Gilles Duceppe

[Drug Patents, May 9th, 1994]

I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister who would maintain greater stability if he gave concrete answers to concrete questions.

I will ask him a concrete question. Does the Prime Minister recognize that, according to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, since Bill C-91 was enacted, the Canadian pharmaceutical industry has invested nearly 10 per cent of its revenues in R & D and that drug prices have more or less followed the consumer price index since 1987?

[Drug Patents, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. When they were in opposition, Liberal members were dead set against Bill C-91, an act regarding drug patent protection. As a matter of fact, they all voted against it, except for the Minister of Finance, who was then the member for LaSalle-Émard.

The Prime Minister said recently that he would not reopen this act. However, there is considerable pressure within his party to review Bill C-91 before 1997, and to give less protection to patent drugs.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that, in spite of the intense pressure within his party, his government will not review Bill C-91 before February 1997, as planned?

[Canadian Museum Of Nature, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, should I remind this House that the present director of financial services, who started at the beginning of 1994, was previously employed by the company hired by the board to prepare a report on the museum. Does the minister not think that this is a rather strange coincidence? Why does he not suspend immediately and without pay the director of the Canadian Museum of Nature until we know the conclusions of the inquiry presently conducted by the Auditor General's Office?

[Canadian Museum Of Nature, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Despite the fact that we tried everything possible and imaginable to bring the minister to shed some light on the management of the Canadian Museum of Nature, he still refuses to hold a public inquiry. Yet, some troubling points remain and since the minister wants to know the facts, does he not think that the internal inquiry report should be made public and will he put pressure on the museum's board to make it release the conclusions of the report?

[Regional Economic Development, May 2nd, 1994]

My question is for the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not agree that the very fact the Minister of Finance is incapable of answering this question in the House clearly shows the difficulty he has carrying out his functions as minister responsible for regional development in Quebec, given he is incapable of intervening in favour of MIL Davie in cabinet, while his colleagues from Transport and Public works will be able to defend without any restrictions the interests of shipyards in the Maritimes?

[Regional Economic Development, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who is also responsible for regional development.

The future of the largest private employer in the Quebec City region is in serious jeopardy. It is riding, basically, on two decisions to be made by the federal government: one concerning the project to build a ferry for the Magdalen Islands and the other concerning the project to develop a multipurpose ship called a smart ship.

Does the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec recognize that the future of the MIL Davie shipyards basically depends on the decision the federal government will make in these two matters and does he recognize at the same time that he cannot intervene directly to protect the interests of MIL Davie in these two very important matters?

[Privilege, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the minister, we do not want to make it into a cultural issue. This is about the privileges of the hon. member for Roberval. On the subject of culture, I could quote Confucius who said something along the line of culture is like jam; the less you have, the more you spread it.

[Regional Development, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister whether he will finally speak for Quebec in Cabinet and defend this important industry in the Montreal area by rejecting out of hand any changes that would weaken the patent legislation. Will the minister take a stand to defend the interests of Quebec and Montreal against his colleagues or will he remain silent and let the ministers from Ontario go ahead and undermine Quebec's interests?

[Regional Development, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a supplementary for the Minister of Finance and minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, and I hope he will give me an answer. I would like to point out that the minister, unlike his Liberal colleagues at the time, did not vote against Bill C-91 because he knows how important it is for Montreal, and I commend him for that.

[Regional Development, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who is also responsible for regional development in Quebec.

The red book emphasizes the importance of developing companies in high-tech sectors. The Liberal Party has promised to increase incentives for leading-edge industries. We were therefore amazed to hear that the government plans to revise and, in effect, weaken Bill C-91, the drug patent bill.

My question is this: How can the minister co-operate with the Minister of Industry on a strategy that will have a disastrous and devastating impact on brand-name manufacturers in the pharmaceutical industry who invest massively in research and development and are mainly located in the Montreal area, where the Minister of Finance has his riding?