Réal Ménard

[Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois calls for the Quebec appeal court's judgment to be respected in its entirety.

[Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas is asking, through the Chair, a question that is almost a subtle one. He is asking what the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques think of this.

First, I believe this House will want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, who is such a hard worker. He is a social democrat who believes in the redistribution of wealth.

I agree, however, with the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas that there must be debate within political parties. It is normal and I understand that. I remember the NDP's debate on Bill C-20. Perhaps the member for Burnaby—Douglas will want to speak to us about that, as he was the only one to vote in favour of the rights of Quebec in that file.

So debate within political parties is normal. I would point out that debate within our party is vigorous. We understand that the best way to counteract one idea, in a democracy, is to come up with a better one. I have great hopes that the proposals I made to the Standing Committee on Health may one day be received with enthusiasm by all members of this House.

The question of drug costs is extremely important, and the Bloc Quebecois will continue to address it very specifically.

I would like to address the matter of parental leave. It will represent a test of the truth for the Quebec Liberal caucus. On the one hand, since 1997 and even before, the previous government, the Parti Quebecois government—one of the best to have ever sat on the government side—was prepared to improve the parental leave program so that working parents could be away from their job for one year at 70% of salary.

The federal government refused to make the necessary funds available from the EI fund. Now the appeal court is supporting this, by finding that the amendments proposed to the Employment Insurance Act in 1942 did not allow it to be amended to include parental leave.

I hope that the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry will join with the Bloc Quebecois in recognizing in this House that funds must be transferred to Quebec in order to set up an improved parental leave program. It is a matter of justice and social progress. This has dragged on and on. A good thing that the Bloc Quebecois has been here to defend the interests of Quebec.

[Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply, February 16th, 2004]

And we will have to think about the Patent Act. My colleague from Burnaby—Douglas is saying, “And patents”.

I strongly support a review. of patents. This does not mean, as some neo-Bolsheviks are proposing, eliminating all forms of intellectual property. I do not believe that this is the direction we will go in. Intellectual property must continue to exist.

However, I am not afraid to recognize in this House that innovative pharmaceutical companies have abused patents and obtained a new patent from the commissioner of patents, despite the fact that there have been very few therapeutic innovations. This is extremely worrying.

All these mechanisms must be reviewed and, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I moved four motions. I would be quite disappointed if hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas has not read them. I will review them for him.

Here is the first proposal from the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve: review the role of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Does anyone really think that the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has no control whatsoever over the price of generic drugs, which cost 30% more in Canada than in the United States?

I would remind the member for Burnaby—Douglas, who is approaching his fifties, that the second proposal from the Bloc Quebecois is to tighten the rules with regard to drug advertising. He himself wisely warned the Standing Committee on Health about this. He brought the journal of the Canadian Cancer Society and eloquently demonstrated to us that even though it is prohibited under the Food and Drugs Act, there is advertising that refers specifically to various drugs or pathologies.

There is a third proposal. Yes, we want to have better control over generic drug prices and we want to look at advertising, but the most important proposal—a stroke of genius on my part—is that we must ensure that clinical monographs submitted by pharmaceutical companies deal with products that are truly innovative.

It is unacceptable that companies use patents to extend their intellectual property rights. That does not mean, as some members suggest, that intellectual property should not exist. If marketing a new drug costs $800 million or $900 million, it is normal that companies get a return on their investment.

What is not normal though, and the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board looked at this reality, is that a company can apply for two, three or four patents for the same drug, when there is absolutely no difference from a therapeutic point of view. This is what we should look at. The Bloc Quebecois proposed that Health Canada be provided with new tools to conduct more in-depth studies of the clinical monographs that are submitted. I hope I will have the support of the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

When a patent is issued, it is very important to ensure that the period of time will not be unduly extended and that Canadians will not be prevented from having access to a cheaper drug.

[Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will therefore share my time with the hon. member for Drummond.

There is something of a paradox with the throne speech. With the House not sitting since November, we are finally able to see where the government is going.

I was very glad to have the opportunity earlier today to put questions to the health minister, to whom I wish good luck in his new duties.

We now realize that the Liberal government wants to use the health issue to do some “nation building” and to become more centralizing than ever. What the federal government has put forward is quite a paradox.

Following a suggestion made by the Bloc Quebecois and supported by the NDP, the Standing Committee on Health travelled throughout Canada these last few months to consider the issue of drug costs.

We found out that there is a huge problem with on-line drugstores. U.S. citizens are buying drugs in Canada.The problem is particularly serious in Manitoba.

