Michel Gauthier

[Kyoto Protocol, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as regards the signing of the Kyoto protocol, yesterday the Prime Minister flatly rejected the request made by provincial premiers to meet to discuss the implementation of this accord. The Prime Minister's excuse was that the signing of treaties comes under federal jurisdiction.

I am asking the Prime Minister how bringing together his counterparts responsible for the environment can jeopardize the federal government's ability to sign an international treaty. What exactly is his problem?

[Agropur Plant in Chambord, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, since yesterday, workers and citizens of Chambord have been occupying the Agropur plant to prevent this business that has closed from dismantling plant equipment.

Until recently, this plant was processing millions of litres of locally produced milk. As a result of an administrative decision, all processing activities were transferred outside the Lac-Saint-Jean region.

A region such as ours relies for its existence on its capacity to process locally the raw materials it produces. What Agropur did in the case of the Chambord plant shows that resource regions are being gutted to benefit large centres.

Enough is enough. The Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean will not fall once again victim to a company which, following a takeover, will take milk produced in our region and process it elsewhere.

I wholeheartedly support the people who are occupying the Agropur plant in Chambord. Agropur must not be allowed to take away from us what is ours.

[Ethics, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just admitted that in some cases, he has asked for ministers to step down, and in others, he has accepted their resignation.

Did he not accept the former Solicitor General's resignation because the situation in which he found himself is exactly the same situation that the Prime Minister found himself in in the Auberge Grand-Mère affair? It is the exact same situation. Passing judgment on the former Solicitor General would have meant passing judgment on himself.

[Ethics, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, true to form, the Prime Minister continues to defend the indefensible. After having cleared his name in the Auberge Grand-Mère affair, now he is exonerating the former Solicitor General, despite the opinion of his own ethics counsellor.

Is this not a very clear demonstration that even a new code of ethics, when applied using the old mentality, will give the same old results?

[Delegations Abroad, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was with Team Canada, the Premier of Ontario stated clearly that those provinces paid all the expenses of their missions, including rent to the Canadian embassies, and this the Prime Minister has never denied. He was there. So let him not try to put another version over on us today.

Since Ontario and Alberta have joined with Quebec in denouncing the fiscal imbalance that works to Ottawa's advantage, is the Prime Minister also going to advise them to close down their offices, as he has Quebec?

[Delegations Abroad, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last February in Munich, Team Canada, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, enthusiastically opened a trade delegation for Ontario and Alberta, the entire cost of which, including rent, is being borne by those provinces.

Can the Prime Minister explain to us how it was that he was so delighted last February with the opening of the Ontario and Alberta trade delegations, when yesterday in this House he was ridiculing Quebec's general delegations at work all over the world?

Why is there always this double standard when it comes to Quebec?

[Points of Order, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This week we raised a very specific problem with the Chair, and the situation is repeating itself today. I would like to draw it to your attention.

A little earlier this week, we were indignant about the softwood lumber assistance plan not being tabled in the House of Commons, as it should have been, but elsewhere instead.

To some extent, you agreed with us and I would remind you that, this morning, I was expecting the Minister of Public Works to table the internal audit report concerning the sponsorship program.

We have learned from the current events on the Hill for today that the Minister of Public Works is going to release the internal audit report on the sponsorship scandal at 2 p.m. today outside this House, whereas this is supposed to be done in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you this: does this not go directly against the argument we made earlier this week in this House, namely that important documents should be tabled in the House of Commons at the appropriate time?

Also, to conclude, I emphasize that tabling the internal investigation report at 2 o'clock this afternoon, outside the House of Commons, denies the opposition access to the document to analyze it and question the government in the House of Commons today, Thursday, this being the last significant oral question period before next week's recess. In other words, by not abiding by the spirit of the Standing Orders, the Minister of Public Works is gagging the opposition, preventing us from doing our job on this issue, where the government is involved in one of the worst scandals to date.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you remind the hon. Minister of Public Works that the document in question ought to be tabled in this place at 10 o'clock this morning, so that opposition members can use it to question the government about the sponsorship scandal. Instead, they are gagging us, ignoring the rights of the House and of its members, and going against the spirit of the Standing Orders and what was advocated in this place this week.

The fact that such a major report is scheduled to be tabled at the very time that statements by members and oral question period get under way start speaks volumes about the public works minister's desire to deny parliamentarians the chance, just before the recess, to see all that is contained in this report, hoping that this news will become old news over our week off.

On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois—and of all opposition parties, I am sure—I must say I find it unacceptable that we should be prevented from questioning the government on such an incriminating report. I ask that you remind the government of its obligation to table important documents in the appropriate place, that is in the House of Commons, and at the appropriate time, not when it suits the government, to prevent us from asking questions.

[Government Contracts, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the RCMP was called in to handle the investigation into the Human Resources Development Canada scandal, specifically with reference to what happened in the riding of the Prime Minister. We have called the RCMP, and were told to call HRDC. We called HRDC and we were told to call the RCMP, or use the Access to Information Act.

Two years later, it is impossible to get any details about what happened in the Prime Minister's riding.

Is the government not trying to bury the sponsorships issue by handing it over to the RCMP, so that we will never hear anything about it again?

[Government Contracts, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of sponsorships, there have been two important developments in the last week.

First, Chuck Guité, the official responsible for the program, clearly established the ties that exist between himself and the Prime Minister's office.

Second, Alain Richard, the former vice president of Groupaction, said very clearly that there were ties between the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, the government and Groupaction.

My question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Is it not true that the mandate of the RCMP investigation focuses only on the irregularities that occurred in the program's administration, and will not focus at all on the ties between the government, the Prime Minister's office and the political approval of this whole affair?

[Points of Order, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to that of the future leader of the NDP simply to say that, when we reviewed the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, an intention was clearly stated by all House leaders, including the government House leader. This intention was to the effect that all major or significant statements made by federal ministers should, short of an absolute impossibility, be made before Parliament, that is before the representatives of the people.

On the softwood lumber issue, if there is one place in Canada where the thorny issue of this dispute with the U.S. was discussed, it is the House of Commons, through questions from the opposition parties. We repeatedly called for special debates on the issue, and some were held.

All members of this House are concerned, especially Bloc Quebecois members from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, eastern Quebec, the North Shore or Abitibi, who have in their ridings thousands of workers affected by the softwood lumber crisis.

Everyone in the Bloc Quebecois has made relevant suggestions to the government and, day in and day out, we have been asking whether or not these suggestions would be acted on.

Can you tell me this is not contempt of Parliament to go and announce the softwood lumber policy in British Columbia, when in this place 301 members of Parliament are anxiously awaiting the decisions?

Mr. Speaker, I am saying this quite sincerely. To enhance the role of MPs, if the hon. member who aspires to one day replace the hon. member for Saint-Maurice as the Prime Minister of Canada wants to do so, he should ensure that his colleagues make their announcements in Parliament, where the elected representatives are, where we sit and represent the people, where there is no fear to be had of the press, the Canadian public and the affected workers.

I therefore add my voice to that of the future leader of the NDP to let you and the government know how disappointed and deeply distressed we are by the intolerance displayed by the Minister of Natural Resources today.