian citizen, someone who could have a quality of life far better and longer than ever before.

The application of clinical research, as well, is a theme of this research project, and the use of clinical research at the bedside has to be critical.

The third item concerns research on health care systems and services. We have to look around the world to see the changes that have occurred. We cannot stay with the 1960s, socialized, state run, health care system. There are countries which have done that, but unfortunately they are not at the top of the list and would include countries like North Korea and Cuba.

We should be doing much better than that and research into advanced technology is one way to do it.

Society, culture, the health of populations and preventive medicine are but a few of the many things which would provide for a healthier Canadian. We must also be very conscious of the demographics. Today one in ten Canadians is over the age of 65. In 26 years, one in five Canadians will be over the age of 65. The implications of that spell out the need for research and the need to improve the quality of life for people over 65. It is a major concern and something on which a great deal of research needs to be done.

A great many people told our committee what should happen. Of course, my associate was part of that and has forwarded much of what was said in the committee hearings.

The thing that struck me most came from Dr. Peter Vaughan, who is the CEO and secretary general of the Canadian Medical Association. We might itemize several of the things he said and think about what they mean.

First, he said it is very important to transfer research from the lab bench to the bedside. Strictly doing theoretical research is one thing, but actually improving the quality of health care with that research is quite another. To have this as an aim of the institutes is most important and should not be underestimated.

He said that we must focus on outcomes. The ultimate goal of the Canadian health care system is to improve health status and health outcomes for Canadians. One area where this needs to be addressed in particular is in the field of health services research, which is often restricted to either short timeframes which limit the ability to observe health outcomes or to the use of administrative data which more typically measures outputs rather than outcomes. It is important that we listen when a professional tells us the focus that we should be putting on this particular agency.

With respect to the capacity for building, he said that the CIHR could play a key role in reversing the brain drain. Retaining and repatriating our health researchers will improve Canadians' access to quality care within our national medicare program.

We must recognize the fact that half of our graduates in the medical field leave this country. The average age of a specialist in Canada is 59 years. It takes 14 years to become a specialist, from the time that person begins as a student until he or she is able to treat patients.

It is essential that we keep well trained individuals in our country. It is important as well that we increase the number of courses for specialists, rather than the trend which has gone on for some 10 to 20 years in which universities have cut the number of students allowed into various specialty areas.

As an example, I have a daughter, about whom I will brag a bit. She is finishing her Ph.D. in Holland. She went looking for a job. She will graduate this spring. She had nine job offers, four of which were from Canada. One of them was at the University of Western Ontario. They offered her a position in which she could teach 80% of the time, mostly first year students, and she could do research on the side. To our disappointment, she accepted an offer from Germany.

She chose that offer because the job will give her 100% research. She will be working in a university which emphasizes the importance of research.

Obviously in Canada we have to become more attuned to those professionals who want to do research. This agency should help, and that is a positive.

The fourth item that Dr. Vaughan suggested was that we need balance. He stated:

—we recognize the need to work with others to improve the health of the population by addressing the determinants of health, including social, lifestyle and physical environmental factors. The need for this balance is underscored by the persistent social inequalities in health in Canada and other industrialized countries—

Obviously that looks at the big picture, at all of the things that influence the health of Canadians. These institutes will address that concern, and that is extremely important.

Fifth, he said that we must be internationally competitive. According to the OECD, and we have said this a number of times, Canada spends only one-third as much per capita on health research as any of the other G-7 countries, such as France, the United Kingdom, the U.S. and so on. It is to be hoped that the enactment of the CIHR legislation would help to change that significantly less funding which exists in Canada and has existed for a number of years.

These are the reasons we can support the bill. It is a step forward in providing us with that research base which is so essential.

We must also look at other factors. While we support the bill and we see the bill as a step forward, we also have to show some concerns. We have to look at keeping the issue of research in a non-political environment. We have to be conscious of the turf wars that are so much a part of our health care system. That goes right down to the researchers in the lab. We have to make these non-political, non-partisan, non-turf war institutes.

