Michel Gauthier

[Referendums, November 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I had occasion to quote the Prime Minister, who on referendum night in 1995, boasted of the merits of democracy, which gave him a 50.6% victory. Today, he is refusing to recognize 50% plus one as the rule.

Could the minister tell us where, in the supreme court opinion, he is asked to give votes different values according to their being for or against sovereignty for Quebec? In other words, where in the supreme court decision does he come up with the fact that clarity means 60,000 from Lac-Saint-Jean and 40,000 votes from Westmount?

[Referendums, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's thinking is becoming clearer and clearer. In fact, his suggestion is a very good one.

Can the Prime Minister not understand that his real role is to do precisely what he just did: make suggestions, and leave the questions up to the National Assembly of Quebec and Quebecers?

[Referendums, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Prime Minister intends to change the rules of the game in Quebec's next referendum.

On the evening of the 1995 referendum, the Prime Minister of Canada said, and I quote: “In a democracy the people are always right. Tonight there is only one winner: the people”. On that evening, he recognized that 50.5% was a democratic result.

My question is for the Prime Minister. How does he square what he said on the evening of the last referendum with his plan to unilaterally modify the rules of democracy, which are recognized and accepted worldwide?

Is it only democratic for the Prime Minister if he wins?

[Referendums, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand from the minister's answer that one of the options he is currently considering is to impose on the Quebec National Assembly a question that would have to be unanimously approved, for example, to make sure it is to his liking, legitimate, clear and appropriate? Is this what the government is getting at?

[Referendums, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that the 1995 referendum question was a PQ question, even though it was approved by a majority in the Quebec National Assembly. This is a disturbing statement that puts into question the legitimacy of British parliamentarism.

On that same basis, are we to understand that all the bills passed in this House are Liberal bills and not Parliament of Canada bills, and that, as such, they do not deserve to be respected and have no legitimacy?

[Child Poverty, November 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have my doubts, although they are not about the House leader, who has put his foot in it. I find myself obliged to tell him that the poorest place in Canada is Newfoundland and the maritimes.

To my knowledge, the last constitutional referendum in Newfoundland took place in 1948. Is he telling us that the effects have lasted 50 years?

[Child Poverty, November 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when we questioned the government about its inability to reduce poverty in Canada, the learned Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explained that Quebec's referendum debate was responsible for the increase in the number of poor children in the country.

So we come back to this issue today. My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the government agree with this somewhat short-sighted analysis by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, according to which the number of poor children in Canada has increased since 1993 because a referendum was held in Quebec in 1995?

[Transfer Payments, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the provincial and territorial finance ministers recognized that the federal government must reduce its enormous debt.

They recognized at the same time that the priority of the federal government, before it spends on other programs that are not its responsibility, is essentially to re-establish the transfers for health care and education and that this priority must guide the Minister of Finance and his government.

[Transfer Payments, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the ministers of finance unanimously called on the federal government to raise the level of transfers for health care and education spending by $3.7 billion.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he admit that he has already cut too much in the transfers to the provinces for health care, in particular, and that he is therefore responsible for most of the problems in all the provinces and that his priority is to re-establish the transfers as he was asked to do by his provincial and territorial colleagues?

[Millennium Scholarships, November 4th, 1999]

The minister is so ready with her answers that she gives them before the questions are out of our mouths.

Would it not be better if the Minister of Finance learned from the millennium scholarships fiasco and gave the money directly to the Government of Quebec for students, rather than upsetting the most efficient system in Canada?