André Harvey

[Municipal Grants Act, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting in favour of the motion.

[Constitutional Debate, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's provocative approach to Quebec serves simply to muddle English Canada and to slow the advances in the polls of the Right Honourable Joe Clark.

Yes, people are tired of the constitutional debate, but they certainly need a break from the provocation carried on for the past 30 years by the leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada, who must see that their strategy has increased the sovereignist vote from 20% to 49% in 20 years. Does the Prime Minister of Canada want to carry on into the next century?

Fed up with inflated taxes, the sabotage of our health care system, the departure of our young people and the increase in poverty, Canadians want a practical political agenda from their Prime Minister.

Enough of the constitutional bear trap for our English-speaking fellow citizens.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As I pointed out a moment ago, a bill is never perfect when first tabled. Obviously, our caucus, through our health critic, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, will certainly make extremely efficient efforts to put forward amendments concerning the administrative structure.

As part of my work on this issue, I met with many specialists in medical research, and it is true that these are people able to assume a lot of responsibilities. They do not want handouts. They are able to make interesting proposals, in relation to both the areas where research should be encouraged and management.

They will certainly have an opportunity to share their views with the committee, and my colleague will be able to propose amendments. This will allow us to come to an agreement on the main thrust of Bill C-13, which is to encourage health research by establishing research institutes. It will also enable us to create thousands of research application related jobs for young people looking for structural jobs.

We are dealing with a scientific community which is used to taking charge and which did not always get the support it needed. I am convinced that my colleague's wish will be fulfilled by the government, because the government's goal should be to encourage people who can carry out good research and create jobs. Ultimately, I am sure all Canadians will appreciate and benefit from that.

It would be interesting to give researchers more scientific responsibilities, and also administrative ones, so that politicians can step back from the appointment process.

We are entering an era where political appointments will become less and less acceptable. I have been reviewing the Canada Elections Act. Just yesterday, we talked about returning officers. For the last hundred years, they have been appointed by each successive governing party, but we are now wondering whether it would be better to have a process whereby the best candidates would be appointed to these positions.

With respect to the establishment of institutes, the best would be to have an objective mechanism in place to appoint the people with the greatest expertise, who can deliver and achieve the goals set out in the bill.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased to work on an issue my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest is involved with. When he talks about health care, he really knows what he is doing. He has lived through things that gave him the opportunity to have a closer look at the issue.

When a government talks about research and development, it is obvious that people of good faith will find it difficult to oppose, in principle, a bill that deals with medical research and will promote the development of several regions of the country.

At the time I was sitting with my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest. We were talking about medical research, especially in the pharmaceutical field. We know what impact the bill passed at the time has had on the country as a whole, and particularly in the Montreal area. This is a example we like to give.

With regard to space research, I am pleased to see the government is also continuing its efforts in that direction, with all the impact research has had in areas where, a few years ago, we had absolutely no expertise. I am sure these examples will convince everyone that research is the basis for everything. This is true throughout the world. Without research, be it medical or any other type, there is no development.

I could give you other examples, one of which immediately comes to mind, namely aluminium. I will get back to the issue of health in a moment. I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec is here. There has been no job creation in the aluminium sector in Quebec. In fact, nearly 10,000 jobs were lost. The reason for that—and I am glad to see the secretary of state and the industry minister are aware of that reality—is that the lack of research in a primary sector always results in job losses.

Nevertheless, I am happy to say this bill will ensure that several cities in Canada will have the opportunity to take their place in the area of medical research, and we all hope this will create jobs.

There is not a city in the world that did not need research or labs for its development. I am thinking of Montreal, for example, and cities like Toulouse, where the aeronautical and chemical industries played a key role in the city's development, or Boston, with its technological institute. Research created tens of thousands of jobs in these regions.

Investors are attracted to places where they know they will be able to find a pool of qualified researchers. This applies to the health sector as well as any other sector. Take cities like Grenoble or Tours, in France, whose development was boosted by research in the transportation sector, particularly with regard to the high speed train. And let us not forget Bombardier, which helped us develop an expertise that makes us one of the best in the world today.