We also have concerns about whether the federal government could keep this in a non-partisan sort of format, or whether it could keep from tampering with research and approving some projects based on reasons other than merit. It seems most critical that merit should be the only reason research is funded and supported by these institutes.

As well, we must examine the Canada Health Act. It is extremely important to realize how seriously flawed our Canada Health Act is as it exists today.

We talk about accessibility. The Canadian health care system is not accessible. People wait three or four months, or longer, to see a specialist. That is not accessibility. Over 200,000 Canadians are on waiting lists. That is not accessibility. People are going to the United States for treatment. That is not an accessible health care system. We need to research that to see how it could be fixed.

I emphasize that we have to work with the provinces and not hammer them with an outdated Canada Health Act. We need to modernize it and work with them in a co-operative manner.

As far as it being portable, ask someone from Quebec who ends up in another province and needs treatment. Ask the people from Quebec what they are told when they enter that hospital. They are told that the Quebec system does not cover them when they are outside the province.

Ask about it being comprehensive. Look at the many areas which are not covered by medicare as we know it today. Each year more and more things are delisted. What do Canadians expect from their health care system? What do they want included and what do they want taken out?

I have already addressed the area of universality. I think that all Canadians want and would be proud of a universal health care system to which every Canadian would have access. That is what the Canadian Alliance wants. I believe that is what Canadians want. I think that is what the Liberals might want as well.

The final area is public administration. We have all kinds of problems there. The ownership of the actual bricks and mortar is not the main emphasis, but it is something that should be looked at.

There should be a sixth point, and that should be results. Are we getting results from our health care system? Is it working for Canadians? What do Canadians think about that?

We listened to the Prime Minister say that the status quo of health care would be maintained. That is exactly what Canadians do not want to hear. They do not want the status quo because it is not working. It is not sustainable.

We often refer to Liberal members as the Jack Kevorkians of the Canada Health Act. They have not funded the system adequately. They have cut $25 billion from health care. Sure, they put $13 billion back, but they cut much more dramatically than ever before and they left the provinces to go their own way. If the provinces try something new the Liberals slam them with the Canada Health Act, the very act which they have not bothered to improve, fix or reform since the 1960s.

In closing, I would say that we will support this bill. In terms of research, we must do it. We are 23rd out of 29 OECD countries in terms of technology in health care. The health care system is broken and needs to fixed. All Canadians want it to be fixed. The federal government needs to provide the leadership and work with the provinces to make this happen.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Red Deer could give us his views on how this research should be managed.

We have a problem in the short term. Everyone agrees that the provinces do not have the resources they need to deliver health care, but our health problems require immediate solutions. The research institutes that the government wants to set up and support could pursue other objectives in the longer term. Indeed, the health of people requires long term planning.

I would like to know how the hon. member suggests this problem might be resolved? Does he think that investing in research is an immediate solution? If so, how? If not, how does he think the most urgent problems could be resolved in the short term, while ensuring that the health of all Canadian and Quebec taxpayers will be protected in the long term, this time by emphasizing prevention?

Could the hon. member tell us how he thinks these two objectives might be reconciled?

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for his question. He has raised several important points, the first one being the need for long term funding.

It is essential that when doing research one is not inhibited by grants that are there for one year and may not be there for the next year. Research is not an exact process and one needs to know there is sustainable funding in the research area. I think that applies here more than anywhere else.

Researchers do not know when they will find a cure for whatever it is they are looking for. To know they have the support and the long term commitment of parliament is critical. I think that should be written in. It is something that can be strengthened in this bill.

Another item of equal importance is the administration of research. More important, we should get to the nuts and bolts and say that the provinces are partners in this research. All the provinces are working with the federal government to provide research for all Canadians. This is why I emphasize the lack of partisan politics in this regard.

It is to be hoped that the administration will not fall victim to the things we have seen in HRDC and many other areas, because that will do more to hurt us as Canadians and to hurt our position. When we are 23rd out of 29 OECD countries, it is not a very favourable position to be in terms of our technological advancements. We need to improve dramatically. Co-operation in this whole area will be critical for it to be successful.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Red Deer mentioned partisan debate and partisan politics. I am sure there are times when all of us in the House are engaged in partisan debates and we use statistics to perhaps stretch our position or stretch the facts.

