Michel Gauthier

[Audiovisual Productions, October 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the president of CINAR is involved in the Liberal Party of Canada. The Prime Minister himself appointed her to the board of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Telefilm must investigate this whole matter, as the name of the son of the president is being used and Mr. Macerola, the former Liberal candidate and executive director of Telefilm, says it is an urban myth.

What we want to know is who is the main player in the urban myth, which might be called “In the Kingdom of the Cronies”?

[Audiovisual Productions, October 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in March 1997, following the first investigation by the RCMP, the attorney general decided not to lay charges against CINAR. Barely one month later, Ms. Charest, the president, hosted a Liberal Party benefit supper with the Prime Minister.

I would like the Prime Minister to explain the coincidence between the favorable decision by the attorney general with respect to CINAR, a decision that is hard to explain, and Ms. Charest's involvement in the Liberal Party.

[Audiovisual Productions, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, to make things perfectly clear, the minister requested an RCMP investigation. But an RCMP investigation was conducted prior to 1997. We do not know why, or how, but no charges were laid.

The Montreal urban police conducted an investigation and found that there had been criminal dealings. How does the minister think this new RCMP investigation will come up with anything different from the first investigation, if indeed there was nothing?

[Audiovisual Productions, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has just told us that she requested an RCMP investigation into the copyright case.

Will she confirm that there had already been an RCMP investigation into this case prior to 1997 and that no charges were laid?

[Gm Plant In Boisbriand, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, like the rest of Canada, Quebec has to compete internationally, and we need to be proactive when it comes to saving jobs.

Bernard Landry was proactive. He sought a way of saving the plant. It would be nice to be able to say the same of the minister.

I would like to ask the following question: why is he so hot to set up a lottery to save hockey clubs in Ontario, while the situation in Quebec is of no importance? We just have to wait.

[Gm Plant In Boisbriand, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we learned from this morning's La Presse that the automotive manufacturers are being offered some extremely attractive incentives to stay in the U.S. or to develop new plants there.

We learned also that Bernard Landry has made an interesting proposal as part of the efforts being made on the North American continent to save the Montreal plant.

Does the Minister of Industry seriously think he is going to be believed when he says he has done everything to save GM, when he has in fact stood back with his arms crossed, to all intents and purposes, for some time?

[Speech From The Throne, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is getting into a particularly hot issue as far as Quebec construction workers are concerned. Perhaps he should think twice about doing so.

In another area of concern to us, again in connection with barriers to mobility, does the Prime Minister consider that the provisions of Law 101 relating to the language of work in Quebec constitute an obstacle to mobility?

[Speech From The Throne, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne the government has committed to eliminating the barriers it claims impede the mobility of citizens within Canada. We are aware of the tensions that exist between Ontario and Quebec in the area of construction.

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether this desire of the government to eliminate barriers to mobility means that it wishes to interfere in the discussions currently under way between Quebec and Ontario relating to construction?

[Social Union, June 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the nation builders in Ottawa are determined, in the name of an abstract and doctrinaire vision of individual and provincial equality, to introduce asymmetry into our federal system.

When is the minister going to quit playing with words and concepts and tell Quebecers clearly that his vision of the federalism of the future is an even greater centralization than we have at present, which does not correspond to what Quebecers, even federalist Quebecers, want?

[Social Union, June 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Claude Ryan, the former leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, judges social union very severely.

He says, and I quote “This is the third time in the past 20 years that, after committing to a joint undertaking with the other provinces and territories, Quebec has been abandoned in mid-stream by its partners.”

How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs consider that social union is the eighth wonder of the world, when even Quebec federalists consider it one more step toward a highly centralized Canada?