Michel Gauthier

[Human Resources Development, March 30th, 2000]

Placeteco got $1.2 million from the government. That is what we are talking about.

My question to the minister is: Where did the $1.2 million go? Where are the invoices? Where is the truth in this matter?

[Human Resources Development, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about Trois-Rivières. The minister is intentionally mixing the files. We are talking about Placeteco. That is quite clear.

[Human Resources Development, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, our questions for the Minister of Human Resources Development concern the payment of a grant of $1.2 million to Placeteco in the Prime Minister's riding, and no other business.

We know that $1 million was paid to the bank and $200,000 cannot be accounted for. These are our questions.

I would ask the minister whether her main mistake in this matter involves the conflict of interest arising from the threefold role played by Gilles Champagne, the friend of the Prime Minister, who is the government trustee, a creditor of the company and the lawyer of the individual purchasing it—

[Human Resources Development, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. We are accusing the minister of failing to honour the contract between the Department of Human Resources Development and Globax. This is what we are accusing her of.

Was the fact that the Placeteco lobbyist was so effective not due to his being the lawyer for the individual purchasing the company, the creditor of the company and the government's trustee all at the same time?

[Human Resources Development, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we are questioning the Minister of Human Resources Development on the matter of contracts her department signed with the businesses receiving grants.

Clause 10.1 was included in the contracts to protect the government and public funds so that no grant money could be paid to a bankrupt or failing business.

Were the Placeteco lobbyists not effective and influential to get the minister to set aside the contract she signed and break her department's rules?

[Human Resources Development, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, how can the parliamentary secretary say there is no basis for calling for an investigation, considering that some people are involved in a number of capacities, that we are talking about an amount of $1.2 million, that no one in the government can explain where that money went and that there were privileged contacts between certain people and the National Bank?

This file does not make sense. The more we get answers, the less clear things become. An investigation would be in order for much less than that. The Prime Minister was quicker on the draw in the case of CITEC.

[Human Resources Development, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the whole scandal at Human Resources Development Canada, the Prime Minister told us that there were problems with only 37 files, that the moneys involved did not exceed $250 and that this really was a minor issue.

Today, we realize, particularly as regards Placeteco, that the amounts involved are much larger than that.

Can the Prime Minister tell us why he still refuses to order an investigation into this file? Is it because the people involved are close friends of the Prime Minister? Is he concerned about his leadership? What is the problem?

[Human Resources Development, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, not only does Placeteco refuse to justify the grant, but on page 2 of a report released just today, under the heading “The problem is serious”, the auditor general wrote “Large amounts of public funds were spent without the appropriate controls, making it difficult to know whether the funds were used as intended, spent wisely and produced desired results”.

Is it not time for the minister to tell us what happened to the $1.2 million and to produce her invoices, if she has any?

[Human Resources Development, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development just said once again that Placeteco's $1.2 million grant was put to good use since the company's bills were paid. How can the minister say such a whopper when an internal memo from her own department, dated April 6, 1999, and obtained under the Access to Information Act, states “The employer, following the bankruptcy, no longer feels legally bound to justify the grant”?

Placeteco refuses to justify the grant, but all is well.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An event has just happened in the House so serious I dare not describe it, but which I would like to bring to your attention.

Parliament works marvelously well when members, House leaders, and politicians on all sides of the House come to an agreement behind the curtain so that things run as smoothly as possible in the House. This always involves giving our words as individuals and parliamentarians.

Earlier today, the member for Mississauga South—after we refused to give consent to table a motion—came to my office to discuss the problem. I told him we could not give consent unless the motion provided that only the House of Commons could be on the reviewing committee.

He agreed, we struck a deal and he gave me his word he would amend his motion so that it would be acceptable to us. We came to the House and we gave our consent to a motion amended as per the member's word.

Only minutes after we gave consent, the member amended his motion back to the original motion. This, Mr. Speaker, is a very serious breach of parliamentary usage. An agreement between two members, two men, to obtain consent under false pretence is not only contrary to the rules, it shows contempt.

It is extremely serious and I hope that, if the member does not amend his motion, we can withdraw our consent. One should not mislead a political party by asking for unanimous consent and then amending the motion later. This is just not done, it never was, and we cannot accept it. I call on your judgement, and the government's fair play. The House cannot operate that way.