Consequently, there are Americans who manage to buy drugs without a prescription. Without a prescription, people can buy drugs, which are exported under mechanisms established by online drugstores.

The federal government wants to establish a Canadian public health agency, although it is not responsible for public health. It did not, however, intervene to counter Internet or online drugstores, which threaten our drug supply in Canada and Quebec.

For example, I was talking to one of my friends who works for the Centre québécois de coordination sur le sida or CQCS. She told me that pharmaceutical companies—such as Pfizer, to name just one—threatened to impose drug quotas, because obviously they are unhappy that Canada is selling drugs to the United States, when the Americans sell those same drugs for more money.

On the one hand, the government did not intervene with regard to Internet drug sales although it is responsible for drug exports, but it is proposing to intervene in areas not under its jurisdiction by establishing a Canadian public health agency and a Canada health council.

Earlier, I was listening to the Minister of Health say that this was not something we should be concerned about. I want to voice my disagreement. Drug costs will be the number one issue facing Quebeckers and Canadians over the next few years.

[Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for the consent of the House to share my time with my hon. colleague from Drummond. Each of us would have 10 minutes to speak.

[Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want the Minister of Health to state clearly in this House that there is no question of implying that our sovereignty plan is dividing Quebeckers and does not respect the anglophone or francophone communities.

I would like him to explain the following. How can he, on the one hand, say that there is room for negotiations and, on the other hand, appeal the ruling on parental leave? Does he recognize that this has been going on since 1998? Will he be a bit more aggressive, vocal and active in cabinet? This matter has remained unresolved for far too long.

[Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to question the Minister of Health. I wish him the best of luck.

I have two questions for him. As a Quebecker who is deeply attached to Quebec, something I do not question, is he not a little worried about his government using health for nation building? Does he not remember the Quebec intergovernmental affairs minister saying he was concerned about the creation of a Canadian public health agency when there is a Quebec public health agency? Quebec only has observer status at the Canadian health council because it already has its own health council.

My first question for the Minister of Health is the following. Can he give us assurances that he will not be part of this movement using health for nation building? Second, does he not believe that it is contradictory of his government to appeal parental leave when the minister says his government wants to negotiate, and can he promise that Quebec will be given what it is entitled to, by being allowed to develop a truly integrated parental leave system without an appeal?

[Final Offer Arbitration in Respect of West Coast Ports Operations Act, February 16th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment as Assistant Deputy Chair. I remember a trip we took together to Saskatoon, in your riding. I was able to appreciate how much you were recognized by your peers for your work as a member of Parliament. I know that you come from the West and that you have been a member of the Standing Committee on Health. Perhaps your riding does not include Saskatoon, but I remember that we travelled together and that we were in Saskatoon. I have happy memories of that trip.

Unfortunately, we cannot support the bill introduced by the Conservative Party's labour critic. It looks to us like a bill that would downplay the role of collective bargaining so necessary in a labour dispute. I think that, if there is any urgent concern before this House with respect to labour relations, it is not to take the right to strike away from the workers. In fact, if the bill were adopted, it could have consequences as extreme as denying the right to strike to workers in west coast ports, and going straight to arbitration, in a nearly mandatory way. I will come back to this point.

With respect to arbitration, we must be extremely careful, because it may induce a bias toward one party or the other. Perhaps mandatory arbitration is, in the final analysis, something desirable, and can be useful if there are only one or two matters at issue, for example, salaries or such things. Still, systematically resorting to it and depriving west coast port workers of the right to free negotiation of their working conditions is not a step the Bloc Quebecois is ready to take.

I represent a riding in Montreal, which lies along the river, and the port of Montreal is in my riding. It is clear that very significant economic activity takes place in the port of Montreal, as in all ports. Today we recognize one of the major factors in competitive advantage is the concept of just in time. In the transportation sector, the hon. member is correct in saying that there is a particular sensitivity for the whole sector of ports, railways and trucking. Obviously, since Canada is a continental country, the axes of communication are very important.

However, does this mean that we should sacrifice a principle that has basically produced good results? We must let the two sides negotiate. Sometimes, When negotiations break down, a group must be allowed to exercise its right to strike. What is important is that the whole process be defined.

When I talk about the right to strike, I cannot help but think about Quebec's model. Madam Speaker, I do not know whether you have had opportunities to come to Quebec. Allow me to reiterate my invitation to come to Montreal, in the riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. There is no doubt that your presence would not go unnoticed. You are always welcome, and I know how enjoyable your company can be.

