Michel Gauthier

[The Referendum, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister cannot get off like that. When we are talking to her about respect for democracy-

[The Economy, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would also ask for the consent of the House on behalf of my colleague, the member for Mercier, to table statistics on welfare recipients, as compiled by the Quebec department of manpower and income security, to help the Minister of Human Resources Development. I ask for the consent of the House.

[The Economy, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I could ask for the consent of the House in order to table, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, the preliminary report on the results of the counting of Monday's votes. I ask for the consent of the House.

[Distinct Society, November 1st, 1995]

Which resolution?

[Distinct Society, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, considering his sterile and meaningless draft resolution, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that his positions are identical to those of the Premier of British Columbia, and are we to understand that this Prime Minister has no trouble recognizing Quebec as a distinct society but only in so far as this does not really mean anything and does not change the status quo?

[Distinct Society, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I myself asked the Prime Minister what kind of distinct society he favoured. He never answered the question. Today, I will ask him. Considering his-

Would you ask the Deputy Prime Minister to be quiet,Mr. Speaker?

[Distinct Society, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has conveniently overlooked the fact that he killed the Meech Lake Accord-

[Distinct Society, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it did not take more than 24 hours after a No win based on a fraction of a percentage for the Prime Minister to consider tabling a resolution in the House of Commons recognizing the fact that Quebec is a distinct society. And all this while hastening to add that such recognition confers no special powers or status on Quebec. He seems to agree with the Premier of Ontario who said that now was not the time to react hastily and promise things one might not be able to deliver.

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he agree with the Premier of Ontario that any changes that would be significant in the eyes of Quebec would not be acceptable to the rest of Canada?

[Referendum Campaign, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but the minister will not get off that easily. I am entitled to three questions, and so for the third time I will ask him to make his position clear to Quebecers, to set aside his customary arrogance we have seen enough of and give a clear answer to Quebecers.

Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is speaking on behalf of the government today, explain clearly, honestly and frankly how the Prime Minister of Canada can say: "Fifty per cent plus one for the no is fine. I can go along with that. Fifty per cent plus one for the yes, I am not sure". What explanation does he have for an attitude that is so obviously unacceptable? I would like an answer.

[Referendum Campaign, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on this last sitting day of the House of Commons before the referendum, I think it would be appropriate for the minister to be accurate and direct in his answers to my questions.

He knows perfectly well that the Leader of the Opposition and all the people on the yes side have always said, on every occasion, that they would respect the verdict of the people, the outcome of this democratic process.

My question, and I would appreciate a straight answer, is this: Why, when it is about their side, does the Prime Minister seem unwilling to commit himself to respecting the democratic process, going so far as to say: "If those are the results for the no side, we agree, but if the same figures turn up for the yes side, we do not"? Let him explain that instead of trying to skirt the issue.