Michel Gauthier

[Canadian Government, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants to test the waters, he would do better to answer his own questions during the election campaign.

In 1993, the red book lamented the 1.6 million unemployed in Canada, the millions on welfare, the one million children living in poverty and the high level of bankruptcy. Three and a half years after being elected to office, this government has captured the all time record of 1.5 million unemployed, three million welfare recipients, 1.5 million children living in poverty, and 86,000 bankruptcies in Canada.

My question, for any government member brave enough to answer, is this: When it comes to real problems, what does this government have to be proud of?

[Canadian Government, February 13th, 1997]

Yes, I am getting to my question. We will see how far this optimism goes. The Prime Minister was silent about the Somalia inquiry. Not a word passed his lips about the Airbus scandal. He had nothing to say about the Pearson deal, nor did he mention the broken GST promise, or the Canadian armed forces.

My question, for any one of my colleagues across the way who can reply on behalf of the government, is as follows; Why is the Prime Minister so silent when it comes to matters concerning his government's morality?

[Canadian Government, February 13th, 1997]

Optimistic, but so out of touch with reality.

[Canadian Government, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, late this morning, the Prime Minister painted a rosy picture of life in Canada. Clearly, the Prime Minister has tested the electoral waters. His remarks are very optimistic.

[Canadian Government, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we knew, from listening to the Prime Minister, that elections were in the air, but that does not explain the absence in the House of half of cabinet.

[Constitution, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that he rejected the idea of swapping the constitutional amendment for something else and that there would be no swap, that he failed to see how the government could win points by acting like a used car salesman and that it would lose votes in the process.

Was the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not acting like a used car salesman himself when he gave Alliance Quebec the impression that its agreement was necessary to get the constitutional amendment, thus giving it the clout it did not even know it had?

[Constitution, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is taking a big risk by leaving the hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville in his position as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. It is like appointing a pyromaniac head of the fire brigade: he fans the flames.

Today, the Prime Minister is trying to play down the inflammatory statements made by his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The government tells us: "We will wait and see what Quebec wants". Well, Quebec has wanted to settle this matter for the past 20 years. There was a consensus. All political parties in Quebec agreed.

Did the Prime Minister change his tune to avoid embarrassing his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who created the problem in the first place with his inflammatory statements?

[Constitution, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but the question is not hypothetical; we are talking about a situation that has deteriorated because of the inappropriate, unexpected and absolutely incomprehensible intervention of the ineffable federal Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. It is not hypothetical. He has stirred up discord in this affair, and that is a fact.

By creating the impasse that may prevent the creation of linguistic school boards in Quebec, was the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not himself responsible for the constitutional dead end in which we will again find ourselves?

[Constitution, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Prime Minister to be a bit clearer. Can he tell us the kind of consensus the federal government feels is necessary in order for it to respond to Quebec's request?

Yesterday, the minister talked about Alliance Quebec; the Prime Minister is talking about various kinds of groups. How extensive does this consensus have to be? And is the consensus of Quebec's elected representatives, of the political parties sitting in the National Assembly, not enough for the Prime Minister?

[Constitution, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, everyone is worried at the turn of events regarding the Government of Quebec's request for a constitutional amendment to modify its school boards. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has taken us all a bit by surprise with his agitation, which is as sudden as it is unexplained.

Does the Prime Minister think that the present consensus of political stakeholders in Quebec is enough to proceed as he should or does he believe, as his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs does, that a consensus is valid only if it includes lobby groups like Alliance Quebec?