Michel Gauthier

[Tainted Blood, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in recent months, as a member of cabinet, the Minister of Finance has taken part—or had the opportunity to take part—in discussions on compensation for tainted blood victims.

My question to the minister closely relates to his responsibilities and is very simple. During these discussions, did he abstain from talking, yes or no? This is simple enough.

[Funeral Of King Hussein, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we were here and we did not understand why the Prime Minister was not there. That is what is important.

First of all, the Prime Minister is responsible for the integrity of his government. Is it not to be expected that ministers, such as the Minister of Human Resources Development, will refuse to take their responsibilities on various issues when they see the Prime Minister himself hiding behind his chief of defence staff in order to avoid his responsibilities?

Does the bad example not come from the top?

[Funeral Of King Hussein, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, according to documents obtained by The Globe and Mail under access to information legislation in connection with the Prime Minister's failure to attend the funeral of Jordan's King Hussein, the Canadian army was apparently ready to transport the Prime Minister and it was in fact the PMO that dropped the ball.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House why Canada's chief of defence staff was forced to take public blame for the incident instead of the PMO?

[Minister Of Human Resources Development, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the minister is responsible for his department, by virtue of ministerial accountability. If he does not know that, there is a problem.

How can the minister now try to divest himself of all responsibility, when never before has such a serious direct and unambiguous accusation been made against a government minister as that made in the letter from Canada's information commissioner? This has never happened before.

[Minister Of Human Resources Development, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to refresh the memory of the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The information commissioner's letter read in part as follows: “However, the file was sent for approval on January 28. Departmental officials took 74 days to agree to the release of all the material requested. The minister's office put its interests ahead of those of the applicant and defied the legislation throughout this period. This is completely unacceptable”.

[Minister Of Human Resources Development, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word. I will simply say that what the minister was doing was completely—

[Minister Of Human Resources Development, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, their batting average may be excellent, but they have recovered so many millions they have exceeded the quotas. We knew that already, the minister did not need to tell us.

While the minister was in hot water in this House, while he was denying the existence, as we will recall, of quotas in his system, how, according to him, was it his office voluntarily hid documents proving that he was lying?

[Minister Of Human Resources Development, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is so concerned about issues of integrity and honesty among the unemployed that he has established an integrity branch in his department, with quotas for harassing the unemployed.

This is the same minister who defies the Access to Information Act when documents requested could put him in hot water.

How can the minister demand integrity, honesty and transparency from the unemployed when he allows himself to defy the Access to Information Act and to deny us this information?

[Employment Insurance, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last fall we questioned the Minister of Human Resources Development on employment insurance quotas, and were unable to obtain any answers here in the House.

At the same time, journalists for the TVA network applied to the information commissioner to obtain details. The word came back today, and the commissioner has clearly stated that the minister put his own interests before those of the requesting parties and has defied the law all this time.

How can the Minister of Human Resources Development justify not responding to our questions in this House, on the one hand, and defying of the Access to Information Act when inquiries are made by journalists, on the other?

[Poverty, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this is a classic scenario. First, this government cut funding, thus putting pressure on the services, and then it got involved in jurisdictions in which it has no business.

My question to the Prime Minister is: Could it be that his government is about to get publicity at the expense of Canada's poor children?