Michel Gauthier

[Apec Summit, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is perfectly clear in this matter is that the version given by the Solicitor General, who is trying to save his skin, contradicts the version of the hon. member, who has nothing to gain except bringing out the truth.

How—

[Apec Summit, October 7th, 1998]

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

How can the Prime Minister consider what the member for Palliser says as the norm, as reliable, when he speaks on the Airbus affair, but as inaccurate and unreliable when he speaks on APEC?

Should we believe him in the Airbus case, because it suits the Prime Minister, but not in the APEC case, because it would mean having to fire the Solicitor General?

[Apec Summit, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing missing in the Prime Minister's answer is the fact that a Solicitor General is supposed to have enough common sense not to discuss his business on a plane.

I cannot blame the Prime Minister for wanting to defend his Solicitor General, who is his shield. Does the Prime Minister realize that there is not one single Canadian left who still has faith in the Solicitor General, his shield, and that he should boot him out?

[Apec Summit, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may have faith in the RCMP, but we in Quebec know what the RCMP is capable of.

On Monday, the Solicitor General suffered a complete memory lapse. Yesterday, he was able to make subtle distinctions about what he did or did not say aboard the plane.

Does the Prime Minister not realize that his Solicitor General's suddenly revived memory has no credibility, makes no sense and leaves a bad smell, and that he should demand his resignation?

[Apec Summit, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this is where the event is occurring and it is here we want to know whether the Solicitor General should remain in his position.

My question is as follows: As the Solicitor General, the minister for public security in a way, is supposed to be above all suspicion, can he say that he remains so in order to keep his position? We do not think so.

[Apec Summit, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the Solicitor General would not have remained in his position had a friend of the Liberal Party not qualified his remarks in the plane.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Is a lawyer like Mr. Toole, whose firm contributed $10,000 to the victory of the Liberal Party in the last election, capable of qualifying the remarks he heard to save the skin of the Solicitor General?

[Apec Summit, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not think he is asking Frederick D. Toole to shoulder quite a load, when Mr. Toole, good Liberal that he is, realizes that his testimony alone could make or break the government?

[Apec Summit, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general is clearly in a very difficult situation, with not just his credibility, but also his job, at stake.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he admit that not only is the solicitor general in a very difficult situation, but that so is he, because his credibility and his job are hanging by a thread, and that thread is the testimony of a Liberal Party member and a friend of the minister?

[Points Of Order, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked it to be votable, but my discussions, particularly those with the parliamentary leader of the New Democratic Party, implied that I could not obtain unanimous consent—unless there was a change—and I was told that unanimous consent by the House and the NDP would be forthcoming only if the motion were not votable.

[Points Of Order, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House that the opposition motion tabled with the Journals Branch on Friday, October 2, 1998 by Mr. Brien, the hon. member for Témiscamingue, be debated today under Business of Supply, Government Orders.