Michel Gauthier

[Heating Oil Refunds, February 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State has just admitted that the Department of Finance acted illegally. He should have thought about that before taking that measure, not after.

Will the Secretary of State admit that, by distributing millions of dollars to people who have no heating costs, the government completely missed the boat? It missed its target. It did not do anything to solve the issue of heating oil costs. We can now conclude that the government's obsession with visibility has a price tag.

[Heating Oil Refunds, February 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, cheques for $125 were sent to people who do not pay for heat, while some who do did not get any money.

For example, inmates in federal or provincial institutions that are heated by the crown received cheques for $125 to compensate them for their heating costs.

Will the government finally admit that its obsession with visibility led it to put the maple leaf on cheques paid directly to people, with the result that it completely missed its target?

[Food Inspection, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister be so confident? How can he keep on saying there are no problems in the system, that it is one of the best in the world? Our auditor general is also one of the best in the world.

He says that the government and the agency are not doing their job. Why should we believe the minister under these circumstances, when even the experts at the agency are saying that the problem would not be settled with 500 more inspectors, even in a year. He should open his eyes before something happens.

[Food Inspection, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has pointed out that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has not been doing its job properly. Regardless of what the minister has to say over and over again about our system being one of the best in the world, this is of great concern to all Canadians.

My question for the Minister of Agriculture is this: Does the minister seriously believe his words are reassuring to consumers when 75% of problem cases relating to cross contamination are still not being settled within 12 to 28 months, and the agency spokesperson cannot give any guarantee that this will change in the coming year? How can he continue saying the same thing when the experts are saying something that is virtually the opposite?

[Cinar, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of National Revenue.

Since there are so many ways for the Department of National Revenue to arrive at a resolution, I ask him, without wishing to know the details of the agreement with CINAR, what method he and his department decided on to reach an amicable agreement with this corporation?

[Cinar, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in the resolution of a tax dispute, Revenue Canada has two ways of negotiating an agreement with a delinquent company. The first is through voluntary disclosure, where the error is admitted before it is discovered. The second is through a decision based on the discretionary authority of the Minister of National Revenue.

My question is addressed to the Minister of National Revenue. I am not asking for the confidential details of the agreement between Revenue Canada and CINAR, but can the minister confirm to the House that this agreement was indeed based on a ministerial decision taken by virtue of his discretionary authority?

[Division No. 1427, October 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on this final day—we can forget about tomorrow, because the government will not be here—I would like to share our wisdom with the House.

Under parliamentary law, how is it possible for us to vote on a ways and means motion to implement a budget statement which has not itself been approved, since the Chair has allowed an amendment to an amendment and an amendment from the official opposition?

We cannot vote on the implementation of something that has been officially amended, debated in the House and not voted on.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to upset anyone, but you are going to have a serious legal problem if you allow everyone to leave like this and we do not vote on the amendment to the amendment, the amendment and the main motion. This poses a very serious legal problem. Think twice.

It does not matter to me, but it is the government's budget and it should perhaps be looking after its own affairs.

[Division No. 1427, October 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am having trouble understanding something.

In connection with the Minister of Finance's budget statement, the Chair accepted an amendment by the official opposition and an amendment to the amendment by the Bloc Quebecois. Yet we have just had a vote without taking into consideration the debate on the amendment to the amendment and the debate on the amendment, which ought normally to have been adopted or rejected before a vote on the main motion.

I do not understand why we are not voting today when the amendment and the amendment to the amendment were accepted and a day and one-half of debate on them was tolerated. We are voting on the main motion only, not the amendments.

If the main motion was not open to amendment, the Chair ought not to have accepted amendments. Since it did accept them, they ought to be voted on.

[Human Resources Development, October 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, she got the question wrong.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister how, as this term comes to an end—it is probably the last time he will be answering one of our questions on this topic—he can claim that the administration is blameless, that the government is blameless, when we have just discovered in a memo that, as of September 6, his government was under police investigation in 21 cases, four of them in his riding? And I am not including Placeteco in the 21, because that investigation has been completed.

[Human Resources Development, October 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister took refuge behind the auditor general's report and said that no politicians or public servants had benefited in any way from the cases under investigation in the Department of Human Resources Development.

Today, does the Prime Minister have anything to say to the House or to the assistant to the auditor general, who took the trouble to point out that the auditor general had never said anything in his report that the Prime Minister could hide behind and that, what is more, there had been frequent political interference in the Department of Human Resources Development under the former minister, who is now the Minister for International Trade? What does he have to say?