Michel Gauthier

[Organized Crime, February 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Solicitor General, since he is answering for the Prime Minister.

Can the Solicitor General, who is privy to all kinds of information, explain to us why he is always the only one in the dark, when in fact these allegations come directly from RCMP investigators? Is the Solicitor General living on another planet, or does he simply prefer to turn a blind eye to what is going on?

[Organized Crime, February 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the press is also reporting this morning that the RCMP is in a position to prove that in 1993 alone, at least $700 million in cash passed through the Akwesasne reserve, that many other items in addition to cigarettes are smuggled and that many other groups associated with organized crime are involved.

Will the Prime Minister undertake to put an end to the activities of organized crime groups who are taking advantage of a protected area just a few kilometres away from Montreal to launder money and conduct their illegal activities without fear of being stopped?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for over a month now, the Prime Minister has been telling this House that the RCMP can enforce the law anywhere in Canada, that there are no "no go" zones and that the law applies equally to everyone.

What is the Prime Minister's reaction to comments by the commanding officer of the RCMP in Quebec to the effect that politicians, out of fear, never succeeded in negotiating with the natives on this issue and as a result, cigarette smuggling spread throughout the reserves?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, with his retirement only a few days away, the commanding officer of the RCMP in Quebec had the following comments to make and I quote: "We did not want to create social chaos over a few cartons of cigarettes, but the negotiations never amounted to anything and smuggling increased without anyone taking action."

My question to the Prime Minister is as follows: How can he reconcile the comments of the commanding officer of the RCMP in Quebec with his own statements, when he asked us to name names, ostensibly because the RCMP did not have enough evidence to intervene?

[Organized Crime, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since RCMP authorities have confirmed that in addition to cigarettes, smuggling networks deal in luxury items such as clothing, jewellery and alcohol, how can the Solicitor General expect us to believe that these networks would not be used to deal in the most lucrative item of all, namely cocaine?

[Organized Crime, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, given the statements made yesterday by the former Quebec Minister of Public Security, it is clear that the only person in Canada not to know that the RCMP and the Sûreté will not take action on Mohawk land is the Solicitor General of Canada.

Both he and the Prime Minister told us during the course of a debate that the situation was extremely delicate and that caution had to be exercised. Why does he maintain that the RCMP can take action on Mohawk land without any problem whatsoever, considering that even the Prime Minister stressed the delicate nature of the situation several days ago?

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Indeed, you do. If, for the other side, respect of the democratic process is important only when it suits their purpose, Mr. Speaker, then it is time they say so.

I think that, in our country, the results of a democratic consultation should always be binding whatever the consequences. If, on the other side, there are members who think that the results of democratic consultation should not be binding when they do not serve their political interest, then I would urge them to discuss it with the Prime Minister. They seem to have a problem within their caucus. I am not sure the Prime Minister would be proud if he knew that his party members plan to apply referendum results only when they suit them. We take notice of that.

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I hear comments to the effect that this is true. That is quite serious. If, for the other side, respect of the democratic process-

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely flabbergasted. I can hardly respond to what the hon. member has just said, that is, that the results of a referendum on an issue which she considers of national interest should be binding but that those of a referendum held on an issue she does not consider to be of national interest should not have the same value nor should they concern this House in the same way.

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, when a cabinet member hears what he wants to hear, then there is certainly reason for concern.

Remarks that were never part of my speech have just been attributed to me. I never said that the parliamentary secretary was unable to answer questions. Never. Is that what the minister understood? Such behaviour in the House on the part of a minister is cause for concern. I never said any such thing. But I did raise many questions to which the minister was unable to provide explanations in his speech.

The Minister of National Revenue has just told us that the minister has answered all questions asked by the hon. member. Either the minister hears only what he wants to hear or we are facing a problem as far as interpretation or understanding is concerned. There is definitely a problem.

My questions deserve answers. If the parliamentary secretary can answer them, he has only to rise and do so. That is why, considering how time is important in the House, I nevertheless spent 20 minutes to question a project in a reasonable, correct, appropriate and parliamentary manner. I do not want people to say that I agreed to a project when I really had reservations. I did agree to it but at the same time, I did ask for explanations from the minister. There is nothing wrong with that. This is typical of debates in the House, and I would appreciate a more serious follow up, instead of having someone put words in my mouth.

I cannot understand the minister's approach and, when I look at his answer, I wonder if he understands it himself.