Michel Gauthier

[Draft Bill On Quebec Sovereignty, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, everyone will have understood what the Prime Minister means by flexible federalism: the provinces bend and the federal government invades their jurisdiction.

How can the Prime Minister be indignant and get all hot under the collar about the $2 million which Quebec will spend on consulting its citizens when his own government is getting ready to spend $35 million on tourism advertising to promote his beautiful Canada, $7 million more for promoting Canadian unity and $6 million more for the Privy Council and its federal strategy on the referendum?

[Draft Bill On Quebec Sovereignty, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, how does the Prime Minister reconcile what his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said about the possibility of flexible federalism with his own statement refusing any constitutional reform?

[Draft Bill On Quebec Sovereignty, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in the same disarray as the speakers for the federalist cause,

the Prime Minister tried to minimize the consultation process announced by the Government of Quebec and at the same time confirmed that he did not intend to participate in it. He also mentioned the possibility of the federal government holding a Canada-wide referendum on Quebec's constitutional future.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he admit that holding a Canada-wide referendum on Quebec's constitutional future means denying Quebecers the right to decide their own future for themselves?

[Draft Bill On Sovereignty, December 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, you will agree that it is harder and harder to define what the federalists are proposing, since the Prime Minister talks about a fixed status quo and the federalist spokesman in Quebec, Daniel Johnson, talks about renewed federalism.

How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs justify his government's refusal to get involved in this debate? Are they so afraid of presenting Quebecers with a real debate on the two options: sovereignty or their status quo?

[Draft Bill On Sovereignty, December 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the federal government refuses to participate in the process initiated by the Government of Quebec because the Prime Minister of Canada and his government have nothing to offer but the constitutional status quo, which they know is rejected by a very large segment of Quebec's population?

[Draft Bill On Sovereignty, December 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Premier of Quebec announced his government's approach to the referendum and invited Quebecers to a wide-ranging debate on their political future. The Deputy Prime Minister called the draft bill on Quebec's sovereignty a fraud and an illegitimate, undemocratic manoeuvre.

How can the Deputy Prime Minister call this draft bill illegitimate when it fully respects the provisions of Quebec's referendum law, the same one under which referendums were held in May 1980 and in October 1992 on the Charlottetown Accord?

[Gun Control, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows perfectly well there are regular instances of firearms being in circulation when owners declare they have been stolen, lost or have otherwise disappeared. His regulations will not solve that problem.

Why does the minister not understand it is important to act now, considering that a large number of women, in Quebec for instance, have been killed by firearms since the tragic events at l'École polytechnique and that his action plan will have no measurable impact before the year 2003?

[Gun Control, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is saying some very fine things, but will he admit that under the plan he has put forward, the owners of some 13,000 automatic weapons registered in Canada, including 4,000 AK-47s, which are military weapons, will be legally entitled to keep them until their death?

[Gun Control, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, five years ago today, fourteen young women lost their lives at l'École polytechnique in Montreal, slain by a murderer who bore a grudge against women. This tragic occurrence sparked a strong movement in favour of increased gun controls as well as an awareness of the pervasive violence against women in our society.

Would the Minister of Justice agree that five years later, the same type of weapon used by the murderer at the polytechnique can still be easily obtained on the market, and that being said, why is he content with a mere action plan instead of tabling legislation with teeth to regulate the sale and circulation of firearms, as he and the Prime Minister promised to do?

[Mil Davie Shipyard, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that some contracts were necessary to allow MIL Davie to reorganize. Instead of acting as his responsibilities called for, the minister has always hidden behind the lack of so-called business plans.

Are we to understand that after demanding that Quebec make 90 per cent of the efforts to rationalize shipyards in Canada, the federal government's only goal, after closing the Sorel-Tracy shipyard and the Vickers shipyard in Montreal, is to close Quebec's third major and last remaining shipyard, MIL Davie, so that the shipyards in the Maritime provinces can survive?