Michel Gauthier

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister first defended the Minister of Finance by saying that it was the secretary of state who sponsored Bill C-28. They then said he had sponsored clause 241.

Can the Prime Minister explain to us how the individual he identifies as the sponsor of clause 241, the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions, has never defended this clause, which he supposedly sponsored, in the House or in committee?

[Point Of Order, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you as the defender of parliamentary rights and protector of the right of everyone in this parliament to speak, not only in this House, but wherever our work as members takes us.

The members of the opposition were prevented from doing their work properly by various decisions taken by the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance. This is the subject of my remarks to you.

The chair of the Standing Committe on Finance categorically and systematically rejected a request by my colleague the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who wanted to hear from witnesses in committee in order to better understand the entire scope of clause 241 of Bill C-28. The chair refused any witnesses.

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot also asked to have the ethics commissioner testify. The committee chair, contrary to all expectations and plans, shortened the appearance of the ethics counsellor, on his own initiative.

The third point I would like to raise with you, and which I consider quite extraordinary, is the fact that the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance rejected the request of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for a special committee, a sub-committee, at least, to hear witnesses and clarify the matter of the apparent conflict of interest involving the Minister of Finance.

It is extraordinary, in our opinion, for a committee chair to use his powers, which should serve to enable parliamentarians to do their work, to systematically prevent the opposition from obtaining any information on this matter.

For the good of the Minister of Finance, if the opposition can query a number of specialists in order to clarify this important and complex situation, it seems to me the committee should be allowed to do its job.

I therefore appeal to you as the Speaker of the House and ultimate chair of all committees so that parliamentarians may be heard.

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is troubling to hear him speak about international law, when the government's Minister of Justice does not agree with her lawyer or with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs does not agree with the Prime Minister.

Does he not think he should try to clarify matters for the benefit of everyone, instead of adding to the confusion?

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs seems to like answering other people's questions. We will see if he answers his own.

The government is becoming increasingly mired in contradictions. Not only does the Minister of Justice not agree with her lawyer, or with her intergovernmental affairs colleague but, what is more, the latter does not agree with the Prime Minister.

Last week, he claimed that states always acted within the rule of law. How does he explain the fact that, in 1970, as Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, the Prime Minister took unilateral action to—

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the minister, justice must not only be done, it must also appear to be done.

Does he not consider, given that the experts agree the questions asked by the federal government will provide the response the government is after and that, in the light of the complicity between Justice Bastarache and counsel for the government, would there not be reason to think this case has already been heard?

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs earlier wanted to talk of the independence of the judicial process. Now we are going to be speaking about independence.

In 1992, in the referendum on the Charlottetown accord, Yves Fortier, counsel for the government, and Mr. Justice Bastarache, recently appointed by the Prime Minister to the Supreme Court, jointly chaired the yes committee, a yes that all Canadians, including Quebeckers, rejected.

Does the Prime Minister not consider, given the two are working side by side in the same political case, that this casts a shadow on the Supreme Court?

[Bill C-28, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister said a moment ago that it was up to the opposition to prove that there was a problem with the Minister of Finance.

This is proven. The burden of proof lies with the government, for how can the Deputy Prime Minister explain to me honestly that a minister who is not entitled to speak on a matter in order to not be in conflict of interest is entitled to sponsor a bill which confers tax advantages to shipping companies?

[Bill C-28, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is odd that we have been trying to get information for two days and it is only by backing the government up against the wall that we get a press release that only partly answers the question. Considerable doubt still remains. I think it is appropriate to talk about this here, as this is the place to raise the question.

Does the government not realize that the burden of proof rests with it and that it must prove, for the good of the Minister of Finance and the government, not only that Canada Steamship Lines is not utilizing the provision but that it will never enjoy the benefits afforded under Bill C-28?

[Bill C-28, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we have checked, and the press release referred to by the Deputy Prime Minister providing clarifications on questions we asked is not yet on the Minister of Finance's Internet site. So, we will continue to ask questions, and it is in the government's interest to answer them.

Serious doubts remain. On Monday in this House, the member for Durham stated, and I quote “Consequently, the proposed amendment does not benefit Canada Steamship Lines and the company has no intention of utilizing this provision”.

My question is very brief. If the company changed its mind, could it utilize this provision in the minister's bill?

[Budget Surplus, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, one the reasons the federal deficit got so huge is precisely the federal government's excessive spending in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

With the Liberal government acting the way it is, can we not conclude that it did not get the message and that, now that a surplus is in sight, it is set to make the exact same mistake and fall back into the same old ways? Once a Liberal, always a Liberal.