Michel Gauthier

[Quebec Referendum, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the Prime Minister's efforts to create a diversion in order to avoid answering the real question that the Leader of the Opposition has been asking and that all Quebecers have been asking through us over the past two days. I will try for an answer once again.

He is becoming the ambiguity champion, shifting subtleties according to whichever language he is speaking or leaving the possibility of a second referendum in doubt. His answers are never clear. I will ask him the question once more. I want to give him an opportunity to respond clearly.

Does the Prime Minister of Canada not realize that he himself is confusing the whole question with his ambiguous statements? Does he not realize that his role as Prime Minister in fact is to act democratically and responsibly in response to the choice of Quebecers and to say so clearly and unambiguously?

[Request For Emergency Debate, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with our Standing Orders, my comments will strictly concern the contents of my letter. Under Standing Order 52, I request leave for an emergency debate on the federal government's recognition of the legitimate right of the people of Quebec to decide, in the forthcoming referendum, on their political future.

This request is particularly timely, considering the ambiguity that remains after today's Question Period. On September 12, 1995, the Minister of Labour made contradictory statements about the federal government's recognition of the referendum results.

The Prime Minister of Canada, on the other hand, did not clearly express the position of the federal government in this respect nor did he clarify satisfactorily what was said by the minister. A very substantial doubt remains, and the people of Quebec and Canada need to know the real position of the federal government regarding the results of the referendum exercise in Quebec. Disturbing comments made by the Prime Minister during Question Period lead us to conclude that his position would be not to accept the results of the referendum in Quebec.

Considering the importance of what is at stake, you will understand, since it is impossible to consider, on short notice, another occasion on which the matter could be put before the House, I think it is in the public interest that parliamentarians should have a chance to discuss this fundamental question and express their views to the government as soon as possible. I wish to stress the urgent nature of this debate.

In concluding, I simply wish to say I did some quick research and found that in 1977, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau moved a motion for debate on Canadian unity. The motion was accepted, and the debate was a very important one. After the speech from the Throne in April 1980, there were seven days of debate on the issue of national unity, and I found that the people who took part in these discussions stressed their importance at the time.

In this perspective and considering what is now happening in Quebec, I think it would be important for the House of Commons to obtain approval for an emergency debate. Thank you.

[The Late Jean-Luc Pepin, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my political party, I would like to pay tribute today to Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin, who passed away a few days ago.

Born in Drummondville in 1924, Mr. Pepin had a brilliant career both as an academic and a politician. He was first elected to the House of Commons in 1963 to represent the Drummond-Arthabaska riding.

In 1968, under the Trudeau government, he became the first Quebecer ever to be put in charge of an important economic portfolio when he was appointed Minister of Industry. During his career as a member of Parliament and a federal minister, he was at the centre of several major reviews and often had to meet tough challenges, including implementation of the metric system, transport deregulation and the development of a more open relationship between Canada and the People's Republic of China.

It is particularly important to mention the contribution of Jean-Luc Pepin as co-chairman of the Pepin-Robarts Commission, a working group set up to examine the constitutional and political problems facing Canada. Despite the extremely centralizing vision of the Trudeau government, this Quebecer had the fortitude to defend with conviction the concept of asymmetrical federalism. As we know, according to this concept, the province of Quebec would have been able to display its specificity and to have, as indicated in the commission's report, all the powers needed to preserve and develop its distinctiveness.

The rest is history, as we say. Pierre Trudeau and the current prime minister turned dow the report before forever entrenching in the 1982 Constitution the principle of equality for all provinces.

We will remember Mr. Pepin for his exceptional contribution to the political debate which is still going on today. We will remember how this Quebecer tried without success to ensure that the right of Quebec to develop as a distinct entity was recognized.

On behalf of my colleagues in this House and on my own behalf, I would like to extend to his family and friends our deepest sympathy.

[Quebec Referendum, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, to the man who said in 1980 that No meant Yes and that Yes meant No, I ask the following question, and we would like an answer.

Does the Prime Minister of Canada realize that by refusing to admit that he will respect the results of the democratic referendum to be held in Quebec, he is contradicting the chairman of the No committee and his boss in this case, Daniel Johnson from Quebec, as well as his minister responsible for constitutional matters and the referendum in Quebec? Does he realize that his irresponsibility is creating uncertainty and that he is duty-bound to give real answers?

[Quebec Referendum, September 18th, 1995]

-and he killed the Meech Lake accord. He is the one who is creating problems.

[Quebec Referendum, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, they have very short memories. Quebec sovereignists have always respected the results of the 1980 referendum, as shown by the fact that, 15 years later, we are still in Canada discussing the Constitution because two things have occurred since the referendum. The situation has changed, Mr. Speaker. He unilaterally repatriated the Constitution-

[Quebec Referendum, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it will be noted that the Prime Minister is carefully trying to avoid answering questions on the recognition of the right of Quebecers to make decisions on their own future. He is also creating confusion by censuring his minister responsible for the referendum in Quebec because she made the terrible mistake of saying frankly that the government should respect the wishes democratically expressed by Quebecers.

My question to the Prime Minister is very clear and simple, and I want an answer. Given the important consequences for all the people in Quebec and in the rest of Canada, can the Prime Minister tell us clearly whether or not he will respect the choice expressed by Quebecers in the upcoming referendum?

[Chile's Accession To Nafta, June 22nd, 1995]

We know that Quebec is a member of NAFTA, just like Prince Edward Island. Given that trade between Canada and Quebec is 153 times greater than it is between Canada and Chile-since we are talking figures here, it should be clear-and given that 250,000 workers in Ontario owe their living to the trade relations between Ontario and Quebec, my question is as follows. In the light of the stakes, will the Prime Minister tell us-yes or no-as the Prime Minister of the rest of Canada, after sovereignty, whether he will assume his responsibilities and see that Quebec's entry into NAFTA is facilitated?

[Chile's Accession To Nafta, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of having the courage to tell the truth, the Prime Minister is in no position to tell anyone anything.

[Chile's Accession To Nafta, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's answers do little more than give Quebecers cause for fear or doubt. The Prime Minister has already cast doubt on the rapid inclusion of a sovereign Quebec in NAFTA.

My question is very simple and as follows. Given that trade between Canada and Quebec is 153 times that between Canada and Chile, will the Prime Minister undertake to work hard to have Quebec included in NAFTA quickly, following sovereignty?