Michel Gauthier

[Government Contracts, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, according to the treasury board's special rules established for advertising contracts, departments are required to hire firms through Communications Canada, which comes under the department of public works. However, the minister making the request does have some authority to recommend to public works.

My question for the minister of heritage is the following. In the case of the contract awarded to Everest, who at the department of heritage used this authority to recommend?

[Government Contracts, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of immigration was conducting a pan-Canadian consultation. It was his first project as minister, and they want us to believe that the then minister of public works, Alfonso Gagliano, or the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I do not know which, surprised him with the news that the firm that would be helping him, the firm which had been given the contract, was the firm owned by his friend, the president of Everest.

They actually want us to swallow this. They take us for idiots. They take the public for idiots.

[Government Contracts, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in defending himself against charges that he favoured Everest, the minister of immigration claimed that a secretary of state does not have authority to authorize contracts.

My question is for the minister of immigration. Will he admit that not having authority to authorize contracts in no way prevented him from being able to strongly recommend that Everest be hired, all the more so as it was his pan-Canadian tour and his consultation which was involved? It was his first project as minister.

Will he admit that it in no way prevented him from being able to give his friend a very strong recommendation?

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Prime Minister not admit that the fact that the minister stayed in Claude Boulay's condo for a six-week period before being appointed minister, that Claude Boulay's wife, vice-president of Everest, served as his campaign organizer in the 1997 and 2000 elections, and that once appointed minister, one of the first contracts he gave out was to Claude Boulay and Everest, places him square in the middle of a conflict of interest, a situation where “you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours”?

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister's answer is pretty weak. As soon as a minister, who used to be a backbencher, established special ties with someone to whom he then gave an advantage, I believe that that minister has placed himself in a conflict of interest.

My question is for the minister of immigration: did he not deny having stayed at Claude Boulay's condo in the first place because he was well aware that this put him in an untenable position when he awarded him contracts once he was appointed minister?

[Government Contracts, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this affair, the Prime Minister told the press that if the chalet had not been paid for, this would have been serious, but it was paid for. Now we realize that the cheque had never been cashed and that neither the minister nor his family had, in fact, paid for the chalet.

Does the Prime Minister not consider that his minister and, unfortunately, his family members who are policy advisors to ministers, placed themselves in what he himself has termed a very serious situation?

[Government Contracts, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will not be able to deny that his minister of public works has put himself in a totally unacceptable position by being in the company of his son, who is a political advisor to the minister of heritage, and his daughter, who is at justice, at the chalet of the head of Everest, one of the officers of which has become the executive assistant to the Minister of Justice.

Will the Prime Minister not admit that this constitutes a whole network of people working on behalf of Everest which would make many companies wishing to do business with the government green with envy?

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may try as he will to create a diversion, but absolutely nothing that he announced this morning has helped shed any light on the series of scandals that have plagued his government and that go back, in a well organized system, to well before the current minister of public works, to the former minister of public works and possibly even to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who started the sponsorship program with the Canada Information Office.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Instead of shouting at the official opposition, should he not allow for a public inquiry that would enable citizens to understand what has happened under his government?

He is creating a diversion for a reason. Instead of diverting attention, he should do some explaining. This will allow us to see what has happened. If indeed, as he claims, nothing has happened, why is he so afraid of a public inquiry?

He is afraid that we will find out what happened before the current minister.

[Tax Credits, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but we are used to dealing with gentlemen and behaving like gentlemen here. Generally speaking, when we let certain terms slip out, we withdraw them. I very sincerely feel that the hon. member should not play with this. He confirmed having used this expression in reference to a number of members of this House. If he is a gentleman, he will rise and say “I withdraw the word”.

[Government Contracts, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will make things a little clearer for the Prime Minister, if I may. What is of concern to me is not the minister's cheque. It is that the Prime Minister, in defence of his minister, told us that he had paid, that everything was settled, while his minister within an hour was telling us the opposite, “I am not aware, I have not checked into it, but I will”.

What I want to know is this. How can the Prime Minister rise in the House and tell us things that he has not checked out, solely for the purpose of camouflaging his government's problems?