Michel Gauthier

[Canadian Embassy In Berlin, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs rejected, quite surprisingly, the recommendation of a committee of experts, almost unanimous in its choice of an embassy proposal, claiming there were other considerations beside that of design. There were, according to him, security, cost and development considerations. Mention should perhaps also have been made of the Winnipeg connection.

How can the minister say that there were other criteria not considered, that the group worked on design only, when his own ambassador and one of his senior officials sat on the committee to consider the very—

[Canadian Embassy In Berlin, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is doing a very poor job of defending himself. A firm from Winnipeg, which just happens to be in his riding, was given a leg up and that is what concerns us.

The minister invited three top German architects to sit on the jury in order to ensure that the Canadian embassy fit in well on the Berlin site. These three experts voted unanimously for the same project, as did other members of the jury. Only one person was in favour of the Winnipeg project.

How does the minister explain that he went with the opinion of one jury member from Winnipeg over the opinions of three German experts?

[Canadian Embassy In Berlin, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when a jury is split three to three or four to four, naturally the government has to be able to cast the deciding vote. But when, as in the Berlin case, the jury makes an almost unanimous recommendation, then it is surprising.

How can the minister claim that he overturned the jury's decision because of special security requirements, when a senior official from his department and the ambassador himself were assigned to help jury members make the best decision? Was it not the specific function of these two individuals to provide the jury with guidance?

[International Cultural Forums, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, someone ought to have told him, when his reply was being prepared, that asking the questions is our job. He is supposed to give the answers.

I will repeat my question, and I would very much like an answer from the government, because this is an important issue.

Can someone in authority tell me whether Jacques Roy was expressing the position of the Government of Canada, or his personal opinion? No parliamentary secretary is in a position to tell me that.

[International Cultural Forums, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, not only does Quebec have trouble gaining the ear of federal politicians, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in particular, but now the ambassadors are getting involved too.

Jacques Roy, Canadian ambassador to Paris, has apparently stated that Canada would never give Quebec the status Belgium has given the Walloons and the Flemings.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the opinion expressed by Ambassador Roy was personal, or whether it was the government's position?

[International Cultural Forums, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for France has added his voice to that of his colleague, the Minister of Culture, reaffirming Quebec's right to express itself internationally.

The key spokesperson for the opposition in France has also made the statement that all French politicians were unanimously in favour of Quebec's having this right.

With all these additional opinions being voiced, does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs still maintain his profound analysis of last week, which was that France's support of Quebec was merely the result of the inexperience of its Minister of Culture?

[International Cultural Forums, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if there are two cultures, how can the Prime Minister explain that the Minister of Canadian Heritage allowed the Quebec minister of cultural affairs to attend the Ottawa conference last year, but without the right to speak?

I ask him whether he really thinks that, by denying the facts, by gagging us and trying to keep us from expressing ourselves, he thinks he will resolve the problem. Does he think that by blacklisting the Government of Quebec he will stop us from having a voice internationally?

[International Cultural Forums, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it feels like the Prime Minister is once again on the trail of the separatists.

He is familiar with Mr. Gérin-Lajoie's contention that Quebec should speak for itself internationally in areas under its jurisdiction. This contention was put forward by a federalist and has the support of federalists in Quebec.

Could the Prime Minister explain why he finds this such a problem and why it is such a bad thing for Canada for Quebec to be in its rightful place?

[International Forums, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will have the opportunity to rise again.

I want to ask him if he will not acknowledge that Quebeckers and the Government of Quebec have always played a leadership role in defending the French fact in North America and that, in doing so, they are fully entitled to be heard in international forums like the one in Belgium with the Walloons and the Flemings.

We exist and we want to have the right to say so.

[International Forums, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage earlier acknowledged something we have not heard for a very long time in federal parliament—the notion of two founding peoples.

Does the fact of recognizing Quebec francophones as one of the two founding peoples of this country end there, or does it not warrant special status in Canadian delegations?