Michel Gauthier

[The Crtc, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that in a recent case, when the minister was gagged by

the Leader of the Government, CRTC regulations were circumvented to ensure that Power DirecTv obtained a special authorization.

My question to the minister raises the same concerns. How can the minister expect francophones in Quebec and Canada to feel secure in the belief that the federal government will protect the French fact and their cultural identity in the broadcasting sector, when we know perfectly well that recently, the federal government bent the rules of the CRTC to give Power DirecTv an advantage and that now the same company proposes a pay per view service including 63 English channels, 60 of which are American, and one French channel? How can francophones say they are being well defended by this government?

[The Crtc, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since the minister has decided to come out of his shell, we will ask him about the CRTC.

Would he agree that Power DirecTv's application for permission to broadcast 63 English channels, 60 of which are American, and only one French channel on pay per view will leave the door open for Canada and Quebec to become a mere extension of the American market, which would be extremely harmful to the French fact in America?

[The Crtc, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say I am appalled at the statements made by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs who said this morning that Quebec sovereignists were racist. I think that is entirely unacceptable.

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Increasingly, francophones see their language and culture threatened in Canada. The CRTC, whose mission includes preserving the cultural identity of francophones in the broadcasting sector, is being forced to shift its decisions as we saw recently when an exemption was granted to Power DirecTv for the use of an American satellite for television transmissions.

Now that Power DirecTv has applied to the CRTC for a broadcasting licence for pay per view television, what guarantees do francophones in Quebec and the rest of Canada have that the regulations now in effect at the CRTC will be enforced this time, unlike what happened in this recent case before the CRTC?

[Elections Canada, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister can see that it is less and less likely that he will win the referendum in Quebec, I ask him again: Does he realize that by staying extremely vague on the Elections Canada manoeuvres, he is raising doubts as to his democratic intentions?

I ask him again: Does the Prime Minister reject the idea of holding a referendum in order to counter the democratic decision Quebecers will make in two weeks?

[Elections Canada, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a common thread runs through the Prime Minister's entire political career. Every time Quebec wanted to assert itself, he has stood in its way. We just learned that Elections Canada has initiated the whole process required for holding a Canada-wide referendum. This is probably not a spontaneous initiative by Elections Canada.

Are we to understand that the Prime Minister is refusing to recognize Quebecers' verdict in the referendum and getting ready to hold a Canada-wide referendum in order to overturn the democratic decision of Quebecers?

[Social Program Reform, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister admit that at the rate the federal government says it will cut transfers to the provinces, in other words, money used by the provinces for social programs and education, at the rate the federal government plans to cut these expenditures, according to our most accurate estimates-although the criteria have not yet been released, but we tried a series of criteria that seemed likely-we can say that in four years time, if Quebecers say no in the referendum and decide to stay in the federal system, in four years time the federal government will no longer pay a cent in transfer payments for social programs, education and social assistance, and on top of that, under the tax points system, Quebecers would again have to send part of the province's tax revenues to Ottawa to help fund social programs in the other provinces?

[Social Program Reform, October 6th, 1995]

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is the future we want to talk about. The Prime Minister seems to appreciate talking about that.

We know that in the future, the federal government is planning cuts in unemployment insurance and old age pensions. We found that out last week here in the House, but the bad news will not come until after the referendum.

Would the Prime Minister agree that by attacking the most vulnerable members of our society with cuts in his own programs that are targeted to the needy, he is hitting them twice with cuts in payments to Quebec that will total between $1.9 and $2.5 billion in two years' time, which will force the Quebec government to add to the cuts made by the federal government? Does he not realize he is hitting the neediest in our society from both sides?

[Social Program Reform, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the past few days it has become increasingly clear that this government is trying to hide the devastating impact that a number of reforms planned by Ottawa will have, especially in the case of social programs.

The government keeps postponing the release of the details of these reforms until after the referendum. Furthermore, the last budget announced cuts totalling seven billion dollars in transfers to the provinces for the financing of social programs.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that cuts in payments to the provinces for social programs, irrespective of the criteria the federal government will use, will cause a major shortfall in funding for spending on health care, post-secondary education and social assistance in Quebec, a shortfall that, depending on the criteria applied, is estimated at between $1.9 and $2.5 billion over the next two years, and this is only in Quebec?

[Business Of The House, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the leader of the government in the House. I want to ask him if the legislative agenda of the upcoming weeks will be as light as the one of the last few weeks.

[Manpower Training, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is really too bad that the Minister of Human Resources Development should stoop to name-calling, the logic of the weak, the logic of those who have nothing to say. He would be better off answering the question. We would rather have answers than arrogance. Quebecers would appreciate that.

I will direct my question to the Prime Minister, and maybe then I will get an answer. Would the Prime Minister agree that the bill introduced by his Minister of Human Resources Development is a perfect illustration of the federalism by administrative agreement he is proposing to Quebecers, in other words: first step, Ottawa assumes all powers over a given jurisdiction; second step, it asks the provinces to come and beg to have these powers back, and third, I am sorry to add, he calls them names when they do?