Unfortunately, there are still too many sectors where Canada does not put enough emphasis on basic research. I am thinking about the forest product industry, the aluminium industry and the health area, except for pharmaceutical research.

Our party supports the underlying principles of this bill and the funding of research projects that will be selected because of their excellence and in accordance with international criteria. The Progressive Conservative Party will support such initiatives. We are in favour of medical research that will help Canada maintain and increase its competitiveness in research activities, which are currently creating more jobs than any other area.

In Canada, we must stop relying only on jobs in resource-based industries. There is only one way to break out of that cycle, and it is through research. In improving the health of the population, medical research will play a key role in increasing productivity.

Of course, when dealing with an issue like this one, what we in our party hope for is that, once the bill is passed and the institutes are selected, the regions will not be forgotten, and I want to commend the minister responsible for amateur sport for his work in this area.

Several regions in this country are in deep trouble, because their natural resources have all been used up and no consideration was ever given to research that would have supported processing of these resources in major industries. What is happening now is that research is being carried out in Europe and the United States. For some fifty years, research was completely overlooked in Canada.

Now we are faced with the need to do some considerable catching up. That is why it is our fervent hope that the government, with the assistance of the opposition parties and members, will be able to ensure a fair distribution of the Canadian institutes of health research, and that the regions will not be left out.

We are in a position to do good things in the regions. We are not there just to be exploited. We are there to create worthwhile and well-paying jobs for local people. Introduction of this bill has created a great deal of hope in the regions of Canada and of Quebec, and more specifically in my region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

When this bill was introduced, many people in my region were quick to show leadership, one of the best in the country, in trying to show their elected representatives, both those in opposition and those in government, the importance of moving forward with basic research in the health field, and particularly of not neglecting the regions.

I would like to list a few of the people in my region who have worked very hard to ensure that the regions may one day benefit from this project, particularly the region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

These include Jean-Guy Boily, who has worked very, very hard to raise the awareness of all stakeholders about basic research, health research in particular, in our region.

There is Robert Jacques, Jean-Eudes Girard, Réjean Lafrance, Yvon Perron, Dr. Houde, the researchers at the Hôpital de la Sagamie, Michel Perron, Dr. Daniel Gaudet, Dr. Bégin and Gérard Bouchard of the IREP, the Institut de recherches interuniversitaires sur les populations. The people at the CORAMH, the Corporation de recherches et d'action sur les maladies héréditaires, also do a lot of work on hereditary disease. What is interesting is that very often in my region so little is shared that everyone runs into the same problems.

I can say that, in our region, there is very close co-operation between the private sector, the medical sector and all the researchers, among the entire scientific community. This also applies to a large part of Quebec. These stakeholders work hand in hand to introduce projects that will be structural and that will lead to worthwhile discoveries.

I dare to hope, obviously, that the government will note the efforts of our regions so they may be taken into account in the establishment of these institutes.

What is interesting, and I am pleased to point this event out, is that the government has confirmed that, next June, in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, and more particularly in Jonquière, an international conference will be held on genetic determinants of health.

Our region is particular on the issue of genetic research. I am pleased that it can put forward publicly all the expertise it has developed laboriously in recent decades, very often with little support from national or provincial organizations.

I am obviously pleased to point out that we will take this event very seriously. We are not asking anything of Bill C-13. We are asking to be recognized as people who have succeeded in developing a very high level of expertise.

I am pleased to mention that the expertise developed by our region is beginning to make quite an impression both in political circles and among those who perform basic research throughout the country.

We hope the work done by CORAMH researchers on hereditary diseases in particular will be known to all.

The ÉCOBES group at the CEGEP of Jonquière is working very hard in co-operation with the people of CORAMH and IREP, who are internationally renowned. That is why an international conference will be held in our region in June.

