Michel Gauthier

[Government Contracts, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, by downplaying the numerous scandals in which his ministers are involved, by acting as he is doing with the Minister of Finance and by answering us the way he is doing in the House of Commons, is the Prime Minister not showing that he is a head of government with few scruples?

[Government Contracts, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister expelled the Minister of Finance from cabinet because, in his opinion, the minister was responsible for the leaks concerning what the Prime Minister himself called a “theft of a few million dollars”.

Could the Prime Minister tell us why, instead of expelling those members of his government who are up to their neck in scandals, he chose instead to shoot the one whom he thinks is the messenger?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to obtain the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:

That the House of Commons express its surprise at the decision of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to invite the Hells Angels, a criminal bikers gang, to take part in the festivities of the 50th anniversary of her accession to the throne, and beg her to reconsider.

[Government Contracts, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of justice has just shown us his true colours.

He and his cabinet colleagues are trying to intervene. They do so via their staff, via third parties, and are unhappy about it because they do not always win out. When they do get their way, however, their little friends stand to benefit.

I would ask this of the minister of justice: Does his point of view not lead directly to a system of patronage, but an open one, as opposed to the existing one, which is rather secret, as long as the opposition does not speak up?

[Government Contracts, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in coming to the defence of the minister of immigration, the minister of justice told us a lot more than he intended to by saying “In my opinion, the minister ought to have the opportunity to speak out, to make an official statement. Let us put an end to the hypocrisy”.

By indicating that he feels the minister ought to make an official statement, is this not a confirmation that at present, ministers express their opinion, but in an unofficial manner, through their staff, and that he would wish it could be done openly?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to understand. I sent the motion to parliamentary leaders of all political parties.

Now, you are telling me I do not have unanimous consent. I do not understand what--

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I do not think it is in order to ask for consent when the House is not aware of what the motion is about. I am entitled to read my motion, and I will start over again.

That the House of Commons express its surprise at the decision of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to invite the Hells Angels, a criminal bikers gang, to take part in the festivities of the 50th anniversary of her accession to the throne, and beg her to reconsider.

I would like the House to pass this motion unanimously.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I apologize to the hon. member, but I will be brief.

We just heard on the news that authorities have invited the Hells Angels to join the official celebrations marking the 50th anniversary of the accession of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to the throne.

Under the circumstances, I seek unanimous consent of the House for the following motion. I move:

That the House--

[Government Contracts, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the contract awarded to Robert-Guy Scully through Lafleur Communications for a series on Maurice “Rocket” Richard is being investigated by the police. We know that a new $2 million contract has been awarded to Robert-Guy Scully for a series on innovation and entrepreneurship.

Given the fact that Scully has had serious difficulties relating to the funding of the Heritage Minutes and that his series on the Rocket is under police investigation, would the minister of public works not find it advisable to suspend the contract for the Innovation and Entrepreneurship series until such time as the police investigation is over, as he has announced will be done in the case of the communications firms under investigation?

[Government Contracts, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, upon leaving the Liberal caucus, the Minister of Justice gave an explanation and what he said was this: “The minister does not have enough opportunities to intervene in the choice of communications firms. He should have more. He should be able to choose the firm he wants”.

Is the Minister of Justice not setting the stage, in order to justify and explain what his colleague from immigration did, which is about to be brought to light?