Michel Gauthier

[Minister of Finance, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The microbreweries were frustrated by the minister's decision, when he took the part of the large brewers, their competitors, who were opposed to this idea.

Therefore, is it not normal to ask the Minister of Finance to be as transparent as the then government House leader was, or the Minister of the Environment, and tell us whether or not he reimbursed the market value of the benefit he enjoyed on his trip with a representative of the Brewers Association of Canada? It is clear.

[Minister of Finance, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance went on a trip with Mr. Morrison, who is no longer the Chairman of the Brewers Association of Canada, but who is a legal adviser and board member. He went several weeks after having, in his budget, made a decision favouring the Brewers Association over the microbreweries.

Is it not normal to ask a minister whether or not—yes or no—he paid the actual value of a sailing trip he took with his family in the Caribbean? It seems to me that this is a perfectly good question. It is part of his ministerial responsibilities, and he has every reason to give us the answer.

[Point of Order, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier, you made a ruling relating to a question that had been asked. I would like to request some further information from you. There are two separate aspects to my point of order.

The first is the following. Last March, the Minister of Finance made a decision in his budget. That ministerial decision was unfavourable to the microbrewers' association and favourable to the major breweries. Not long after, he went on a sailing vacation with family members and members of the Brewers Association. So, last week, we asked the minister, given the potential for conflict of interest, whether this trip had been provided free of charge within the framework of his duties, as was common practice at the time, or whether he had paid. You allowed the minister to respond and his response was that he had paid the cost of his trip in full.

It is our impression, however, that what the minister paid for was his plane fare. As for the sailing vacation itself, today we merely asked the Minister of Finance, as a supplementary question, how much he had paid the person who provided this trip to reimburse him for its value. The Minister of Industry was asked the same question several weeks ago, and it was allowed.

It seems to us that it is important to know and that we have the right to ask a minister who went on a trip that could place him in an apparent conflict of interest situation whether or not he paid for that trip and how much. I would say that is a minimum. What is good for the industry minister should be good for the finance minister, even if we are talking about larger amounts.

Second, and this is of some concern to me, when questioned about this, instead of answering through the official channel, since you had risen, we very clearly saw the minister tell us in this House, “Fuck off”.

It seems to me that it is somewhat unparliamentary for a finance minister to answer this kind of question in such a despicable way. Is the question so terrible? Is that how dismayed the minister is to have to reveal how much he spent for this cruise with his family on the Caribbean, along with people from the Brewers Association, whom he had just favoured in his budget?

We do not know. But we are perfectly justified by political morals to ask this kind of question. I would therefore appreciate it if you could explain how the question about details on costs was in order when asked of the industry minister but not when asked of the finance minister. This is tied closely to decisions he made in his last budget and to a possible breach of ethics and conflict of interest. It seems to me that we can inquire.

[The Economy, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there is a distinct odour of electioneering in all this.

If the Minister of Finance chooses to low-ball his estimated surplus, as he has in recent years, why not admit that he is just following the strategy of his predecessor, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, who invented it and who ordered the minister from off stage to underestimate the surplus in order to maintain the uncertainty and keep people in suspense about whether or not the $2 billion will be forthcoming, so the super hero can come along later and make the announcement?

[The Economy, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, by announcing his intention of delaying payment of the $2 billion for health nearly a full year, the Minister of Finance is compromising not only the budgetary balance of the provincial governments, but also the quality of health care.

How can the Minister of Finance be so petty as to engage in such a dangerous game, when we all know very well that the hidden agenda is to provide an opportunity for the next prime minister to come in like some super hero and save the day, just before the next election campaign?

[Quebec, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's words truly sadden me because when he was elected in 1963 he said, and I am quoting the Prime Minister here: “It is a matter of drawing up the constitution anew, not among ten provinces, but between two nations”.

If the Prime Minister was capable of being that frank at the beginning of his career, given the fundamental nature of this issue, why is he not capable 40 years later, as he prepares to make his exit from the political stage, of acknowledging what is a fact: the Quebec people constitute a nation?

[Quebec, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Quebec Liberal Party and the Parti Quebecois reached consensus in the Quebec National Assembly on the existence of the Quebec nation. On that occasion, Premier Charest showed no hesitation in stating that the Quebec people were a nation.

Does the Prime Minister of Canada intend to make a significant gesture toward the Quebec people and follow the example of his Liberal counterpart in Quebec City by acknowledging here in this House, without any shilly-shallying, that the Quebec nation does indeed exist?

[Quebec, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Quebec National Assembly—

[Ethics, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a question of political morality, not a question of rules.

The Minister of Industry is saying that because he accepted a $1,500 trip, he refrained from discussing any issue or making any decisions regarding Irving.

What should the next prime minister do for having accepted $100,000?

[Ethics, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, one by one, ministers of the government are apologizing for accepting a $1,500 fishing trip from the Irving family, which is unethical and puts them in an apparent conflict of interest.

My question is for the Prime Minister, who is responsible for the ethics counsellor. What should his successor do for having accepted $100,000 from the Irving family?