Michel Gauthier

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, December 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this session ends today. Unfortunately, we learned in recent days that thousands of seniors who were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement never received it.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. As the holiday season is fast approaching, would it not be nice to show to seniors that the government changed its mind and has decided to apply full retroactivity to those who did not get what they were entitled to?

The government once accepted a $1 billion tax free transfer for a family trust on December 23. This time, why not do something nice for the elderly?

[Employment Insurance, December 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is looking at every possible way to stop the Minister of Finance stealing from the unemployed. That is what we are trying to do.

Will he acknowledge that, while he stubbornly refuses to create a separate EI fund managed by companies and contributors, he can no longer stick both hands in the fund, thereby considerably improving benefits and considerably reducing contributions?

If he were to stop dipping into the fund, this would be the result.

[Employment Insurance, December 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is interpreting the remarks of the auditor general however he likes.

He continues to hear only what he wants. The auditor general never asked the government to have contributors to employment insurance pay for health, education and debt service. Never.

Will the Minister of Finance admit honestly that it is entirely possible to have a separate EI fund accounted for in the government's consolidated financial statements, in compliance with all aspects of the recommendation by the auditor general?

[Employment Insurance, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, what is despicable on the part of the government is that it only implements the auditor general's recommendations that it likes. This is what the government does.

The Deputy Prime Minister, who has been here a long time, must know that it is possible to set up an independent employment insurance fund, as is the case with the CSST in Quebec, and to have that fund accounted for by the government.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister not find it a disgrace that his government is going along with an interpretation whereby it is the unemployed, those who are truly in need, who are paying off the government's debt? It is outrageous.

[Employment Insurance, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is more and more interesting. I hope I will continue to get answers from the hon. member.

If the government stubbornly refuses to set up an independent employment insurance fund, it is because, as was just confirmed to us, the surpluses are put into the consolidated fund and are used to pay the government's debt?

Does the minister not realize that making the unemployed pay for its debt is one of the darkest initiatives of this government?

[Cinar, December 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue did not answer a single question, even the one on his decisions and on the form. So there is no point in telling us just any old thing.

I would like to know how the Minister of National Revenue managed to concoct a secret agreement with CINAR based on financial statements that even the firm of accountants retained by CINAR did not want to sign.

Is this Revenue Canada's usual approach?

[Cinar, December 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, at the start of the CINAR business, the government spoke of urban legends. A little further along, the Minister of National Revenue avoided questions, even those that were not on the essence of the matter, claiming confidentiality. Finally, we learn that the department did not co-operate with the RCMP in the matter.

Why, when he had the chance, did the Minister of National Revenue not carry out his own investigation on CINAR, something that is provided for in the legislation and that would have thus permitted an exchange of information between the department of revenue and the RCMP? Why?

[Border Agreements, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree that Mexico should be included in any negotiations on security issues in North America? This would ensure a much better balance than in the Canada-United States discussions.

It seems to me that Canada, the United States and Mexico form a meaningful entity that should be recognized, including in the type of agreement that will be signed today.

[Border Agreements, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, NAFTA concerns trade among Canada, the United States and Mexico. In light of this, it would seem normal that the border agreement to be signed between Canada and the United States would include the third member of the trade agreement, namely Mexico.

Could the Canadian government tell us about the impact for Mexico of the new Canada-United States border agreement? Would it not have been normal to include Mexico in that agreement?

[Public Safety Act, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, no one here is naive. Parliament passes legislation. What is written has force of law, not what the minister thinks of it. That is the fact of the matter.

Will the minister recognize that the major difference between the current situation and that of Bill C-42 is that, at the moment, the armed forcescan come to the help of the police, while under Bill C-42 they would take control of a designated zone for the period they wanted, and all citizens' rights would be suspended? There is quite a difference.