Michel Gauthier

[Tobacco Bill, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to say. Ignorance means that one does not know. I will put it another way. It is scandalous that, after 30 years in Parliament, the Prime Minister does not understand that it is possible to vote in favour of a principle at second reading, because that is what is being voted on at second reading, and against a bill at third reading, because we do not like the means being proposed. That is what I meant.

The fact is that the same minister who wanted to ban raw milk cheese because it was a risk to people is now presenting us with a bill that makes no sense.

I ask the Prime Minister whether there is a minister or a Liberal member from Quebec who will rise on that side of the House to defend Quebec and Quebec's interests? Let him rise so we can see him.

[Tobacco Bill, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is showing his ignorance of the Standing Orders.

[Tobacco Bill, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can leave Jean Rochon in Quebec City. We are speaking to the federal government, to the federal health minister, to the Prime Minister himself, because he is the one jeopardizing the very existence of most of the major cultural and sports events, which are held primarily in Quebec. That is what we are talking about.

Yes, it is true that the opposition supports the principle of limiting tobacco consumption, but the advertising measures are going to jeopardize culture and sports. And that is what we are against.

Can the Prime Minister turn a deaf ear to the militant members in his own Liberal Party who met in Quebec over the weekend and expressed their concern about the fate reserved for cultural and sports events, and who spoke critically of the health minister's bill to the responsible ministers in the Quebec government? Can the Prime Minister turn a deaf ear even to the federal Liberals from Quebec?

[Tobacco Bill, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, with its tobacco bill, the government is getting ready to strike a very hard blow to the economy of Montreal and of all of Quebec.

A great many major cultural and sports events take place in Quebec, and the government, through its bill, which places very serious limitations on sponsorships, is going to deal a fatal blow to the sports, cultural and economic life of Quebec.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister realize that, if his government goes ahead with its bill, there will be no television coverage next weekend of the Australian Grand Prix,

or of any other grand prix later this season, and that the health minister's bill will mean the end of the Montreal Grand Prix, something Quebecers can never accept?

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

For three pages.

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if there is anything that characterizes the fundamental differences between us, this is it. For the Minister of Finance, for Liberals, it is incomprehensible for the federal government to play its true role of distributor of the wealth, as they often describe it, while at the same time minding its own business.

Can the government not respect the areas of jurisdiction set out in its own Constitution? That is where the problem lies. How can they imagine that they are better placed to look after prenatal nutrition? Ottawa will look after prenatal nutrition. Ottawa will look after literacy, the disabled, poor children, family policy. These are provincial areas of jurisdiction. Can they not grasp that, on the other side?

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell him what I find unacceptable. It is that his government has, over the past two years, cut $4.5 billion from transfers to the provinces for social services and education. Today he imagines that a few million dollars are going to make us forget the $4 billion in past cuts.

As for the details, I will get to shortly, but just now I have three questions for him. Here is my question for the moment.

What we want to find out from the Minister of Finance is how he can justify, on the one hand, that he is short of money and therefore needs to cut transfer payments to the provinces, when these are mainly for health care and education services and, on the other hand, he can at the same time justify sprinkling a few million here, a few million there, in areas in which he has no jurisdiction at all?

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the budget tabled yesterday by the Minister of Finance is a most disappointing one. If there is one underlying theme, it is the Liberal vision of a highly centralist federal government, encroaching unrestrained onto areas of provincial jurisdiction every time it has the chance.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance had such a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate to us his government's real belief in a decentralized federalism which respects provincial areas of jurisdiction. Why, then, did he prefer to follow his usual pattern, the usual habit of the Liberals, and to announce still more overlap, still more duplication, still more waste?

[National Unity, February 18th, 1997]

Do not worry, Mr. Speaker, I will not violate the Standing Orders. You know my respect for the Standing Orders of this House.

The minister was explaining that they include this criterion but it does not have to be met. They put it in by accident, this thing about Canadian unity, but it does not really matter if we do not promote Canadian unity. What he just told us does not make sense.

I will ask him another question: Does the minister agree that the government has two objectives in mind by including this criterion, a new criterion artists will have to meet? First, they want political control over the creative arts in Canada, and second, they want to reduce substantially assistance to Quebec creators who, according to this government, are not interested enough in promoting national unity.

[National Unity, February 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if this were a page from Astérix, the comment would be: "Those Romans are crazy".