Michel Gauthier

[Class Of 1965, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to join my hon. colleague to convey, on behalf of my caucus, our heartfelt congratulations to our two colleagues, the hon. members for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, on 30 years of parliamentary activity. That is unusual and, party politics aside, we all have to respect such tenacity and commitment to serving one's fellow citizens.

All too often, the members of this House have to sacrifice their health or families to uphold democracy, which makes those being honoured today all the more deserving. I would therefore ask them, on behalf of the members of the Bloc Quebecois, to accept our sincerest congratulations.

[The Constitution, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, are the accusations by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the government's phoney committee whose establishment was announced yesterday not simply delaying tactics aimed at keeping a lid on the profound division not only in the Liberal caucus, but in cabinet, where a number of members are still under the influence of Pierre Elliott Trudeau?

[The Constitution, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we do not need to look too far back in the course of events to discover that those who oppose the Prime Minister's commitments are those sitting on that side-in the caucus and in cabinet-and the provincial premiers.

Should I also remind the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that the job of the Bloc Quebecois at the moment is to ensure that Quebec is not cheated again, as it has so often been in the past?

The Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday that the federal government could move without necessarily seeking provincial approval, because, in any case, Quebec could block any initiative. Are we to understand from her remarks that the federal government has once again decided to work secretly to come up with a proposal it will then try to impose on Quebec?

[The Constitution, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, whereas many people, strangely enough, joined together prior to October 30 to promise Quebec constitutional changes that would satisfy it, all attempts to fulfill these promises have failed one after the other, in the days following the referendum. In desperation, the government yesterday announced the creation of a mysterious committee, but nobody yesterday knew its make-up, its mandate or its time frame.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Was the hasty set up of a committee to study the question of constitutional and administrative changes to the federation not the result of the government's inability to find a way out of the dead end it found itself in because of the commitments made by the Prime Minister and the fierce opposition by the provinces, certain ministers and certain members?

[Privilege, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, when we asked the Minister of National Defence about his complicity with and tolerance for those who celebrated Marc Lépine, the École polytechnique killer, the minister accused the whole Bloc Quebecois political formation and all Quebec sovereignists of being racist.

I would respectfully point out to you that this term is totally unparliamentary, unjustified and unacceptable, and I demand an apology.

[The Constitution, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, given the government's unenviable record in constitutional matters, the many changes in its position toward Quebecers in the past month and a half and its inability to reach a consensus with its partners in order to meet Quebec's demands, should the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, rather than bust his suspenders over some vague committee that has yet to produce any results, not reassure people and explain the exact mandate and the reporting procedures of the committee?

[The Constitution, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs be heading the new committee that follows in a long series of committees, including the Charest, Beaudoin, Dobbie, Castonguay, Edwards and other committees? Can the minister tell us whether this is not a simply a strategy on the part of the government to play for time, because it is unable to reach a consensus with its other partners in Canada? Is this not simply a snow job?

[The Constitution, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Quebecers are beginning to get used to playing cat and mouse with the federal government. I will explain. Initially, the Prime Minister told everyone very clearly that there was no question of discussing the constitution, even during the Quebec referendum. Then he changed his mind and talked of possible administrative changes in order to decentralize Canadian confederation. Then he spoke of legislative changes for doing so, and, most recently, he has said nothing more about it at all.

The government is not responding any more. We did, however, learn today at about 12.30 p.m. that a ministerial committee on national unity had been set up with a mandate to consider possible changes to confederation.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs or for the Deputy Prime Minister, whoever wants to respond. What is the mandate of this committee, exactly? Is it preparing to propose constitutional changes or just administrative ones, or both?

[Democracy, November 3rd, 1995]

Are we to understand that because they have nothing to propose, because the provincial Premiers are starting to reconsider, because the government has no plan and because they know that next time, the Yes side will win, the government is desperate, and its only option is to deny the democratic system, either through the power of disallowance or by going before the courts?

[Democracy, November 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this from the Deputy Prime Minister of a government that, I may remind you, was formed by the party that introduced the War Measures Act in Quebec in 1970. We know your democratic propensities. A party that, through its Minister of Justice, tells us it will use a power now obsolete, the power of disallowance, to flout the authority of the Quebec National Assembly and ignore its decisions. And this party, which according to the Prime Minister would not have respected the results of the referendum, now wants to give us a lesson in democracy.