Michel Gauthier

[Business Of The House, May 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to obtain some information.

[Point Of Order, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to question your ruling. Not at all. I simply said first of all that we respected this ruling, but it will lead to your making another decision, and that is what I wanted to say, if you are prepared to entertain the following question.

You said in your ruling, which we accept, that a minister could answer only on a subject related to his jurisdiction. You added that the minister should not answer questions which do not relate to his jurisdiction.

I would appreciate it if you would analyse the implications of the following. If your ruling is respected from now on by everyone in this House, does that mean that when we question a minister within his field of competence while referring to a statement made by one of his colleagues, does that mean that the colleague who is quoted will not have the right to answer the question?

In other words, for practical purposes, if I cannot ask a minister about a statement he made concerning the Department of Finance and he does not have the right to reply, does this mean that if I put my question to the Minister of Finance on a statement made by his colleague, the minister who is quoted would not have the right to rise in the House and the Minister of Finance would have to answer my question? That is what I would like to know, because there are implications for the ruling you just made, because usually, if we quote a minister's colleague, often the colleague will rise to justify what he said. Now you said in your ruling that he does not have the right to do that.

[Point Of Order, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, you handed down a ruling which I accept and respect and which we will abide by in the future, but I would appreciate some additional explanations.

[Regional Economic Development, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister admit that the Minister of Finance is in a very bad position, under these circumstances, to intervene on behalf of the MIL Davie shipyard in Lauzon for the Magdalen Islands ferry, while his colleague in Transport, who is directly involved in the decision, and the minister responsible for development in the Atlantic provinces have all the freedom required to intervene on behalf of a shipyard in their region, in their province?

Is Quebec not at a disadvantage since, unfortunately in this issue, the official spokesman has his hands tied, unlike his colleagues?

[Regional Economic Development, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister has seen fit to appoint ministers responsible for Western Economic Diversification, the Atlantic provinces' development and Quebec's development, I imagine he had good reasons to do so.

Are we to understand from what the Prime Minister just said that every time the minister he entrusted with Quebec's economic issues cannot get involved, the Prime Minister will take over his portfolio and intervene as the minister responsible for Quebec should?

[Regional Economic Development, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister appointed the Minister of Finance as the minister responsible for Quebec's regional economic development. However, because of his personal economic interests, which we do not criticize him for but which exist, the finance minister's room to manoeuvre is significantly reduced on several issues of importance to Quebec's economic future.

Does the Prime Minister admit that his finance minister's room to manoeuvre is extremely reduced on several economic issues of major importance to Quebec since he cannot, as he himself acknowledged, deal with the high speed train, the Magdalen Islands ferry, the multifunctional smart ship or, in large part, the conversion of defence industry to civilian uses? Does the Prime Minister admit that Quebec is thus poorly served?

[Business Of The House, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague, the government house leader, what the business of the House will be for the days to come.

[Points Of Order, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, before you recognized me to I could put that question, I indicated to you that I would have a previous question. It is a simple inquiry about the question of privilege I have raised.

I just wanted to ask you-and it is perfectly in order-if, after ascertaining what words were spoken by the Minister of Industry, you found that the minister had indeed exceeded his rights as a parliamentarian and made unspeakable remarks, I just wanted to know if you will then ask that he withdraw his remarks, as I have requested?

[Privilege, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the breach of privilege committed in this House has to do with the industry minister's comments, which I find totally unparliamentary, unworthy of this House and unacceptable. In his comments, the minister tried or seemed to criticize my attitude or the way I phrased the question or the way in which he perceived me.

I find it totally unacceptable that, within the framework of the parliamentary game, a government minister's only way of defending himself against the verbal jousting and the questions asked in this House is to try to humiliate, discredit and or be rude to a member of this Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you that, as the Opposition House leader, I think that the Minister of Industry has violated these privileges and I demand that he withdraw his comments without further ado. That is what I demand.

[Privilege, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege and a point of order.

If I may, I will start with the point of order since it is directly related to what has just been said.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have your opinion, which is part of your mandate, because my colleague raised the question of privilege in reference to comments made by a government minister. I admit that he may not have been speaking about something which falls within his area of responsibility but that is not my problem. I can question as I see fit, and my colleagues can also question any comment made by a member of the government because they are supposed to act responsibly. If they do not, that is a different problem.

I would like you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on this, and take the time to do the necessary research, so we can know whether the Opposition is allowed to question in accordance with Standing Orders any member of the government who has made a public statement, even if this statement is not directly related to his or her department.

I would like to have your opinion on this at your convenience and, if I may, I will now move on to my question of privilege.