Michel Gauthier

[Firearms Registry, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's position does not hold water. Seven hundred and forty-two manual registries that keep track only of new firearms, not used ones, is a terrible idea.

The Standing Committee on Public Accounts tabled a report today. It reviewed the issue and the minister's proposal. It is recommending a moratorium, telling the minister not to dismantle the current registry, telling him to wait and reconsider his own proposal, which does not hold water.

Will the minister follow those recommendations and propose a moratorium?

[Firearms Registry, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, every time someone asks the Minister of Public Safety about the firearms registry, he says he wants a more effective registry than the one we have now.

How can the minister say that 742 small firearms registries kept by 742 different retailers all across Canada would be a more efficient and effective tool than the current registry, which is centralized and computerized?

[Points of Order, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend you.

You understood perfectly well that the minister was, from word one, completely off the mark on what we call a point of order. He was making an argument.

I want to thank you for doing your job so well.

[Maria Chapdelaine Regional Women's Centre, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Maria Chapdelaine regional women's centre in Lac-St-Jean is very concerned about this government's constant attacks on women.

With its budget cuts and its refusal to implement pay equity recommendations, this government has done nothing to represent women's interests.

We will have a better society once we have progressive, open governments committed to fighting male-female inequality. Unfortunately, that description does not apply to a significant segment of the Conservative Party and the government it has spawned.

I would like to tell the Maria Chapdelaine regional women's centre that I will always stand up for the basic right to male-female equality and that I will, whenever necessary, intervene against the government no matter the circumstances.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, he should plan to go, he should hope to go and he should in fact go since Quebec's producers are having terrible difficulties with the federal programs, which currently do not correspond to the situation in Quebec.

When he goes to the UPA, because he should go, will the minister have concrete solutions for harmonizing the federal programs with those in Quebec in order to help the producers once and for all, and stop putting solutions off indefinitely?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec sent the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food an invitation to attend its convention being held this week in Quebec City. The Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec confirmed that this might be difficult since we are at the end of a session and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food had to stay here in the House.

My question is for the minister. Does he intend to attend the UPA convention, since the Bloc agreed to have its member for Richmond—Arthabaska, the agriculture and agri-food critic, accompany the minister and thereby preserve balance in this House? This would allow the minister to do his work and attend the UPA convention.

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, naturally, I am a little surprised by the type of answer given by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and here is why. First of all, it is the first time in living memory that a closure motion has been moved regarding a motion that is supposed to have the unanimous support of the House. Also, it is the first time that a closure motion has been moved regarding a motion without the government House leader having consulted the House leaders of the other parties to verify whether they were hoping to extend the debate or to find out how many members still wanted to address the House. This is rather surprising.

Furthermore, it is the first time that a closure motion has been moved under the pretext that the recess for the holiday season is approaching, even though it is not even December and we have not yet used the days for extended sitting. Moreover, there is no indication that there will be a problem in the legislation, except that this Leader of the Government cannot seem to plan his work properly.

I hope this will be entered into the record and that, in the future, people who study parliamentary conduct will talk about the surprising case of November 2006, when the government moved a closure motion regarding a motion that had the unanimous support of the House, without consulting anyone, under the pretext that the holiday season was approaching, although it was not even December. I hope this will be carefully recorded.

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this motion would limit the rights of Parliament and parliamentarians. Typically, such motions are used only when absolutely necessary.

I would like to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons if, before tabling this motion, he conducted the usual consultations to find out how many members wished to speak and whether it was necessary to limit their time, to limit the members' right to speak, as well as whether there was good reason to believe that the debate would not be concluded within the usual time.

I would really like to know because the government did not consult me, and no member of the Bloc will be speaking to this motion, although I have not had the opportunity to say this to the leader.

Did one party decide to filibuster on this motion? If so, which one? If not, we are voting on this motion for no reason.

[Taxation, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will use the very words of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. If the economy is doing so well, if the situation is so extraordinary, if the administration is so good, what are the Conservatives waiting for to fulfill their commitments to Quebeckers? They promised they would settle the fiscal imbalance. The fact is that the target dates have disappeared, and this reflects a change in priorities.

I am asking the government to tell us why it has yet to fulfill its promise, when things are going so well, according to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

[Taxation, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised Quebeckers that the issue of the fiscal imbalance would be settled. This was one of his major election commitments. When the Minister of Finance tabled the budget, in May 2006, he presented a relatively tight schedule to settle the fiscal imbalance. However, yesterday's economic statement shows that the minister is well within schedule, but the target dates are being postponed. We no longer know exactly what is going on.

I would like to know why the government is standing still regarding that important commitment.