Michel Gauthier

[Points Of Order, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a number of things.

I know very well that today was frightful and trying for everyone, probably more so for the Speaker than for the others. I have done my part to try to stay calm as much as possible. But I, like others, have been known to heckle a bit in this House.

In the worst case scenario, let us be frank, we will understand each other—I do not want to attack you, Mr. Speaker—let us say that today half of the trouble came from this side and half from the other. This was not the case, but let us say we all caused about as much trouble. I just want to humbly submit to you that, each time we cause trouble about equally, the Liberal Party never loses questions, while we lose them regularly.

[Points Of Order, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I rise in this House to raise a point of order. I am deeply distressed by the events in this House yesterday.

At the start of this parliament, an agreement was reached among the parliamentary leaders, which we passed on to you, to the effect that the order of oral questions is always prepared in advance to ensure the House functions better.

There was also an underlying principle, which was that a political party wasting the time of the House, using up time in question period for other purposes, would be penalized in the number of questions available to it.

There have been quite a few Oral Question Periods in which the Bloc Quebecois—each time it is the Bloc—has lost its seventh question. Today we lost our sixth question because, on the other side of the House—and they have frankly admitted it—they were happy to take fewer questions because the minister, who was in an awkward situation, had fewer answers to give.

The Liberals have two questions in Oral Question Period. I do not understand why, under a principle of fairness, under the agreements reached among the parliamentary leader, which must still be in effect—if they are no longer in effect, I would like to be informed, and we will get that straightened out quickly—under what principle did the Bloc Quebecois today lose not only its seventh question but its sixth as well, whereas the Liberals had all theirs, but they wasted the time of the House by standing up, heckling, applauding and fooling around, while we were discussing a matter of great importance?

Mr. Speaker, I call on you and ask the following: What sort of rules will it take for us to also be entitled to the number of questions set out in the original agreement? It always comes just before the Bloc Quebecois' question and it is beginning to get under our skin in a big way, to put it frankly.

[Human Resources Development, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, two years have passed since the privacy commissioner informed the government that this practice made no sense.

However, according to the rule that people are not guilty until they are caught, nothing happened, as usual in the other files. The minister signed agreements with eight provinces to obtain even more information on the citizens of Canada. That stopped with Quebec, it did not work with Quebec, because the law in Quebec does not permit this sort of data collection.

When will the minister stop this data collection activity?

[Human Resources Development, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the serious concerns of the privacy commissioner, the Minister of Human Resources Development is saying that her department's laws, internal policies and professionalism are enough to protect personal information on the public.

Do we laugh or cry at this? The minister responsible for the greatest administrative scandal ever to shake this government tells us to be calm.

Can the minister tell us in all seriousness that the public can rest easy? Does she not understand that the Canadian public will rest easy only once she stops this hateful collecting of documents?

[Points Of Order, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I wish you to know that, in my opinion, your suggestion that the parliamentary leaders seek a way of settling this problem, as is often done, is a reasonable one.

I would, however, like to point out that, every time the government or the opposition makes use of mechanisms to hold up debate, to speed it up, to limit its length, it must be an exception. We all agree on that.

Today the official opposition and the other parties are complaining of what seems to us to be an excessive use of time allocation motions by the government. I think that the figures will show that there has been a certain increase.

I take this opportunity to remind my colleagues that this is not the only point of dispute in our discussions. Hon. members are aware that a motion was backed by the government in the procedure and House affairs committee, and it was also supported by other political parties.

The purpose of that motion was to have the mechanism used by the opposition to allow it a little longer, on occasion, to vote on a number of bills set aside, by giving each party whip the ability to vote on behalf of his colleagues. I and my party have always been opposed to such a mechanism. I have been told that it has not yet and may possibly never be introduced in the House at this point.