The fact is that, in Quebec, limits have been set regarding labour relations. In 1977, the excellent government of the Parti Quebecois took significant steps in the area of labour relations. Unless I am mistaken, it was former premier Pierre-Marc Johnson, who was the Minister of Labour at the time. The Quebec government passed anti-scab legislation because, at some point in time, going on strike may become a necessity for an organization. It is always an ultimate recourse. No one wishes to go on strike. This is why the first part of the Labour Code includes mediation, conciliation and arbitration as alternatives. Ultimately, when advance notice is given and the two sides come to the conclusion that, unfortunately, they will not be able to settle their differences, then the right to strike can be exercised.

Exercising that right is an ultimate recourse that carries consequences. These consequences affect primarily the workers, who are not getting paid, their families of course, the employer and, in some cases, the consumers.

However, we are not prepared to sacrifice the right to strike, which is a democratic recourse. The battle that all parliamentarians in this House should wage is the one for anti-scab legislation. That is what the hon. member for Laurentides asked us to do in October, with her bill, which provided a litmus test when parliamentarians voted on it.

Imagine how different things would be in labour relations if the Canada Labour Code included provisions regulating the right to strike and, more importantly, prohibiting the use of scabs. I remember that, shortly after we were elected in 1993, we had to vote on back to work legislation. When ports are affected by a strike and scabs are called in, it is very detrimental to labour relations and it leads to violence.

In this regard, our NDP colleagues righted a historic wrong. In the 1990s, when the hon. member for Richelieu had introduced a bill asking the government to include anti-scab provisions in the code, our NDP colleagues were not there to support the Bloc Quebecois. And because they were not there, we have been deprived of anti-scab provisions for a decade, longer in fact since there are still no such provisions.

The NDP righted its wrong, but this is proof of the essential role of the Bloc Quebecois in this House. If there is any battle that parliamentarians should fight, it is not that of depriving workers on the west coast of their democratic rights, such as the right to strike under specific conditions, but rather that of implementing anti-scab provisions to provide a framework of civility and a benchmark for the exercise of a democratic right which, without a framework, can result in abuses that no one wants.

For all these reasons, unfortunately, we will not be able to support our colleague's bill. He is a sensitive man. He has often shown his sensitivity here in the House, and it adds to his charm. However, I invite him to consider the consequences of mandatory final offer arbitration, which means supporting the claims of one party or the other. That is what the bill says. It says that, should arbitration be necessary, the arbitrator will select the offer of one party or the other. Consequently, it is not a matter of negotiations or balance or compromise, but favouring one party at the expense of the other.

Unfortunately, this bill does not provide balance. For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois, which is a balanced party that has always had a favourable bias toward the workers, cannot support a bill that, in many respects, threatens industrial and harbour peace in Canada.

[The Acadians, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is with an attitude of solemnity and respect for history that I take part in this debate initiated by our colleague, the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes. I realize this is the fourth time this matter is brought before the House, but I am convinced that the hon. member introduced this motion because he wanted us to remember the important contribution of Acadians to the French reality in North America. He has no vengeful intention of any kind, nor does he have a negative or even pessimistic purpose.

I know for a fact that the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes has spoken with Acadians many times and that he has seen first hand how dynamic a community they form and how much faith in the future that nation has.

However, that potential for optimism must not keep us from understanding the considerable importance of the deportation, the Great Upheaval, the historical event which took place from 1755 to 1763.

Of course, I do not know as well as the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes the events that lead to the deportation, but I have found part of the edict, order or proclamation by which individual citizens and entire communities were deported from what used to be known as Acadia in the 18th century, that is, the whole region of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

I would like to get into that to provide a clear understanding of what those experiencing this event must have gone through.

John Winslow read the deportation order in the little church in the village of Grand-Pré.

In those days, churches played a key role in rallying the community, a tradition that remained for some time.

So, here we are in September 1755. The Acadian community receives a message. These are francophones, people with roots, with a history, with a love for the area. They have announced to them by John Winslow, on behalf of George II, the following words on that September 5, 1755:

I have received from His Excellency, Governor Lawrence, the instructions of the King. It is by these orders that you are assembled in order to hear the final resolution of His Majesty concerning the French inhabitants of this province of Nova Scotia... It is ordered that your lands and tenements, cattle of all kinds and livestock of all sorts, be forfeited to the British Crown, along with all other effects, saving your money and household goods and you, yourselves, be removed from this Province... The peremptory orders of His Majesty are that all the inhabitants of this district be deported—

Imagine an entire community, a founding community moreover, at this midpoint in the 18th century, being uprooted and having to rebuild their lives. That community was to be scattered to all four corners of the empire, and not always in the most kindly of ways, often even with the potential of violence and suffering, to say the least. This was to be recounted in the many writings and historical accounts of this phenomenon.

The hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes has been wise, in my opinion, to call upon parliamentarians to remember this event, out of respect for history and for the sake of the future of this community.

In recent years, there has been a movement afoot to rehabilitate historical memory. Was it not here, in this very House, that former Prime Minister Mulroney presented an apology, on behalf of his government and the people of Canada, to the Japanese Canadian community. They had, as we know, been unjustly imprisoned in concentration camps during World War II?

And did His Holiness Pope John Paul II not also present an apology on behalf of the church and the state, out of respect for history? We know that, under the Lateran treaties, the Vatican is a state, just as Canada is, just like any of the 200 states around the world. His Holiness apologized to the Jewish people for the cruel treatment they had suffered throughout history, especially in the 20th century.

Closer to home, former Premier Bouchard presented, on behalf of his government and of the people of Quebec, an apology to the Duplessis orphans who were mistreated in the orphanages of Quebec in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.

And so, the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes was extremely wise to want to restore the memory of history. I understand that one reason behind his motion is to say how much the French fact—the presence of the Acadians in this part of North America that is now New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island—is something that deserves to be commemorated. He wants to invite us to understand that.

Just imagine what it means for their survival that they are still present among us, with energy, with confidence, with entrepreneurship and, indeed, having made a truly extraordinary contribution to building the Francophonie and helping it expand its influence.

The member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes had two objectives. History sometimes casts a cruel light on the past, which nonetheless is important for understanding the future. As we know, in our constitutional history, two Crowns have ruled over Canada. There was the French Crown, New France, from the discovery of the Americas to the proclamation of 1760, and the British Crown, of course, through to the Statute of Westminster. We now know that the British Crown schemed, gave orders and committed acts in order to make deportation possible.

A Jesuit once said that a text taken out of context becomes a pretext. Our colleague from the Conservative Party of Canada was right to remind the House that history cannot be rewritten. It is certainly not the purpose of the motion from the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes to rewrite, reinterpret or change history.

The motion calls on us to recognize the troubled past of the Acadian community that resulted from British Crown policies, because we are grateful to be part of this French reality in North America. I could quote John Kennedy, who said about Canada and the United States, “Geography made us neighbours, history made us friends”. Tonight, I think the people of Quebec could say to Acadians that geography made us neighbours, and history made us friends.

The member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes is attached, as are we, to the French fact in North America, its past and its future, and that is why he has introduced this motion before us this evening on four different occasions.

I understand that the purpose of his motion is not to demand an apology in a spirit of revenge and negativity. I believe his actions echo the feelings of a number of his, and our, Acadian compatriots, who will be marking two major events in coming months and weeks. I am, of course, thinking of the 400th anniversary of the founding of Acadia and the 250th anniversary of the deportation of the Acadians, in September 2005, if I remember correctly.

The hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes would like to receive Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on this occasion. I think it would be impossible for her not to understand the point of this motion, since she must surely have a sense of history, as a member of the House of Windsor, a family that has made a great contribution to history.

The hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes wants Her Majesty, who should be coming to Canada for one of these events, to read the royal proclamation as a symbolic and positive gesture. The Crown of Canada recognizes the ill treatment and upheavals inflicted on the Acadian people. Unfortunately, our work will not be completely done until we truly understand what happened.

If, in a genuine gesture of reconciliation, which has involved various government leaders at various times, Her Majesty would agree to read the proclamation, we would come to realize that she shares the suffering inflicted upon the Acadian people, a forward looking and highly vibrant community in whose future we truly believe.

This is what the motion put forward by the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes is all about. To conclude, I think all members of Parliament should commend him for his interest in history, his sense of fairness and his incredible support for French-speaking communities throughout North America.

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 10th, 2004]

The minister has some good qualities. I do not want anyone in this House to think that she does not have any good qualities. For instance, she is even-tempered. She is always very polite and takes the time to say hello. However, this remarkable woman has chosen to focus her energy as a politician on “nation building”, and that is something we just cannot agree on.

I was told that, when she was a university professor, her exams were tough, but she had a great sense of fair play, which is a credit to her.

That being said, I do hope members realize that if the bill on assisted human reproduction comes back to this House, we will not be able to support it. That would be out of the question.

I would ask for unanimous consent to give five minutes for the minister to comment on what I have just said.