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.