House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 58% of the vote.
Health March 3rd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mississauga South for his question.
Although the specific cause of sudden infant death syndrome remains unknown, we do have some knowledge of certain risk factors. Babies who sleep on their tummies have an increased risk of SIDS compared with babies who sleep on their backs.
Last year Health Canada launched the “Back to Sleep” campaign.
In French, the theme of this awareness campaign is “Dodo sur le dos”. We recommend that infants be raised—
Supply March 2nd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for noting that if you had enforced the standing orders, you would have had to interrupt the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve earlier. Thank you for this clarification.
When the debate began the Minister of Health gave an overview of the amounts transferred to the provinces, to Quebec and the other provinces. We will not repeat all the figures he mentioned, which are public knowledge, but transfers are now up to an unprecedented high of $31 billion, if cash transfers and tax points are taken into account.
These transfers have increased by 25% in the last two years. These are substantial increases.
This morning the Minister of Health also offered to work at getting funding increased but said that the government would be working on putting new ideas together for renewing the system.
I wish to point out that this is pretty much how Mr. Landry, Quebec's minister of finance, sees things.
He said “Yes, we left $860 million sitting in a bank in Toronto. This is money transferred by the federal government. We left it in Toronto because we have to discuss in Quebec how we are going to use this money”.
Mrs. Marois, his colleague, said “I have no time to keep up with what is happening in finance. I am looking after health”. Mr. Landry said yesterday and today “This requires some thought”.
He is reiterating remarks by the Arpin commission report released last September. He is repeating thoughts of the former minister of health, Mr. Castonguay. He is reiterating the comments by Mr. Dutil, the head of the federation of general practitioners, who said it will take some thought and an attempt to find new ways to organize health care services rather than just having money thrown around here and there.
When the people of the Bloc say that Ottawa has the money and the provinces have the needs, I would like to point out that right now over $800 million intended to meet the needs of Quebec is sitting in Toronto.
What does the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve have to say to that?
Supply March 2nd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I wish to continue the discussion about health with the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
He was perhaps not here this morning, or perhaps he followed the debate from outside the House, as we all do occasionally—
Developing Young Canadian Talent February 28th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last, under the chairmanship of Ted Johnson, the board of directors of the National Theatre School of Canada located in Montreal met in Ottawa, and the members of the board met MPs on Parliament Hill.
Mr. Johnson paid particular tribute to the Minister of Canadian Heritage for her leadership in the establishment of a national program to foster the develop of young Canadian talent.
He also expressed high praise for both the current and former Ministers of Human Resources Development Canada for their role in supporting the opportunity for the next generation of talented young Canadians to train and work in their field to make valuable contributions to the development of the performing arts in Canada.
Division No. 749 February 24th, 2000
Madam Speaker, as the House is well aware, Bill C-13 was based on the recommendations of an interim governing council composed of 34 well-respected Canadians representing all fields of health research in Canada.
This interim council includes people from provincial governments, universities, hospitals, the academic community and charitable organizations in the health and private sectors, as well as researchers from all fields of health research.
The institutes work with organizations that focus on the three areas of health, health care and health research. For us, this is all interconnected, since research is what makes quality care and services possible. In general, the Canadian public and the research community have been receptive to this message and given it their strong support.
Research also provides Canada with an important opportunity to contribute to improving people's health, not only in Canada but internationally as well. That is one of our responsibilities as an industrialized and developed country. Canadian researchers in fact—and this is something to be stated with pride—are often at the leading edge of their specialties and their contributions are recognized worldwide.
It should be obvious to everyone that decision makers in the political arena need to have research data to call upon. Those of us who have to make decisions, who are in politics with the people in the various departments backing us up, need to be informed of the top research data when the time comes to make decisions on policy, regulations, or mechanisms for managing the programs for which we are responsible.
Public access to research material and reports on public health related issues is also governed by the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act.
These are acts to protect people's rights while guaranteeing public access when appropriate. Some of the amendments are, therefore, prompted by the bill itself, or by other bills ensuring the public of access to information.
As for conflict of interest issues, which are addressed by some of the proposed amendments, and matters of ethics, the health committee's report contained a recommendation to the government that application of the principles of ethics be enhanced as far as the health research institutes are concerned. Our committee recommended “that the Governing Council develop and implement appropriate conflict of interest guidelines for the agency, including the Institutes of Health Research”.
