Michel Gauthier

[Millennium Scholarships, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when a first year CEGEP student does not qualify, a second year one does, and a master's student does not, I call that a two-tier system. One plus one makes two.

[Millennium Scholarships, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, not only is federal interference in provincial programs creating problems that, unfortunately, are costing the public but, when it comes to the millennium scholarships, we have learned that the federal government wants to exclude vocational students, first year CEGEP students, and those studying for a master's or Ph.D.

Does this requirement of the federal government not show that it wants to undo all that we have done in the area of grants and loans in Quebec and introduce a two-tier system based on the level of study?

[Economic Statement By Minister Of Finance, November 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is swimming in billions in surplus. Could he explain how, on matters not under his jurisdiction, matters of provincial jurisdiction, such as childhood, the family and education, he took it upon himself to make announcements, but was unable to be more specific about tax cuts?

On the subject of the announcement he has just made and the transfers to the provinces, does the minister not realize that he should have been specific on these two points and that it is his duty to tell the public today just what he is going to do?

[Economic Statement By Minister Of Finance, November 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance of Canada, since being appointed, has taken $32 billion away from the provinces. That is fact. It is undeniable.

In yesterday's economic statement, the Minister of Finance talked about a lot of things, but said nothing specific about indexing the tax tables.

Can the minister not make a commitment now to tell taxpayers what they want to hear, that he will be indexing their tax tables?

[Privilege, November 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak briefly about what has just happened and about the speech of the member for Québec East.

What needs to be understood is that this is the appeal of a member to the individual who has been designated the protector of all parliamentarians in the House, to you, Mr. Speaker. It is to you in this capacity that I am speaking as the House leader of this party, because I feel involved and affected by the suit that has been brought.

I wish to humbly submit for the Chair's consideration the following, The member for Québec East, in his householder, was essentially acting as a parliamentarian. He made a few errors which, on the advice of the House's legal counsel—your employees, Mr. Speaker, people whose expertise the House makes available to members in situations such as this—he hastened to put right to the extent possible and as rapidly as possible. As a result, in one suit in which he was involved, my colleague managed very easily, with respect to matters of a personal nature involving individuals, to reach agreement with one of the senators who had decided to bring a suit.

In the second case, as a result of this also, the very nature of the suit has to do not with the personal attacks that were made, but the institution. My colleague has no way of defending himself alone, given the magnitude of the facts at issue. In order to defend himself, he would be in the completely ridiculous situation of having to call senators and members in order to testify about their expenses, obligations and responsibilities. The very nature of the suit goes well beyond the mere responsibility of this member.

Now a ruling has been made. I know that what is decided by the Board of Internal Economy normally has the consensus of the parties. We always manage to work out something in the best interests of the House. An element of co-operation is also necessary.

In this case, however, my colleague finds himself, having committed an error as a parliamentarian, and having made corrections on the advice of the lawyers and the legal counsel of the House of Commons, having accepted everything it was humanly possible to accept, in a situation of a dual lawsuit.

In the one case, there are the personal elements, and in the other—for this is a much broader and more vindictive case—it affects the MP's very ability to write to his constituents in a householder leaflet that he does not feel the role of the other place is either very important or very essential. It goes as far as that. We know our colleague has excellent chances on legal grounds to win this suit and to be exonerated of all blame.

But here we have an MP who has to deal with a lawsuit launched by a senator who has considerable means and influence—nothing secret about that—being on the government side. This is a person who could easily take the whole thing a very long way. Our colleague for Québec East, a member of this House—and he could just as easily have been Reform, Liberal, Conservative or NDP—is left to fend for himself.

I know there is another means for obtaining justice. I know an appeal can be made to the procedure and house affairs committee, if I am not mistaken. But I am asking you, like my colleague before me, as the protector of the parliamentarians in this House, is it a wise thing to do, to let a matter such as this rest on a decision one made very summarily, I hasten to add by the Bureau of Internal Economy?

I am not going to question the arguments that have been brought up so far, but I do know perfectly well that the net result is likely to have an extremely serious impact in future for MPs who could find themselves in touchy situations for having expressed politically divergent opinions.

What has to be differentiated is what constitutes opposing political opinions and what constitutes personal attacks—and I know you are an expert in this, Mr. Speaker. My colleague, who is currently being sued seemingly for his political opinions with respect to remarks make regarding the other House, finds himself unable to defend himself or, in the end, limited to his own means.

Is it the intention of the Chair to have MPs' ability to argue determined by the size of their wallet? If I can afford $100,000 or $150,000 in lawyer's fees because my finances permit me, I could attack the Senate and the people with diverging political opinions.

However, an MP, like my colleague from Québec East earns his living with his parliamentary salary and cannot express opinions, because anyone could decide to sue him for expressing political opinions, even if it were acknowledged initially that some matters were exaggerated and that the correction was made as requested by the House of Commons.

I put it to you in all sincerity. We appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as the protector of parliamentarians. We want you to find a way to sit the parties involved down, including those of the Senate, if necessary, because that was one of the elements put forward by the Board of Internal Economy. The individuals must be sat down under your influence to reconsider the case of my colleague, who finds himself in this improbable situation. This situation will have an effect in time on all parliamentarians in this House and all those who sit there from now on. This is what I draw to your attention.

[Air Transportation, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the terms were particularly well chosen.

In June, the minister tried to run the Onex proposal past the president of Air Canada. He said so himself in committee. On the eve of the presentation of the Onex project, the deputy minister met with this firm, and on Tuesday, the minister announced, by chance, that he would probably be changing the 10% rule to make Onex's proposal acceptable.

Is he not the one who, since June, has been pushing us inexorably in one direction—acceptance of the Onex project?

[Air Transportation, October 28th, 1999]

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

Yesterday, in the Air Canada-Canadian matter, former Liberal minister Marc Lalonde said that the government was mocking the House with its attitude and behaving as if everything were in the bag. The Minister of Transport defended himself saying that Marc Lalonde and his firm of lawyers were working for Air Canada.

If Marc Lalonde is considered to be working for Air Canada, is it not a far more serious matter that the person in a position to make the decisions is considered to be working for Onex? How can he, who is up to his neck already, point his finger at Marc Lalonde?

[Air Transportation, October 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what message is the Minister of Transport sending the shareholders of Air Canada when he says he is prepared to change the law to accommodate Onex and Canadian International Airlines? Is the message not to the effect that it is more important to be a friend of the government in doing business with it than to comply with the law?

[Air Transportation, October 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in recent years, the government has intervened, in particular by awarding of the best international routes to its friends at Canadian International Airlines. Today the minister is apparently preparing to change the rules of ownership, again to the advantage of Canadian International Airlines.

Has the government not shown, on two separate occasions, through its treatment of Canadian International Airlines, that it is prepared to do everything to save that company and that, as far as it is concerned, the die is cast?

[Audiovisual Productions, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday in this House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage told us that the meeting she had announced between the RCMP and her departmental staff had not taken place. Today, when asked why it did not, she told us that we are making unfounded allegations.

Why is the Minister of Canadian Heritage taking such care to sidestep our questions on an issue of such fundamental importance? What exactly does she have to hide?