[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, June 13, 1996
.1033 
[English]
The Chairman: We had resolved earlier to report the main estimates. I understand at least one member has some motions to make. They're in front of you, in the name of Dr. Hill. They are to be moved by our colleague Margaret at the appropriate times.
The issue before the committee right now is the main estimates insofar as they relate to the health estimates. I'll be putting to you a series of questions to which the committee will respond. As appropriate, if the members have motions, just move them under the appropriate votes.
HEALTH
- National Health and Welfare
The Chairman: Shall vote 1, less the amount of $533,612,000, voted in interim supply, carry?
To save time, can we assume she's moving the first item on your paper?
Ms Bridgman (Surrey North): It's the first one.
The Chairman: Comment? Discussion? The question will be on Margaret's motion that vote 1 be reduced, etc.
.1035
Amendment negatived
Vote 1 agreed to
HEALTH
- National Health and Welfare
- Capital expenditures
The Chairman: Shall vote 5, less the amount of $18,097,000 voted in interim supply, carry?
Vote 5 agreed to
HEALTH
- National Health and Welfare
- Grants and Contributions
The Chairman: Shall vote 10, less the amount of $341,268,000 voted in interim supply, carry?
Vote 10 agreed to
Ms Bridgman: I have one more motion, but I'm not sure where it's going to fall in this.
The Chairman: The clerk can help us, I think.
Ms Bridgman: The second motion relates to the votes, but in a general way. I would suggest that maybe it could go at the end before the chairman asks for the motion on the report.
The Chairman: Okay. Then I'll put the other votes.
HEALTH
- Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission
- Program expenditures
- Medical Research Council
- Medical Research Council
- Patented Medicine Prices Review Board
Votes 15, 20, 25 and 30 agreed to
The Chairman: In a moment I'm going to need a motion to report the estimates. Before that, though, Margaret might want to move her motion.
Ms Bridgman: I'd like to move motion 2, and I'd also like to make a comment on it. We're requesting that the chair write to the Department of Health for some clarification as to the criteria for the distribution of money in relation to research.
There are two areas in which there is some concern.
One is in aboriginal affairs. There just doesn't seem to be public awareness of what the criterion is in this direction.
Also, when I was sitting on this committee before and we were looking at AIDS, I believe there was some discussion about how sometimes heavy lobbying can put more focus on something. I'm now speaking relating directly to AIDS and hepatitis B and C, which was one of my questions to one of the witnesses. Hepatitis B and C are killers, but the focus is more on AIDS. It is not as if it shouldn't be there, but... There are other examples.
What I'm asking here is that we write some sort of a letter to the health minister.
Mr. Szabo (Mississauga South): I believe I understand the intent of motion 2. I will speak against it from the standpoint, to give a simple example, that this would suggest that we should spend substantially more money on breast cancer research and substantially less money on HIV/AIDS, and only because of the current mortality rates. Breast cancer is one of the issues on which I think the experts would say that we know we can detect it but there's very little we can do right now to stop it. They're not going to be able to do much more without some totally different dimension, whereas with the AIDS situation it's not so much what the problem is today as what it's heading towards. This might theoretically frustrate an opportunity or the need to address impending danger.
So I understand the rationale, but this decision might not take into account some of these other kinds of arguments.
I suggest that any questions like this in a general way could be written by any member to the minister of the department at any time in any event.
The Chairman: To be clear on what Margaret's motion is suggesting, it would have the chair write to the minister - so it involves simply a letter to the minister - recommending that he ensure... In principle there's nothing wrong with the committee expressing its view on this. It certainly doesn't tie the minister to a different assignment of expenditures. It just tells the minister the committee's view on that issue. That's what we're doing. So the question is whether you agree with the view expressed here or not.
.1040
Antoine.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé (Lévis): Personally, I find it difficult to understand that a member of the committee would feel that it is necessary to get additional information. I also feel that the tone of the letter and the order given by the committee to the chair to write a letter goes a bit too far.
It might be more appropriate to ask the minister, through his parliamentary secretary, to share with us that information at one of our future meetings.
I am very uncomfortable with directing the chair to write a letter. It has always been clear up to now that the role of the chair was to chair the committee. As for the parliamentary secretary, his role is to relay to committee members information that the minister might want to give them. Personally, I don't need anything more.
