Yves Rocheleau

[Pharmaceutical Industry, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to take to task these Liberal members, to prevent major investments by pharmaceutical companies from again being jeopardized by their persistence?

[Pharmaceutical Industry, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, considering that all the Liberal members in attendance at the committee meeting this morning voted against the regulations pertaining to Bill C-91, does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to take these members to task, in order to prevent a recurrence-

[Pharmaceutical Industry, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The intentions of the federal government remain unclear regarding former Bill C-91. In their attempt to have the supporting regulations changed, a group of government members are challenging openly and publicly the validity of the act designed to protect pharmaceutical companies manufacturing brand name drugs, companies that invest substantial amounts in the design and development of such drugs.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with this open attack on Bill C-91 by several of her fellow government members, with the support of former Liberal minister Bob Kaplan, who now lobbies for generic drug manufacturers?

[Recognition Of The Patriotes Of Lower Canada And The Reformers Of Upper Canada, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today in this debate about the contribution of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada to the democratic evolution of our representation mechanisms.

I am all the more pleased to speak on this November 1, 1994, because exactly seven years ago today, on November 1, 1987, we lost a very great Quebec patriot, a great Quebec democrat, the former premier of Quebec, Mr. Lévesque, who invited Quebecers to believe in Quebec, who gave confidence and pride to Quebecers and invited them to describe themselves and to consider themselves as a people with the highest political status.

I would hope that in the upcoming referendum campaign, Quebecers will remember and emulate that great man, René Lévesque.

I am also very pleased to take part in this debate that was raised by my colleague from Verchères, whom I want to congratulate and who has moved the following motion, that I would like to read in order to put things in perspective:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should officially recognize the historical contribution of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada to the establishment of a system of responsible democratic government in Canada and in Quebec, as did the Government of Quebec in 1982 by proclaiming by order a national Patriots' Day.

I am all the more proud, and even a bit moved, because I participated myself in the celebrations that, for thirty years now, have been held in commemoration of the 1837-1838 events that occurred in Saint-Denis sur Richelieu, in Quebec. I would like to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate two residents of that village who, certainly for twelve years I think, have organized these celebrations with efficiency, skill, modesty and so much dignity. They are Mr. and Mrs. Onil Perrier from Saint-Denis and they deserve our most sincere gratitude.

To understand fully the evolution of these so-called democratic mechanisms, we have to go back to 1791, about forty years before the 1837-1838 events, when the Quebec Act created two provinces, Lower Canada and Upper Canada, Quebec and Ontario as we know them today.

From a political point of view, we must remember that this act established four precise levels of power which were the source of frictions that caused the events we all know about. The first level of power was the governor and his bureaucrats who formed an oligarchy named clique du château, or castle clan, in Quebec and Family Compact in Upper Canada or Ontario. Then there were the Executive Council and two other houses, the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly.

Not only were the governor and the executive council not accountable to the people and the elected representatives, but they also had the power to revoke laws passed by Parliament. The legislative council was clearly a patronage heaven and became a kind of branch of the executive council where people would exchange friendly services, serve on one council and then on the other and even, at times, on both councils at once.

During all those years, there was deep discontent with the legislative council within the population. When the 92 resolutions were presented in 1834, 31 concerned the Legislative Council, and this discontent was prevalent among both francophones and anglophone progressive democrats.

At the time, the legislative assembly, consisting of elected representatives and members, was just a debating society, like the National Forum on Health which the Prime Minister of Canada supports, a debating society without any real power, except the power to run its own activities, but when it appointed a speaker, Louis Joseph Papineau, his appointment was turned down by Mr. Dalhousie, the governor at the time.

Throughout this period, the demands of both Patriotes and Reformers touched on a number of points, the most important one being responsible government, which would make the executive accountable to the people and their elected representatives.

Another demand concerned the right of the members of the Legislative Assembly to control appropriations and how tax money was spent, and to have a say in the appointment of senior officials. Finally, another demand, still very relevant, was that the legislative council, more or less the equivalent of the other

place today, be elected by the people instead of appointed by the governor.

Throughout this period, these demands were the subject of intense and incessant debate and caused constant confrontation between the executive and the legislative bodies. Faced with the arbitrary behaviour and contempt of the governor and his clique, the people's representatives and all democratic individuals had the choice of either submitting or enlisting the means at their disposal and stand on their rights.

That is what they did, but unfortunately, in 1837-38, both groups were defeated. They were defeated in the media, but only ten years later, in 1848, they won when responsible government was recognized. We still enjoy the benefits of that victory today in this House, and it means that as elected representatives, we can take part in the debate and we can ask questions.

You will probably agree that the quality of the questions is more obvious than the quality of the answers, especially when the answers come from the official opposition, but it gives us the right today to put questions to the government. It gives us the right to demand, on occasion, the resignation of ministers. That is part of these new powers. At the time, these powers were acquired as a result of responsible government. This gives elected representatives the right to adopt budgets and appropriations, and it also allows them to question the government about the appointment of senior officials.

