Michel Gauthier

[Business Of The House, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the leader of the government in the House. I would like to know what the business of the House will be when we return next week.

[Social Program Reform, October 6th, 1994]

We remember when he talked less compassionately about those who suffer because jobs are scarce and because his government does not care. We know and remember.

Does the Prime Minister not realize that his government's centralizing efforts will in fact lead to extremely costly duplication and overlap between the two levels of government and does he not realize that, for Quebecers, the only logical solution is that, to live in a satisfactory way, they must have their own policies, their own government, their own state and their own country?

[Social Program Reform, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, need I remind the Prime Minister that not so long ago he called the unemployed in Quebec and Canada beer drinkers? We remember!

[Social Program Reform, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the discussion paper published by the federal government shows a very clear intent to centralize. Ottawa wants to centralize increasingly the powers related to education, manpower training and income security, which, you will agree, are all areas under provincial jurisdiction. This intent will bring about, as we know, unproductive and harsh confrontation between Ottawa and the provincial governments.

My question is for the Prime Minister. How can he justify that while reducing its contribution to social program financing in Canada, Ottawa insists on imposing increasingly its views on the provinces by dictating national standards?

[International Trade, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about right now is the conduct of the Prime Minister of Canada.

My question is as follows: In requiring the premier of Quebec to bow to his diktat, does the Prime Minister not realize that he is heading towards an inevitable and pointless confrontation with the government of Quebec, given that the real objective, the unspoken objective is to isolate the sovereign government of Quebec and exclude it from his federal mission?

[International Trade, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's natural talent for generating conflict between the federal government and the government of Quebec has been in evidence for some time now. When he is not sticking his nose in someone else's jurisdiction, he is putting his foot in it.

Does the Prime Minister of Canada not realize that by choosing who must represent the governments of Quebec or Ontario, he is interfering directly in an area of responsibility exclusive to the heads of these governments, and that it is none of his business?

[Development Of Francophone Community, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree that the tremendous difficulties experienced by francophone communities throughout Canada clearly show that the federal government's actions have not done anything so far to protect them?

[Development Of Francophone Community, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, at the Acadian World Congress, the heritage minister announced that the Cabinet had just approved an overall policy on the development of francophone and Acadian communities. However, what was announced is nothing more than the minister's usual commitment to fulfil his own obligations. Unfortunately, the minister did not put in place a real comprehensive policy for developing the francophone community.

While the heritage minister is wasting time on the merits of his action plan, francophones' rights continue to be flouted. How does he account for the systematic obstruction of Ontario francophones' educational rights as is the case in Kingston and Longlac?

[Privilege, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I leave this to you to decide, having pointed out what I see as a breach of my colleague, the opposition leader's privilege. It is from that angle that the Prime Minister's answer should be considered and absolutely not within the context outlined by the government whip.

With all due respect, I would like to rise again on a question of privilege and repeat my argument that the Official Opposition's work has been undermined by an answer which was clearly inaccurate.

[Privilege, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on September 28, in this House, the Prime Minister, answering a question from the Leader of the Official Opposition, said and I quote: "If conversations took place between Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Bourassa, I would be delighted to know what they were about. I called Mr. Mulroney, who did not give me an answer".

This statement by the Prime Minister, which caught our attention, is the subject of our question of privilege since it was categorically contradicted by the member for Sherbrooke who said yesterday: "I made inquiries, and I later found that before Question Period yesterday, the Prime Minister knew that his predecessor had promised the Government of Quebec he would submit to his government a request to compensate Quebec for referendum expenses".

Moreover, a press release from the office of the President of the Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs clarifies the whole issue, contradicting the statement made by the Prime Minister.

By his behaviour the Prime Minister impeded the Leader of the Official Opposition and members of the House in the discharge of their duties since the nature of the answer he gave during Question Period changed our line of questioning. The Leader of the Opposition and members of the House were asking questions pursuant to Standing Order 37 and as such were entitled to a valid answer enabling them to carry on their duties as parliamentarians.

In our view the Prime Minister's behaviour clearly constitutes contempt as defined by May, page 136, nineteenth edition:

Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of its duty, or which has a tendency to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.

Consequently, Mr. Speaker, given the facts I mentioned, I respectfully ask that you rule that the behaviour of the Prime Minister on September 28 constitutes an obstruction to the discharge of the duties of the House and of the Leader of the Opposition and declare votable a motion to refer the issue to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with a view to getting to the bottom of this whole thing, and reviewing the Prime Minister's answers and behaviour by calling wit-

nesses, especially the former Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to your ruling in this matter and I trust that you will come to the right conclusion.