Yves Rocheleau

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 635

That Bill C-3, in Clause 50, be amended by deleting lines 36 to 38 on page 54.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 273

That Bill C-3, in Clause 30, be amended by deleting lines 25 to 29 on page 25.

Motion No. 274

That Bill C-3, in Clause 30, be amended by deleting lines 30 to 40 on page 25.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-3, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting lines 12 to 24 on page 6.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-3, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 11 on page 6.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 28 to 37 on page 2.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 22 to 24 on page 2.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 10.

That Bill C-3, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 1 with the following:

“young persons should, through approaches, take reasonable steps to”

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting the title.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 20th, 2000]

No, Mr. Speaker. The reason this is one of the focuses of our criticism is that the bill provides only that the banks must give notice of a branch closure. In Quebec, if you lay off more then 10 employees, you must give notice. So there is nothing new under the sun.

In view of the need, the quasi essential role of the banks—we need banking services in our civilized society—under a sort of laissez-faire approach the banks manage this at their discretion. The situation is all the more unpleasant because this takes place in a context of huge profits, with staff being laid off all at once and services cut. So, if we put that all together, we come up with a rather unpleasant business.

We have a golden opportunity here to limit that, to make it more civilized. The law is made to civilize things a bit, but the government is missing the boat completely, because it says that the bank will simply have to give notice to those concerned, no doubt the Minister of Labour, in Quebec at least, when a branch with more than 10 employees not transferred elsewhere by the employer is involved.

So it is totally weak and rather hypocritical, because there is a problem. There are hundreds and hundreds of persons who have lost their jobs in the banking sector in Quebec, and the government is doing nothing to establish constraints to make the situation a little fairer.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I hope I am not mistaken, but when I was the critic for industry, it seems to me there was a clear difference between the situation in Canada and in Quebec as far as venture capital is concerned.

With the mechanisms we have set up in Quebec, we do not have any problem with venture capital. We have enough risk capital to finance most projects, something that would not happen in Canada.

The creation of the solidarity fund, for example, may have widened the gap even more. Since the same kind of initiative has not been taken in English-speaking Canada, differences have become even more striking, because we already have Desjardins, which is a powerful co-operative movement, whereas the credit unions in Canada are far from being as important.

The solidarity fund alone is as big as everything similar that could be found in the rest of Canada.

The venture capital problem is not the same. I do not think it is a real problem in Quebec, but, as the hon. member said, it is apparently a problem in the rest of Canada for 45% of business people.