Michel Gauthier

[Apec Inquiry, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in order to fend off the accusations that he suspended the civil liberties of the Vancouver APEC summit protestors, the Prime Minister is counting on the RCMP public complaints commission, the mandate of which, according to him, should allow everything to be brought out into the light of day.

How can we trust in the commission's ability to investigate, when François Lavigne, one of the investigators, confirms that it is not independent and that he was frequently asked to change reports prejudicial to the RCMP?

[Apec Inquiry, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, everybody knows the role of that commission is to investigate the actions of the police. It is a commission on police ethics. It does not have the mandate to go to the Prime Minister's office, and that is what we are interested in.

Will the Prime Minister not admit that he gave the commission a role and a mandate that it cannot fulfil because it does not have the authority to go to his office and to question him on his involvement in this matter?

[Apec Inquiry, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the only reason the Prime Minister is defending the commission of inquiry on the peppergate scandal as vigorously as he did his former solicitor general is because it is the only thing left that can protect him from embarrassing accusations that could be made against him.

Will the Prime Minister admit that having a commission of inquiry on police ethics instead of a real judicial inquiry is a lot more convenient for him and for his office?

[Budget Surplus, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, seriously, I am asking the Minister of Finance, now that the members of the cabinet realize that they do not contribute to the employment insurance fund, as they thought they did up until last week, whether they do not find it quite simply immoral to vote in favour of a tax reduction for themselves from an employment insurance program to which they do not even contribute? Is this not immoral?

[Budget Surplus, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance wants to change the government accounting system so as to combine the employment insurance surplus and the general government surplus.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Is it not his intention to combine the two surpluses so that in future people will not know what exact proportion of the huge federal government surplus is from employment insurance, since the figures have become far too embarrassing for him?

[Employment Insurance, November 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, would you kindly advise the minister once and for all to read his own studies. The figures provided on page 47 are wrong.

[Employment Insurance, November 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I know there are things that cannot be said here, but I would simply give the minister a warning. For the last time, I ask him to stop repeating what he has just said.

It is clearly stated on page 47 of the study you commissioned—

[Employment Insurance, November 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister finally learned he does not contribute to EI.

He told us that, since he did not contribute, he was not covered and that it did not bother him. Perhaps the Prime Minister is indeed not bothered by the fact that he does not contribute and is not covered.

But does the Minister of Finance know that there are thousands of workers who are bothered about paying premiums and not being entitled to the benefits of the plan, especially when they know that he is preparing to lower our taxes with their contributions?

[Employment Insurance, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

We know how big the EI surplus is because there are two separate accounts.

Are we to understand that the government—and I want a clear answer—is considering changes and that this will no longer be the case?

[Employment Insurance, November 4th, 1998]

Let us be clear, Mr. Speaker. I do not begrudge the Prime Minister his salary, far from it. I am simply saying that, in our society, there are many people who, like us parliamentarians, do not pay EI premiums.

Why should he or I benefit from a tax reduction at the expense of the less fortunate? That is unacceptable.