Michel Gauthier

[Job Creation, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the infrastructures program is the only job creation measure introduced by this government.

The program has had an immediate and positive impact, although the jobs were only temporary. With respect to setting up a new program, the Government of Quebec has already made it clear that it would like to have responsibility for the projects and have the option of using money already budgeted or targeted for these job creation programs.

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether he and his government agree with the concerns expressed by the Government of Quebec with respect to setting up a new infrastructures program?

[Job Creation, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the system the Prime Minister is referring to always leads to the same kind of results, as he ought to realize: the federal government always ends up purchasing goods and services in the same place.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, in 1993-94, using a recognized and reliable method of economic calculation, by being deprived of $2. 5 billion in goods and services sales to the federal government-since it always buys from the same place- Quebec was deprived of an estimated 44,675 jobs over two years?

Does the Prime Minister realize that, through inadequate policies such as these, which he supports and defends, Quebec and its economy is losing jobs in the meantime, to the tune of some 22,000 for each of the years of his mandate?

[Job Creation, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his government have fallen into the habit of riding on the wave of economic upturn and of claiming responsibility for the job recovery that has taken place, a recovery required by the fact that, over the same time period, more than 800,000 jobs had been lost.

Does the Prime Minister realize that, for Quebec, with its heavy unemployment, one of the consequences of federal government policies, particularly the policy on purchase of goods and services, is a shortfall of $1.2 billion for 1994 alone? That this deprives the economy of Quebec of thousands of jobs, because of his government's refusal to right a long-standing wrong?

[Job Creation, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government's performance in the area of job creation certainly falls far short of the promises made during the last election campaign. Since 1993, nothing concrete has been done by the government to stimulate job creation, with the exception of an infrastructure program.

Can the Prime Minister tell us if he agrees with what his Minister of Human Resources Development had to say this summer: "You can go to the Government of Canada for matters of national defence, justice, national health care, but for job creation, go knock on the door of your provincial legislature"?

[Main Estimates, June 20th, 1996]

-That, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)( a ) and Order made Monday, March 4, 1996, consideration of Human Resources Development Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997, by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, be extended beyond June 21, 1996.

[First Ministers' Conference, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that the Constitution sets out the areas of jurisdiction. The problem with Canadian federalism, however, is that the Prime Minister has this incredible propensity for getting into areas of jurisdiction that do not belong to him. That is the problem.

The throne speech indicated that the government will not use its spending power without the approval of a majority of the provinces in a given sector.

Would the Prime Minister confirm that, if the majority of the provinces joined forces to ask the federal government to intervene in an area of provincial jurisdiction such as education, Quebec could opt out with full compensation only if it complied with the national standards set by the majority of the provinces asking the federal government to intervene in this area?

[First Ministers' Conference, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, regardless of the subject chosen for discussion and the potential focus of decentralization, his approach and that of his government are always the same: the central government will always have the power to dictate national standards, to set broad guidelines, and the provincial governments will always be seen as playing a supporting role as administrator?

[First Ministers' Conference, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the first ministers' conference, we are discovering the intentions of the federal government little by little and we now know what will be on the conference agenda. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs confirmed yesterday that the conference agenda reflects choices made by the federal government.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the federal government will be deciding on the agenda and on what will or will not be discussed with the provinces? Will he confirm that he alone will be setting the table?

[First Ministers' Conference, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, what I want to find out from the minister-It is important to set the record straight. The minister talks about the money now spent by the federal government, but we know that the government is not spending anything on repairs to our social housing stock, which has been deteriorating for several years.

My question to the minister is this: Is the federal government preparing to transfer to the provinces apartments in need of major renovation work, thus forcing them to pay exorbitant repair bills? Is this not an example of the kind of federal withdrawal that is tantamount to dumping on the provinces?

[First Ministers' Conference, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in this regard, given the extremely high cost of renovating our social housing stock, the Prime Minister said he wanted to give this area back to the provinces.

Given, then, the substantial amount of renovation work needed, is the government committed-it is important to set the record straight on this-to withdrawing from this area, but only if it helps pay for the work needed to repair all these social housing units?