Michel Gauthier

[National Defence, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government has clearly told us, here in this House, and the minister has just repeated it, that participation in the Norad agreement has nothing to do with the missile defence shield. His main spokesman in the United States, in Washington, says “We are in Norad and when you are in Norad, you are part of the missile defence shield.” It is perfectly clear. He even asked, “What more do the Americans want?”

How can the minister maintain such confusion? Perhaps it is because his government wants to do things by the back door—

[National Defence, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the minister, to make sure that I understand him correctly. We want to know what Canada's position is. Can the minister assure us today, here in this House, that there are no Canadian soldiers currently deployed with American troops in Iraq? Are there some, or are there none?

[National Defence, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has said repeatedly, including through the Prime Minister, that sending Canadian troops to Iraq was totally and utterly out of the question. That was clear. Everyone thought it was the truth.

Does the Minister of National Defence not think that the only way to respect the position that was always stated, the position of Canada, the position that was presented to our fellow citizens, is to immediately withdraw all Canadian troops currently in Iraq?

[The Environment, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the minister's attitude. Protecting the environment goes beyond parties and individuals. It is a societal objective. Things would be a lot better if the minister stopped politicizing this issue and did his job.

Will the minister recognize and accept the efforts made by Quebec, including the money invested in hydroelectricity? Will he recognize, in his bilateral agreement, that Quebec is where pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are the lowest per capita in Canada? Will he take that into consideration?

[The Environment, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on November 19, the Minister of the Environment told his Quebec counterpart that it would be necessary to speed up negotiations to reach an agreement with the province on the implementation of the Kyoto protocol.

Since the protocol comes into effect on February 16, can the Minister of the Environment tell us about the outcome of these accelerated negotiations, to which he referred in November? Has the federal government signed a bilateral agreement with Quebec, at the moment?

[Sponsorship Program, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want the minister to be clear, once and for all.

When we question the Prime Minister about his ties to Earnscliffe and his interventions here in this House, we are told it is up to the Gomery Commission. It is not specifically part of the direct mandate of the Gomery Commission, and there is no guarantee that the government's or the Prime Minister's lawyers will not object to his answering these questions.

What I am asking today, what we want to know is whether you will object, yes or no, to the Prime Minister being questioned on this—

[Sponsorship Program, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, given that the Prime Minister is going to testify at the Gomery Commission, can the Minister of Public Works give us very clear assurance that the government's lawyers will not object in any way to the Prime Minister being asked about the Earnscliffe scandal, in which he is personally involved?

[Business of the House, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the member, but this will not take too long.

Discussions have been held among all parties, and if you were to seek it, I think you would find unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion:

That, following Private Members' Business today, the House continue to sit, in committee of the whole, no later than 9 p.m., to consider the situation facing the textile industry. That, during the debate, the Chair shall not receive any quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent.

That all speeches be limited to a maximum of ten minutes and be followed by a period of five minutes for questions and comments. And, when no member rises to speak or at 9 p.m., whichever comes first, the Chair shall leave the Chair, and the House shall adjourn until the next sitting day.

I believe there is consent from all parties.

[Request for Emergency Debate, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 52, I wish to request that an emergency debate be held this evening regarding the absolutely disastrous situation facing the textile industry.

In support of my request, I would remind the Chair that, yesterday, 800 workers from the municipality of Huntingdon, in the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry, that is 75% of the work force in this municipality, learned that they were losing their jobs on a permanent basis, either immediately or in the spring.

Thousands of jobs are currently at stake in Quebec, and the impact is very great. I will simply remind the House that there are 600 such jobs in Trois-Rivières, 600 more in Drummondville and another 800 yesterday in Huntingdon. Quebec is experiencing an economic crisis, as is the rest of Canada. Altogether, the number of jobs located in Canada is about 75,000.

So, I ask for agreement of the House to hold this emergency debate. Before we permanently and prematurely adjourn for the holidays, I believe it is important for members of this House to take a few hours to debate, with the government, the thousands of jobs that have been lost, as well as all those that will be lost shortly.

This is an extremely urgent matter. It is the result of a tragic decision that is affecting, among many others, the municipality of Huntingdon, where 75% of the work force is being permanently laid off overnight.

I think that, in keeping with the holiday spirit, parliamentarians will surely agree to spend a few hours longer in the House to hold this debate on the textile industry. That seems logical to me. We cannot deny this opportunity to those who have just learned the worst news anyone can get 15 days before Christmas, in other words, that they have lost their job and come to the end of their career. We want to question the government about this. No measures have been implemented yet to help these industries suffering from the loss of hundreds of jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that you will allow this emergency debate to be held, given the extreme urgency of the situation and also the fact that the House will not be able to consider this matter again before the end of January, when the House resumes. I am confident that the Chair will agree that our work, which normally would have continued until Friday, can at least continue until later this evening. In many cases, it is a matter of survival for the people of Huntingdon and others in the industry. We must question the government before the holidays.

[Parliament of Canada Act, December 8th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

He asked me what motivated the government. Its motivation was, in fact, very simple. I touched on it at the end of my remarks. On the government side, there is a need to cover this excessive reaction of the Prime Minister, which was not based on rationality, was neither proper nor respectful of ongoing processes, showed no respect for the people and was solely designed to make him look good in the newspapers the next morning.

That is what is going on. The government is covering the inappropriate, hasty and unjustified decisions of a Prime Minister who has not yet understood that the person who holds that position has to be able to weather the storm, think things over and, then, propose appropriate solutions, not be all over the place in an attempt to please the public.