Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part today in the debate on Bill C-13, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Act.
I must say that I am all the more delighted to do so following my colleague from Jonquière and my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who spoke this morning and made a very good case for these institutes.
In principle, we cannot be against the establishment of these health research institutes in various areas of public health.
Naturally, my speech will focus on Bill C-13, as presented by the government, but I will also clarify the more problematic aspects of this bill.
The other matter I will address is the whole issue of research and development. There is much to say on this subject, but I will confine myself to a few points because, for a long time, Quebec, and Montreal in particular, did not get its fair share of federal grants for research and development. I will come back to that later because Montreal has been a poor cousin when it comes to investment in research and development by the federal government.
To have a strong metropolis, attract brains and stimulate productive investments, what is required is investment in that metropolis, so as to develop the various areas on which Montreal based its economic recovery. Biotechnology is one major area in Montreal in terms of recovery. Yet, we are still waiting for federal productive spending in that area.
The fact that only 16% of R and D expenditures are made in Quebec certainly raises questions. No wonder Montreal lost its title of Canada's metropolis to Toronto. It is because the federal government did not spend and did not want to invest in areas that were crucial to Montreal's development.
Without basic, crucial, productive and job creating investments, Montreal will never meet its economic recovery objectives. I will come back to R and D later.
I now turn to the priorities of Quebec and the Quebec government. These need to be addressed because it is not true that the federal government is the only one to promote and give priority to scientific and technological research. It would be a mistake to think that, with its bill, the federal government is the only one to give priority to an area that is crucial to Quebec's economic and technological development. So does the Quebec government.
I remind the House that the Quebec government created a ministry of research, science and technology. This ministry is working on a draft science policy which will be made public in a few months. It focuses on such critical issues as aging, and other important areas Quebec has been working on and for which it never received a cent from the people across the way.
I will come back to Quebec's priorities later on. At the end of my presentation, I will give a rather telling example of what public investments in research could accomplish.
I introduced a private member's motion to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. We are still waiting for money from Ottawa to start clinical trials in phase III, which would allow us to go ahead with it, thereby allowing patients to take their drugs legally. I will also come back to this later.
The purpose of Bill C-13 is to establish institutes of health research. In his last budget, the finance minister gave some indication to this effect. Today, the basis on which these institutes will be built are set out in very concrete terms. To establish these institutes the government acted on the recommendations made by 34 university scientific experts.
They included Quebec and Canadian academics and scientists. Bill C-13, which establishes these institutes, is based on the recommendations made by these 34 experts.
Needless to say the issues that might be raised are important. They are crucial to the people in Quebec and Canada. Among other issues, there is the whole issue of population aging.
We are in a demographic situation where the population in Quebec and Canada is getting older. The aging curve is going up. To a certain extent it is harmful. In the context of renewal and of our ability to secure the future of the Quebec and Canadian society, technological alternatives will have to be developed to ensure that the life expectancy of Canadians will increase.
The issue of aging is fundamental and it encompasses various areas. Obviously, it covers every disease. I am thinking of diseases like Alzheimer and various mental diseases as well as various surgical procedures. Technology in that area in essential to increase the life expectancy of Canadians and Quebecers.
Another area of research could be arthritis. I think a lot of Canadians suffer from this disease. I know what I am talking about. One third of the people in my riding are over 55. This disease affects an increasing number of people everywhere in Canada.
The issue of clinical evaluation and evaluation of technologies also seems essential to us. Technologies cannot be developed scientifically without verifying their accuracy at some point and finding ways to apply them. In terms of technological development in Canada, useful applications must be sought for new technologies because, in the end, our goal is to improve the quality of life of the people we represent.
This issue of clinical evaluation and evaluation of technologies is another area in which the institutes could be called upon to work.
In budget terms, we got a surprise. It was a surprise for me, at least. But I discussed it with my colleague from Drummond, who has been the Bloc Quebecois' critic on the subject for many years. I would say that she spearheaded the entire Bloc Quebecois strategy in the request for transfer to the provinces, in the desire of Quebecers to have their loot, as one of our former premiers put it. The member for Drummond said to me “We could summarize the government's initiative in two words. I was in attendance at the standing committee and aware of all that was happening. It is a praiseworthy but virtual initiative”.
So the principle is praiseworthy, we will support it, but at the same time this is a technocratic or bureaucratic blur, something the government opposite always arranges for the various health issues.
The budget is a surprise no longer, we know it now. The minister was clear. In February 1999, it was made clear that there will be a $65 million investment for the 2000-01 fiscal year. We also learned that there would be $175 million more for the following year.
