Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it was with great interest and attention that I listened to my colleague, the member for Québec.

I wish all government members had been present to hear what is going on in the health care sector, not just in Quebec, but throughout Canada. I think we have just been given an accurate picture of what is going on throughout Canada, and the member for Québec has just outlined for us the long-term needs of the provinces and of Quebec.

I would like to ask my colleague whether she thinks that this government needs to interfere so blatantly in health care with the Canada social transfer. That was what it wanted to do with the CHST, but the Government of Quebec refused to go along. I would like her to tell us about Quebec's real concerns in the health care sector.

[The Environment, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in its first red book, the Liberal Party wrote that environmental protection “will be the cornerstone of Liberal foreign policy”.

In its second Red Book, the Liberal government said it agreed “that climate change is one of today's most crucial environmental issues, posing a threat to Canada's ecological and economic well-being—The costs of inaction on climate change are too high”.

Yet the 2000 budget contains nothing more in connection with greenhouse gases than the investment of a mere $285 million over the next four years, when the Liberals ought to have invested at least $1.5 billion over five years in order to fulfil their Kyoto commitments.

Today, the Liberals are betraying their commitment and adopting a short-sighted approach. It is high time that the Liberals' red books were recycled.

[Division No. 751, February 24th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak today in the debate on report stage of Bill C-13, the short title of which is the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Act. I would like to congratulate my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for the excellence and relevance of his speech this morning.

My pleasure at being able to speak on the institutes of health research stems from my very longstanding interest in this matter. As far back as 1997, I wrote the federal Minister of Health submitting a medical research project in the area of genetics that had been prepared by a leading group of researchers in the region I represent.

At that time I asked him to examine the merit of the proposal in order to award it some funding. At that time, unfortunately, the Minister of Health informed me that there was no money.

Last June, I again wrote the Minister of Health, inviting him to take advantage of being in my region to meet a team of researchers interested in the possibility of a virtual research institute which might meet their needs.

My party and I have long been calling for a fair share of R and D investments for Quebec, and if these were to benefit my region, all the better.

I would like to conclude this overview by mentioning that last week I sent a letter to the Minister of Health in which I pointed out my disagreement with federal government cuts since 1993 in the health sector and with the longstanding unfairness in the disbursement of federal research and development funding in Quebec.

I then observed that of course we would respond favourably to an opportunity to receive our fair share of these new investments and to provincial jurisdiction over health being respected.

At this time, I also wish to thank the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for giving me a prime spot in committee during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-13.

I used the opportunity to invite two researchers from my region to appear as witnesses. Dr. Marcel Mélançon, director of Quebec's genetic and ethical research group at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, and Michel Perron, director of the ECOBES research group at the Cegep de Jonquière, which is studying the living conditions and needs of populations, pointed out that expertise in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region in the field of genetic determinants in the health of the population is very promising.

They also reminded committee members that it was important to consolidate scientific expertise in the regions and to promote the integration of researchers and interdisciplinarity. Mr. Perron said that it was essential to support the training of research graduates from the regions and that incentives were necessary to keep them in contact with regional health problems.

Mr. Mélançon testified that project evaluation should be done by peers, i.e. other scientists, and that it was essential that a single committee of experts not be given sole authority.

CIHRs should ensure that science is conducted with conscience and that it serves the public's best interests. The contribution of normative social sciences such as ethics and law should not be neglected. This is why he was saying that CIHRs should have ethics committees or even that an institute dealing exclusively with ethical issues in research would be totally justified.

It would be good if people outside the scientific community, sometimes called lay persons, could have their say, without interfering with strictly technical decisions, so that the wishes and concerns of the people can be heard and so that scientists are not isolated in their ivory tower.

My party, the Bloc Quebecois, and I have long supported the idea of reinvesting in research. The Bloc Quebecois supported the principle of the bill at second reading.

Even though we agree with the principle of the bill, it does not mean that we are willing to accept it as is. The Bloc Quebecois has proposed amendments which, if adopted, would make the bill acceptable. I truly believe in the importance of this bill and I think it is possible to amend it to make it better.

My colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, has brought forward essential amendments, which would recognize the provinces' jurisdiction in the area of health and which would subject CIHRs to a consultation process with the provinces. It is crucial that the bill be more explicit with regard to the importance of treating the regions fairly in allocating the research institutes that will be created.

I will briefly summarize the amendments brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois. Specifically, the first group of motions is comprised of 11 amendments, which clearly specify that the bill is about health research, not about a potential expansion of mandates beyond that research.