I heard the member for Red Deer and his colleague earlier. I also heard the Reform-Conservative Premier of Ontario talk about the transfers to the provinces for health care. The member opposite also talked about that.

If we look at the facts, they are clear. The federal government has restored the transfers to the provinces under the CHST to a new level of $31 billion at a time when federal government expenditure has been reduced by $4 billion compared to 1993. That is the direct program delivery.

How can the member for Red Deer face his constituents with the facts he has presented in the House, when the facts are clearly not what he speaks? How can he justify saying that in the House of Commons?

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us go through the numbers and we can round them off if the member would like.

In 1993-94 the money transferred for health care and education amounted to $18.8 billion. In 1994-95, $18.7 billion; 1995-96, $18.5 billion; 1996-97, $14.8 billion; 1997-98, $12.5 billion; 1998-99, $12.5 billion; 1999-2000, $14.5 billion; and now for the next four years, $15.5 billion. If we went back to the level and kept it frozen at $18.8 billion from 1993 to the year 2004, the total would be $36 billion less than what would have been transferred had the government just frozen it at the 1993 level.

That is very simple mathematics but obviously Liberal mathematics is quite different from pure numbers. Those are the facts and for whatever reason the Liberals do not want to recognize them.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am following this debate with great interest. I remember that initially the federal government was to support 50% of the costs relating to health, while each province supported the other 50%.

Today the federal government pays barely over 10%. It has reduced its involvement. If we look at its track record in a number of programs we can see a pattern where the federal government establishes programs and then withdraws from them, thus passing the buck to the provincial governments.

I have the same concern regarding the bill before us. The government is taking initiatives that will have universities and research centres buy equipment and train researchers. One day the funding these people need for their research may just stop. This means that these researchers would have to go looking for other research centres, possibly abroad.

I wonder if our colleague from the Canadian Alliance could give us his views on this.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very real concern. Obviously, when we went into the whole medicare issue and the Canada Health Act, the agreement was that the federal government would provide 50% of the funding. For that it got control, making sure that the provinces lived by the Canada Health Act. That was a good deal for everyone. The provinces received financial assistance and Canadians got a health care system of which they could be proud.

The problem is that the federal government is now giving 13% to Alberta instead of 50%. Some other provinces are getting slightly more if other figures are taken into consideration. The important thing that also needs to be mentioned is that the $580 billion debt on which we pay some $40 billion a year in interest payments is also a very major factor in cutting funding for health care and for many other projects. Let us think of what we could do with $40 billion in any one of these programs, or even part of it.

It is fine to say we will start the program and fund it for the next three years but, as the member pointed out, if they drop out after that, research will stop, those scientists will be lost to us forever and we will not attract any kind of research in this country. That will put us even deeper into the hole and we will go from 23rd out of 29 to who knows where.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to add a few words to my earlier remarks in order to have my Canadian Alliance colleague comment further.

The Tokamak project, it will be recalled, was, and I describe it in the past tense, a project involving a thermonuclear fusion reactor located in Varennes. Funding for this project was shared jointly by the federal government and the Government of Quebec. The federal government decided two years ago to withdraw from the project. Naturally, Quebec could not assume funding for the entire project on its own.

So this second generation reactor, which was on the leading edge of technology, will have to be sold at a loss somewhere else in the world. This is a dead loss of some $150 million.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of this dangerous precedent.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if we worked on it a bit, we could come up with an awful lot of burnt out projects like the ones that have been started, where the building was built, the funding stopped and the project collapsed.

That comes from a lack of long term planning. That is one of the reasons Canadians have so little confidence in government. Whether it is building ferries that do not float, whether it is nuclear projects or whether it is the Avro Arrow, if we want to go back in history, there all kinds of examples of where the Canadian government has not continued its funding long enough to reap the rewards. Again the member is totally right. It is a major concern.