Michel Gauthier

[Referendum Campaign, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today, this is a very serious question, a question to which I would appreciate an answer, not this beating around the bush by the Minister of Labour in full view of the whole province of Quebec.

My question-I will give her a second chance, and I would appreciate an answer-is this: Would the Minister of Labour be so gracious and so kind as to tell Quebecers who are listening, when she says she supports a distinct society, does she support a distinct society as defined in Charlottetown, which was rejected by all Quebecers, or does she support the distinct society defined in the Meech Lake Accord? Which one is the Minister of Labour, as a minister of this government, referring to when she says she supports this concept? We would like to know.

[Referendum Campaign, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Labour was gracious enough to answer the question, I will ask her another one.

When the Minister of Labour says before this House and before all Quebecers who are listening that the Prime Minister is prepared to include in the Constitution the principle of a distinct society, is she referring-and this is my question-to the Charlottetown version preferred by the Prime Minister, in other words, a meaningless concept subordinate to the equality of the provinces and rejected by all Quebecers, or is she referring to the distinct society concept in the Meech Lake Accord, which the Prime Minister opposed? Which version is it, Madam Minister?

[Referendum Campaign, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Premier Clyde Wells of Newfoundland has entered the referendum campaign to set the record straight for the No side. It is out of the question that Quebec's status as a distinct society should be recognized constitutionally. Meanwhile, the Minister of Finance declared this morning that the distinct society clause should be enshrined in the Constitution.

Of course my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Could he tell us the government's position on the issue of distinct society? Is it the position he, as the finance minister, took this morning or is it the one taken yesterday by Mr. Clyde Wells, whose position is known to be very close to the Prime Minister's?

[Referendum Campaign, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs knows perfectly well it is unconscionable for the Prime Minister of Canada to tell his ally, the head of the No committee, that the distinct identity of Quebec society will certainly not be enshrined in the Canadian constitution.

Will the minister at least admit that the reason the Prime Minister will not include this distinct identity in the Canadian constitution is that he ran his campaign for the leadership of the Liberal Party on an anti-Meech Lake platform, so much so that the then Minister of Finance said in Le Devoir on March 9, 1990: ``Jean Chrétien is about to destroy forever the credibility of the Liberals in Quebec''? Would he agree the Minister of Finance was right?

[Referendum Campaign, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs acknowledge that when the Prime Minister of Canada says that he has supported in the past, supports today and will support in the future, in all circumstances, the distinct identity of Quebec society, he is referring to the concept of distinct society in the Charlottetown Accord, a concept that was meaningless, being subordinate to the equality of the provinces, a concept that was rejected by Quebecers, and that the Prime Minister has always been opposed to the concept of distinct society as defined in the Meech Lake Accord?

[Referendum Campaign, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, after an urgent appeal from the chair of the No committee, Mr. Daniel Johnson, who asked him to announce his position on the issues of distinct society, veto rights and elimination of overlap, the Prime Minister of Canada, after humiliating his ally, Daniel Johnson, in New York by refusing to do so, finally agreed to issue a joint statement with Mr. Johnson dealing only with distinct society, and I will quote part of the statement:

We remind you that we have both supported the inclusion of this principle in the Canadian Constitution every time Quebec has demanded it.

My question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. What explanation does the minister have for the fact that the Prime Minister claims he has always supported the principle of a distinct society every time Quebec has demanded it, although he fought with such tenacity against the Meech Lake Accord which contained a significant definition of distinct society?

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister shows very little tolerance for others, although his own positions are entirely opposed to those of the No committee to which he belongs, an issue that was raised with him yesterday. Why is he so anxious to look for discrepancies in our points of view, when he knows perfectly well that representatives for the No side in Quebec most certainly do not share his position on the Canadian federation. He should be more careful.

Does the Prime Minister agree, since we are talking about his Minister of Foreign Affairs-I realize it annoys him to discuss this but, after all, he should answer the question-does the Prime Minister agree with his Minister of Foreign Affairs, who feels that to deal with duplication and overlap, Quebec should become a province like the others, in other words, close its Travail Québec centres and let the federal government collect its taxes?

That is what his minister said yesterday. Does he agree?

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to clarify my question for the Prime Minister. I do not think this is a matter of bad faith, not at all, but it is not at all what I meant.

His Minister of Foreign Affairs said that Quebec, with a population of seven million, was too small to expect to negotiate with the rest of Canada with its population of 22 million. This was not about partnership or whatever, this was about negotiating from country to country.

My question is this: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Minister of Foreign Affairs that Quebec is too small to negotiate with the rest of Canada and if he does not agree, is he prepared to set the record straight? That is my question.

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in a very revealing speech which included references to duplication and overlap, the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained that Quebec was too small to negotiate on equal terms with the rest of Canada. This unfortunate statement is one more example of what we have been hearing from Laurent Beaudoin, Claude Garcia and the Prime Minister himself, each of whom either think Quebec is too small, want to crush it or want to give it a drubbing.

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether he agrees with the Minister of Foreign Affairs who considers that Quebec is too small to negotiate on equal terms with the rest of Canada?

[Referendum Campaign, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would have appreciated an answer to my question, but, you will permit me to remind the Prime Minister that it was Daniel Johnson and the Minister of Labour, who at the time was a minister in the Johnson government, who refused to sign the cut-rate agreement he was proposing. He has a short memory. He has a very short memory,

Mr. Speaker. Since I did not get any answer from the Prime Minister, I will try for a more specific one.

In the document tabled, we read that "the Government of Quebec must-be a willing party to any change in its relationship with the federal government. This is the spirit of the federalism we believe in". This is the no position.

Does the Prime Minister agree with this statement of the no side's position, a statement which calls for a veto for Quebec? Does he agree?