Such is the contribution of the Patriotes and the Reformers. That is why we are asking the House to vote on this proposal to recognize the most valuable contribution that both Patriotes and Reformers made at that time to the evolution of our democracy. I will not try to conceal that there are in fact similarities between the background of this historic episode and the present situation.

We must not forget that at the time, as my friend mentioned a few moments ago, they were claiming their independence and there had been a declaration of independence. Today, the sovereignist movement is in office in Quebec and represents the official opposition here, in Ottawa. This shows how sovereignist thinking is deeply rooted in our people, how we genuinely aspire to sovereignty and how the vision of someday having a country that Quebecers will claim as their own is not the undertaking of a single man, but a truly collective endeavour very deeply rooted in the minds of our people.

[Electronic Highway, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, adding insult to injury, yesterday the Minister of Canadian Heritage indicated that he was prepared to consider letting Quebec play a role with respect to the electronic highway, a role as important, said the minister, as that of cable companies or municipalities.

In so doing, the minister showed how indifferent he is to Quebec's cultural identity. It should be obvious that the electronic highway would have a decisive impact on Quebec society. It should be obvious that its cultural and educational content is the exclusive jurisdiction of the government of Quebec.

And incidentally, how does the minister account for the lack of representatives from Quebec's cultural community on the advisory council on the electronic highway?

The minister's incompetence and his lack of sensitivity to these issues are another good reason to demand his resignation.

[Bankruptcy Act, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in this House today, October 25, 1994, a year after the election. I would like to thank the people of Trois-Rivières for having placed their confidence in me and I hope that I have been worthy of it. I can assure my constituents that I will do everything in my power to keep their trust.

I would also like to briefly thank my organizers at the time, 800 party workers who, on October 25, 1993, worked for my election under the capable leadership, I would like to point out, of Diane Talbot to whom I paid tribute this morning.

I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-237, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy Act (priority of claims). The bill's explanatory note reads as follows:

The purpose of this bill is to change the priority of payment of claims in case of the bankruptcy of an employer, in order that the wages, salaries and pension plan contributions of an employee, up to a limit of nine thousand dollars, be paid in priority to any other class of claims.

At this stage, I wish to commend my colleague, the member for Portneuf, for his determination, insight and courage in presenting this very socially-oriented bill, it must be said. Some societal choices are implicit in such a bill, in such a way of looking at things.

This issue was discussed in Parliament for the first time in 1919. However, even though most of the discussion on this idea of priority or super priority of wage claims has occurred over the last 20 years, the bank lobby always seems to win out, at the last minute. That is obvious in all the documents one can read on the issue.

When a bankruptcy occurs, there are secured creditors, preferred creditors, and then common creditors. Workers rank fourth among the preferred creditors.

We have to realize that a bankruptcy means something painful and sad which someone has to pay for. Since we can identify at first glance four types of major players that are always there: the government, the suppliers, the lenders and the workers-there are always four types of players-we must ask ourselves who is in the best position to assume the loss. Who is the most vulnerable? We could quickly analyse this.

Is it the government that has the most to lose? If it assumes some losses, despite the disastrous budgetary situation that it is in right now, this will always represent, in terms of revenue, of shortfall, a drop in the ocean. If ever the situation that is advocated became as dramatic as that in terms of lost revenue, the government could always change the act, since it has this legislative authority as well as being a player in the debate.

There are the suppliers who can pay, and they are increasingly better protected by the new Bankruptcy Act that was changed last year. If they sustain losses, they can file them as bad claims which will reduce their income tax accordingly.

There are lending institutions, particularly banks, for which these are bad claims, first on the accounting level. They could see here a means of improving their social responsibility, of improving their follow-up advice on the case, and perhaps a means of better disciplining themselves, knowing that they will now have something to lose if they pull the plug, as was mentioned earlier.

Finally, there are the employees, who have no leeway whatsoever to make up for the loss that they fall prey to in the case of a bankruptcy when we decide, under the present act, that they will have to pay. They have no way out.

I will put forward a principle that has not been proposed yet, the principle of the most vulnerable. Who is the most vulnerable? A quick analysis shows that in a case of bankruptcy, it is obviously the workers, who foot the bill, and not only directly, since they will not receive any salary and wages and they will have incurred expenses during that period. I am talking about expenses in terms of transportation, meals, clothing and even housing in some cases. And then they find out one, two, three or four weeks later that they will not get any wages, they will not be able to provide a decent living for their family for that period. Moreover, they will have spent money to go to work for an employer who is not able to pay them, which is contrary to the intent of our legislation where a service is provided for a salary.

They say that from now on, banks would be very reluctant to loan money. I take this opportunity to invite people to read the report the industry committee has just tabled. It mentions that the Small Businesses Loans Act will be broadened to include exporting businesses. The Bloc Quebecois made a special recommendation to the effect that the Small Businesses Loans Act should apply to all businesses with respect to loans and working capital. If our recommendation were to be accepted, it would make banks feel more secure when things go sour, since the loans would be guaranteed by the government, which would lessen their losses.

