Pierre De Savoye

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, December 14th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, this is totally unbelievable. How could the Liberal members, English speaking Canadians for the most part who do not read Quebec's French newspapers, who do not watch Quebec's French television or listen to Quebec's French radio stations, manage to understand the question better than the people who live in Quebec, who watch television every day, read the papers, listen to the radio and have followed this debate for many generations now?

How can the people in the rest of Canada have the gall to believe that they are smarter than the average Quebecer and are in a better position to interpret and understand the meaning of a question?

Do they consider the people of Quebec to be idiots who are unable to understand the meaning of a question? Should we have to answer on the ballot the question “Do you understand the question you have just answered, yes or no?”

This is exactly what the people across the way want us to do. After the referendum, they are going to try to determine if the average Quebecer knew what he or she was doing when answering the question. Do they think we are stupid or what?

They should think it over for a moment. This is not a clarity bill, it is a bad faith bill, and I would like the Reform member to tell us how she reacts to the fact that this bill makes me feel isolated from the rest of Canada.

[Points Of Order, December 14th, 1999]

In my case, I have here an excerpt from the referendum act of Nebraska, in the United States. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table this document.

[Points Of Order, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, as a question of privilege, I would like to point out that before asking if there is unanimous consent of the House, it would be important for the House to hear the member who is seeking such consent explain what he or she is asking for exactly.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have a very brief question to ask and, since the NDP member is very familiar with this issue, I am sure she will be able to give me an answer.

We know that the treaty which is about to be ratified has gone through a long negotiation process carried out even before a referendum was held. Can the hon. member answer the following? How did the Nisga'a people, for whom I am very happy to see that this treaty is about to come true, manage to be better treated that the people of Quebec?

[Points Of Order, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have here a background document on the main events that led to the federal government's appropriation of provincial jurisdictions since 1882. I would like to table this document. Do I have unanimous consent to do so? .

[Canadian Heritage, December 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have learned that André Juneau, of the National Battlefields Commission, received compensation from that organization for a donation he made to the Liberal Party of Canada at a fundraising cocktail.

In an attempt to defend himself, he said that he was not the only one to have done so, and that he was not worried about the morality of spending taxpayers' dollars this way.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us whether she intends to put a stop to this unacceptable practice for once and for all, or must we continue to bring all the cases to light one by one?

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, December 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, there are bills that are introduced in the House the purpose and even the necessity of which is easy for all to see. With other bills, we have reservations on a few points or even fundamental differences, but at least we can understand their purpose and significance. In this case it is exactly the opposite. Let me explain. It is easy to understand.

This bill is based on the first four paragraphs of the preamble. I will go through them, and members will see that, as a matter of fact, it is based on next to nothing.

I will explain. Here is the first paragraph in French:

—que l'industrie touristique canadienne est essentielle à l'identité et à l'intégrité sociale et culturelle du Canada;

Did members get that? The tourism industry is vital to the Canadian identity. What happens if the tourist industry disappears? Will the Canadian identity disappear too? Should we infer that it could not survive? This is not a mistranslation. I checked the English version, because I suspected a mistranslation. I could not believe anybody could write that the tourism industry was vital to Canadian unity, so I checked the English version. Here it is:

Whereas the Canadian tourism industry is vital to the social and cultural identity and integrity of Canada

Without the tourism industry, will the social and cultural identity and the integrity of Canada disappear? Come on. This does not seem very serious. I cannot believe that it is so fragile and so dependent on foreign visitors. In other words, if foreigners do not come to see us, Canada no longer has a cultural identity and social integrity.

Hon. members will admit that whoever wrote this probably had a bad night and was somewhat out of his or her mind. It is unthinkable to find a whereas as hare-brained as this one, if I can put it that way, at the beginning of the bill. Let us get serious.

I looked at the second whereas, absolutely convinced that I would now find something substantial. This is what it is said:

Whereas the Canadian tourism industry makes an essential contribution to the economic well-being of Canadians and to the economic objectives of the Government of Canada;

This is true, but not only of the tourism industry. Does this mean that we have to create a Canadian commission for every industry that makes a major contribution to the economic well-being of Canadians and to the economic objectives of the Government of Canada?

That is what the whereas is all about. It is one of the reasons this bill is before us. If this is so important for the tourist industry, would it not be equally important for any other? I have to say that I do not believe we could name a single industry that did not make a vital contribution to the economic well-being of the people who derive their livelihood from it, the people of Canada or of Quebec.

Let hon. members name one industry that we could do without because it has no importance. I agree the importance of some may be relative, but the importance of tourism is certainly considerable. Yet how many more are also of great importance to the economic well-being of ordinary people? Are we to have a commission for each?

