Michel Gauthier

[Unemployment Insurance, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development's responses would give one the impression that he has a present in mind for Canada's unemployed. Yet we know that the discussion paper, a virtually final document, one that originates in his office, calls for limiting access to unemployment and limiting the duration of benefits, as well as paying less benefits to the chronically unemployed.

If his project were as great as all that, do you not think that he would release it before the Quebec referendum? We know those guys. If the Minister of Human Resources Development is hiding his project, it is because it contains cuts.

Does the minister confirm that the order he received from the Minister of Finance in the last budget to cut at least $1.5 billion from unemployment benefits still stands and that his project responds to that order?

[Privatization Of Pearson Airport, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I know it is customary, and indeed we do respect the word of a member in this House. However, the Prime Minister is no doubt aware that the parliamentary immunity, the legal immunity a member enjoys when he speaks in this House implies that when a citizen testifies under oath or a member agrees to testify under oath outside this House, the impact is far greater, because there are major legal consequences.

In the circumstances, why should the Prime Minister, who knows the value of a sworn statement, leave any doubts as to his version of the facts and his integrity, considering he was formally contradicted by an individual who was speaking under oath and may face certain consequences? What this individual said is confirmed by a tape recording.

Why should the Prime Minister be willing to leave these doubts in people's minds, when he has the convenient option of appearing before a Senate committee, being sworn like an ordinary citizen and repeating his statement?

[Privatization Of Pearson Airport, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, of course the Prime Minister's opinion commands respect. However, in this case it has been formally contradicted by a Canadian citizen speaking under oath and by a taped conservation.

In the circumstances, would the Prime Minister not consider it would be most advisable for him to agree to testify under oath in order to clear up this matter? Would the Prime Minister agree with the importance of such a step?

[Business Of The House, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, I will ask my hon. colleague, the government House leader, to tell us what is on the agenda for the next little while.

[Operation Unity Centre, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would be willing to tell us his criteria for keeping certain studies confidential and releasing others.

I would appreciate if he would tell us and then explain how he can decide to keep all these studies under wraps and then comment on the actions of another government that really does not need any lessons from him?

[Operation Unity Centre, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will simply repeat the question put by the Leader of the Opposition.

The minister accused another government of keeping studies under wraps, although these studies are published regularly. The problem, and that is the gist of our question, is this. He told us that most Operation Unity funds would be used for studies of the extremely costly duplication that exists within the Canadian federal system.

Our question is this: If he is so open, what about these studies which absorb most of the funds of this organization? Tell us about them, Mr. Minister.

[Quebec Referendum, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to making compliance with the result of the Quebec referendum dependent on his choosing the question, which of itself is no easy task, the Prime Minister used the opportunity to make his Minister of Labour change her mind by twisting her arm. He made Daniel Johnson change his mind by twisting his arm. He tried to get the leader of the third party to change his mind by twisting his arm.

Can the Prime Minister tell me this? Just how far will he go in trying to subvert democracy? How far exactly?

[Quebec Referendum, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is taking great care to answer the questions put to him by the Leader of the Opposition to give him a second chance, because Quebecers know him and remember him.

The Prime Minister's attitude toward honouring the result of the Quebec referendum strangely parallels his behaviour in 1982 at the time of the unilateral patriation of the constitution, when, for the first time, he made a mockery of democracy.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, by refusing to agree to honour the result of the Quebec referendum, he is creating a dangerous precedent by taking a step no Canadian Prime Minister before him has dared take?

[Point Of Order, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, our Standing Orders provide that matters raised during question period must have to do with, and this is clearly spelled out, government or ministerial responsibilities.

Here is my question: How can the Liberal member for Vaudreuil be allowed to question the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of Canada about something that is not within his jurisdiction or that of the government, about a document tabled by another government? How can the minister be allowed to be asked a question, and then proceed to give an answer for over two minutes, when the matter falls outside his purview?

[Quebec Referendum, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that subtlety is a quality, but shifting subtleties according to the language you are speaking is devious.

Speaking of Daniel Johnson, the chair of the "No" committee, he refused this morning to reiterate before the National Assembly the commitment he made last week to honour Quebec's yes vote.

Are we to understand that the Prime Minister of Canada has just called the chair of the "No" committee in Quebec to order as he did last week in the case of his Minister of Labour? Did he use the same process?