Michel Gauthier

[2010 Olympic Games, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, solemnly, from her seat, challenged me to put my seat on the line to prove my allegations.

Naturally, when someone asks a member to do that it means they are ready to do the same.

My question to the Minister of Canadian Heritage is this: Did she see the membership list for the official delegation of the City of Vancouver, which includes the names of two government ministers, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Revenue, and will she therefore kindly do what she asked me to do and resign?

[2010 Olympic Games, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, in response to the accusation that the federal government supported Vancouver's application, says that the Quebec minister of culture supported Quebec City's application.

No one is surprised at the B.C. premier's support for Vancouver, that is understandable, as was Ms. Beaudoin's for Quebec City.

However, what is surprising—and this is my question—is why were two ministers of the federal government identified by name as supporting Vancouver's application, when no federal minister from Quebec supported Quebec City's application?

[Health, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the Chair, for the institution, but for once, I will have to accept your verdict. Unfortunately, I cannot comply with your request. It goes against my principles.

I consider that I have been unfairly treated compared to the Prime Minister.

[Health, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to look at the blues before making your decision?

It is my impression that there is an important nuance between what I said and what you tell me I said. I believe that looking at the blues would be the best thing for you, for myself, for everyone and for the Standing Orders. After that, you and I can take the proper steps within the parliamentary process.

If I might ask you this rather small favour of looking at the blues and we can then discuss this situation again. I will make honourable amends, if necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you to check the blues first. Is it possible to ask you to do so?

[Social Union, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister will withdraw his, I will be pleased to withdraw mine.

[Social Union, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

What do we call a person who visits Quebec, who is the Prime Minister of Canada, who makes promises, and who, at the first opportunity, breaks them? A hypocrite.

[Social Union, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of hypocrisy—

[Social Union, December 1st, 1998]

However, that is not what I want to talk to him about. Clearly the Prime Minister's remarks are suspect, because each time he has spoken behind the back of the Premier of Quebec—we know what that led to in 1982—he is starting again.

My question for the Prime Minister is the following: what principle gives him the right to decide on health care, when it is not his responsibility and he has never campaigned on it?

[Social Union, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, most certainly, the Prime Minister of Canada with his majority of five ridings out of 300 would be comfortable with a majority of 27 out of 125.

[Apec Inquiry, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the former solicitor general ought to be exactly the right person to know that, in its ten years, the commission has never had to investigate the behaviour of a prime minister, as it is going to have to this time.

How could this commission of inquiry into police conduct feel comfortable investigating the behaviour of the Prime Minister, when he goes so far as to publicly prevent his solicitor general from speaking to journalists, by taking his arm and leading him away? What kind of message on ethics is the Prime Minister sending to the members of this commission of inquiry?