Michel Gauthier

[Point Of Order, February 26th, 1998]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the kind of ruling that has earned you the respect of all members and got you re-elected as Speaker.

Indeed, Parliament is the last place where people can talk to one another. The day Parliament goes silent, the country ceases to exist. And so does democracy.

My point was, and I will conclude on that: if our co-operation is expected in this House, never again will we tolerate that our national anthem or flag be used in the middle of question period or any debate to prevent a member of the Bloc Quebecois or any other member of this House from speaking.

In closing, I hope that the media will report to all Quebeckers and Canadians the behaviour they witnessed here today, on both sides of the House, unfortunately. I hope Canadians will see what happened. I hope Quebeckers will as well, as they will think “How arrogant these people are. And, just yesterday, they came to Quebec to tell us how much they loved us”.

[Point Of Order, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it would be a good idea for all of the members of this House to listen, because if this House functions smoothly, if it is viable for you there, for them over there, and for us—and if anyone has not understood it yet, the veterans here can explain it to them—it is because the House leaders speak to each other, co-operate with each other, trust each other. It is because the House leaders, above and beyond differences of political opinion, first and foremost respect democratic values, the forum for debate Parliament represents, and the rules that govern it.

I have always given that co-operation, and am often the one who initiates compromises to make things run more smoothly in this House. For instance, this evening we are finishing earlier to accommodate colleagues who are not of my political persuasion. We are always pleased to oblige, since democratic debate must be carried out in the most correct, most comfortable, most respectful way possible. But that could change.

This is why I am asking members of this House to listen to my point of order, because we can never again let the flag be used to protest or to disrupt the proceedings in this place.

This morning, the Chair issued a ruling prohibiting members from using the flag as a tool of protest inside the House of Commons and allowed the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis to take the floor.

My colleague is fully entitled to rise in this House, like any other member of this place. Liberal members will not change that, at least as long as I am parliamentary leader on this side of the House.

Four years ago, when we arrived here as sovereignists, everyone said we would show no respect for the House of Commons. Yet, if there is a political party that always listens to the Chair, that always co-operates with the Clerks-at-the-Table and with parliamentary leaders, it is the Bloc Quebecois. In spite of our diverging views, we have always done our work with dignity, by defending our ideas, and not by doing stupid and inappropriate things like those we have seen today.

Never will we tolerate again people using the national anthem in this House, during Oral Question Priod, to ridicule the proceedings of this place, or one of our colleagues, or the national anthem itself. It was quite something to see these great Canadians, who boast about the flag every day, use it as a mere tool of protest. It was quite something to see these great Canadians use the national anthem to disrupt the proceedings of the House of Commons. They must step aside.

In conclusion, I will tell you this—

[Point Of Order, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have eleven years of legislative experience, first seven years in the Quebec National Assembly and now four here in the House of Commons.

In all those years I, like many others here, have been a fighter. The political arena is here. This is the place where the people speak. The political game dictates that we face each other in accordance with certain rules.

During my political career, I have seen members break those rules. I have seen speakers bring down rulings and they were always justified, as their purpose was to enhance the quality of debate in the home of democracy.

It is, therefore, with great sorrow that I rise on this point of order. Never, in all my years as a parliamentarian, have I seen members of this Parliament, the Quebec National Assembly or any self-respecting Parliament show such disrespect to the flag of their country, using it in a demonstration aimed at causing disorder, preventing someone from exercising the right to speak, and disregarding the Speaker's orders.

[The Budget, February 25th, 1998]

He will never get an answer from the Liberals.

[The Budget, February 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, everyone respects Mr. Landry. We have little doubt of his interest in education.

However, did the Prime Minister—and this is my question—tell the new chairman of the Canadian millennium scholarship fund that the position he was appointing him to would put him between a rock and a hard place, that is, at the heart of a potential federal-provincial battle, because no one in Quebec wants Ottawa involved in education?

[The Budget, February 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has announced that Yves Landry, the president of Chrysler Canada, will be the chairman of the Canadian millennium scholarship fund.

My question is for the Prime Minister. When he approached Mr. Landry, did the Prime Minister tell him that this intervention in the field of education was raising hackles in Quebec and that everyone involved—students, the academic community and federalists and sovereignists alike—strongly opposed the federal government's intrusion into an area of provincial jurisdiction?

[Don Cherry, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to forgive the minister. We have been congratulating our athletes during Statements by Members since last week, but as the minister was in Nagano, she could not possibly know that.

The minister is using an easy way out to avoid answering the question, even though she herself said, the day after the referendum, that Radio-Canada should change its tune and stick with its mandate.

Does the minister not agree that she should intervene and express her strong disagreement? Now is the time to defend Quebec.

[Don Cherry, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The media commented at length on the insulting remarks made by Don Cherry toward Quebeckers, on the CBC network.

Does the heritage minister disagree with Mr. Cherry's comments? If so, will she express her disagreement to the crown corporation?

[Don Cherry, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Don Cherry's disparaging remarks about Quebeckers on the CBC speak volumes about that gentleman's narrow-mindedness.

His contemptuous and unwarranted comments far exceeded the leeway allowed a sports commentator on a government-funded broadcasting station. His venom unfortunately spilled over onto the Lillehammer gold medal winner, Jean-Luc Brassard, whom he dismissed as some unknown.

If a francophone commentator had made equally insulting remarks about anglophones from this country on Radio-Canada, the crown corporation would have fired him on the spot.

I trust that that is how Don Cherry will be dealt with, for nobody can enjoy the benefits of working for a crown corporation and expect to get away with insulting an entire people. A disdainful attitude such as that of Don Cherry has no place on the air, and must be vigorously condemned by both the government and the crown corporation.

[Bill C-28, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am not the one sponsoring the bill. According to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions is. Let him ask his secretary of state.

Since the answer the Prime Minister has given no longer stands up, as it is obviously not the secretary of state, who has nothing to do with clause 241, what does the Prime Minister have to say now in defence of his finance minister?