That is a lot of money, and we must agree. But the members on this side of the House must see to it that this money really serves the needs of the people of Quebec. I have said this, there is a policy currently being developed at the Quebec department of research, science and technology and we must make sure that these investments really meet the needs of the people of Quebec.
The mandate is clear. It is written in black and white and in the preamble to the bill. It appears a little further on in the bill: it is to organize, co-ordinate and fund health research in Canada.
As we can see, there is a willingness to organize, but there is more. Earlier, I was reading part of the preamble and I was somewhat surprised to see what it said. The preamble reads in part as follows:
Whereas Parliament believes that health research institutes should be created to coordinate, focus and integrate health research based on—
I feel it is essential at this point to tell you that there is a problem within the problem, with this notion of focus. These are the issues I want to raise, because while I said we agree with the principle, there are some problems. The first one is that the bill does not recognize the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces in health and social services. This should be pointed out.
I will read another part of the preamble, which sheds light on the role of the provinces under this legislation. The second “whereas” reads as follows:
Whereas Parliament recognizes the role of the provinces in health care and that the Government of Canada collaborates with provincial governments to support the health care system and health research;
So, the role of the provinces is recognized, but the federal government continues to collaborate strongly and to focus, as they say in the preamble of the bill. I think care must be taken to recognize that provincial governments, including the Government of Quebec, have exclusive jurisdiction in this area.
Another important aspect of this bill, and one that I have a problem with, is that, despite any statements of policy the provinces might issue, including those from the Government of Quebec, they do not have the authority to choose CIHRs. The bill makes it clear that the future governing council will have final authority. This is important, and I will read paragraph 5(c), among others, which says:
(c) consult, collaborate and form partnerships with the provinces and with persons and organizations in or outside Canada that have an interest in issues pertaining to health or health research;
In other words, the CIHR will collaborate with the provincial governments, but never when it comes to administration. The Government of Quebec will never be able to define the general direction it would like its institutes to take. I find this very worrisome from certain points of view.
Another important aspect is that the provinces are not on an equal footing with the other partners. Just now, I read paragraph 5, which made this abundantly clear. Basically, certain agencies will be placed on the same footing as a province, which has a duly elected government and which provides services. In the worst case scenario, agency X could be considered on an equal footing with a province of six to seven million people.
In this regard, I think the federal government has not really taken into account the role of the provinces in the provision of health care services. This is nothing new, because the provinces have never really been considered in the overall picture of services provided. Since 1993, the federal government has cut $3.4 billion in provincial transfer payments for health. In the 1999-2000 budget, the shortfall in social transfer payments will be $1.7 billion for Quebec.
It is true that Quebec and the provinces are partners, but it needs to be understood that we are not all equal partners. Some of those partners, like the provinces, have duly elected governments and certainly deserve to be involved.
I am pleased however to see that the secretary of state responsible for the economic development of the regions in Quebec has stayed to listen to my speech. He is the member for Outremont, a member from Montreal. He should be aware that various development axes and sectors have contributed to the economic recovery of Montreal.
There was, for instance, the very dynamic sector of biotechnology that has created a lot of jobs without any federal support. Given the huge amount of money announced by the finance minister for the creation of the institutes of health research, I am concerned about the money that will be spent in Montreal in these sectors. It is rather surprising.
The Government of Quebec currently gets only 16% of all the structuring spending in R and D. The industry minister brags about all the huge achievements made in Montreal and Quebec.
I see the industry minister across the way and, naturally, the hon. member for Outremont is agreeing with the minister. It is incredible that the man who should be protecting the interests of Montreal and Quebec would accept that only 16% of the structuring spending in R and D is handed over to Quebec, which has 25% of the overall Canadian population. This is unacceptable, and I look forward to seeing how the hon. member for Outremont will defend this position at the next election. I can understand the Minister of Industry; he is not a Quebec MP, but I have great difficulty understanding the hon. member for Outremont.
You are indicating that I have only two minutes left, Mr. Speaker. I is a pity, because I could go on for a long time.
I will conclude with something that, while not personal, is very close to my heart, the whole issue of the use of marijuana for medical purposes. I have been saying for a long time that we needed to invest in research. Canada has lagged far behind other countries for a long time, compared to what has been done in the way of research in California and in England. Canada has never been able to catch up, to resume its role as an initiator, able to provide its sick people with medication that meets a whole set of medical criteria.
I will close on that point, for I see you are about to interrupt me, but I must assure you that we are in agreement in principle. And as my colleague from Drummond has said, it is a praiseworthy bill, but one that is still a virtual one.
