Michel Gauthier

[International Forums, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it would be so much wiser for the minister and so much simpler for everyone if he answered the questions. Le Petit Robert gives the figurative meaning of potiche as someone given an honorary position but no active role.

Is the role the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has in mind for the Government of Quebec with respect to its culture the role of a potiche?

[International Forums, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to talking about culture internationally, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has made himself very clear: Canada is a sovereign nation and must, in his view, have only one voice. At best, Quebec will play a secondary role in any future delegation.

Would the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs please be a bit clearer and tell us very specifically that, if Quebec wants to play more than just the role of a regional component, the only course open to it is that of sovereignty?

[Building Contracts, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has just said in the House that the companies with contracts for the Prime Minister's cottage got them without a call for tender for security reasons. He also said that Continental Asphalt was recommended by the RCMP.

How can he say such a thing, when the only investigation at issue is the one done by the RCMP of Continental Asphalt that led to a charge of fraud, currently before the court in Shawinigan? It involves 119 of its employees. How can he say that?

[Cultural Diversity, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage keeps repeating wherever she is that Quebeckers have nothing to fear, that they will have all the room they need to grow within the Canadian family. That is what she says.

And yet, once again, together with her government, has she not underscored the huge difference between word and deed and that her remarks are completely devoid of meaning?

[Cultural Diversity, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage sees herself as the defender of Canada's culture, but once again, as we have seen this week, she says one thing and does another.

What credibility does she have to claim to properly represent Quebec in cultural terms, when she belongs to a government that is doing everything to diminish Quebec's place internationally and when she goes along with that?

[Camille Laurin, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we were struck yesterday by the news of the death of Dr. Camille Laurin.

Sovereignists in Quebec have lost a great leader. His masterpiece, Bill 101, lives on and will long ensure the development of the francophone society in Quebec.

I had the pleasure of sitting next to Dr. Laurin in the Quebec National Assembly between 1981 and 1984 and I recall him as a very cultivated, determined and humanitarian individual, always ready to listen to and support his colleagues.

Passionate about the French language, he has carved himself a place in history with his remarkable work to protect it.

All of Quebec today mourns the loss of this remarkable man. PQ supporters are profoundly affected by his departure, and I would, on their behalf and that of my colleagues, offer my deepest sympathies to those close to him.

[Employment Insurance, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Finance is mistaken.

I looked at the report by the government's chief actuary. For the past 26 years, every time unemployment went down, so did benefits. Every time unemployment went up, benefits followed. This has been the pattern consistently for 26 years.

Why would this pattern suddenly change this year? I think the minister is the one who is mistaken.

[Employment Insurance, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

There is something seriously wrong with the Minister of Finance's last budget. The minister forecasts a drop in Canada's unemployment rate, but he also forecasts an increase in EI payments.

Are we to understand that he has secretly decided to improve the EI system but has not put us in the picture?

[Employment Insurance Fund, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there is something wrong here.

The Minister of Finance has just explained that salaries are going up, so premiums are as well, and therefore more money is going into the employment insurance fund. There being less unemployment, less will be paid out in benefits.

I would like him to try to explain to me how this adds 11% to the benefits paid out. It makes no sense. Salaries are higher, people pay in more, and employment insurance pays out less. How does this leave him 11% in the hole?

[Employment Insurance Fund, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in his budget, the Minister of Finance forecasts a marked decrease in unemployment in Canada, yet at the same time he informs us that there will be an 11% increase in benefits.

Yesterday he tried to explain to us that the justification for this was higher salaries. That makes no sense. The rise in salaries will be only 2.5%.

Is the minister not using these figures as an excuse to artificially inflate premiums so as to reduce the surplus, without looking as if this is being done at the expense of the unemployed?