Michel Gauthier

[Broadcasting, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage made it very clear yesterday that she cannot be both the judge and the judged regarding the CRTC's recent decision on subscription radio. The minister is, in fact, neither judge nor judged. Her role is to appeal, as permitted under the law.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage stop talking about being both defendant and judge, which is not relevant here, and will she do her duty and ensure the Canadian and Quebec culture is protected?

[Sponsorship Program, June 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Justice is speaking truthfully, he should admit that the government did such a bad job that it has ended up doing the opposite. That is the exact opposite of what he is saying.

In a letter dated June 9, counsel for the government contends that he does not support the action of Judge Gomery, who wants to have the matter of his bias settled before he begins drafting his report.

Will the government, which says it supports Judge Gomery, ask its lawyers to really support Judge Gomery, contrary to what it says in the June 9 letter?

[Sponsorship Program, June 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in the war on legalities between Jean Chrétien and Judge Gomery, it is all very well for the government to say it supports Judge Gomery every way it can, but will it acknowledge that the exchange of letters has had only one effect, which is to destabilize and concern the judge and reassure the Chrétien clan? That is the effect of the work.

[Sponsorship Program, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, all the government had to do yesterday was to reveal the substance of the letter it had in its possession. It also had Justice Gomery's opinion about being placed in an extremely difficult situation by the government's deal. Come on, enough is enough.

The Minister of Justice can say whatever he wants, but facts are facts. Justice Gomery himself said that his efforts were seriously hindered by the position taken by the government and he has taken steps to get out of that situation.

Why did the government try, yesterday, to hide the existence of that letter, the malaise that prevailed and the problems it has created for Justice Gomery?

[Sponsorship Program, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Justice Gomery feels it is essential that the doubt cast on his objectivity by Jean Chrétien be immediately dispelled. He has therefore instructed his counsel to file a motion with the Federal Court as soon as possible.

How could the government claim again yesterday that it supports Justice Gomery when a letter dated June 6 from Justice Gomery's own counsel, which the government had in its possession yesterday, says the opposite, namely that the position taken by the government regarding Justice Gomery is placing him in an extremely difficult situation?

[Sponsorship Program, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services failed to tell the House that this letter of agreement between the government and Jean Chrétien's lawyers did, in fact, exist, and all he told the MP was that her statements were false.

I ask the minister, is failing to mention an agreement that did exist, that had been signed the day before, that dealt precisely with the member's question and that referred to a relationship, an agreement between the government and Jean Chrétien, not wilfully misleading the House?

[Sponsorship Program, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on May 31, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services gave the following answer in the House to a question by a Conservative MP:

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member's question and assertion are totally false. There was no deal—

However, at the same time, the government and Jean Chrétien's lawyers had signed a letter.

Why then did the Minister of Public Works and Government Services hide this information from the House by pretending that this letter was not a deal, not an agreement? Was it not his duty to clarify the situation, as we had asked him to do here in the House?

[Audiotaped Conversations, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is getting ridiculous. The Prime Minister's chief of staff based his remarks on the same tape when he said that a request was made by the member of Parliament and that no offer was made by the government.

If we believe the Prime Minister's chief of staff, who is basing his claim on the tape, should we not, based on that same tape, admit that this was a criminal act? The chief of staff himself said a criminal act was being committed. Did the Prime Minister's chief of staff inform the Prime Minister that a criminal act was being committed?

[Audiotaped Conversations, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's chief of staff uses the tape to support his comment that a reward was requested by an MP to cross the floor of the House. This sort of thing constitutes a criminal act.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Normally, when an officer as important as the Prime Minister's chief of staff is aware that a criminal act is being committed, he informs the Prime Minister.

Was the Prime Minister informed by his chief of staff that a criminal act—

[Member for Newton—North Delta, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. If the Prime Minister was aware that the member had set conditions for supporting the government and no offer was made, could the minister explain two things to us? First, why did the chief of staff and the Minister of Health spend four hours talking with the member? Four hours to tell him they had nothing to offer sounds like a long time.

Second, why did the Prime Minister not inform the RCMP, knowing that a criminal act might be committed? That is clear.