Michel Gauthier

[National Unity, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is trying to play down the significance of the statements made by the President and the Prime Minister of France, who very clearly indicated they would respect whatever decision Quebecers made.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Are we to understand that he would expect France to sit back and act as if nothing had happened should the federal government arbitrarily reject the result of a democratic vote held in Quebec?

[Calgary Declaration, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs realize that the only Quebec federalists who still hold any hope for the Calgary declaration are those who think that “unique character” means the same thing as “distinct society” and that it will be in the Constitution, exactly the opposite of the message delivered by the Leader of the Opposition on the weekend to the rest of Canada? Does the minister realize this?

[Calgary Declaration, September 29th, 1997]

It is not. One wonders whether he still lives in Quebec, because he misinterprets what is going on there. He badly misinterprets it.

Last weekend the federalists in the Liberal Party of Quebec—they are federalists in Quebec's Liberal Party, not sovereigntists—found the Calgary declaration wanting, given Quebec's traditional expectations.

My question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is this: Does he realize that even the most modest demands from Quebec's federalists place the bar so high that the premiers of the other provinces cannot make it over?

[Calgary Declaration, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, one wonders whether the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs lives in Quebec. We read the papers and we see—

[Calgary Declaration, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, given the openness displayed by the government, I have a supplementary for the minister.

When will we be told that a premier representing an English speaking province has decided to retain the services of Jojo the fortune teller to find out what the public in his province thinks?

[Calgary Declaration, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we learned through the newspapers that the premiers, including the premier of Newfoundland, have decided to consult their fellow citizens regarding the Calgary declaration. To this end, they will use fax machines, 1-800 lines and the Internet. These are all modern tools, as the Prime Minister said, but they are ill-chosen for a serious consultation on what should be a serious issue.

Does the Prime Minister realize that the fact that the premiers have chosen such inadequate tools for a consultation of this nature says a lot about how little importance they attach to their own Calgary declaration?

[Employment, September 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in exchanging niceties with the Prime Minister, might I remind him that he was the one who was traipsing all over Quebec during the last election campaign promising Quebecers that he would sell the rest of Canada on the idea of a distinct society, not I.

Is the Prime Minister now telling us that once again he is going to change his story and not fulfil the commitment he made to the voters of Quebec?

[Employment, September 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister wanted, he said, to launch an appeal to citizens to work together to save Canada, except that nothing about the speech is likely to please Quebec.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he confirm that his party has buried the concept of distinct society once and for all and replaced it with the concept of “unique character”?

[The Deficit, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the Minister of Finance had these figures when he drafted his latest budget. What bothers us on this side of the House is the minister's interpretation of those figures.

Since the Prime Minister today refers to good management that has helped free up billions of dollars, is he not a little embarrassed when he sees the unemployed workers in the maritimes and Quebec who protested vehemently against the cuts in unemployment insurance? Does he not think it is somewhat immoral that a

government that collects $12 billion more than expected cut about $1 billion annually in benefits for the unemployed, the poorest in our society? Is that not immoral?

[The Deficit, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister was always as friendly as he is today, question period would not be the same. Too bad this does not happen more often.

There is something dangerous in what the Prime Minister said, but seriously, I would like to get back to the substance of the question. The Minister of Finance made a mistake in his forecast, in other words, badly misinterpreted the indicators available to him at the Department of Finance, and the fact that the actual figures are far better, is of course wonderful, and of course everybody is pleased, but we must be careful. This same inability to interpret data could have produced the opposite result, unless the Minister of Finance knew what he was talking about and did so on purpose.

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Please be patient with me, Mr. Speaker, this is my last question. Please bear with me.

Is this not a government strategy to put artificial pressure on provincial governments which were forced to go along with more than $4 billion in cutbacks over the past two years?