Michel Gauthier

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Alain Pineault, vice-president of CBC planning and regulations said that the future of CBC regional TV stations had become uncertain following the funding cuts announced in the last federal budget.

Since the CBC decided against asking the CRTC to renew its regional stations' broadcasting licences because of the uncertainty created by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, can the minister confirm or deny once and for all today-and could he please be clear-that the CBC is facing cuts of $44 million, $96 million and $165 million over the next three years, as Mr. Manera was told by his deputy minister?

[Canadian Advisory Council On The Status Of Women, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, let us get this straight. We referred to a statement by the Deputy Prime Minister in which she said that the Advisory Council on the Status of Women was abolished because it was a hotbed of patronage, because these were order in council appointments, and that the best way to avoid that was to abolish the council. That is what we are talking about.

That being said, since, as the Deputy Prime Minister admitted, order in council appointments are partisan appointments and cabinet still insists on appointing the government's ethics counsellor, would the government not agree that it should change its approach, act on the opposition's request and have the

ethics counsellor appointed by the House of Commons instead of by order in council?

[Canadian Advisory Council On The Status Of Women, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you understand why I will have to repeat my question. As for eliminating duplication, there are whole federal departments we could get rid of, not an advisory council that serves the status of women, but whole departments that duplicate the work done by provincial departments. We have a few suggestions for the government if it needs some help in this area.

Are we to infer from what the Deputy Prime Minister said that the committee appointed by the government to review the CRTC's decision on direct tv broadcasting, consisting of Gordon Ritchie, Roger Tassé and Robert Rabinovitch, is a committee appointed by order in council, thus involving friends of the government who are responsible for reaching a decision where several billion dollars are at stake, a decision that concerns all Canadians?

[Canadian Advisory Council On The Status Of Women, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the government. I do not know to whom it is directed, but someone will surely rise to give an answer.

Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister said that to avoid patronage and prevent order in council appointments of friends of the government, the government decided to abolish the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. That is what she said, although it is rather surprising.

Considering the important role played by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, would the Deputy Prime Minister or another member of the government not agree that it was not absolutely unnecessary to abolish the council in order to avoid partisan order in council appointments and that the government should simply have opted for another appointment process that would guarantee the arm's length position of the members?

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would appreciate it if you would check the blues.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I was simply making a reference, strictly off mike, to the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I wish you would tell me what you want me to withdraw. I did not have the impression I made an intervention.

[Business Of The House, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I nearly forgot to ask this important question. I would like the hon. government House leader to tell us about the business planned for the next few days.

[Quebec Sovereignty, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister refuses to dissociate himself from Mr. Dion's comments, I must conclude that he endorses them.

I ask the following: Since he refuses to publicly dissociate himself from Stéphane Dion's comments, are we to understand that the Prime Minister's referendum strategy has gone from scaring Quebecers into saying No in 1980 to hurting them into saying No in 1995?

[Quebec Sovereignty, March 16th, 1995]

As a preamble to my second question, I will simply remind him that Stéphane Dion is still under contract to his office until March 31. I hope that he at least knows what is going on in his own office.

How can the Prime Minister reconcile the comments made by his advisor, Stéphane Dion, with his own statement that he would respect Quebecers' democratic decision on their political future?