Michel Gauthier

[Quebec Referendum, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we learned that we had to thank the Prime Minister for our right to sit in this House and, today, that we should thank him for summoning Parliament.

[Business Of The House, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, could the government House leader give us an idea of what is in store for next week?

[Old Age Pensions, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we finally heard the admission that the Prime Minister will reform the old age security system. Given the direction in which the Minister of Finance is heading, this reform will certainly involve cuts. I would be surprised if old age pensions were increased, in the light of what they have done in the past two years. I imagine that he may will not think that representing seniors in this place is trying to scare people; we are simply trying to protect their security.

Given the extremely disturbing information for seniors that come from government back rooms, could the Prime Minister assure us beyond any doubt that his government is not planning to defer beyond 65 the age of eligibility to the old age pension? Can he deny today this piece of bad news for seniors?

[Old Age Pensions, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the leader of the No side, Daniel Johnson, who was clearly uncomfortable and unable to answer seniors properly, invited people to direct their questions at the Prime Minister of Canada.

On behalf of these people, therefore, I will question him myself in order to reassure seniors. Mr. Johnson said: "Since I am not the Prime Minister of Canada, a member of Parliament, a federal minister or Lloyd Axworthy, I cannot make promises as to what is going to happen". But the Prime Minister can do so. We will therefore ask him to make some promises.

Instead of trying to confuse all seniors by talking sometimes about the Canada pension plan and sometimes about the old age security system, can the Prime Minister promise today, in order to reassure seniors, that he will reject out of hand, right away and

clearly, any reform of old age pensions for seniors, as they now fear?

[Division Of The Federal Debt, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I am not saying. I just explained to the minister, and I will repeat my explanation, to make sure he understands, unless he has no answer and that is why. I will explain.

The Quebec government has very clearly announced its intention to assume its responsibility in connection with the tremendous federal debt. Yesterday the minister avoided any questions on the

subject by saying he would not negotiate with Quebec in any area whatsoever. He did not broach the subject of the debt.

Will the Minister of Finance admit that, faced with pressures from the financial community, he has no choice but to negotiate with Quebec after a win for the Yes side, because Canada is incapable-

[Division Of The Federal Debt, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the federal debt is close to $600 billion. The Quebec government has made it clear that a sovereign Quebec would take its share of the responsibility for the federal debt. Yesterday in his speech, the finance minister, who excluded any negotiations with a sovereign Quebec, remained strangely silent on the division of the federal debt.

Would the finance minister agree that the federal government's enormous debt will make it incumbent on the government, in its own interest and in view of its responsibilities, to start negotiations with Quebec the day after the referendum, starting with the division of the debt?

[Unemployment Insurance, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it will be noted that the Minister has referred to the analysis of a document originating with his office which he refuses to table before this House. He ought perhaps to remember that. This report also states that the objectives of the human resources development fund are fairly clear, namely to establish a program structure and a system of implementation which eliminate any need for provincial consent or participation.

Will he acknowledge that, if he is deliberately putting off tabling his human resources reform, his unemployment insurance reform, the reason is that it comes down so terribly hard upon the unemployed, because it invades as never before the areas over which the government of Quebec has jurisdiction, and because this would be the price Quebecers would have to pay for a no in the referendum, if ever they should vote no and allow the minister to do as he pleases?

[Unemployment Insurance, September 26th, 1995]

To the man who has made the threats of the bogey man his stock in trade, the Canadian Labour Congress analysis-not the analysis by the Bloc, although it does reach the same conclusions-says that "the main tools are training vouchers, training loans, wage subsidies, income supplements and daycare vouchers. These new approaches to program delivery will enable the federal government to bypass the provinces and deal with individuals directly".

My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he acknowledge that the Canadian Labour Congress analysis confirms his government's intentions, the federal government's intentions, to interfere even more in the areas over which the government of Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction, in total disregard of the consensus that exists throughout Quebec?

[Unemployment Insurance, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the Prime Minister talk of a campaign of terror is a bit like hearing the bogey man accusing someone else of being scary, or the pot calling the kettle black.

[Unemployment Insurance, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that, if the Minister of Human Resources Development is going to so much trouble to conceal from the unemployed, the unemployed in Quebec in particular, that they will have to face the music, to use the Prime Minister's phrase, with the reform being planned for them, it is because he wants to conceal from Quebec's unemployed what is awaiting them in Canada, if ever they decided to vote no, which will not happen?