Gilbert Normand

[Science And Technology, May 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the hon. member for his question.

Indeed, for the past 30 years, Germany and Canada have been co-operating to promote technological exchanges. During these 30 years, over 500 high tech projects were exchanged between our two countries and about 100 of them are still active in close to 14 activity sectors.

Last week, the German minister of science and myself have agreed to continue this co-operation between our two countries and celebrate its 30th anniversary in the fall.

The German minister will also be visiting Canada at the beginning of June to see what is being done in our high tech sector. The co-operation between our two countries is excellent.

[Reproductive Technologies, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I have just said: Canada's position on the ownership of genes is the same as that of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Blair.

We will not allow it to become private property, and the future international regulations will be drafted jointly with all of the G-8 countries.

[Reproductive Technologies, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's position in this sector is the same as that taken by Mr. Blair and Mr. Clinton a few months ago.

We are currently establishing our genomics research institutes. We have invested $160 million in Genome Canada and we will continue this research as a country providing at the moment the greatest support for genetics research and placing third in the world as a country. Regulations will meet international requirements.

[Research And Development, February 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in recent years, our government has invested more than $3 billion in new money in research and development.

We have created the Canada Foundation for Innovation, health research institutes, Genome Canada, and over 2,000 university chairs, and we are going to double this amount by 2010 in order to improve the quality of life and standard of living of Canadians.

The federal government cannot do this alone and that is why we are asking the private sector and provincial governments to do likewise. We are also prepared to adjust our science policy in order to allow the new investments that could bring about—

[Speech From The Throne, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for his very pertinent questions. As for his first question concerning the Canada Foundation for Innovation, this is a first because the foundation is investing not only in universities, but also in colleges. In fact, the Collège La Pocatière, located in the hon. member's riding, benefited from such subsidies, as did Cégep Lévis—Lauzon and several other cégeps in various regions.

I must also point out that one of our priorities is to demonstrate that research can be conducted in rural areas when the so-called critical mass is not indispensable to such research.

I can give the hon. member several examples of what has been done in recent months. There has been, among other initiatives, the marine science park in Rimouski, the de-icing operations in Chicoutimi, some composite materials in Sherbrooke and, just recently, the establishment of the aluminum research centre in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region.

This area is indeed a government priority. I could add that in Rouyn—Noranda there is a research program on pain and various other initiatives. So, this is indeed a government priority.

In my opinion, Quebec is getting its fair share and even more than its fair share. In recent years it has received over 30% of all the subsidies given across the country.

One must not only look at the research centres located in Ottawa to determine what is being done across the country, and particularly in Quebec, regarding research and sport subsidies.

When the granting councils and the foundation select projects, that process is conducted by experts and is not dependent on any geographical consideration. It is innovation that counts. Quebec is very innovative, and it gets its fair share.

As for employment insurance, the bill was tabled in its original form, as we said it would. It was referred to a parliamentary committee. It would have been ill-advised on the government's part not to leave it to members of parliament to propose amendments, and I am convinced that the hon. member opposite will propose amendments.

[Speech From The Throne, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating you on your appointment and by thanking all the people of the big, beautiful riding of Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet for returning me to the House. I also wish to thank the Prime Minister for his vote of confidence by appointing me to the position of Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development. This morning I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Guelph—Wellington.

As hon. members will no doubt realize, my remarks on the Speech from the Throne will provide an explanation and support of the Canadian government's programs to advance science and research in this country.

In recent years, the Canadian government has made huge efforts to develop this sector of activity and to make it possible to enhance the quality of life and standard of living of all of our citizens. Research councils, which we call funding bodies, have been put in place, such as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, created in 1978 out of the National Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, which has its roots in the Canada Council. More recently, we established the Canada Foundation for Innovation in 1998, Genome Canada in 1999 and the university chairs in 2000. In the year 2000, we also gave strong support to environmental research.

The government's intention in focusing so much effort on R and D is aimed at national and international objectives, along with what I would term security and ethical ones.

Foremost among the mandates is to keep our research scientists in Canada and not to see them leaving for other countries. As well, we want to attract foreign researchers of international repute.

Canada has set itself the policy goal of moving from 15th ranking internationally in R and D to 5th within 10 years. That is why there is a clear indication in the Speech from the Throne and in the Prime Minister's speech that the emphasis will be on innovation, research and development, and we shall be doubling the budgets devoted to this over the next ten years.

Our universities need substantial support. The Canadian Foundation for Innovation has made new funding available and this has led to agreements with the provinces and private sector for additional and increasingly innovative research in our universities. However more work remains to be done, particularly with respect to support for indirect costs.

I must also tell the House that Quebec's universities are going to need some very tangible support, particularly with the about face by Quebec's Minister of Education this week.