That is the second whereas in the preamble, and hon. members will agree with me that it is pretty weak. It could apply to anything at all, not just the tourist industry in particular. Who in heaven's name wrote this? Who is the one that had this brilliant idea? It makes no sense.

Perhaps the third whereas will offer us some clarification and will show us that this bill is really a serious one, that there are really pressing reasons for it to be passed.

It reads as follows:

Whereas the Canadian tourism industry consists of mainly small and medium-sized businesses that are essential to Canada's goals for entrepreneurial development and job creation;

Most jobs in Canada and in Quebec are in small and medium sized business, not just those in tourism. For instance, neighbourhood convenience stores are important. Are they going to create a Canadian convenience store commission? How about getting serious here. This third pillar is being presented as a fundamental argument in support of the bill. This pillar is just as far off as the first two.

Only one pillar is left, now—the fourth one. Let us examine it.

Whereas it is desirable to strengthen Canada's commitment to Canadian tourism [—]

Whereas it is desirable to strengthen Canada's commitment? Is it really desirable to do so? This is an unwarranted affirmation; or I am missing something.

I have looked. Perhaps it was explained on the preceding page why it was desirable; perhaps. But there is no explanation to be found in the recommendation or in the summary. Who said it was desirable to strengthen Canada's commitment to Canadian tourism? Who made this statement? Where does it come from? Can anyone explain why?

I do not want anyone to get me wrong. I think tourism is an important industry in the economic fabric of Canada and Quebec, and in my own riding I am an ardent proponent of tourism. As a matter of fact, money spent promoting tourism produces the biggest, and the fastest, bang for the buck. And, in my riding, investments in this sector have paid off handsomely.

But does it necessarily follow that it is desirable to strengthen Canada's commitment? If Canada wants to use my tax dollars and those of the average Canadian to help the tourism industry, it does not need to establish a commission. It seems to me this is only common sense.

This bill rests on four pillars; four extremely fragile pillars that make no sense. I do not know who wrote these four “whereases”. Obviously, the person did not examine the matter seriously. It does not come across as serious; neither I nor anyone else is convinced.

But there is one thing in the bill that struck me—the fact that there will be a board of directors. And that, to all intents and purposes, the directors will be appointed by the Prime Minister.

Then I began to see the light. The four pillars just mentioned, the four “whereases”, are not the important thing here. The important thing is those 16 persons who will be appointed to the board of directors. That is the important issue.

Let us get serious. The tourist industry has been developing quite well for a long time now both in Quebec and in Canada. Quebec has created institutions, developed tools. Municipalities, urban communities and agencies have all worked hard to promote the tourist industry.

If the federal government, with our tax money, wants to support the tourist industry, I am all for it. But if the federal government wants to do some window dressing just to reward its friends, then I have to be against it. Tourism is much more than that; it is more important, much more important than this useless creature.

This bill insults our intelligence; it is an insult to taxpayers and to all Canadians and Quebecers. This bill should never have been introduced. It should never have been drafted. It should be withdrawn.

I will of course vote against it; I know all my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois will do the same and I encourage all members in this House to vote against it. I see my time is up. I thank all members for their attention and I hope they will agree with what I said.

[Liberal Party Of Canada, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend, at the biennial Liberal Party of Canada convention in Hull, members representing all regions of Quebec rejected all the proposals calling on the federal government to take a hard line against Quebec.

Despite these calls for moderation from his own membership, the Prime Minister continued his barely veiled threats against democracy in Quebec. The province has never given in to this sort of blackmail. Once again, Quebec will not bow to the undemocratic threats of the federal government.

Rather than pushing ahead plan B every way they can, the Prime Minister and his professor minister should come up with a true constitutional vision. In fact, according to a survey commissioned by the Privy Council, 52% of respondents consider that, since the 1995 referendum, the Government of Canada has shown no clear indication of goodwill.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 25th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this afternoon to speak to Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and to repeal the Medical Research Council Act.

The part of the bill dealing with the objective clearly states:

The objective of the CIHR is to excel, according to internationally accepted standards of scientific excellence, in the creation of new knowledge and its translation into improved health for Canadians, more effective health services and products and a strengthened Canadian health care system—

I read through the bill quickly. It will warrant further scrutiny. I realize that its intent is good, but we have a lot of work ahead of us. That is normal. We are at the second reading stage and we have to debate the bill for a number of hours. Then, in committee, we will hear the views of individuals, groups or organizations concerned. That represents a lot of work.

It means that it is important to stress now, for the benefit of those who are watching and take an interest in this issue, the good points and those we see as more problematical, so that the organizations and the individuals who feel they can shed some light on our examination can do so in due course.

Scientific research is something at which Canadian and Quebecers excel. We have world class researchers, particularly in the health field.

