André Harvey

[Division No. 138, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the members of our party will vote against this motion.

[The Late Marcel Dionne, May 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to pay tribute to my predecessor. Although we do not have the same political affiliation nationally, I think the fact remains that Mr. Dionne has been an efficient member of parliament.

Marcel never liked heckling and off the cuff remarks, but he would set goals for himself and usually achieve them.

What I have tried to share with Marcel for several years is first and foremost the love of our region and passionate dedication to our riding. I recall that during the 1984 election campaign a slightly negative article was written by a journalist from outside Quebec, which was somewhat unfair to our region and to the city of Chicoutimi in particular.

I remember how passionately Marcel set the record straight here in the House in order to restore the good name of our region and particularly that of our city, Chicoutimi, at the national level. He was successful because a correction was made in a national forum.

Marcel worked hard on very concrete issues like the ones mentioned a moment ago by my colleagues. The port of Grande-Anse was indeed his greatest achievement. Also the base in Bagotville benefited from his repeated representations. Goodness knows how important it is in a region like ours to look after an infrastructure such as the base in Bagotville. Otherwise its role diminishes. We must therefore continually remind the government of the value of having in Quebec a facility as strategic as this one.

On the social level Marcel was heavily involved with a team that is massively supported by the people of the region and a great source of pride to us, les Saguenéens. Then, of course, he was also the president of the Fédération des producteurs de pommes de terre. After coming to our region in 1963, he ran a potato operation which created a number of jobs and is a source of regional pride to this day.

I remember that Marcel and I had differences of opinion on occasion. I recall, for instance, that between 1981 and 1984 we did not see eye to eye about the old port of Chicoutimi where some housing was planned. We did not agree on this concept, but it was the one that eventually won out after public consultations.

He never held it against me. On several occasions he told me “I think giving the river back to the people instead of building housing in the old port was the right way to go”. He recognized that.

My most recent memories have been particularly of his courage in the face of his illness. God knows, he met the challenge with great courage and for a long time seemed to have gained the upper hand.

On behalf of my party and myself I express our most sincere condolences to his entire family.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the members of our party will vote in favour of this motion.

[The Late Bill Scott, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of serving in this House with the hon. Bill Scott, when we were both in government.

For over 28 years the former member for Victoria—Haliburton was wise in the defence of the interests of his constituents, and in recognition of his many years of service Prime Minister Mulroney elevated him to the rank of member of Her Majesty's privy council.

It is with enormous regret that we learned of his passing. On behalf of the caucus and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada I wish to express my deepest sympathy to those he leaves in mourning, especially his wife Betty and his children Guy and Laurie.

[Bosnia, April 28th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am particularly grateful to my colleague for Compton—Stanstead and my colleague for Richmond—Arthabaska for sharing time with me.

I attached a great deal of importance to taking advantage of my presence in this House to make a few comments on the renewal of our Armed Forces commitment in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

First and foremost, this was because of my respect for our young military personnel serving in the Canadian Armed Forces, of whom we are very proud. We often see them coming to our assistance when there are natural disasters. My region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean has had the opportunity to benefit from their expertise, and above all has seen their devotion, during the recent disasters, not only in my region, but also in the Greater Montreal region and in the West.

Yet, when we see them helping out their fellow human beings in other countries, Bosnia in particular in the past few years, we tend to forget them. The time has come for all MPs to try to see the armed forces in a more positive light than they have in recent years.

If you have listened to all the speeches within this debate this evening, they indicate, I believe, that by far the majority of Canadian MPs agree there is a very serious problem within our armed forces.

Unlike my colleagues who have already spoken, I have not had the opportunity to visit our military personnel on the battlefields of Bosnia-Hercegovina. However, I particularly appreciated what these members shared with us this evening.

The common thread that runs through all these remarks, all the judgments that have been made, is that we cannot keep asking our military to do the impossible. Incredible efforts are demanded of our troops as part of NATO, both at home and abroad, to help foreign countries torn apart by terrible wars. In this context, be it only for peacekeeping, everyone agrees that it takes rather extraordinary courage to agree to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces outside Canada.