With respect to research being carried out in our hospitals with funding from both by the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and our granting councils, many of our hospitals have actually acquired international reputations in research. Some of this research has resulted in the development of drugs now recognized throughout the world.

There are various approaches to research in Canada. The government has its own in-house research centres, such as those in the Departments of Agriculture, Natural Resources, the Environment, and Fisheries and Oceans. All these research centres are now in the process of restructuring so as to meet the needs of industry in the various sectors concerned. The primary purpose of this research, as I mentioned, is to give citizens access to quality products, new drugs and new technologies, whether in transportation, environmental monitoring, agriculture or food.

This research is vital to our economic and social development. It is also designed to maintain Canada's credibility in the international scientific community.

We are working closely with a number of countries. In his economic statement last October, the Minister of Finance announced an additional $100 million for the Canadian Foundation for Innovation for collaborative international research projects . The Canada Foundation for Innovation, which was given that mandate, wants to establish three or four major research centres in our country, where researchers from abroad can work in co-operation with our own scientists.

The foundation also wants to set up a program to allow Canadian researchers to work abroad with researchers from other countries.

The important thing regarding our investments is that they are profitable in the sense that we have partners who come to work with us. Genome Canada, among others, was set up barely a year ago with a budget of $160 million and has already collected $240 million from the provinces, not counting the money that will come from the private sector for genetic research.

These initiatives, which we want to further develop and even double in the coming years, are not only useful but indispensable to our country's development and, as I said earlier, to improving the quality of life of our fellow citizens.

Various types of research are conducted in co-operation. For instance, for the space agency, France, Canada and the United States are co-operating regarding telescopes set up in Hawaii. This is currently giving an incredible boost to astronomical research.

Beyond the money aspect, the Canadian government will also have to concentrate on issues of safety and ethics. As people know, a lot of discussions are going on, primarily on biotechnological research. There is the whole issue of research on human embryos, on human cloning, organ culture and genetic properties. All of this must be debated and mechanisms must be put in place to do so.

Personally, I am currently working on creating what I call—but which will probably not be its final name—a national academy of sciences. Canada is the only country of the G8 without such a body, which would be independent and could provide expert opinions, which would be available to the population at large.

We are currently working to set up federal-provincial discussions on science, research and development. In the coming month, the first federal-provincial science ministers meeting will very likely be held.

At the moment, Canada's scientific influence abroad is growing with our researchers. Discussions with the Minister for International Trade are increasing. I myself, as the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development, have already had three meetings with the Carnegie group, which brings together the ministers of science of all the G-8 countries. The next meeting of this type will be held in Quebec, most likely in Montmagny itself.

The efforts that went into the throne speech for science, research and development are not only justified but indispensable. I want to congratulate my colleagues on their support and I thank them for seeing the importance of developing this sector of activity.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to qualify what the hon. member just said on the government's position on GMOs.

My colleagues from agriculture and health never said that GMOs were totally without danger. The role of the government is to protect Canadian citizens. Our protection agencies do the best they can based on the knowledge currently available.

We also know that some countries which adopted regulations on voluntary or mandatory labelling some months ago are now forced to back down because they do not have the technical and scientific means nor the necessary financial resources to implement these regulations.

I think that the whole GMO issue is being overdramatized. I do not want to stand up for GMOs as such. It is biotechnology. The role of the government is to control risks associated with GMOs as with, for example, drugs or public transportation, like planes. When the government issues a licence authorizing a plane to fly, it is clear that it cannot guarantee that that plane will never crash, but at least the risks are weighed. It is the same thing with drugs.

As for GMOs, the government is doing a great job of protecting the public. We have set up a committee of experts who will make recommendations on labelling to the government. We are also looking at what is being done in other countries.

I personally met with officials from other countries such as Australia and New Zealand, where labelling is currently impossible for scientific and financial reasons.

I ask my colleagues not to be alarmists. Yes, there may be risks, but the government is there to control them.

[Genetically Modified Organisms, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we already said that a committee of experts was set up to see if it is advisable to label GMOs.

This week, I met with Australia's chief scientist. Last year, Australia passed a law on the labelling of GMOs. He told us that the law cannot be enforced, because they do not have the scientific means and it costs too much money. We are currently looking at the issue and we will protect the public's health.

[Genetically Modified Organisms, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government has mechanisms in place to monitor food quality, which have always proven effective and which Canadians trust.

As I said, we have set up a committee of experts to prepare for the future. The government has put in place a system to regulate biotechnology, including GMOs, but the already existing system has always proven effective and we will work to improve it even more.

[Genetically Modified Organisms, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member is very appropriate.

The government has set up a committee of experts who will make recommendations precisely on how to regulate GMOs.

In its last budget, the government allocated $90 million to regulate biotechnology, including GMOs. So, the government is indeed carrying out its responsibilities regarding GMOs.