Michel Gauthier

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have heard the member's comments, because I can now clarify certain things.

First, he has just talked about what is going on in Quebec. I would like to say in this House and tell the hon. member and anyone else interested that no minority in Canada receives better treatment, has more institutions and enjoys more rights than the anglophones in Quebec.

Do francophones in Canada, wherever they live in Canada, have their own universities, colleges, CLSCs and hospitals?

The anglophones can manage their own school boards. They can do all that. They have their own press, television and radio, which are very much at home in Quebec. What francophone minorities in certain western provinces have anywhere near the privileges enjoyed by the anglophone minority in Quebec?

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

In closing, I would point out that, for Bloc Quebecois members, it is much more important to talk about employment insurance, use of the budget surplus, the problems faced by our constituents who no longer qualify for EI. These issues are much more important than painting jalopies in the national colours and parading around Parliament Hill.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

No fear, this is reassuring for the sovereignists. When there is no crisis in this country, Reformers cook one up.

But what is going on here? Do the people Reform represents have such a serious identity problem? Is there such a serious identity problem over there that it is necessary to wrap oneself in the flag daily, to stick them all over the place, wave them about, put them in our pockets, or paint cars to match the Canadian flag?

But what is going on with this political party? Is there no grasp whatsoever of what the rules of Parliament are?

Do they not understand that, in a Parliament, regardless of one's political opinion, one must respect the foundation, that is the Chair, its rulings and the rules under which debates must take place?

Why should we suddenly change the rules of this House following a show of enthusiasm by Reformers and Liberals? Why should we start waving flags at every opportunity? What is going on in this country? Do Reformers have a problem of perception, a problem of identity?

They are spoiling for a fight with the separatists. They are intent on scoring political points. They want to pass themselves off as the only patriots in this country. Just what is the problem with Reformers? What is the problem with the official opposition? What sense of responsibility do these members have? They were so happy to become the official opposition and replace the bad separatists in the House of Commons, so they could make things move forward in Canada, they could make things work in this country. What are they proposing to make things work? They are talking about flags. This is outrageous.

We heard all kinds of falsehoods. First, some tried to tell the rest of Canada that sovereignists wanted to deny the existence of the Canadian flag. This is false. Nothing could be further from the truth. We never said any such thing in this House. It was also said that separatists had objected to the singing of the national anthem in this House. In fact, we were among those who agreed that, on Wednesdays, at the beginning of our proceedings, the national anthem be sung. It is false to say, as Reformers claim, that we object to the singing of the national anthem in this place.

I challenge them, including the Leader of the Official Opposition, to find a single objection to this effect raised by a Bloc Quebecois member. The Reform Party leader did not tell the truth. We did not create a flag crisis. We did not oppose the national anthem. We have always respected the flag, the anthem and the rules. We have complied with the rules.

The motion before us today challenges the Speaker's ruling, which is based on parliamentary law, on tradition and on what is being done in every Parliament. But why do Reformers want the Parliament of Canada to be different from all other parliaments? What is going on in their heads? Do they have such an identity problem that they have to wrap themselves in the Canadian flag to remember they are Canadians? Is this their problem?

Earlier, the Reform member said that, by the end of this day, those who are watching us would be able to judge who was more serious, who presented the best arguments, who is right. People made up their minds a long time ago. So did journalists. All parliamentarians on both sides of the House, in all parties except the Reform Party, understood long ago that there was no flag war, that we were being made to waste our time. Instead of addressing real problems, Reformers are having fun adding fuel to a possible debate between sovereigntists and the rest of Canada.

The reality is this. Reform members can rest assured that sovereigntists do not have to invent an artificial flag war to make Quebeckers understand that there is a problem in this Parliament. We do not need to invent quarrels with Reformers. They invent them all by themselves. We do not have to come up with things to explain to Quebeckers that there is an identity problem. They provide us with evidence on a daily basis. That is what is wrong with the Reform Party.

They do not respect the Chair, the Speaker and other political parties. They were unable to sign an agreement with other parties that was reasonable and that would have made it possible to resolve this supposed flag crisis.

They behaved liked Don Quixote. They invented a war. They embarked on a war against something that did not exist because their popularity is slipping, their party is not taking hold. Increasingly, people throughout Canada, real Canadians, want nothing to do with the Reform Party. These people invent wars, they invent causes. They set out like Don Quixote with his horse and his lance and are going to tilt at windmills.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, instead of talking about employment insurance, instead of talking about the problems being experienced by the unemployed who are going to miss out on benefits, instead of talking about economic development, instead of talking about the battle against AIDS, instead of talking about the major social problems confronting this country, what are we talking about? The flag.

We are questioning whether the Chair's ruling about whether or not we can stick little flags on our desks ought not to be overturned. Most edifying, this 1998 Reform version of the Canadian vision of development.

