Michel Gauthier

[Privilege, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member, and I must admit that I fail to see a matter of privilege, since the allegations are the following: the hon. member contends that his name was unjustly associated with the track of money in the sponsorship scandal.

First, I understand that government members resent a mass mailing being done to inform the public about the abomination that the sponsorship scandal is. In terms of misuse of taxpayers' money, the sponsorship scandal is an unprecedented example of such misuse in Canada.

There is a second point. If the use of graphics irks government members because they give a clear picture of how things unfolded, the hon. member should also raise a question of privilege with the Toronto Star , which published a full page document, albeit not the same one, explaining everything with arrows, multiple arguments and the names of the people involved at one level or another. The name of the member for Bourassa was one of those published.

Raising a question of privilege on this is tantamount to raising a question of privilege against the media as a whole, because none of the information contained in the document had not already been made public in the news media, on television, in the papers, and what not.

Also, the hon. member claims that his good name was unjustly damaged by having been associated with the sponsorship scandal. I will simply say that, if he took the trouble of reading the flyer carefully, the member would see that it very clearly refers to members of cabinet. This expression is marked with an asterisk, in the box containing the names of four ministers, including two current ones, namely the hon. member for Bourassa, who was minister at the time, and Mr. Gagliano. At the bottom, the note explaining the asterisk states, “Have appeared before the Gomery Commission”.

I can understand that the hon. member for Bourassa found it unpleasant to have to appear before the Gomery Commission, but what can I do? What can the Bloc Québécois do about it? The fact is that the information is very clear. The four members of cabinet whose names are shown in that box have appeared before the Gomery Commission. That is an unmistakable fact.

These are facts of information, and there is no breach of parliamentary privilege when truth is told. I am sorry, but the hon. member for Bourassa was indeed summoned before the Gomery Commission. I was not, but he was. So, his picture was published. Mine would have been as well, but I was not there.

As for use of public money, one has to be shameless to have abused public money as the people opposite have done, to have misappropriated it for the Liberal Party. That party has been implicated to its very core — public servants, politicians, the Prime Minister’s Office—

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, no one is trying to pit one region against another. No one is trying to weaken Canada's position. On the contrary: loan guarantees are the solution. We have been saying that all along and the government refuses to get it.

I will merely ask this of the government: How can it think that our U.S. neighbours can understand Canada's position and strategy when it cannot even provide a satisfactory explanation of them here in the House of Commons?

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the loan guarantees are allowed under NAFTA and the WTO. The Canadian government's position is far from clear, obviously. The Americans are very much aware of the Canadian government's weakness and lack of resolve in the softwood lumber issue.

The Prime Minister does a lot of fist-waving but does not do anything. Does he realize that his refusal to help the companies with loan guarantees is a sign that the Canadian government's' strategy is far from clear and that its position is all the weaker.

[Intergovernmental Affairs, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, speaking before young Liberals in Trois-Rivières, the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated, “I understand that some might be annoyed by what is perceived as encroachments on provincial jurisdictions. I have to admit that, from time to time, while sitting at the cabinet table, I get the impression that I am at a provincial cabinet meeting. I too find it annoying”.

My question is for the minister responsible for federal-provincial relations. When one of her fellow ministers says that he gets the impression that he is sitting on a provincial cabinet and that he finds it annoying, does she not realize that that is what federal encroachment on provincial jurisdictions is all about?

[Corinne Côté-Lévesque, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we were saddened and dismayed to learn that Corinne Côté-Lévesque, the widow of former Quebec Premier René Lévesque, passed away this morning at the age of 61.

Whether she was at her husband's side or working for the Parti Québécois, Corinne Côté-Lévesque faithfully walked alongside Quebec in its inevitable march toward sovereignty.

A sworn activist and a woman of passion who epitomized discretion, determination and commitment, she was the political assistant to the Executive Council under the Parti Québécois government from 1976 to 1985.

She then sat on the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and the board of directors of Place des Arts in Montreal.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes the remarkable contribution of Corinne Côté-Lévesque to the advancement of Quebec and extends its heartfelt condolences to her family.

[Child Care, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is a new constitutional theory that enhances the one held by the Prime Minister. Now, we will invite the Quebec government to take care of military problems. This is a federation, we will ask the government to take care of everything. That is the reality.

My question is as follows. How can the government seriously justify the fact that it is poking its nose into child care in Quebec? This network existed long before the federal government. The Prime Minister was on his knees during the last election campaign in order to find out how this network worked. How can he now set national standards?

[Child Care, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the Prime Minister does not want to answer the Bloc leader's question. However, I want to ask him this. He indicated that he was getting involved in child care, a matter that has absolutely nothing to do with the federal government, because children were of national interest.

My question is quite simple. If he can justify getting involved in child care because children are of national interest, I guess he considers this also justifies getting involved in elementary schools because these same children remain of national interest?

[Municipalities, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, according to the same document, the government wants to avoid setting up merely a banking machine. It wants to have a say about the infrastructure. It also wants to get recognition and visibility.

Did this government not learn any lessons from the sponsorship scandal, which was a visibility scheme? Now, it intends to set up, through municipalities, its own visibility program, thus reneging once again on a promise made before the election.

[Municipalities, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is another area regarding which the Prime Minister really did not keep his word, and I am referring to municipalities. Just before the last election, on June 18, 2004, he said he had no intention of interfering in provincial jurisdictions.

How could the Prime Minister allow himself, just before the election, to make such a statement to please voters when, after the election, we are finding out in a document obtained by La Presse , that Ottawa wants to hold summits directly with municipalities? Is the Prime Minister not ashamed to say one thing before the election and to do the opposite after?

[Softwood Lumber, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, people in the softwood lumber industry want a government with a backbone, not a spineless government.

It is the Prime Minister's duty to inform Americans during his visit that he will support the companies, that he will give them loan guarantees, and that we will fight this to the very end. That is the only way we will get any respect.