Michel Gauthier

[The Referendum Question, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs should be careful because, when he was a university professor, he wrote that in Quebec people would never let the federal government draft the referendum question. To create a diversion, it was necessary to appeal to the Supreme Court so that Quebecers would then agree to let Ottawa be involved in the drafting of the question. So they are not in a position to teach us anything.

Does the Prime Minister realize that by wanting to draft the question for the next referendum, to determine the percentage required for the results of the referendum to be considered positive, and to set the rules for holding this referendum, he is usurping the role of the Quebec National Assembly, which is an attack on democracy? We know he is familiar with this strategy, and we wish he would stop this exercise before launching another attack.

[The Referendum Question, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to point out to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that, on the subject of clarity, he is the one who has constantly contradicted himself. He and the Minister of Justice are sending two completely different messages. He is certainly in no position to talk to us about confusion. He is creating confusion.

Seriously, I realize the Prime Minister wants to give his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs a chance to make his mark in the House, but my question was directed to the Prime Minister.

I would appreciate it if the Prime Minister would tell us whether he realizes that, by insisting on his reference to the Supreme Court and by wanting to assume the powers of the National Assembly, he no longer enjoys the support of any of his federalist allies who were with him during the last referendum? Does he realize he is isolating himself, even from the Quebec federalists who supported him during the last referendum?

[The Referendum Question, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, with the passage of time, the government becomes increasingly confused about its decision to stop a future referendum in Quebec by asking the Supreme Court's opinion on Quebec's

right to determine its own future. None of yesterday's allies on the no side are on side of the Prime Minister as he makes this clumsy attempt to get all of Canada up in arms against Quebec, as he did so successfully in 1982 and 1990.

What kind of answer does the Prime Minister of Canada have for Daniel Johnson, the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, who has invited him to resign and run for a seat in the Quebec National Assembly if he wants to draft the referendum question?

[The Constitution, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain in Quebec and that is that since 1982 nobody has wanted his Constitution, that is clear.

We know that the federal cabinet is divided on the question of whether or not to refer this matter to the Supreme Court and I can understand, because I want to ask the Prime Minister to give us and the members of his cabinet an explanation, and perhaps then he will be able to bring about unity.

How can the Prime Minister explain that Canada's justice minister has flatly contradicted himself twice in this matter, first in September 1995, when he declared that, in his view, this was not a legal question but a political one, and for the second time in May 1996 when he said that he was intervening in the Bertrand case only because the government of Quebec was doing so, and that otherwise he would not? By becoming involved now, the Minister of Justice will have contradicted himself twice since his initial statement.

[The Constitution, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government's whole approach consists in asking the judges of the Supreme Court for a ruling on a Constitution.

So how can the Prime Minister invoke a Constitution that is silent on the rules for entering and leaving confederation, a Constitution that has no political legitimacy in Quebec, because it was imposed-he should know something about that, it was his doing-it was imposed and has never been agreed to or signed by any premier, either federalist or sovereigntist?

[The Constitution, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a few months ago the federal government was backing lawyer Guy Bertrand in his bid to have the last Quebec referendum declared illegal by the courts. At the time, the federal government justified its action by saying that the government of Quebec was also taking an active interest in the Bertrand litigation.

Now we learn that the federal government is preparing to go it alone from here on and ask the Supreme Court to rule on what the government calls the legal issues surrounding Quebec's possible secession. In other words, the government is deciding to take up the crusade begun by Guy Bertrand.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, by taking the issue of Quebec's sovereignty to the Supreme court, the federal government is implicitly admitting that it has lost the political battle and is now trying to set up legal obstacles to prevent the people of Quebec from making their own decisions about their future? In a way, the government is trying to get the judges to do its work.

[Family Trusts, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to summarize.

The auditor general told us about over $2 billion leaving the country, tax free. This is the first element. The opposition has been condemning this situation for three years, because we knew, we realized this was a possibility. This is fact number two. The third point is that the Deputy Minister of Revenue, Mr. Gravelle, told the finance committee that there may have been other similar occurrences. This is not just anybody. Her deputy minister said there may have been other such cases.

My question is for the minister. Does the minister not realize that she is making a mistake by attempting to cover up what happened with this December 23 ruling, by attempting to hide behind the report of the Liberal members of the committee to avoid shedding light on this issue? All Canadians want to know what happened, and we will find out.

[Family Trusts, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone saw in the newspapers, the minister is accusing the opposition of barking up the wrong tree, because we want to know the truth. We want to know what happened, period.

The minister explained that these tax loopholes are maintained because the law applies not only to the rich, as she said, but also to ordinary people.

Does the minister realize that what the auditor general condemned was that over $2 billion was taken out of the country, tax free, by a single Canadian family, and that it is on this case, and other similar ones which may have occurred in the past and which may occur in the future, that we want to shed light? It is clear, simple and logical to me.

[Family Trusts, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the family trust scandal, we now have the Minister of National Revenue, while still refusing to shed light on the flight of capital out of the country, accusing the opposition of being on the wrong track for wanting to shed light on the decisions made in a panic on December 23 to allow a wealthy Canadian family to transfer to the U.S. more than $2 billion without paying a penny in taxes. According to the minister, it is a mistake for the Bloc to want to get to the bottom of this.

How can the revenue minister accuse the opposition of being on the wrong track for wanting to know the truth about these tax loopholes, when the auditor general, experts with no connection to wealthy Canadian families and Canadian editorial writers join with the official opposition in demanding that light be shed on this tax-free flight of capital out of the country?

[The Canadian Armed Forces, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister spoke of the major job of making cuts and reorganizing the Armed Forces, which his Minister of Defence and chief of defence staff had ahead of them.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I cannot ask it of the Minister of Defence, for he is protecting himself now. Will the Prime Minister admit that such cutbacks and reorganization require total credibility and that, under the present circumstances, neither the Minister of Defence nor General Boyle inspire sufficient confidence among military personnel to acquit themselves of this important task? Could the Deputy Minister respond?