Michel Gauthier

[Patent Drugs, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we are concerned to see the Minister of Foreign Affairs answer out of order and then fail to respond when questioned. Can the government, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Industry or the Minister of Finance, one of the them, respond and tell us why the people of Quebec should trust ministers of the government that guided Bill S-31 through the House, a bill which tied the hands of the Quebec Deposit and Investment Fund and curbed Quebec's growth? Why should we trust these people? We want an answer from the minister.

[Patent Drugs, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the public can see for themselves. These proceedings are televised and widely broadcasted. They know what we are getting at. We know why the Minister of Industry is nervous. He has nothing better to do than to respond by insulting Quebec's legitimate demands.

[Patent Drugs, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we gather from the Minister of Industry's response that he intends to review the legislation immediately and that is why he has made that announcement. That is what his response leads to believe.

My question is directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. You will get a chance to respond. Just hear the question, then you will get to answer it.

Reacting yesterday to remarks made by the Quebec minister of industry and commerce, Mr. Gérald Tremblay, who was outraged to see the federal government create a climate of instability detrimental to Quebec, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that, instead of getting all excited, Mr. Tremblay should have contacted him and he would have put his concerns to rest.

In light of the statements made by the minister of industry and commerce, should the Minister of Foreign Affairs not take this opportunity to make a reassuring statement in this place for all of Quebec and Quebec's pharmaceutical industry to hear?

[Pharmaceutical Industry, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's Minister of Industry and Commerce stated this morning before a parliamentary committee in Quebec City that the mere mention of a review of Bill C-91 caused the immediate postponement of a $50-million investment in Quebec's pharmaceutical industry.

Does the Minister of Finance, who is also responsible for regional development in Quebec, admit that a review of the drug-patent legislation would be disastrous for the brand-name drug industry, which is mainly concentrated in Montreal?

[Pharmaceutical Industry, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Minister of Industry, the federal government apparently wants to review the drug-patent law. This legislation extended to 20 years, need we remind you, the protection offered to patented drugs and led to the announcement that nearly $1 billion would be invested in research and development in Quebec by 1996. By the year 2000, the total value of investment projects could reach $5 billion in Canada.

Does the minister admit that it is because of pressure from lobbyists representing the interests of generic-drug companies, mainly concentrated in Toronto, that he is about to review the drug-patent legislation?

[Government Expenditures, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to write a letter to the Prime Minister. I will send him as many letters as he wants, if that is what it takes. However, I was under the impression that he had made a commitment in this House that the committees would, on his orders, proceed to review government spending as requested. Is the Prime Minister leading his members? Does he have any leadership? Can he give us some assurance that his own members will do what he said? After all, he was the one who gave us his word.

[Government Expenditures, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on April 13 last, in response to a question from my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, the Prime Minister stated, and I quote: "- I am sure that all committee chairs will be very pleased to consider all recommendations for spending cuts and that will make the hon. members very happy. I asked our party to do so, because we want our members to be involved. There is no problem, then".

Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a problem. What explanation can the Prime Minister give for the fact that Liberal members have so far disregarded his undertaking and have systematically refused to carry out a comprehensive review of government expenditures, as the Prime Minister had promised?

[Business Of The House, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, could the Government House leader please tell us what is on the agenda for the next few days?

[Social Program Reform, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand from the Prime Minister's wishy-washy answer that a moratorium has now been declared and negotiated, as his Minister of Finance indicated yesterday, between his ministers and the Quebec Minister of Finance? Has a moratorium been declared, yes or no, and is it due to the lack of preparedness on the part of his Minister of Human Resources Development who is doing a poor job?

[Social Program Reform, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister of Canada be surprised at the criticism directed at a system that only results in unemployment and misery? How can he be surprised at this?

For two weeks now, the federal government has been in total disarray over the issue of social program reform. As a result, war has been declared between the provinces and the federal government.

To top it off, we learned today that the Minister of Human Resources put on quite a show, even though he did not write the script. He said: "We did not have a document to table because, quite frankly, I still do not have one in hand. I have not presented any proposals to Cabinet or to my caucus. I am not ready to do so yet."

That is what the Minister of Human Resources said. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether the moratorium his Minister of Finance referred to yesterday and that was agreed to by his ministers and the Quebec Minister of Finance is due to the improvisation to which the Minister of Human Resources Development admittedly resorted?