Michel Gauthier

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is getting ready to meet the premiers at a conference where he will probably announce the federal government's intention to withdraw from some areas of provincial jurisdiction in which it is now involved.

My question is for the Prime Minister or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Will the Prime Minister admit that the federal government's withdrawal from areas of provincial jurisdiction in which it is now involved can only be done by transferring at the same time the funds now spent by the federal government in these areas? Otherwise, this will be nothing but a dumping operation likely to place the provinces in a difficult financial situation.

[First Ministers' Conference, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is taking the position of defender of Canadian taxpayers, and yet he is taking $5 billion out of the unemployment insurance fund provided by workers and employers and he is applying this money to his deficit and wants us to consider this the standard in defending people's interests? Oh, come on.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that he is preparing to negotiate at the conference a partial and conditional withdrawal of his government from areas of jurisdiction that already belong to the provinces as he jumps with both feet into other areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as securities?

[First Ministers' Conference, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, any pleasure the Prime Minister may take at the opposition's acknowledging his improvement of the federation is pure presumption on his part. Given his past record, we have no illusions as to his intentions. I am sorry to have to hurt him, but I must speak the truth.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the only acceptable way to withdraw from areas of provincial jurisdiction is to accompany the withdrawal with a transfer of tax points so that the provinces may carry out their own responsibilities fully, completely and autonomously as provided in the agreements signed by the Lesage and Pearson governments?

[First Ministers' Conference, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, at the first ministers' conference, the federal government will be proposing its so-called new philosophy to renew Canadian federalism, that is step by step, bit by bit.

My question is, of course, for the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the federal government to offer full, total and unconditional financial compensation with respect to all areas of provincial jurisdiction from which it intends to withdraw soon?

[Federal-Provincial Relations, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, you will note that the level of obscurity increases with the number of words: the more he talks, the less we understand.

Can the minister deny that the attempt to set up a model where the federal government would establish standards and keep control and have the provinces carry out the programs is not a sort of back door revival of the spirit of the Charlottetown accord, which Quebec rejected for one reason and the rest of Canada for the very opposite reason?

[Federal-Provincial Relations, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that this is the most pithy answer we have had from this minister. May he always be so concise.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said the following with respect to the federal proposal on unemployment insurance:

This offer was acclaimed everywhere in Quebec as a great step forward, if not the finishing line for a concrete solution.

Are we to understand from what the minister said that the federal proposal in the area of manpower is not a starting point for negotiations, but, rather the finishing line?

[Federal-Provincial Relations, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that the federal government wanted to be highly effective and competent and in a position to help Canadians in its areas of jurisdiction, wanted the provinces to be highly effective and competent in their areas of jurisdiction as well and wanted a very strong partnership between the two levels of government.

Are we to assume from the remarks of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that the federal government is keeping the leading role for itself in a whole series of sectors, so it can set broad standards and objectives, and giving the provinces a supporting role, that is, the role of administrator?

[Referenda, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, how does the Minister of Justice explain the fact that, after the government's attempt to change the rules of democracy in Quebec, after its alliance with Guy Bertrand to prevent Quebecers from voting again on their future, after expressing its intention to decide the referendum question, the government now wants to join with Robert Libman in attacking the Quebec Referendum Act, a tool Quebec of democracy has given itself, which it does not want affected by the federal government's intervention?

[Referenda, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Justice confirm that his real intention, in intervening in the Libman case, because we know he would like to, is to come to the defence of those Liberal members and members of his organization who are accused by the Directeur général des élections du Québec of spending illegally in support of the great rally in Montreal for the no side during the Quebec referendum campaign?

[Referenda, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said that, as in the Bertrand case, he planned to intervene in the Libman case, which will be heard by the Supreme Court and which aims to invalidate the sections of the Quebec Referendum Act limiting the expenditures of each camp and creating referendum committees.

Could the Minister of Justice confirm the government's intention of intervening in support of Mr. Libman and indicate the reason for its intervention?