I too am from a Quebec City area riding. There are world class research institutes and pharmaceutical research centres in our area. They have made discoveries and they are keeping on their good work. They can hold their heads just as high as anyone else.

At the same time, if we want to maintain this level of performance among our scientists, our researchers and our research institutes, we have to give them the resources they need. Often, it is money they need. Research is expensive.

It is expensive because researchers need well equipped laboratories. It is expensive, also, because the scientists who do this research deserve a decent salary; otherwise, they will go elsewhere to get it.

Let us be perfectly clear. These researchers, these Canadian and Quebec scientists, were born here. They studied here. They have were trained here first. Then, many of them have gone abroad to get greater skills and broader knowledge. They now work here and they accomplish a lot. If we want this to continue, we have to take certain steps.

The purpose of this bill is to establish measures dealing with some of these points, including funding, but not only funding. But I will come back to that later on.

The Bloc Quebecois agrees with the principle of the bill and even feels a certain degree of enthusiasm, seeing that this bill will support the advancement of scientific research in the area of health—and we certainly know how important it is.

However, there are some problems with this bill. For example, it is unfortunate that, in the preamble, instead of recognizing the provinces' exclusive jurisdiction over health, the government only recognizes the fact that they have some role to play in that area.

Health is exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. If we are to have a bill to improve scientific research, we certainly should make an effort to eliminate jurisdictional irritants.

This bill should not open the door to any potential jurisdictional conflicts because scientific research is far removed from all these jurisdictional issues.

In fact, the second whereas in the preamble to this bill, unfortunately, reads as follows:

Whereas Parliament recognizes the role of the provinces in health care and that the Government of Canada collaborates with provincial governments to support the health care system and health research;

This is a weak statement. It minimizes the inherent responsibility of the provinces, including Quebec, with regard to health. It should have been specified—and I hope an amendment will be made to that effect—that the provinces are responsible for managing health services within their boundaries and that it is necessary to obtain their agreement to do certain things.

I want to make a general comment that has obvious implications in our daily lives and particularly in hospitals.

Health research is not only about finding new drugs; it is not only about inventing new treatments or about designing new medical devices. It is also about planning for future needs in terms of personnel, institutions, skills, facilities in order to be able to take care of the people who will need medical attention in the coming weeks and years.

At present, in Quebec—and I am mentioning this only as an example—we have a problem with oncologists. There are not enough of them, but it takes six years to train one. Consequently, it is six years ago that we should have addressed the issue but, as we know, the shift to ambulatory care had been put on hold by the Liberal government of the day in Quebec, forcing Mr. Rochon to proceed with it, with all the delays that implies.

Health research is also, therefore, about knowing how to determine future needs. And since health is a provincial responsibility, if this bill does not recognize it, we will experience this kind of problem again. I know that everybody wishes this problem to be solved. This bill should ensure that.

I should like to make another comment that is relatively simple, but that is important. Bills are written in both official languages, French and English. And both versions have force of law, independently of one another.

Now, when the two versions are not equivalent, we have two acts that are interpreted, not one by the other, but independently of one another. In the French version, at line 10 of the preamble, we read the word “centralisé”, and I will read the whole sentence to give you the context.

Attendu que le Parlement estime que des Instituts de recherche en santé doivent être créés en vue de coordonner, de centraliser et d'intégrer la recherche en matière de santé selon les principes suivants:

Co-ordinating health research is fine; nobody is against that. Integrate health research is also fine. But to centralize health research? The English version of the bill says focus, but the French version says centraliser. But, we must ask, centralize it where?

When I saw that, I thought it made no sense at all. Then I looked at the English version, which says:

Whereas parliament believes that health research institutes should be created to co-ordinate, focus and integrate health research.

Centraliser does not mean to focus. The English version says that the research effort will be focused on chosen subject matters, whereas the French version says research will be centralized. To centralize means to physically gather in one place. This is bad translation; we end up with two different pieces of legislation.

There is lots of work to be done before this bill can actually produce the expected results and before we can be sure that our first class scientists have all the necessary tools to do their job, because we really need those results, as the issue here is our health.

[National Capital Act, November 25th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-346, an act to amend the National Capital Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts (federal capital).

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill I am introducing today is to amend the wording in legislation referring to the national capital to read federal capital.

We are in a federal parliament here. We are federal members of parliament, the legislation we pass is federal and will be applied by federal departments and financed by federal income tax, which everyone pays. It is both natural and obvious for a parliament as federal as ours is to sit in a capital that is of necessity federal.

Moreover, my colleague from Quebec, who supports me in this bill, commented to me that the Americans call Washington their federal capital. Let us make things the way they always ought to have been. I am convinced that everyone will be happier as a result.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)