Michel Gauthier

[Referendums, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister wants to play it that way, I may remind him that he and his cabinet ministers were guilty of violating the Quebec Elections Act. To talk about democracy and refuse to recognize the results of a democratic vote is really pushing it.

The Prime Minister stated yesterday that 2.5 million citizens should not be allowed to determine the future of a country with a population of 30 million. Does this mean he denies the Quebec people the fundamental and inalienable right to determine their future?

[Referendums, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on the very day the government was boasting of having met its referendum promises by a simple inconsequential resolution on the distinct society, the Prime Minister was busy making unacceptable and antidemocratic statements, claiming that he reserved the right to use any means available to prevent another Quebec referendum.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Now that he realizes that his phoney offers do not satisfy Quebecers, and since he plans to use all means available to prevent another Quebec referendum, are we to take the Prime Minister's words to mean that the only hope remaining to him for winning the next referendum is to make up the rules himself?

[Supply, December 11th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether the bill before the House is identical, in every respect, to those of previous years.

[Business Of The House, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it would be appreciated if the Leader of the Government would indicate the order of business until Christmas.

[Unemployment Insurance Fund, December 7th, 1995]

Two strikes against him now, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance has neglected to point out that, at the time the auditor general made that recommendation, the federal government was contributing to the unemployment insurance fund. That is no longer the case. Two strikes, no hits.

I will give him a third chance. Given the government's reticence to really streamline the federal machine and review all of its finances, will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that, if he does

not divert the sizeable U.I. fund surpluses into his budget, he will be totally incapable of reaching his budget targets in coming years?

[Unemployment Insurance Fund, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a good manager knows the contents of his budget.

Although I respect the minister, he is entitled to his shortcomings as much as anyone. He has certainly forgotten that next year he himself has projected taking $5 billion from the U.I. fund during the year. He is entitled to a mistake, so we will give him another chance.

Will this minister, good manager that he is, admit that to bring his deficit, the federal deficit, down to $17 billion in 1997-98, as he has indicated to us, he will need to keep on dipping into the U.I. fund year after year?

[Unemployment Insurance Fund, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

In his economic update yesterday, before the finance committee, the minister finally admitted that his government is putting the unemployment insurance fund surplus into the consolidated revenue fund, along with the other federal revenues and expenditures, and will continue to do so, rather than in a distinct reserve fund as the Minister of Labour claims. This admission leads to another, that his deficit for the current year is being lowered artificially with the U.I. account surplus.

Under these circumstances, will the Minister of Finance admit that, because he is taking five billion dollars out of the U.I. account this year, the real federal deficit for the current year is therefore not $32.7 billion but $37.7 billion?

[Unemployment Insurance, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Prime Minister realizes what he just said. He just explained that the government's deficit for this year will actually be $5 million more, because the Minister of Finance took the surplus in the Unemployment Insurance Fund, subtracted it from that column, put unemployment insurance revenues into revenue, and then told us: "Here, this is will be my deficit".

Does he realize that with this answer he just confirmed, as the leader of this government, that the deficit of the Minister of Finance will be $5 million more?

[Unemployment Insurance, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in that case, I will put the following question to the Prime Minister.

If they are both right, how does this tally with the facts? There are no two ways about it: either the Minister of Labour is right, and a reserve fund will be created to cushion the impact of economic problems, or the budget's provisions are no longer accurate. How can the Prime Minister say in all honesty and sincerity that both ministers are right, when they are contradicting each other?

[Unemployment Insurance, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, the Minister of Labour announced on all tv and radio stations in Quebec that as part of its unemployment insurance reforms, the federal government will create a reserve fund to cushion the impact of future economic recessions or slowdowns.

On the other hand, the 1995 budget of the Minister of Finance provides that UI fund surpluses will be used to absorb the federal deficit. That is what it says on pages 89 and 94 of the Budget Plan. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance did not answer our questions. Today, I will put the question to the Prime Minister.

Considering that the statement by the Minister of Labour is a clear and direct contradiction of what is indicated in the government's budget, could the Prime Minister tell us which minister is right?