Michel Gauthier

[Crtc, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister or his messenger boy. I do not know who will choose to respond. The Minister of Industry may feign indignation, but he cannot hide his own and the whole government's discomfort.

The chairman of the CRTC told the parliamentary committee yesterday that the government's power to issue directives never meant that it could take over the CRTC's role of setting Canada's broadcasting policy.

Does the Prime Minister or his messenger boy, his underling, not think that, by bypassing the usual decision making process in this matter, putting in place a special committee as proposed, and drafting a very specific order tailor made for Power DirecTv, the government usurped the CRTC's powers, as CRTC chairman Keith Spicer claims?

[Unemployment Insurance, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when there is a reference to the plight of poor people, it is the separatists' fault, and when there is a reference to the government's UI cuts over a three year period, it is the Conservatives' fault. Enough is enough.

Will the Prime Minister agree to stop being irresponsible, as he has been since the beginning, and will he recognize, as does the Quebec minister for income security, that 43 per cent, a percentage which reflects a tragic situation, of the new households joining the welfare rolls in Quebec have been excluded from the UI program because of the cuts made by this government? Will the Prime Minister finally admit that?

[Unemployment Insurance, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to remind the Prime Minister that, over the past nine years, the Canada that produced so many unemployed and welfare recipients was managed by federalists, as was the province of Quebec. This is the result of their policies. They should not try to muddle the issue: this is their legacy, and Quebecers are increasingly aware of that.

Currently, more than half of Canada's unemployed are not even eligible to UI benefits any more. No question about it: this is the result of this government's actions. This situation shows how the government targeted the unemployed, rather than unemployment.

Last year alone, the UI fund generated a $4 billion surplus, yet the government still intends to cut another $700 million. Given that surplus, and the fact that over half of the unemployed are no longer eligible to the UI program, will the government agree to not go ahead with this unacceptable cut of $700 million?

[Request For Emergency Debate, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I made the exact same request, therefore, I will join the member in asking, pursuant to Standing Order 52, if we could have an emergency debate tonight, after the adjournment, on the situation of the UN troops in the former Yugoslavia.

We know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be meeting with his NATO counterparts tomorrow. In this context, it is important for the House to give the minister its point of view.

The debate should enable us to assess the situation, analyze and evaluate the new developments and, finally, determine the conditions under which UN troops would remain in the former Yugoslavia.

It is in the public interest that parliamentarians be able to debate this matter before the government presents them with a fait accompli and, given the importance of the positions the government must take, it seems undeniable that there is every advantage in having this Parliament debate this matter tonight.

[Immigration Enforcement Improvement Act, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to raise my point of order. I would like to seek from the House unanimous consent for an emergency debate. I realize that, according to the order of business-I will

be brief-such a request can normally be made only after the regular period of routine proceedings, which will end at approximately 3.15 p.m. today.

However, given the importance of the issue in question and the need to prepare ourselves for the debate, if the House were to accept my proposal, I think that you would find unanimous consent in this House for the following motion: "That the House take into consideration the situation of Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia-Hercegovina".

Given the extremely serious situation there, it is important that the House immediately consider this request for a three hour emergency debate, to begin at 6.00 p.m. The details of the debate could be worked out with the government later, but it is important that we immediately make up our minds on the necessity of the debate.

Therefore, I would ask my colleagues whether they will give their unanimous consent right now to holding a debate at 6.00 p.m. tonight on the situation of the peacekeepers, an extremely important issue.

[Transfer Payments, May 19th, 1995]

Perhaps we will finally get an answer.

[Winnipeg Jets, May 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the owners of the Winnipeg Jets will decide next Thursday whether the franchise will remain in Winnipeg. The federal government, for its part, yesterday agreed to pay $20 million toward the construction of the new arena the Jets need.

Would the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the federal government's funding is conditional on the Jets' remaining in Winnipeg or whether it will still be provided to build a 22,000-seat arena even if the Jets leave Winnipeg?

[Winnipeg Jets, May 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pardon me if I laugh. Answers like that are a laugh for everyone.

Yesterday, the President of Treasury Board confirmed having found funding for the Winnipeg Jets with the cancellation of a $35 million highway contract. In the meantime, however, the Prime Minister was stating in this House that the funding had come from the cancellation of a series of small projects worth $3 million, under the infrastructure program.

My question is simple and straightforward and, I am hoping for an answer from the Deputy Prime Minister. Would she tell us clearly which projects were cancelled to pay for the government's $20 million subsidy to the Winnipeg Jets?

[Winnipeg Jets, May 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

In the context of the announcement of $20 million in direct assistance to the Winnipeg Jets, Izzy Asper, the head of a group of businessmen trying to acquire the hockey team, has confirmed that discussions on federal funding for the Jets have been going on for a long time.

Would the Deputy Prime Minister confirm Mr. Asper's statement that discussions have been going on for a while between the federal government and the promoters trying to save the Winnipeg Jets?

[Infrastructure Program, May 18th, 1995]

So now it is $12 million. The figure is changing.