The idea is to ensure that decisions about the choices and principles underlying health networks and services to the public come under the exclusive authority of the provinces, as provided by the Constitution, which the Liberals claim to protect when in fact they are violating it through increasingly more unacceptable infringements on provincial jurisdictions.

We are simply asking that the bill allow the establishment of the institutes while respecting the division of powers.

This is why we insist on these amendments, which seek to clearly indicate that Bill C-13 is about health research. Again, it is not the establishment of institutes that poses a problem to the Bloc Quebecois, but the possibility of infringement on a provincial jurisdiction, namely health services to the public, without meaningful consultations with the provinces.

It is essential that the federal government make it clear that it has no intention of using this bill to create parallel structures and that it supports the initiatives undertaken by the provinces.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is prepared to co-operate with the federal government to amend this bill, so that it will truly serve health research while also respecting federal and provincial jurisdictions, for the benefit of the public's health, and so that the region of Jonquière, which I have the honour of representing, can benefit from it. In our region, we have top researchers who, in spite of limited funding over the years, have made their mark at the local, provincial and national level.

Therefore I call on the government to pay very close attention to the Bloc's amendments. If it does, we will be pleased to support its bill. But if the government does not do that, we will unfortunately have no choice but to oppose the bill.

[Importation Of Plutonium, February 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on January 14, the federal government secretly imported by helicopter plutonium from the United States.

Tuesday, nuclear surveillance groups tabled a legal opinion establishing that Canada had violated its own rules and that it had acted illegally.

Considering that the public is opposed to importing plutonium, what is the Minister of the Environment waiting for to demand that his government at least comply with the process it set up itself?

[Point Of Order, February 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a document in the House.

It would allow members opposite to be enlightened on Bill C-20. This is an article entitled “Ryan Condemns the Federal Initiative” that was published in the daily newspaper Le Devoir of February 22, 2000.

In this article, Mr. Ryan said: “By wanting to make the federal Parliament the judge on the clarity of the question and the referendum result, in contradiction with the prerogatives of the national assembly, the Chrétien government is violating the same principles he is claiming to defend, those of federalism and democracy”[...]

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on what the member for Charlevoix has said.

From the beginning of his speech, the parliamentary secretary has been saying that this must be broadened to include other cases in the community. Will it be possible, during clause by clause study in committee, to introduce amendments to that effect?

Will it be possible to introduce amendments to this bill so that a father caring for his son, or a son caring for his father, will have the same benefits the bill now provides for persons in a sexual relationship? We know that it is a very long while before a bill is actually passed.

Would it be possible to add new provisions to the bill at committee stage, and would the government agree to such provisions?

[Points Of Order, February 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of Bill C-20, denying Quebecers their basic rights, I would like to table a document entitled “Un court historique des unions monétaires d'États indépendants” that will certainly enlighten the House.

[Acid Rain, February 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, a study shows that Quebec's forests have been hard hit by acid rain and that the growth of deciduous trees has declined on average by 30% and that of coniferous trees by 50%.

According to this study, the soil fertilizers will be exhausted in 40 to 50 years because acid rain is destroying more than their capacity to regenerate.

Does the Minister of the Environment intend to take advantage of the negotiations on transborder pollution that began this week in order to put the heat on Ontario and the United States, which are the source of over 50% of the acid rain affecting Quebec, to reduce their emissions as quickly as possible?

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, February 16th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, in reply to the New Democratic Party member, I think it is obvious that they are entitled to the same benefits as other Canadians in similar situations.

This government will have to stop closing its eyes. It is throwing money out the window. Billions of dollars have gone missing. Communities have legitimate rights and the government is denying them those rights?

I think the government is on the decline. In life, things keep moving forward, until one day they take a turn in the opposite direction. I think that this government is completely cut off from the real concerns and needs of ordinary people.

The people of Cape Breton have needs that must be met. It is the government's fault they are in this mess.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, February 16th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for her question. I think she has clearly identified the cause and the effects.

A government that turns things upside down, that decides to withdraw from certain fields after making sure that these fields no longer meet the aspirations of the locals, is not entitled to do so. It must do so according to the conditions of the people who have been deprived of development in their region.

I have never been to Cape Breton, but I hope to go there one day. People have said to me that solutions were put to this government over the years.

Earlier, I spoke of the POWA. This program existed before. It did not suit everyone, but it was one small way this government could, with our money, with its ever diminishing open-mindedness, meet the needs of these people.

Well, no. It did not suit it any more, since it was good for the people. So it withdrew it.

This government has always acted unilaterally, pulling out once it has deprived communities of their independence.

It must meet the needs of the people of Cape Breton. It must give them a hand. It must help them. These are proud people. They love their community and want to stay there. They are very ingenious and have my full support. The government has got to have a social conscience.