Michel Gauthier

[Request For Emergency Debate, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing my privilege, my right to speak to this request and to give my reasons for making it.

I would like to say that you should examine this request in the light of the question of privilege raised a bit earlier. Allowing the question of privilege would automatically dispose of the emergency debate, because there would be a debate today, which would meet our objectives. If you were to rule the question of privilege out of order, obviously the matter of an emergency debate would remain an extremely pressing one.

On page 1 of the information commissioner's annual report, the hon. Mr. Justice Gérard La Forest, former judge of the supreme court, says—the words are heavy with meaning—and I quote:

The overarching purpose of access to information legislation...is to facilitate democracy. It does so in two related ways. It helps to ensure first, that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process, and secondly, that politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable to the citizenry.

Page 2 of this report contains an extract from the Access to Information Act, subsection 2(1):

1. (1) The purpose of this Act is to extend the present laws of Canada to provide a right of access to information in records under the control of a government institution in accordance with the principles that government information should be available to the public, that necessary exemptions to the right of access should be limited and specific and that decisions on the disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government.

The reason I have requested an emergency debate is that, in the report submitted to parliament, because the information commissioner reports to parliament, it says, and I quote very briefly:

PCO claims now that it may exclude confidences from access without any obligation to certify to the Commissioner (as it must—

[Privilege, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, our hon. colleague has raised a point of privilege I feel is of such importance that it requires us to intervene at this time, adding our voice to theirs and to that of the leader of the official opposition, in order to call for this matter to be addressed with the utmost urgency, as well as the serious accusations made in the information commissioner's report.

I believe it is appropriate to point out at this time—since we have gone to the heart of the matter—that I myself asked under Standing Order 52 that there be an emergency debate at the end of the day today on this matter, given the serious nature of the accusations and the fact that the report states in black and white, and I quote:

PCO refuses to accept the clear words of Parliament giving the Commissioner the powers of a Superior Court of Record in the conduct of his investigations.

Of all the accusations, the serious nature of this one is without precedent. Privy council shunts aside and rejects the wishes of parliament to which the information commissioner is answerable. I would be prepared, in one way or another, to go along with the hon. member's request for an immediate debate on this issue, for a motion to be introduced and the issue debated. If that were to be done, it would pre-empt the emergency debate we had called for this evening, or the Chair should bear in mind in its ruling that if it does not allow an immediate debate, we should at least use the evening to debate the matter pursuant to Standing Order 52. Whatever is decided the final days of this government are a sorry spectacle.

As its mandate draws to a close, a matter of days now, our worst fears and doubts are being confirmed. Our complaints to the House about the answers being given by ministers about the unavailability of documents under the Access to Information Act are being borne out. This is a very serious situation.

For three and a half years, the Bloc Quebecois has had a hard time because it has been systematically unable—this was how the privy council wanted things—to obtain any useful documents that would show the public what was actually going on behind the scenes in this government.

It is quite terrible that this is happening in a system such as ours. The control of information is something we thought was reserved for certain dictatorships, certain totalitarian countries. The first requirement of a dictatorship is to control information and release only what it wants.

It is a sad day for this parliament. It is a very sad conclusion to the government's stay in office.

It is vital that the question of privilege raised by the hon. member be debated immediately or that you at least allow an emergency debate on the matter in the coming hours. Otherwise, we will no longer know what deference to the will of parliament means.

The spotlight is now on the PMO and the privy council.

[October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I know that there have been discussions among the parliamentary leaders concerning the emergency debate this evening.

I would like to ask the government House leader if it would not be possible to consider that eventuality after the question I am about to ask of you relating to the necessity of an emergency debate on another matter.

I have not had the opportunity to discuss this with the government House leader, but we are aware that all these matters need to be addressed within the next few days.

I will not therefore be able to give my consent at this time. I would prefer it to be considered a little later, after we have been able to hold discussions.

[Human Resources Development Canada, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Human Resources Development Canada is a source of endless surprises, and, daily, members of this House discover new scandals there.

Since the members of this House are unanimous in their desire to discover the outcome of the inquiry at Human Resources Development Canada, will the government agree to table this report today so that we do not go into an election without knowing the truth in this whole scandalous affair?

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, September 27th, 2000]

We could resume consideration of the bill in the light of a strong debate. That is what I am asking for.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, September 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We find ourselves in a very awkward situation and I need your help to see how we can go about this.

According to the order of business, to agreements made by the parties and the way we usually work here, Bill C-8 and the amendments thereto were not supposed to be brought before the House today.

We are now faced with the following problem. We come here to pass legislation with full knowledge of the facts. Our speakers are usually well prepared to take part in the debates. In a democracy, the most basic rules of courtesy and decency require the government to advise us of the bills it wishes to put before the House. Never, in any parliament, would a government call a bill at the very last minute without advising anyone as is being done here right now.

Since we only have 10 minutes left for government orders, could we not agree to say that it is 5.30 p.m. Then, when the House leader asks to bring this bill back before the House, we can have a very objective and effective debate, gladly and with good humour.

[Human Resources Development, September 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, last June during the summer recess when the minister tabled the invoices about Placeteco she said “Here. This matter is now closed”.

But we just learned today that there is a police investigation into this issue. It is once again in the Prime Minister's riding and it involves people who are very close to him.

Could the minister tell us at what time this issue became the subject of a police investigation?

[Human Resources Development, September 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, she has just admitted that it is under investigation and that is excellent.

I would ask her, as the minister who paid out $420,000 in subsidies on the strength of an invoice marked “replacement invoice for missing invoices”—a subsidy in the amount of $420,000 paid out on the basis of such an invoice—if she can justify her remarks here in the House to the effect that she properly administered people's money by giving out a subsidy on the strength of real invoices.

[Human Resources Development, September 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, do members recall Placeteco, that corporation in which a friend of the Prime Minister received $1.2 million from the Minister of Human Resources Development, who swore up and down that she had given out this subsidy on the basis of invoices presented?

We got the invoices in the end and we had a look at them. Today I ask the minister how she can justify paying out $1.2 million to a friend of the Prime Minister on the basis of invoices that were dated between 12 and 15 months previously, that is even before he decided to buy Placeteco?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

If our right to opt out is not upheld, the government will be leading Canada right where we want it to go. Some day, no one in Quebec, not even the federalists, will have a reason to stay in this federation.