I know that the committee is currently travelling across the country. Some 25 military sites will be toured by our colleagues from all the parties represented in this House. I do hope that the committee's recommendations will not be left to gather dust on a shelf.

As my hon. colleague said, morale in our armed forces is indeed at its lowest. Unfortunately, it is not in a superficial, strictly routine debate like this one today that we will be able to make any real, significant contribution to the future of the Canadian Armed Forces. All tonight's debate is good for is to take note of the fact that the government intends to renew our commitment to peacekeeping within NATO.

After a few briefings on various Canadian bases, I figure the government must have gained some awareness of the kind of recommendations and suggestions the military make to us through the Standing Committee on National Defence. I want to congratulate all my colleagues on this committee. They visited the base in Bagotville, and that was greatly appreciated.

My colleague said that the climate is very unhealthy and, as we know, there is severe attrition within the Canadian armed forces. This attrition has its causes, and I think the committee will be able to make a harsh judgement on our attitude toward the armed forces.

It is not normal to continue to require incredible efforts of our troops who have to work very hard with foreign forces that are a lot better equipped than they are. We know we have the best soldiers in the world. They have to make unlimited efforts to be on the same level as soldiers from several other countries within NATO because those people are better equipped.

Several NATO countries throughout the world have made an important choice. Here, in the House of Commons, we have always been reluctant to make that choice. This is one rare occasion where almost all political parties without exception agree that it is not normal that we do not pay more attention to the quality of life of Canadian soldiers.

The defence budget was cut by 30 to 40% in recent years. Everybody supports rationalization. However, I think that, if there is an area that deserves a lot of consideration, it is the area related to our Canadian troops, who must carry out mandates that are extremely dangerous.

Obviously, everybody agrees that the quality of our equipment is at a minimum. We all know Canadian soldiers. The major regions of this country all have military infrastructures. One must listen to what these people have to say to realize how serious a deficiency there is in this area. I do not know if it is bad purchases or if priorities are not clearly identified, but the bottom line is that our soldiers are really not equipped to be part of such international forces.

It is the same for training and for salaries. Indeed, 20%, 25%, 30% and even 40% of pilots in certain squadrons leave and go to work in the private sector, because the difference in the working conditions is simply too great. It is not that our military do not enjoy their work, but in the end the difference in the quality of life in the armed forces and in the private sector becomes too great.

I think our young military personnel have taken much abuse from the federal government—including all previous governments. The time has come to have, here in the House, a constructive discussion on how we view the important role of our armed forces and the type of contribution we are prepared to make to allow them to be among the most effective in the world. We are currently asking the impossible from our armed forces.

During the last election campaign, our party suggested—and this was one of our major commitments—the creation of a special intervention unit, an elite corps that would have integrated members of the three branches of the forces, that is between 14,000 and 16,000 troops. This might have helped us to better prepare about one quarter of Canadian troops for international missions, and for missions in our own country.

One should make a careful reading of chapters 3 and 4 of the auditor general's report. Unfortunately, I do not have time to read the main excerpts, but the report stresses that Parliament should be able to determine whether DND's resources are adequate, given Canada's defence objectives. I took a rather close look at this report, and we should listen carefully to the auditor general's recommendations, regardless of our political affiliation. Our troops are being asked to do the impossible, both at personal and operational levels. I hope that the report of the standing committee will make all of us here more grateful to our military personnel for their services.

[Judges Act, April 21st, 1998]

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

[Standing Orders And Procedure, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate to improve—and I know you personally care a lot about this issue, Mr. Speaker—the democratic process and respect for minority groups in every assembly, particularly here in the Parliament of Canada.

I did not much appreciate the comments made by the member who just spoke. He took advantage of an anecdotal situation that occurred yesterday and that involved one of our young colleagues, who is about the same age as our children. Our young colleague was making a statement, asking us to be more receptive, to pay more attention to members who do not necessarily belong to parties that are well represented here. Indeed, it must be understood that numbers, not substance, are what matters in this House.

