Michel Gauthier

[Government Contracts, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we must be serious. A former associate of Groupaction, someone very close to the former minister, Alfonso Gagliano, all of a sudden becomes the seventh largest donor to the Liberal Party of Canada, and just after that, his brother signs a subcontract with the government even though the primary contract has not yet been awarded.

How can the government expect us to swallow such a story without calling for a public inquiry? That is the only way to find out what has been going on with these people who are so close to the Liberal Party.

[Government Contracts, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Alain Renaud, the seventh largest donor to the Liberal Party of Canada in 1998, told Globe and Mail journalists that he did not remember giving $63,000 to the Liberal Party.

How is it that the president of such a small business, which has since gone bankrupt, could have given $63,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada without remembering it? Either he is lying or someone else was using his name.

[National defence, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada rose in the House and said, “One way to discuss it is to use an opposition day”, and so we asked for consent—something that is done on a regular basis. We give consent every day in this House to make things easier. So how are we supposed to interpret the government's refusal other than to figure that they are divided internally between the member for LaSalle—Émard, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and several other members, and that they do not want anyone to know about these divisions that are having such a terrible effect on them?

[National defence, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last week we asked the Prime Minister to grant the House a day of debate on the space shield.

He answered, “Use your opposition days”. So, tomorrow, during the Bloc Quebecois' opposition day, we will be discussing the space shield. There is one problem that needs to be sorted out, however. The motion is not votable, unless the Prime Minister and the government give their consent.

My question is the following: will the government grant us this privilege of voting on the space shield at the end of the day?

[Privilege, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I should like to add a few brief remarks to what has already been said.

I would like to say that we support the question raised by the government House leader. In our opinion, there are two aspects to the current situation, the substance and the form.

First, there is the substantive issue: is the parliamentary privilege of members against participating in legal proceedings when Parliament is in session and for 40 days before and 40 days after the session still valid? That is a question that must be answered, but not, we think, in a court of law.

More importantly, there is a question of form. In my opinion, the authority of the House of Commons and its Speaker cannot be usurped by anyone else. The Speaker's first duty is to ensure that the rights and privileges of parliamentarians are respected. Any body that might wish, for the common good, to stand in the place of the Speaker of the House and the means that could be established for deciding such questions is, in my opinion, null and void.

As Speaker, it is your duty to safeguard our privileges. It is the duty of the House of Commons to define these privileges, enlarging or shrinking them according to circumstances and specific situations. But at no time should these recommendations come from any other place, not even a court of law.

Therefore, I support the government House leader. I believe that this is an extremely important opportunity for us to clarify the concept of parliamentary privilege, to explain it and help people understand it who might not have had the opportunity to study these issues sufficiently. I would like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that you have our entire cooperation at every moment of this operation which, as far as we are concerned, is fundamental to protecting the parliamentary privileges of the elected members.

[Softwood Lumber, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, how can the federal government deny that by failing to implement the second phase of the aid package which it itself announced, it has put the industry at a disadvantage?

It has abandoned the industry in this fight against the Americans, and we will probably pay the price for that now. How can it play so poorly, with all the trumps in its hand?

[Softwood Lumber, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government has done nothing about the softwood lumber issue; it has yet to implement the second phase of its aid package for the industry, which it had promised.

Will the Minister for International Trade admit that one need not be an expert in strategy to understand that the American strategy is to wage a war of attrition on the Canadian industry and that, in that sense, the government's failure to introduce support measures is putting the industry in a precarious situation and making the last moments of the fight unbearably difficult?

[Softwood Lumber, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister. I hope he will look into the situation and at the same time I would like to ask him one question.

Is the federal government not capable of understanding that when one announces assistance programs in a region and then allows public servants to set criteria that have nothing to do with reality on the ground, we end up with illogical situations like this one? I will also ask him to review his criteria and get busy supporting the economy and the people who have been thrown out of work, rather than announcing programs that apply to some imaginary region.

[Softwood Lumber, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago the federal government announced a $2 million program to help out the Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay region, which has been a victim of the softwood lumber crisis.

My question for the Secretary of State is this: why is it that the program in question has such absolutely ridiculous criteria that it cannot be used by the Coopérative de solidarité Multi-ressources du Québec, where 135 employees are at risk because of the cash-flow situation, and why is Dolbeau-Mistassini, in the heart of the Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay forestry sector, not eligible according to these criteria?

[Gasoline Prices, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, when the competition commissioner himself says that the minister has the power to broaden his mandate in order to clarify the issue, and when he also says that the minister could also mandate an outside body to investigate in order to prove there has been no collusion, why is the minister so lacking in courage as to refuse to assume his responsibilities and protect the public?