Michel Bellehumeur

[Federal-Provincial Relations, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In the throne speech, the government announces that it will withdraw from a number of areas of jurisdiction. Curiously enough, these areas-namely job training, forestry, mining, and recreation-all come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. With a few exceptions, the areas in question are the same as those listed in the Charlottetown accord.

Does the Prime Minister confirm that his new constitutional position is based on the Charlottetown accord, but with something missing?

[Speech From The Throne, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that her Prime Minister's proposal to withdraw immediately is nothing but smoke and mirrors, since the federal government will keep control over program policy and impose national standards? Let her give a real answer to this question if she can.

[Speech From The Throne, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the mayor of Montreal himself said we should stop talking about partitioning Quebec. According to yesterday's throne speech, the federal government is willing to withdraw from job training, forestry, mining, and recreation, among other things. This is somewhat reminiscent of the Charlottetown accord, which was rejected by Quebecers and Canadians as a whole in 1992.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister admit that his proposal merely recycles part of the Charlottetown accord, which, as you may recall, was massively rejected by both Quebec and Canada?

[Information Highway, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Prime Minister, who is the one in charge of preserving the integrity of this government.

Does the Prime Minister not find it unacceptable that the industry minister should be the spokesperson of companies having an interest in the information highway, and what should we think of an ethics counsellor who sees nothing wrong with that?

[Information Highway, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

We just learned that the Minister of Industry is about to award a $100,000 contract, to write his speeches and advise him on the development of the information highway, to the company that lobbies him on behalf of businesses having an interest in the information highway, including Astral, Unitel, Western International Communications and many others.

By letting lobbyists representing these companies write his speeches and dictate to him his policies on the information highway, how can the minister claim to protect the interest of Canadians in that regard?

[Business Of The House, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it would be appreciated if the Government House Leader would announce the business of this House for next week.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

That is not true. He resigned after Meech Lake.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, today, I can understand the emotion the minister is feeling as she comes to realize how little she can do to change the situation for which her government is responsible.

She also realizes that what she is offering on behalf of her government, because she is part of that government, means almost nothing to the people of Quebec. What I want to tell the tearful minister we saw today is that she should have shed her tears when her leader, the current Prime Minister of Canada, killed the Meech Lake agreement. That is when she should have shed tears.

She should also have cried when the Prime Minister of Canada-who was only the leader of her party at the time-lurked around and tried to influence the Charlottetown accord negotiations. She should have shed tears then to try to convince him to listen more closely to what Quebec was saying.

She should also have shed tears these last two years every time her government held a caucus meeting to say no to Quebec and to the historical demands of our province. That is what she should have done.

Today, her tears come a little too late, and she has only herself and her own government to blame. I think the Leader of the Opposition made it clear yesterday and again today that we can expect nothing new from English Canada. We can expect nothing new from the other side because, besides some lip service and telling us: "We love you, Quebec", they have come up empty-handed.

So, please, let us have a little less fuss and a little less show of emotion here. Let us try to remain clear-headed in our remarks and our approach in this House and have a very civilized debate, which is what we, in the Bloc Quebecois, intend to do.

[Renewal Of Canadian Federalism, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the word "phoney" bothers the minister because it reflects the truth.

Does the minister not believe, rather, that the initiatives announced by the Prime Minister sound the death knell for the work of his committee, thus confirming beyond a doubt that the committee is phoney and was set up simply to create the illusion that Ottawa was preparing to offer changes to Quebec? This is the fact of the matter.

[Renewal Of Canadian Federalism, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was totally serious yesterday when he announced that the phoney committee he chairs, which is divided, as the minister has indicated, will continue its deliberations despite the initiatives announced by the Prime Minister. It will even submit recommendations to the Prime Minister by Christmas.

Are we to understand that the phoney committee is continuing its work because it plans to offer Quebec more than the Prime Minister did barely two days ago?