It comes from the word trouble, as in troublemaker. The Government of Quebec is troubled. I will go back to the letter:
—by the fact that Bill C-13 seems, unfortunately, to reflect the federal government's determination to exceed its jurisdictions by trivializing those of the provinces and by distorting the sharing of powers provided for under the Canadian Constitution.
The fact that a government would use such strong wording as constitutional powers is quite something.
The letter further states:
Health is an area under provincial jurisdiction. In fact, what successive governments in Quebec have always claimed has indeed been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in various matters, including in Bell Canada v Quebec.
The Government of Quebec reminds the federal government that health is first and foremost an area under provincial jurisdiction, as recognized by the supreme court. In that context, certain aspects of your bill reflect a centralizing vision and a desire to reduce the provinces' powers and responsibilities, with regard to health, which we cannot accept.
In other words, the Government of Quebec wants funding for research, but it has some concerns about the fact that this bill could open the door to interventionism and interference. With regard to research, the letter says:
The approach based on networking, interdisciplinarity and the pooling of knowledge and experience is part of a trend that already exists in Quebec, where researchers in several areas are already used to working as part of a network on an interdisciplinary or inter-university basis.
Of course, the Government of Quebec, which, each year, allocates more than adequate budgets to research funding, supports the objectives of this networking approach.
The federal government must not think that there is anything new in asking researchers to do team work. It is a practice that the Government of Quebec has enshrined in its research policies.
I apologize if sometimes I do not keep still, but by way of historical background, I will remind the House that Henri Bourassa, whose last nationalist speech was delivered in the eastern townships, used to move or walk about a lot when he was a member of this House. I have read that in the archives. I will stay close to my microphone, because technology is much more advanced now, but that does not mean that we are not inspired by Henri Bourassa.
He was an ultramontane. He was also a very committed nationalist who opposed the conscription bill motion tabled in this House, as the member for Chambly undoubtedly knows since he is a scholar.
The Quebec government blames the federal government for not consulting it. I read further and I hope you will get the gist of the letter:
However, by giving the institutes a leading and centralizing role in health research and by mentioning the development and implementation of an integrated health policy, Bill C-13 reflects a federal government's desire to assume responsibilities it does not have in that area under the Constitution.
I mentioned Henri Bourassa for a reason. We have had young nationalists, like Henri Bourassa and Armand Lavergne, who were great orators. Why is there a strong sovereignist movement constantly striving to assert itself, which is about to succeed? Because throughout Quebec's history, and that of Canada, the roles assigned to each level of government have systematically not been respected.
It is very important to note that this government's health department alone employs more public servants than all the provincial departments, whose primary responsibility is health.
This is typical of Canadian history. The history of Canada is riddled with encroachments, all unjustified constitutionally, on other jurisdictions.
If I may, I would like to quote again Ministers Rochon and Marois:
There is cause for concern to have a bill which, while recognizing the provinces' role in health, tries to relegate them to the level of actors, just like any other Canadian or foreign individual or organization that have an interest in health.
This is quite something. Clause 4 of the bill puts the provinces and voluntary organizations on an equal footing. We have nothing against voluntary organizations. We believe on the subject of Canadian institutes of health research, all sectors having an interest in research, namely consumers, voluntary organizations and industry, should be heard.
I am sure members will agree that there is nevertheless a distinction between the voluntary and community and the various governments. The bill pays lip service to co-operation between the federal government and the provinces, despite the fact that health care is primarily a provincial jurisdiction.
I believe that the Government of Quebec is right to be concerned by this bill and that we were also right in moving more than 30 amendments to the bill.
The letter goes on:
The Government of Quebec can only welcome any action taken by the federal government to increase the funding of health research, as long as such action does not encroach on Quebec's responsibilities and role in this area as well as in other areas which it considers a priority.
However, it is totally unacceptable for your government, under the guise of action taken in the area of research, through agencies under its control, to seek to have an influence on the directions, the management and the implementation of health care services and programs over which, it must be pointed out, the federal government has no jurisdiction.
I believe members get the point of this letter. At the end of my speech, I will seek unanimous consent of the House to table this letter so that every member can benefit from of it.
I also want to emphasize that the Quebec government has priorities. It has identified areas where it has developed know-how, a specific expertise.
I am referring to the whole area of genome, heredity and genetics. I am referring also to AIDS. AIDS is part of the large family of concerns that is virology and immunology. Quebec has concentrated on its territory a number of researchers extremely conversant with broad international trends in that field of research. I am also thinking of cancer, which has taken an enormous toll, as we know.
I dare hope that in establishing the Canadian institutes of health research the government will take into account the strengths and the weaknesses of every province.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that I have only three minutes left. That is unbelievable; it feels like I just started to make a number of important points. I will have to speak quickly of the amendments we have put forward. I have only three minutes left, but it is not totally unthinkable that I could get the unanimous consent of the House to continue my speech. In the interests of good relations, it would certainly be possible to obtain such consent, as ought to be the case, obviously.
I would like to recall five of our amendments. We would have liked to have the following in the preamble:
Whereas Parliament recognizes the full jurisdiction of the provinces over health services—
Had the government agreed to incorporate this amendment in the bill, we would have voted for Bill C-13. We think it important in the field of health to establish clearly that the provinces have the primary responsibility.
We also would have liked to amend clause 4 as follows:
—by replacing lines 23 to 26 on page four with the following:
(iii) have the provinces participate in the choice of directions and decisions for research; and
This takes no special talent. It seems to me there is nothing outlandish in that.
In another type of amendment we would have liked to see agreed to, with regard to clause 5, we said that there was a need to: b .1) involve the provinces in the choice of directions and decisions and form partnerships with them;
This means more than just co-operating. It recognizes the central role of the provinces, which must be involved in the choice and in the directions.
The most significant I would have liked to see agreed to, in addition to the recognition that this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, is the one in which we said:
7.1 The Governor in Council shall appoint the President of the CIHR and the—members of the governing council from lists of names provided by the provinces.
Would this not have been a good example of co-operative federalism, as the provinces could make proposals? Not only would they make proposals, but the federal government would agree to draw, for the appointments to the various governing councils and in the various institutes of health research, on the lists provided by the provinces.
In view of the wild enthusiasm my speech elicited, I wondered, Mr. Speaker, if you could make sure that the letter sent to us by the Quebec ministers of health and research be first made public for the benefit of all parliamentarians.
I will conclude on three points. This is a nation building bill. We would have been pleased to vote for it had the responsibilities of the provinces been recognized. Despite all, we are pleased the federal government is investing in research. I hope as things unfold that the federal government will involve the provinces and their networks of researchers.