In all assemblies, what people care about and what inspires them is ideas, not screams.

Over the years I noticed that, as a rule, it is those with the best and most inspiring ideas that we try to silence.

I do not intend to pass judgment on yesterday's incident in the House involving the member for Lac-Saint-Jean. Instead, I will try to be more open and receptive to the message from our fellow citizens, who want Parliament to be a place where the best ideas are often put forward by backbenchers or by members of small parties, and want these members to be heard.

I am pleased to sit with the hon. member for Shefford, who cares a great deal about young people, children and families. Just about all her comments in the House are aimed at improving the well-being of families that have problems.

We are here to promote our ideas. The message sent to us yesterday is that poverty is on the rise across the country. We have not even been here one year, and on two or three occasions, I had the opportunity to express my concern about the impoverishment of our society, even though economic indicators and figures may say that progress is being made. The fact is that poverty is very much on the rise.

I have risen in the House on two or three occasions to question the government with respect to the message we received from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops about the disappearance of all social infrastructures. I would have liked a debate on that. I have put this question to various government members on two or three occasions. Yet, governments are no longer doing anything to remedy the lack of support for social agencies that help the most disadvantaged.

After I lost my seat in 1993, I had the opportunity to work as a volunteer with a national organization known as the United Way. This organization does extraordinary things to help the very agencies that help the most disadvantaged. I have not had much feedback or positive reaction indicating a new awareness of this gradual disappearance and weakening of the agencies there to help the most disadvantaged, there, in fact, to help the government ensure that the poorest members of society receive a fairer share.

We are here to convey both our party policies and our personal points of view on a variety of issues. There is not a lot of leeway. Things are improving, but too slowly for my taste.

I can give an example. The Parliament of Canada is not particularly accustomed to the presence of five parties here in the House. That is too bad because, with respect to policies that are very important for the future of our country, particularly everything to do with the throne speech, the government's general policies are set out, not necessarily in any detail, but very clearly.

A party such as ours, a national party whose roots predate Confederation, has tried in vain to make it possible for its amendments to be put to a vote. It has been impossible. I think that, just because there are only 20 of us, and that will soon drop to 19, this is no reason why we should not have access to an amended parliamentary procedure allowing our amendments with respect to the throne speech to be voted on.

Sometimes, all it takes is one parliamentarian. It has happened in the past, and the history of the House of Commons shows that it is possible for one parliamentarian to push through measures that are extremely constructive and important for the future of the country. We were not given the opportunity to do so during the throne speech debate.

It happened again with the budget statement. We suggested directions we thought were interesting. I am not saying our ideas are better than those expressed by the other members of this House. All we wanted was to contribute in a constructive manner, but we were not allowed to. Because we are the fifth party in the House, we were unable to push through what we felt were very progressive measures and I will give you some examples.

It does not make sense for the government to hoard, keep in the bank, $19 billion this year in the employment insurance fund. This is absolutely crazy. At a time of high unemployment, when we need more money to invest in economic development, in SMBs or in training, the government is sitting on $19 billion. Moreover, we were unable to have the motion to drastically reduce employment insurance premiums, which are still way too high, put to a vote.

Tax cuts are another example. There is nothing like tax cuts to boost job creation or the economy. I realize that this government will argue that they had to reduce the deficit. It is always the same old song “When the Conservatives were in office—”

When we were in office, we eliminated the $16 billion current account deficit. We took structural measures like free trade, which made our exports grow from $90 billion to $215 billion. All the Liberals are doing right now is pocketing money and covering the deficit. I think a more progressive approach is required and steps should be taken.

To this end, the House of Commons must be more responsive to initiatives from the NDP and the Progressive Conservative Party. It is odd that our motions relating to major bills are not considered votable.

The same is true of committees. We have to wait weeks or months to obtain committee reports. Yet we draw inspiration from these reports when we take part in the debates in this House.

