André Harvey

[Supply, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to begin by thanking my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois for his remarks. I think he touched on a number of things that are absolutely true. He said, among other things, that everyone in every sector is asking for more money. I agree with him on that. Unfortunately, the way representations are made verges on demagoguery at times and is not always truthful.

To illustrate this point, at present, there is an ad campaign across the country, including in Quebec, naturally. It has been going on for several months. This campaign deals with health care needs. Its purpose is to demand funding for health care from the Canadian government. This obviously concerns everyone. But these ads state that the federal government is putting in only 14 cents on every dollar. The truth is more like 40 cents.

The hon. member was quite right in what he said about the defence sector. There is much talk about rationalizing health care. We are told that, before reinvesting massively, it might be a good idea to go through a rationalization process, to take a closer look at how things are being managed. There are other sectors where the figures and the demands do not always match. References were made to fiscal imbalance.

With regards to the Canadian federation and the Canadian government, I think that most provinces benefit from belonging to the country. This is the case for all of the provinces; it is true for Quebec. We receive several billion dollars as a result of our investment in the federation. This is because the federal framework benefits all of the provinces, but to various degrees.

Other demands are being made. Among them, there is the issue of parental leave. There are provinces, Quebec in particular, who want money. They received it in the area of labour training. They asked to take over this area for 30 years. Five years ago, labour training was transferred. The federal government gives Quebec $600 million per year, and we receive a great many complaints.

By and large, I believe that my colleague is right when he says that we need to look into what the Canadian forces should be doing.

I would like to ask him if he is aware that our Minister of National Defence, to whom I tip my hat, is already taking part in consultations through a variety of mechanisms, including a special one on the web site? There are also consultations with a number of major stakeholders here in Canada. That is my question.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, there is just so much you can do with empty rhetoric.

I can understand why my colleague is disappointed. First, the Bloc members are disappointed because what they are proposing in their motion is already in place. It is disappointing. What is suggested in the motion can be fully implemented. They are also disappointed because they got elected in 1993 by making their constituents believe that they would have real power here.

Unfortunately, when a government is elected, it has to take its responsibilities and carry out its agenda. In fact, on the issues raised by the hon. member, significant measures have been taken. However, members cannot tell all in the House and not be consistent when they meet their constituents in their ridings.

This is a member who fights for roads and wharves. But when it came time to vote on Bill C-49 to allocate money for such projects, he voted against it.

I will just ask the following little question: his leader in the House, the member for Roberval, was correct in saying the following on March 21, 2001—not a century ago:

Of course there are rules so that the government can govern—and it is ultimately the objective pursued—but there are also rules allowing the opposition to slow down the government in its decision making process. When we feel that a decision is bad, we can slow down the government, we can make things more complicated for it, we can even question some bills on which there is no consensus, particularly when opposition parties work together and pool their resources.

With this statement, I find that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois in the House has shown absolutely impeccable judgment. I would like to ask my colleague whether he feels that his leader was right in saying that the government is elected to assume its responsibilities. I feel it has made considerable progress in improving the way it listens to the opposition parties.

Take note debates allow all members to express their views. I know that his leader called it a waste of time yesterday. I wonder if more time is not being wasted today than was wasted yesterday in the take note debate on health.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me congratulate my colleague on his speech. He is always very respectful of his colleagues who, just like him, were elected in various ridings.

I will refrain from speaking about generalities because we all know there is almost unanimity on the main motion. There is no problem since what is proposed is already being done.

So I forgive them for presenting a motion requesting something that is already being done within the Canadian Parliament, but not in all legislative assemblies.

Yesterday evening, I listened to the leader of the Bloc Quebecois on TV. He said, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the take note debate on health was a waste of time.

I think that take the note debates which have been proposed by the government, with the approval of opposition parties, are definitely good occasions to give all members of all parties the time to express their views on important issues, such as regional development, the environment, international policies or our foreign policy, all issues that we have had an opportunity to discuss.

Could my colleague explain the importance of the take note debates proposed by the government over the past few months?

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment. First I want to congratulate my colleague on his remarks. Someone who rises to express his or her views on something always deserves constructive comments. However, I understand that he may be a little upset because the Bloc Quebecois, which is normally very concerned about important issues, has proposed today a motion on which we will have an opportunity to vote. They have been told that what the motion on which we will vote is calling for already exists in the House of Commons. This is obviously very disappointing. I understand why my colleague from Trois-Rivières is upset, but even though one is upset, one must not stop being rational and objective.

Talking about referendums, there were referendums on amalgamations in Quebec. Did the PQ government respect that? They should tell us about that experience. What I would like to ask the member is if he thinks that the motion before us today is productive. What the motion is calling for already exists. Standing Orders 110 and 111 have enabled the Bloc Quebecois to invite witnesses to appear.

Second, can he tell me if parliamentary commissions in the Quebec National Assembly have as much freedom when they hold hearings on appointments that were made?

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

Personally, what I am hearing in my riding and in my region—and all of the polls confirm this—is that the vast majority of people around the world are intuitively aware that we have a common challenge, where the survival of humanity is at stake. The damages caused by climate change are worsening at an alarming pace.

I would ask my colleague from the Canadian Alliance what he thinks of the comments made by his party's environment critic, who is more and more sensitive to climate change and to disasters. In my own region, there was the flood of 1996. It cost $750 million. So, climate change does have major consequences.

His party's critic said that despite the increase in natural disasters, he had to convince his caucus. So, it was a challenge for him. He also pointed out—and this is recorded in official texts—that his party was coming out against Kyoto so aggressively because it was to their benefit politically.

I would like to ask my colleague for his perspective on the difference in position between his party and that of its critic.

[Highway Infrastructure, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is already participating in major projects in New Brunswick, and most notably with respect to the highway between Quebec City and Chicoutimi.

In the future, I wish Bloc Quebecois members would vote in favour of bills like Bill C-49, which will provide us with the money to achieve what they are asking for.

[Safety Standards, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we share my hon. colleague's concern. Naturally, the manufacturer and Transport Canada notified all owners of the seats of the threat. Steps will be taken to remedy the problem.

[Transportation, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows very well that when it comes to the enormous environmental challenges before us, every alternative scenario will be considered over the coming months. The government will be tabling a report on this issue.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his commitment to a most important challenge for the future of our country, since it concerns first nations.

In Quebec, particularly in the eastern part, on the North Shore and in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, negotiations on what is called the “approche commune” or common approach are going on right now. These negotiations have raised many concerns, and I think that improvements should be made with regard to both communications and content.

I would like to ask the minister what steps will be taken over the next few months so we will have a better understanding of what is at stake?

[Marc Gagnon, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to honour an exceptional Canadian athlete who, last week, announced his retirement from the national speed skating team.

Marc Gagnon, who is from Chicoutimi, thrilled Canadians at the Salt Lake City Olympic Games when he won several medals, including the gold in the 500 metre race and in the men's relay. Marc has won more medals at the winter games than anyone else in Canada's history.

During his ten years as a member of the national speed skating team, Marc Gagnon has won four gold and two silver medals at world championships. Marc has been a leader on our prestigious short track national team.

On behalf of all Canadians, I thank Marc for his contribution to Canada's success at the international level and I wish him a great deal of success in his future endeavours.