Michel Gauthier

[Canada Social Transfer, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand from the Prime Minister's answers that, for him, flexible federalism means that Ottawa is responsible for social programs and the conditions under which these programs are provided to Canadians, while the provinces are concerned only with their administration, when they are facing enormous financial difficulties following his government's withdrawal?

[Canada Social Transfer, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister have the gall to ask the provinces to make up the shortfall resulting from the federal government's withdrawal, while at the same time relegating them to a mere advisory role in developing new and much more restrictive national standards, particularly with respect to health?

[Canada Social Transfer, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, with its Canada social transfer, the federal government claimed it was giving the provinces greater autonomy and flexibility with respect to social programs. But in implementing this Canada social transfer, Ottawa is set to impose national standards for social assistance and post-secondary education, totally disregarding provincial jurisdiction over these areas.

How can the Prime Minister talk about flexible federalism when his government is not only withdrawing from social programs but also threatening to further penalize those provinces that do not comply with the new national standards, which amounts to imposing its views while at the same time denying provincial jurisdiction over social programs?

[Business Of The House, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs could tell us what is on the legislative agenda for the next few days.

[Kanesatake Reserve, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the media were not reporting minor problems but a major one, which is the illegal occupation of federal properties.

Given that the majority of honest citizens put their names on waiting lists to be allowed to live in these houses, will the Minister of Indian Affairs confirm that his officials are negotiating leases with those who took illegal possession of these properties, so as to regularize their occupancy as quickly as possible?

[Kanesatake Reserve, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it was reported in the media last weekend that some individuals illegally took possession of Oka residences bought by the federal government. Apparently, these actions were based on the "might is right" rule.

How can the Minister of Indian Affairs explain that the "might is right" rule still applies in Kanesatake, and that these federal properties are illegally occupied?

[Business Of The House, March 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot suspend the sitting of this House without first giving the people of Quebec this piece of advice: remember what the Minister of Labour did. Workers, whether unionized or not, do not forget how she handled her first labour relations assignment. Remember how she tried to scare people. Remember her arguments, arguments that turned out to be untrue. Remember that the Minister of Labour is to blame for the worst week we have gone though since we were elected to this Parliament.

[Business Of The House, March 26th, 1995]

Imagine the Quebec referendum debate, in which she is supposed to represent this government. She was called in because the government wanted to have a credible spokesperson in Quebec. No sooner is she in that her first move as Minister of Labour is to violate the rights of the workers. How so? Through economic terrorism.

[Business Of The House, March 26th, 1995]

Not only is this minister the bludgeon minister, but she is the minister of economic terrorism. This gives a good idea of what to expect in the Quebec referendum debate.

[Business Of The House, March 26th, 1995]

Before agreeing to let the House adjourn, I just wish to remind you and the population that, during the debate on this matter, the Minister of Labour refused to make the slightest concession allowing the workers not to disrupt rail transportation but to return to work and be heard. As even the conciliator admitted, the workers were not given the opportunity to be heard.

We asked the government to give the workers a chance to be heard by imposing a return to work. We agree that they should go back to work, but they should be given a chance to be heard without the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. The Minister of Labour rejected this minimum demand by the

opposition, which would have allowed us to settle the whole dispute as early as Monday.

Do not forget that, instead of agreeing to or discussing this demand, the Minister of Labour and the government adopted a hammer-like approach in conducting parliamentary proceedings this week. This is not democracy week; it is a record for a new minister recently elected to this Parliament to flout parliamentary rules four times in order to speed up debate and settle this matter as quickly as possible without any respect whatsoever for those involved.

Furthermore, I would remind you that the Minister of Labour made a statement in this House which was quite surprising, coming as it did from a new member of Parliament who, we personally believed, wanted to advance labour relations. On March 22, the Minister of Labour said this:

Let us be realistic: Kruger is closed, while Bécancour, Alcan and Petromont are in the process of shutting down. Let us do something, Mr. Speaker.

That is what the Minister of Labour said. Are those the words of a serious-minded person? Who would make such alarmist remarks, when Alcan never ceased operating, Bécancour never shut down, Kruger was closed for no more than 24 hours and Petromont remained open? Is it the responsible thing to do for a government minister to use scare tactics to settle a dispute?