I take this opportunity to say that this is an excellent piece of legislation and that, contrary to those who would like to narrow its scope, I, for one, claim that if we were to review this act which guarantees bank loans, we should make a cost-benefit analysis, taking into account the jobs it creates, the taxes it generates, and the savings in unemployment insurance and welfare it represents.

Once again, I congratulate my colleague. Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that you would like to know that the sovereign Quebec of tomorrow will be a little bit like this. It will respect individuals who are the driving force of any activity, be it economic or otherwise.

[Committees Of The House, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on the tabling of this report I would like to join the chairman in saluting the 58 witnesses who participated in the committee proceedings and thanking the people who sent us 62 briefs.

I also want to stress the highly positive atmosphere in which the proceedings took place. I must say however that, in spite of this positive attitude, we had to dissent on two major points which we believed not to be in the best interests of Quebecers. The first point concerns the fiscal relationship between the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec and the federal government; we will comment on this further during the forthcoming press conference; the second point regards the Small Businesses Loans Act; instead of restricting its scope, we would like to see it broadened to include all small businesses, not only those involved in exports, so that in the new economy, small and medium sized businesses can rely on this act for their working capital. That is all for now, Mr. Speaker.

[Provincial Taxation, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government recently threatened to stop making provincial payroll taxes deductible, a move which would cost Quebec companies $200 million.

With a mixture of satisfaction and concern, we learned this weekend that this measure has been postponed by one year. The Bloc Quebecois is pleased that the federal government has yielded to its arguments and to those of Quebec's finance minister, Jean Campeau.

However, it is only a postponement, because a sword of Damocles still hangs over Quebec companies. Nothing says that the federal government will not try next year to reduce its deficit at the expense of Quebec companies by eliminating this perfectly justified deduction.

[Hazardous Products Act, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak, on behalf of the Official Opposition, to Bill C-220, an Act to amend the Hazardous Products Act.

It is always useful to read the explanatory note: "The purpose of this bill is to make the Hazardous Products Act applicable to soccer goals, handball goals and field hockey goals as restricted products''.

At this stage I would like to commend the hon. member for Kent on his perseverance, since the hon. member introduced this bill during the previous Parliament and had to go through the whole process again when the new Parliament convened. I also want to commend him on his sensitivity, in the light of the tragic experience in his riding of Robert and Maria Weese, who lost their son Mark at the age of six.

Personally, I am very sensitive to such matters because I have a son the same age, and I can imagine the intense grief suffered by these parents after such a tragic event.

The bill would make it compulsory to equip soccer, handball and field hockey goals with an anchoring device that would prevent the goals from tipping over and falling on children playing nearby. I should explain that in most cases, these accidents did not happen during games but when children were playing with the goals on playgrounds and the goals tipped over, or when the goals were tipped over by a gust of wind and fell on a child, causing either serious injury or death.

Finally, it is also the intent of this bill, in accordance with the coroner's recommendation we will look at later on, that nets and goals shall be portable and can be put away after games in order to prevent this kind of accident.

The Mark Weese case is not unique. In fact, it is unfortunate there are so few statistics in Canada on the subject, and it seems neither hospitals nor schools have any obligation to provide information on such cases to any authorities whatsoever. Fortunately, this is not the case in the United States, where the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission monitors this kind of thing. From 1979 to 1992, according to the Commission, many accidents occurred, five causing major injuries, in other words, very serious-you can imagine what that means-and fifteen causing the deaths of individuals, I cannot really say children, ranging in age from three to twenty-two. So that is an indication of the importance of this proposal.

The bill was directly inspired by the coroner's report that was released at the time and to which the hon. member for Kent referred earlier. What struck me particularly was recommendation No. 2, which reads as follows in English:

Portable goals for outdoor use should have an anchoring device to allow for stability during the game and which allows the goal to be stored away.

We therefore support this amendment to the Hazardous Products Act. If the amendment saves only one life, it will have served its purpose.

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to go over the things that could threaten the Quebec culture and the Canadian culture, if it exists, because I really think there remains some doubts about that in some circles. In Quebec, in part for historical reasons, we are in a process of taking over our own destiny and making sure that our culture, which is unique in the world, will survive and develop.

It seems that the same cannot be said of the Canadian culture and that the Canadian stakeholders have not yet understood how critical the situation is. It is high time, given the communications systems in place today and the American domination over this small country which is Canada, north of the United States, and what will be left of it after Quebec separation, that these people take their future in hand and understand how critical the situation is. For us, as far as the francophones outside Quebec are concerned, we are going to take care of them like people of the diaspora and perhaps we will demand more than provincial and federal governments do today. We could cite the example of the anglophone minority and the other minorities in a sovereign Quebec and legitimately demand that the rest of Canada be as generous as we are.