Rest assured that we will submit extremely productive projects not only for Quebec, but for the whole country, and—why not—for the whole world. To many researchers, our region is an interesting laboratory for research on hereditary diseases, on genetics. We look forward to the creation of an institute for research in these areas so that we can have access to more resources.

Genetic research is no longer limited to hereditary diseases. Today, researchers are looking at genetic predisposition to cancer. God knows cancer affects all families. Every family is faced with this terrible challenge.

That is to say nothing of asthma and cardiovascular diseases. I am convinced that, if the members of the House, particularly government members, show that they are conscious of the importance of the research that has already been undertaken in our regions, particularly in the region I represent—I was not elected to represent the whole world but to represent the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, particularly the beautiful riding of Chicoutimi, the fjord—rest assured that we will follow this issue very closely.

We are confident that the research fostered by the establishment of these institutes will benefit all Canadians.

I would like to highlights comments made by Pavel Hamet, the director of research at the Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal. He was with us in Jonquière when the minister announced the international conference.

He stated that research is indeed being carried out in Saguenay and that it is of a very high level, because it has led to the discovery of several genetic diseases. “Moreover, he said, the Saguenay area is unique, because of its gene pool.”

It may come as a surprise to some of the hon. members, but he also said that the Saguenay is the only region recognized by the World Health Organization for its work on regional genetics.

Dr. Hamet noted that the region is home to the Institut interuniversitaire de recherche sur les populations, or IREP, as well as several researchers, and that a number of large families have yet to be studied, which the WHO considers highly valuable.

He went as far as to say that it was in our national interest to retain in the Saguenay region a group like ÉCOBES and researchers coming from the medical community like Dr. Paul Bégin and Dr. Daniel Gaudet, whom I and some ministers have had the pleasure to meet.

These issues are too crucial to be debated loudly in the House of Commons; one is even tempted to whisper when addressing them. People like animals normally cry in pain when they are suffering or have something to hide. As far as we are concerned, we have every intent to see this through and to ensure that this initiative benefits every region in the country, especially one of the greatest regions of Quebec, that of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

Researchers like Dr. Bégin et Dr. Gaudet are also members of the research centre of the CHUL. They are major partners in many projects, including research on high blood pressure and neurological disorders. According to Dr. Hamet, other collaborative projects will be carried out in the areas of breast cancer, cystic fibrosis and neurodegenerative diseases. God knows how important it is to look into these diseases.

The director of research explains that, in the genetic sector, the raw material comes from our region and that structural benefits are to be foreseen.

All in all, I think it is essential that the government put some emphasis on core research. It is important in all sectors, including in the health sector.

I could obviously elaborate on that, particularly on the positive results achieved, which gave prominence to Canadian researchers who are now internationally renowned.

However, I cannot help but ask the government to pay more and more attention to a problem that has strong links with the medical and health sectors, that is poverty.

Lately, we have heard a lot about poverty and about how it is destroying Canadian families. It is important to see how the phenomenal increase in poverty is linked to health problems. Undernourished children cannot be in good health and cannot succeed in school. Fathers and mothers who do not earn decent salaries cannot feed their children properly and provide them with a minimum level of health.

That is why this is so important for this government, which has benefited from the structural measures put in place by the previous, Progressive Conservative government. Fairness is important in politic. We should recognize that each successive government normally makes a positive contribution that deserves recognition.

Through the structural measures it put into place over several years, the former Progressive Conservative government made it possible for the present government to do away with the deficit.

Free trade was the most progressive of measures at the time. It allowed us to raise our exports from $90 billion to $230 billion over five or six years. Imagine what that represents in net revenues for the government. We need only think of the GST, which will bring in $24 billion this year. I can understand them not abolishing it. I would at least ask them to make some choices for turning things around that are important to the public.

I trust that the government will be responsive to these crying needs, that it will make investment choices in areas such as poverty that will be extremely important for researchers in the health field, and this must start at the grassroots level. That means ensuring that mothers and fathers have enough money to feed their children. People are in worse health if they do not have the bare necessities.

