Michel Gauthier

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, November 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in the past, the Minister of Canadian Heritage made no bones about the fact that Radio-Canada should promote Canadian unity. Back then, it was not a serious matter. Last week, in the case of the Museum of Civilization, the Prime Minister saw to it that the decision be changed.

Do the Prime Minister and his Minister of Canadian Heritage not realize that their complacent attitude regarding Radio-Canada's decision is tantamount to supporting the suspension of journalist Normand Lester?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, acting like a hypocrite and washing her hands of the matter is no way for the minister to assume her responsibilities.

Robert Guy Scully offers his interpretation of Canadian history, and the government approves it and provides financial support. Normand Lester offers his, and he is reprimanded and suspended.

Why is history all of a sudden so distressing to Radio-Canada when it provides another perspective?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is responsible for reporting to the House of Commons on the conduct of crown corporations under her authority.

In 1998, Don Cherry insulted Quebecers on the CBC. Nothing came of it, because apparently the opinion he expressed was his own.

Why does Radio-Canada all of a sudden feel the need to suspend Normand Lester, who offers a different view of Canadian history? The minister is accountable? Then let her provide an accounting here.

[International Aid, November 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let us be serious for a moment.

How can Canada's Minister of Finance expect to be taken seriously by the people listening when financial assistance has dropped, during his mandate, from 0.45% to 0.25%? Since when is going from 45 to 25 considered an increase, other than in the Minister of Finance's head?

[International Aid, November 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance may express all kinds of good intentions on the subject of international assistance, but the fact remains that since this government came to power in 1993, assistance for poor countries has dropped considerably, from 0.45% of the GDP to 0.25%.

How can the Minister of Finance express good intentions with his G-20 colleagues on the need to increase international assistance, when his government has almost halved Canada's aid since it came to power?

[Health, October 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Prime Minister will be pleased to hear that his Minister of Health considers it a waste of time to consult the Prime Minister's Office or the crisis cabinet, which the Prime Minister established precisely to deal with emergency situations.

Such a lack of judgment deserves a reproof from the Prime Minister, not congratulations in order to save face.

[Health, October 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, decisions of great importance were taken, and the minister says that he consulted neither the cabinet, nor his colleague responsible for the Patent Act. He consulted no one.

How does the minister explain that, in a situation such as this, a decision of such importance was made without the involvement of any political level of the government, except for the minister himself, who lacked judgment?

[Health, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, by taking a decision of this importance without cabinet approval, by taking a decision that is costing the public $1.3 million and by taking a decision to violate an act of this parliament, will the minister admit that he committed three very serious errors of judgment, one right after the other?

[Health, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Was his decision to violate the Patent Act approved by cabinet, yes or no?

[Terrorism, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister can keep telling us that these definitions are just fine, but when a member of the Liberal caucus interprets them as meaning that demonstrators are terrorists, what is going to happen when thousands of police officers, secret agents and security personnel interpret the definitions in the proposed legislation, if the Liberals themselves cannot sort them out?

Should she not be more prudent and define things more clearly?