Michel Gauthier

[Manpower Training, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that not only the minister, but all those watching these proceedings and all members of this House understand our concern. The Government of Quebec was taken for a ride so often by the people opposite that we have become extra careful. We want to know if this is going to take place under optimal conditions.

I would like the minister to be unequivocal. Will he agree, as suggested by the Quebec government at the request of the Quebec National Assembly, Liberals included, to discuss with the Quebec employment minister the possibility of repatriating to Quebec responsibilities pertaining to manpower without letting the threat of national standards hang over our heads as he has in the past? Is he prepared to make a commitment to achieve results along the lines of the consensus expressed by the Quebec National Assembly? I think that the question is clear enough to deserve a clear answer.

[Manpower Training, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the National Assembly's resolution clearly reaffirmed the consensus reached in Quebec that manpower issues should unconditionally come under the jurisdiction of the Quebec government, as prescribed by the Constitution.

Are we to understand from the minister's answer that he is prepared to conduct discussions with the Quebec government about Ottawa's withdrawing, unconditionally and without federal standards, from the area of manpower and transferring related resources to Quebec, as requested in the resolution passed unanimously by the Quebec government and the Liberal opposition? Everyone agrees in Quebec. Does the minister really intend to do so?

[Manpower Training, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously reaffirmed the consensus to the effect that Quebec must have sole responsibility for policies pertaining to manpower and occupational training. To do so, the Government of Quebec must regain control over the management of employment and manpower services, with fair financial compensation and no strings attached.

Given that the National Assembly has instructed the Quebec government to undertake formal discussions with Ottawa to ensure the respect of this consensus, does the Minister of Human Resources Development intend to fall into step and discuss with his Quebec counterpart the unconditional transfer of responsibilities

for providing services and setting standards in the area of manpower, along with the related funds and fiscal resources?

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when the minister talks of getting Canadians back to work, we cannot forget that, for more than two years, the government in power has done absolutely nothing to get Canadians back to work, except to cut among the poor and the unemployed. This is what has happened.

The minister cannot deny this. Given that the level of employment in Canada has hardly budged and the enormous cuts he is making to unemployment insurance, will he admit, therefore, that, far from giving Canadians the dignity of work as he calls it, he is hitting them, pushing them towards welfare and condemning them to poverty? Because that is his plan.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot deny the terrible effect the cuts in his reform will have on young people, women and seasonal workers, especially. Everyone is affected, but they are more so.

The minister cannot deny it, and I would ask him this: Since the federal government is using the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund to reduce its enormous debt, are we to understand from the $2 billion cuts announced Friday that, rather than improving its own finances through better management, Ottawa is trying to reduce the deficit on the backs of the unemployed?

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Minister of Human Resources Development finally unveiled his unemployment insurance reform, which will make it increasingly difficult for the unemployed to access the system. The reform provides that eligibility levels will be considerably higher and that those frequently out of work will be penalized, so that the first victims of these cuts will be young people, women and seasonal workers. The federal government is cutting $2 billion from the program.

Will the minister finally acknowledge that he waited so long to table his reform in order to avoid having Quebecers know before the referendum that they would get hit with two thirds of the UI cuts, that is, about $640 million?

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as far as the hon. member's request is concerned, I would just remind him that, not so long ago, my colleagues asked for consent in debates of great importance to Quebec, and he consistently denied consent. Let him now abide by a narrow interpretation of the Standing Orders and have a taste of his own medicine.

[Renewal Of Canadian Federalism, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not agree that his proposals, his government's proposals, not only are dividing his own committee, the phoney committee, but also the cabinet and the caucus, as well as deeply dividing all of Canada?

[Renewal Of Canadian Federalism, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, one would certainly think in listening to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that he has become a Pollyanna, since he is the only one pleased at this time with the situation in which he has placed himself and his government.

In the rush of reactions to the Prime Minister's announcement of his initiatives, the premiers of British Columbia, Alberta, even

Manitoba have had some very harsh words to say about both the initiatives and the Prime Minister's attitude. All of the reactions triggered by the Prime Minister's proposals paint a picture of an increasingly divided Canada.

Is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs aware that the reactions to the Prime Minister's proposals clearly demonstrate that the proposals are in serious jeopardy, even now as we speak, and that his government is headed for a constitutional impasse?

[Renewal Of Canadian Federalism, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the Prime Minister, I have strong doubts that the future Premier of Quebec will agree to something Mr. Bourassa turned down at the time.

After hastily tabling his proposal, without awaiting the report of the phoney committee headed by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and without consulting his partners in English Canada, how does the Prime Minister think he will convince Quebecers of the seriousness of his actions? Will he admit to badly playing his last card, which looks oddly like a two of spades?