This is why I say yes to basic research, yes to health research, yes also to a healthier population that is in better shape because it can afford the bare necessities of life. That is why I spoke yesterday about the importance of looking very seriously at inaugurating a guaranteed minimum wage. It is time we looked at that possibility, like the European Economic Community and Portugal will soon be doing.

There are dozens and dozens of programs to feed the poor. There has been a 50% increase in child poverty over the past five years. The problem is a serious one, and it is all interrelated with health research. War has been declared against poverty with a tool that strikes me as likely to be the only one that could be effective.

These are matters on which we could concentrate for hours. We are going to focus a great deal of attention on Bill C-13 as it relates to research. As a party, we have always believed in the importance of research.

[Child Poverty, November 22nd, 1999]

There has been talk for six years now of new programs to inject funds, yet the number of poor children has risen from one million to one and one-half million. Food banks are feeding 750,000 persons.

Is this not enough to get the Minister of Finance or the other ministers to act within the framework of the social union? Nobody understands the social union. The only way it could be made understandable would be to make it into a weapon in the fight against poverty.

[Child Poverty, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

The war against poverty, begun barely ten years ago, has been such a total failure that the mayors of major Canadian cities describe it as a national disaster.

Anti-poverty programs are so confusing that no one can make any sense of them any more. Is the minister giving thought to a single program in collaboration with her provincial counterparts, a single program to assist the disadvantaged, which might be called a guaranteed minimum income?

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when my colleague spoke about a dull speech that lacked substance, I am sure he was not talking about his speech but about the throne speech.

I want to congratulate him and to take this opportunity to commend him for his work on shipyards and also to point out the fact that he has the full co-operation of our party on this most important issue.

Since the member is always serious and very sensible, I would like to benefit from his expertise. I noted that he talked a lot about poverty.

Poverty is somewhat hidden because people believe it is linked to the unemployment rate, at present. One must never forget that the unemployed who are no longer eligible for EI benefits become welfare recipients, and then we lose track of them.

I think poverty has become the biggest problem in the country. A lot of people are suffering, people who work part time, people who have temporary jobs that pay very little, less than the minimum required to make a decent living.

I would like to ask my colleague, in this the international year of action to fight poverty, if he would seriously consider implementing a guaranteed minimum income program in Canada. Canada is said to be a rich country for a few people. Would the fact of being Canadian not justify having access, at a certain age, to a guaranteed minimum income to be able to meet one's basic needs, which a very large part of Canada's population cannot do?

I would like to ask him if he knows of a study on the validity of the concept of a guaranteed minimum income for all Canadians at age 18 or 21, which would allow them to get by until they can get a better paying job.

[Budget Surpluses, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to see the fruit of their labours show up on their paycheque. They are fed up working for governments.

This government promised to scrap the GST in 1993. Instead, once again this year the GST is bringing $24 billion into its coffers, on top of the benefits of free trade, on top of the accumulated surplus in the employment insurance fund, on top of the 40 income tax hikes.

The government must stop playing with numbers in order to hide major surpluses at the expense of the workers. The government is not a bank. I realize it would be asking too much for it to keep its promises about doing away with the GST.

It must, however, give Canadians back the desire to work, by leaving them with some money in their pockets as a result of lower income and other taxes. The purpose of the GST was then and is now to reduce taxes.

[Business Of The House, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I might note that the minister did not mention whether the government was going to make its medical research intentions official. This was supposed to happen this week, or on our return. Is there any news on this?

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, who, as a general rule, is one member of the government who is rational. We cannot change history. I know very well that, in any case, excessive partisanship can become morbid and prevent us from seeing things as they are.

I was here in the 1988 campaign, when all of Quebec was mobilized to get the agreement ratified. We suffered the wrath of the Liberal Party at the time. It was extremely difficult to campaign objectively then. Despite all, the results are there.

I would like the minister to tell us the economic effects of the free trade agreement since its signing, in terms of volume of export. I would also like to know what it has meant in terms of net annual revenue for the government. I do not think we consider globalization or a free trade philosophy often enough, but it produces results.