Michel Gauthier

[The Constitution, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the Prime Minister backed out of the promises he made to Quebecers six days before the referendum and said that reopening the Constitution was out of the question, Quebecers all remembered the promises made by Pierre Elliott Trudeau on May 14, 1980, promises on which the government at the time immediately proceeded to renege.

Since six days before the referendum the Prime Minister clearly referred to the Constitution as a way to bring about change, does yesterday's retreat signify that Quebecers were tricked once again as they were in 1980, when they were promised so-called satisfactory constitutional changes and the government did not deliver?

[The Constitution, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, are the words of the Prime Minister, who is getting caught up in an increasingly tangled web, not an admission of his powerlessness, his inability to fulfil his commitments toward Quebec made within three days of the referendum, when he was in love with Quebec?

Is this not an admission of powerlessness? Does the Prime Minister realize that mere cosmetic changes will never satisfy Quebec, and that he is incapable of an in depth solution to the problem?

[The Constitution, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, what a regrettable performance by someone wanting to renege on his commitments and not able to find a way to get out of those he cannot keep.

The Prime Minister of Canada was one of those who loved us so madly three days before the referendum that he promised recognition of a special status for Quebec. He promised us a right of veto, as well as decentralized powers. That is what he promised us just before the referendum, when he loved us.

Will the Prime Minister be frank enough to admit that he then heeded his mentor Pierre Trudeau's admonition of several weeks ago, and that his about-face is the result of the word from Trudeau?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. secretary of state is rather surprising. She indicates to the opposition that we ought to be learning what democracy is all about, while what is at issue here is the behaviour of the Prime Minister, who finds that the CBC was too impartial in the referendum. Amazing. Amazing.

Does the hon. secretary of state not consider, when a Prime Minister initially indicates his intention not to recognize the outcome of a democratic exercise, then tells us that he want to see no more democratic consultations in Quebec, and then again decides that the CBC ought to stop being impartial when broadcasting information, that these are three somewhat disquieting actions within a democracy?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. secretary of state does me the honour of a reply to my questions, I shall ask her another.

Since Perrin Beatty, in keeping with the operating provisions of the CBC, has set up a committee to assess the professional conduct of CBC and Radio-Canada journalists and the manner in which the news was presented, does she not think that the Prime Minister would have been wiser to wait before nailing the CBC?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government, if there is still one over there.

Having already implied that he did not intend to respect the outcome of the referendum, the Prime Minister stated a second

time that he wanted to stop Quebecers from holding a second referendum on the future of Quebec if they wished to. In a repeat performance later, he criticized the CBC's lack of partisan involvement in the referendum campaign. The CBC was too impartial for the Prime Minister's taste during the referendum.

My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister or whoever might be so kind as to reply. Are we to understand that the Prime Minister wishes not only to stop Quebecers from deciding their future on another occasion they deem appropriate but also to control the information they will get from the CBC?

[Business Of The House, November 9th, 1995]

As you might suspect, Mr. Speaker, as we usually do on Thursday, I want to ask my hon. colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, to give us the agenda for the next few days.

[Special Committee On Canadian Unity, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to being a poor hockey player, the minister does not know how to skate. Let me explain.

Yesterday, the minister said that the committee would be used to save the country from the separatists who wanted to break it up. That is what he said yesterday. Today, after the Prime Minister's correction, he tells us that his committee will look into creating jobs and promoting economic development.

Is the minister telling us that this government, which for more than two years has said it will deal with the country's real problems, is he telling us that they have no recipe and that it takes a committee to suggest how the Prime Minister can get the country out of this mess?

[Special Committee On Canadian Unity, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs just scored in his own goal, as they say. A committee whose members all belong to the same political party, funded with taxpayers money and likely to accomplish nothing. That is the kind of committee he chairs.

But seriously, this morning in New Zealand, the Prime Minister said that his government's first priority was not to make changes for Quebecers but to create jobs. At the same time he said the cabinet committee did not intend to reopen the debate on the constitution.

Would the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who yesterday said repeatedly during Question Period that the committee's mission was to save the country, agree that in the light of the correction made by his Prime Minister, Quebecers and Canadians should expect nothing either from him or his committee?

[Special Committee On Canadian Unity, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs referred to the cabinet's phoney committee as being essential to the survival of Canada. Yesterday, he was corrected by his colleague at the Department of Justice, who said: "We do not expect to find a formula to save the country".

Would the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs agree that what his colleague at the Department of Justice said confirms that the sole purpose of the government's phoney committee is to play for time and that Quebecers, and Canadians as well, for that matter, have nothing to gain from this committee?