We are waiting for the government's response to this recommendation. This recommendation shows that our committee is concerned by this issue and has brought it to the government's attention.
Therefore, it is not necessary to state in the act that the governing council has the authority to develop a conflict of interest code. The federal government has already taken measures to ensure that organizations have a conflict of interest code that meets their specific needs.
The federal government's ethics counsellor will work with the president of the institutes to develop a code that meets the specific needs of the new organization. As part of this process, they will determine whether it is necessary to develop additional conflict of interest policies for all members, employees and volunteers of the institutes' committees and advisory boards.
It must be understood that these institutes are headed by a president. There is also a governing council and there are advisory boards. When developing a code of ethics on conflict of interests for the institute, it will be necessary to take into account the various levels within the organization and the positions held by those concerned.
Some of the concerns expressed earlier by opposition parties, including the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois, concern motions in both Group No. 1 and Group No. 2. Later on, when we discuss Group No. 2, we will have the opportunity to provide answers to these concerns. Some of these answers are in the form of amendments proposed by the government to meet these concerns expressed by the opposition.
The committee did a good job and its Liberal majority took good note of the most important suggestions made by the members of the opposition parties.
Division No. 749 February 24th, 2000
—but not necessarily lofty—concerns expressed by a number of members of the opposition.
Division No. 749 February 24th, 2000
Madam Speaker, health services, health care and quality research into health, are all linked in our opinion and will mean improved health care services for Canadians in general. Each poll tells us that health is the number one priority in Canada.
We decided, by transforming the existing health research structure into the institutes, to invest and to double our investments in the coming years in health and health research, and I think that the people of Canada are generally pleased with this decision.
The creation of health research institutes has been thought to address key issues of importance to the health of Canadians. It will allow greater focus for health research than existed with the previous granting council model.
Thanks to the research institutes model, which we will call virtual institutes, research will be better integrated across the entire country. The research done here in a number of fields will also be in daily contact with the best of what is being done internationally. This is the sense of the way we want to integrate these new institutes. I think the people of Canada will surely benefit.
In addition, we do not want these research institutes to be limited to theoretical research only ending up as impressive reports for a few dozen specialists. We want this research to mean specific benefits for the people, specific applications. It will not just be a matter of information circulating among highly specialized individuals, but measures, drugs and improved services arising from this research for the people of Canada.
That is our style on this side of the House. Instead of talking we are acting.
The bill also ensures collaboration with provincial governments. Our second group of amendments includes clarifications that address the loud—
Division No. 749 February 24th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
First, I want to thank the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Health to provide their input and give their strong support to this bill. This was very much appreciated.
I also want to mention the work done by opposition members who, in general, were very regular in attending committee meetings. They also made suggestions. Finally, I thank members of my own party, who also worked very hard on this issue.
A number of amendments are before us and we are currently debating the first group of these amendments. I should point out that, for us, investing in health research is the best possible preparation to ensure adequate health services in the years to come and to continue to provide such services to Canadians.
Gérald Larose February 21st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, on Friday, we saw the acrobatics of Gérald Larose, from Pro-démocratie, when he appeared before the committee on Bill C-20.
At the CSN, a union can only disaffiliate itself with the support of an absolute majority of the members paying dues, not a majority of those who vote. So, this is not the same as the famous 50% plus one rule, which they keep telling us about as if it were the only existing democratic rule.
When asked about this, Mr. Larose made the following leap of logic: a vote for Quebec sovereignty would be comparable to a union affiliation, not a disaffiliation. Separating from the Canada that we know would be equivalent to joining a renewed Canada. Therefore, 50% plus one would be enough.
Such illogical reasoning can only be based on one premise, which was stated by Mr. Larose. According to him, Quebec never joined Canada and is not part of it. The Bloc Quebecois should dissociate itself from such witnesses, who do not even recognize that Quebec is part of Canada.
When one denies reality, one can only be headed for a dead end.
Research And Development February 18th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the member for York West for her question.
I am pleased to tell the House that earlier this morning the Minister of Health announced nearly $66 million in medical research funding in Ontario at seven different universities through the Canadian Medical Research Council.
This follows the announcement made in Quebec last week concerning a $165 million federal investment, over a five year period, to support the work of 500 health researchers. Funding will double over a four year period.