With respect to private members' business, I think we will have to take a very close look at this to ensure greater responsiveness to such measures, so that as members of the third, fourth or fifth party represented in the House of Commons, we can try to put across our ideas, which, I am sure, would help give Canadian parliamentarians a slightly more positive image.

In this spirit, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting me the privilege of expressing my views.

[The Hon. Jean J. Charest, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I need hardly tell you and the members of this House that during the last election campaign my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, never told me I would have to make a speech like this one today.

It is with a great deal of emotion that I rise to pay tribute on behalf of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party to a remarkable man and a dynamic leader, the member for Sherbrooke.

As you know, it is not easy to lose a leader and to see a friend go. We have been colleagues since 1984, when we were first elected to this place. Over the years we developed a true friendship. Incidentally I was proud to support him during the 1993 Conservative leadership race.

His political career is impressive. Regardless of the position he held, he was faithful to his friends, his voters, his party and his country. Following the 1993 election he accepted the challenge of the leadership of our party under particularly difficult circumstances.

He knows Canada and Canadians very well. A number of them discovered him during the 1995 referendum campaign. His passionate speeches not only moved people but made him the most credible spokesperson for national goodwill in Quebec, and this is still true today.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke was able to find the words to say to Quebeckers because he is like them and because of his deep convictions. During the referendum campaign he called himself the keeper of change. He talked about a modern, strong and confident Quebec.

The member for Sherbrooke enjoys such credibility is because he gave the Progressive Conservative Party a new constitution, a new platform. He reconnected it with its grassroots.

During the last election campaign we had a huge gathering in my riding of Chicoutimi. People were drawn to his message and to his genuineness.

Many Quebeckers trust the member for Sherbrooke because of his political opinions and his strong convictions. Last week he told me “I am choosing Quebec”. I understand his choice.

How could he not answer the call of Quebeckers who, I am sure, will answer the challenge he made on May 6 last year in Chicoutimi where I come from: “I invite Quebeckers to again win the heart and soul of this country, this continent they founded, explored and shaped”?

First you will become the leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec and then, I hope for us, he will become Premier of Quebec.

In choosing their premier Quebeckers make an important decision. They place their trust in someone who will defend their interests.

We know Quebec is profoundly divided and weakened. This is why I am hoping he wins for the sake of Quebec and Canada.

He proposed a partnership during the campaign where Quebec would participate rather than endure, where it would express its opinion and not just its opposition, where it would share in discussions instead of opting for confrontation. I believe in this sort of partnership. I believe in his ability to bring people together.

My colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party and I want to express our deepest gratitude for his years of indefatigable service to our party and for having put this party back on the road to recovery in these tumultuous and trying times.

I would be remiss if I failed to mention the sacrifices made by his family, his wife, confidant and constant ally and his children, Amélie, Antoine and Alexandra. I want to thank them for sharing him with us and with all Canadians.

I would especially like to thank the voters of the riding of Sherbrooke. Without them, the Progressive Conservative Party would not be here today, in which case we would have been deprived of his leadership and his vital contribution to democratic life in our country.

The member for Sherbrooke has done much for our party and we thank him for it. We thank him and his family. He has served well, and we offer him our best wishes and the best of luck.

[Highways, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in a speech last November 17 in Toronto, the minister stated that he was in favour of new major national toll-free highway projects and an examination of the potential for constructive collaboration between the federal, provincial and private sector.

I would like the minister to indicate to me if, for instance, he considers it important to upgrade the highway between the metropolitan Quebec and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean regions, as a major pilot project, thus allowing us to link two large and important regions of this country? Unfortunately, the Government of Quebec is still turning a deaf ear to any new approach.

[Highways, March 27th, 1998]

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

I know the minister is involved in drawing up a new national highways policy.

I would like the minister to confirm whether there will be a federal-provincial conference in connection with this new national policy. I would also like him to take a few seconds to indicate the importance he attaches to it.