I will therefore vote against the motion because the style of the motion is too bossy for me. I might have another opinion if the chair were to change his style of leadership, but for the time being, it suits me.
[English]
The Chairman: I'll just respond to Antoine.
Certainly procedurally it's quite in order for the committee
[Translation]
to direct the chair to do something. It is normal procedure in committees.
[English]
So I have no difficulty with the wording. Sometimes we say ``instructs the chair'' or ask that the chair do such-and-such, but the intent is the same, so I have no ruffled feathers on that issue. The issue is whether the committee ought to write to the minister on this issue or whether we ought to talk to Joe about it.
In response to Antoine, I should also point out that what we're looking for here, what the motion is seeking, is not information, it's a change of direction. So Joe can't give us any information on that issue. What the letter will do is recommend that the minister do something differently from what he's doing right now. It would be a recommendation from the committee.
So I think you should keep your eye on the ball and ask yourself whether you support the substance of this motion, which is that we ask the minister to ensure his expenditures reflect a certain reality exactly.
Joe.
Mr. Volpe (Eglinton - Lawrence): Mr. Chair, you've already expressed part of the view I might have offered on reflection on this motion, but a couple of principles are being expressed here and I think we need to consider them. The first of these has already been alluded to by Paul. There is a direct correlation between expenditures and the numerical impact of a disease in Canadian society. That's one, here. It presumes this approach is not currently being used. It also presumes, I think, there is a direct lobby for other considerations than the one being suggested. I'm not sure that is in fact the case, even if one wants to interpret expenditures in that light.
Another principle is that the minister is currently not ensuring the research is directed appropriately. Again, this is an assumption I don't think we can make.
Both those items having been said, it's difficult for a committee member to take exception to a motion that says, well, Minister, please keep in mind these considerations we have as a committee. But I would feel uncomfortable, as an individual member of the committee, despite my own particular biases about where the research ought to go, if this motion were to be interpreted as a prescriptive motion based exclusively on statistics that would lead me to make expenditures on the basis of numbers that are coming through the department. In other words, it would deprive anyone here or in the department, or the minister himself, with the opportunity to set a priority that would not be dictated by dollars and numbers.
.1045
The Chairman: Andy.
Mr. Scott (Fredericton - York - Sunbury): Not unlike Joe, I have difficulty with the substance of the recommendation, not with the idea that we might recommend to the chair. In much the same way, I think there should be other considerations: the possibility of an epidemic, how much research is going on other places in the world, scientific things - what's the chance of finding something having a positive outcome. It occurs to me there's a list of reasons why we would do research, and I'm not comfortable with suggesting we necessarily go with just one of the factors. It's more complicated than that.
[Translation]
Ms. Picard (Drummond): I agree entirely with Mr. Volpe and Mr. Scott. One has to wonder who will set priorities. We hear about HIV, but we should also hear about women's health. Women will tell you about breast cancer and that they would not want the department to decrease research funding for this type of cancer since it is one of the greatest causes of mortality among women. Therefore, I will vote against the motion.
[English]
Motion negatived
The Chairman: Antoine.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I do not wish to move a motion but I have a request for information to make. I examined as best as I could research votes, and I was told that there were several research funds linked to health matters that were distributed but not always by the Department of Health. Would it be possible for us to have some information on research funds that are given to organizations? I do not wish to redirect these funds but only to know to whom these funds are allocated. Is it possible to get this information from Health Canada or from the other departments that have an interest in health matters? Could we receive this information at one of our future meetings or could it be sent to members individually as soon as possible?
[English]
The Chairman: Nancy Hall, please.
The Clerk of the Committee: I believe that question or a similar question came up during the discussion on the main estimates when the Medical Research Council was appearing before the committee. We've just received the response of the Medical Research Council and I'll be making that available to members by the end of the week. If that doesn't satisfy your question, then maybe you could let me know and we can pursue it and ask for more information.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: To all of the other members.
[English]
The Chairman: All right. We're still on the estimates, and I have one other question to put to conclude the procedure.
Shall I report the estimates to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you for your indulgence. Have a pleasant summer. Set aside those dates in September when you get them. I'll see you then.
This meeting is adjourned.