Who was it who broke the rules of the House? Who was it who stood up at an inopportune moment to sing the national anthem and wave flags around? Not the Bloc Quebecois members, but the Liberals and the Reform members. Who was it who created a totally artificial crisis about the flag? Not the Bloc Quebecois, not the NDP, not the Conservatives, not the Liberals, but the Reform Party.

Who was it who refused to respect the House of Commons and its procedures? Not the Bloc, not the NDP, not the Conservatives, not the Liberals, but the Reform Party. Since the beginning of this story, Reformers not only caused the initial problem, but they exacerbated it. They let the rest of Canada think the Canadian flag was being challenged here in this House, which was never the case.

[Option Canada, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Canadian Heritage justify the fact that, on November 5, 1997, she told the heritage committee that everything was fine, that everything had been done properly, when a report dated March 31, six months earlier, said that only two of the 22 conditions had been met? How can she justify that?

[Option Canada, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on November 5, 1997, the Minister of Canadian Heritage received a memo saying that Option Canada had not followed the procedures set out for that kind of program.

Yet, that very same day, the minister told the committee: “I checked to see if these funds were spent in accordance with Treasury Board regulations. It would appear that they were”.

How can the minister justify telling the heritage committee the very opposite of what was written in the memo she received the same day?

[Option Canada, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows about using the Access to Information Act when information is being withheld. That is what we had to do.

How could the Minister of Canadian Heritage appear before the Standing Committee on Heritage on November 5 last year and say that all expenditures were in compliance with the rules of Treasury Board, when she had two memos on October 8 and 9 from her department saying the opposite and especially when that very day, in her department, a report was submitted to her indicating that funds were being managed very badly? How does she explain that?

[Option Canada, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on the use of funds at Option Canada, the minister has just said that she provided all the necessary details.

I have to say that she and her department have always turned down our requests for information, and only through access to information legislation, two and a half years after the fact, did we get the answers we now have.

How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage say that the management of the funds was carefully monitored, when three internal memos from her own department and two internal reports say the very opposite?

[Points Of Order, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we just went through some very sad events and I must say that I agree with the last comment made, to the effect that you play an extremely important role at the core of the whole democratic and parliamentary system of this country.

This role was protected by those who, in the past, through wisdom and through practice, established the rules governing how this House operates.

I will not spend a lot of time on this issue. I simply want to tell you that, in our opinion, this role of yours—which is to protect democracy, to see that all parliamentarians are equal in this House, regardless of the political party to which they belong, and to ensure the proper administration of the affairs of this House, including in committee and any other place where parliamentarians have to work—is being fulfilled remarkably well.

At times, we could have, given the situation in which we find ourselves in this Parliament—and we were tempted to do so, which is only human, as you know—challenged decisions that were not to our advantage or that did not please us.

At times, we were even tempted to leave Parliament, to show that we were unhappy with the way things were done. But always guided by the most elementary wisdom and respect for those who sent us here, those who came here before us and those who will come after us, we controlled these initial impulses.

We agreed that it was important to put our confidence in you and, time after time, this confidence has been justified: decisions have been rendered in our favour when we were right and others against us when we were wrong.

As I indicated yesterday, there has been a general feeling of unease these past few days, with members unexpectedly rising to issue an extremely serious challenge to the institution that is the Chair. I have no intention of raising this issue again today, but I would just like you, Mr. Speaker, to know that no member of this House has the power to challenge the Standing Orders or the way they are applied by you in this place on our behalf, as we have mandated you to do with the support of the table officers, whose expertise is undeniable.

Your rulings cannot be questioned. We may not always be happy with them, but we must recognize their wisdom and, usually, in time, we realize that it is in everyone's interest to operate within the very specific structure provided by the rules governing deliberative assemblies such as ours.

It is a matter of respect for democracy. It is a matter of respect for authority. I would not want any parliamentarian to tarnish the image of this House by behaving in an unacceptable manner.

In that sense, Mr. Speaker, given that, as far as we are concerned, your duties have always been carried out with dignity and competence and that all of us are here for a number of months if not years, we will have to learn to toe the line and obey the rules, not to defy authority and to realize that, however partisan or impassioned the debate, the kind of behaviour we have witnessed cannot and will not be tolerated.

In the name of democracy, of this institution and of my political formation, I tell you that we have confidence in the work that has been done so far. We reiterate our confidence and are prepared to help implement measures to restore confidence in those who obviously do not work well within this system and ensure that their behaviour is worthy of parliamentarians.

Recall does not exist yet in politics. Perhaps this is a good thing for those who show no respect for our institutions.

[Employment Insurance, March 10th, 1998]

You are not helping unemployed workers.