I take this opportunity to point out to my colleagues on this side of the House that, in both cases, the problem is exactly the same. It is no more interesting for the opposition to watch the government abuse time allocation than it is for the opposition to watch the government adopting mechanisms to prevent us from using our own exceptional mechanism, or one of our own exceptional mechanisms, in order to prolong the debate, that is, multiple votes or other strategies such as long debates.

I would simply like to say that if we came away from this place today at the end of a debate, which has not lasted long, but which has taught us a lot, if we came away with some sort of unanimity recognizing that your suggestion is very wise, that we should all discuss time allocation motions, that we should all discuss means that might be put forward in order to limit the opposition's ability to impede the work of the House but that could as well allow us to discuss the government's right to move files along, we would see this parliament as balanced.

If, for one reason or another, parliament does not function in a balanced manner, if the opposition or the government abuse their respective privileges, we are headed for a bleak period in this place. Whenever this happens, democracy is always put on hold and thwarted, and this is not what anybody really wants. What we want is to be able to function as democratically as possible here, and to use the means passed on to us by our predecessors to best advantage.

In my view, the only way forward in the dispute that concerns us, as well as the House leader of the Canadian Alliance and all other members of the House, today is to go along with the Speaker's suggestion that the House leaders get together and discuss the matter. I believe that, if balance is to be maintained, any decisions made must involve agreement between the parties.

I agree with your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that nothing will be done without agreement between the House leaders. Since it is everyone's goal to leave a positive mark in this parliament, I sincerely believe that we will do everything we can to work out an arrangement.

I am willing to go along with your suggestion and I hope that the government leader will show the same openness to your recommendations, and that the other party leaders will do likewise. I think this is the way to go if we want to function efficiently.

[Human Resources Development, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that, strangely enough, when we ask for other files, the invoices are always included.

With regard to Placeteco, the minister's whole defence is based on the existence of invoices. These invoices were not in the first file. We submitted another request seven weeks ago. We were still not able to get these invoices. We asked the minister to table them, but she did not. No one has ever seen these invoices.

Is this not simply because the invoices to which the minister referred concern companies other than Placeteco and that none of these invoices concern Placeteco as such?

[Human Resources Development, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to give a chance to the Minister of Human Resources Development, but there are limits.

She just told us again that we simply have to submit a request under the Access to Information Act. We did, but we got a file in which there were no invoices. We submitted a second access to information request on March 23. That was seven weeks ago, and we have not yet seen any invoices.

Do these invoices really exist?

[The Late André Fortin, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, Quebec was plunged into a state of mourning. One of the greatest innovators on Quebec's musical scene in the past ten years has left us at the age of 38.

Singer and leader of the Colocs, affectionately known as Dédé by those close to him and by a Quebec that has included “La p'tite Julie” in all its celebrations since 1993, André Fortin passed away yesterday.

Born in Saint-Thomas-Didyme, in my riding, the tenth of a musical family of 11 children, Dédé literally burst onto the Quebec musical scene in the summer of 1993. The young and the not so young all over Quebec have shared with him since then the images in “Rue principale”, “Magasin général” and “Passe de puck”.

On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to express our solidarity at this time of great sadness with his family and friends.

Dédé, you may have left us, but we will keep on saying “maudit que le monde est beau” in your honour.

[Human Resources Development, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government's behaviour in this matter is the greatest example of incompetence I have ever seen.

How can this government, which came into power supposedly to bring integrity back to public administration, today continue to administer with a Minister for International Trade who is responsible for what is going on, a Minister of Human Resources Development who is still in her position, and a Prime Minister who still dares to look people in the eye? This is incredible.

[Human Resources Development, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, when they were in opposition not that long ago, the Liberals were calling for the resignation of Conservative ministers for things far less serious than what is going on at present within Human Resources Development Canada. Today the government has announced “We are going to audit this matter”.

Does the Prime Minister not understand that a government is responsible for auditing first and paying out the money later, not the other way around, as they have been so busy doing at Human Resources Development Canada?