Michel Gauthier

[Human Resources Development, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's answers on the two previous cases are disconcerting. Lots of people are watching us. We have the proof here in front of us that, out of the $1.2 million, $1,061,000 was used to pay the National Bank. The minister tells us it was used to pay invoices.

What I am asking her is to tell us the truth. What invoices were paid with this money? Did the money get paid to the bank, yes or no, as the agreement I have just disclosed states? That is what we want to know. We want to know the truth. Where did the taxpayers' money go? That is what we want to know.

[Human Resources Development, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has just told the House that the $1.2 million in funding was at no time used to pay back the National Bank.

I have here in front of me the articles of agreement between Claude Gauthier and René Giguère and the National Bank, and its subclause 3.2.2 states that “the bridging loan of $1,060,000 will be repaid as the Human Resources Development Canada funding is received, up to the limit of $1,060,000”. It is further indicated that any additional amounts received by Placeteco in connection with the grant could be allocated to its working capital.

How can the Minister of Human Resources Development say what she has just—

[Human Resources Development, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, everyone is wondering how the $1.2 million that went to Placeteco was given the way it was. That is the minister's explanation.

Then there is Claude Gauthier, who received a grant of $1.2 million and who bought the properties from the Prime Minister for $500,000; Gilles Champagne, who is a HRDC trustee and Claude Gauthier's lawyer; and Michel Béliveau, who is a friend of the Liberal Party and consultant for Placeteco.

Does the minister not think that there are enough coincidences, enough cronies in the Prime Minister's club, to ask what is going on and call for a public inquiry?

[Human Resources Development, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Michel Béliveau, the former director general of the Liberal Party of Canada's Quebec section, now the vice-president of the Liberal Party of Canada, who attended the Liberal convention on the weekend, who is a friend of the Prime Minister, is also a consultant for Placeteco.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Is it the presence of Mr. Béliveau, a friend of his in the Placeteco matter, that made him slow off the mark in calling for an investigation into this matter as he did in the case of the Canadian Institute of Tourism and Electronic Commerce?

[Human Resources Development, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, really, there are limits. Despite what the minister has said on several occasions, as everyone knows, about this money creating jobs, it did not create a single one. Jobs at Placeteco have even been lost, after the money was squandered. This money was diverted to pay a bank loan.

How can the Minister of Human Resources Development expect us to swallow her story about the money creating and maintaining jobs, when there are fewer jobs and the money was used in loan payments?

[Human Resources Development, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will start again.

As everyone in this House is aware, the Minister of Human Resources Development has said that the $1.2 million paid to Placeteco by her department had made it possible to create and maintain jobs at Placeteco. We have just had the figures from her department. In 1998, Placeteco had 81 employees. In March 2000, after wasting the $1.2 million, it had 78 employees, or 3 fewer employees.

How can the minister tell us here in this House that the $1.2 million created jobs at Placeteco, when there are fewer jobs after the $1.2 million has been squandered?

[Human Resources Development, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone in this House is aware, the Minister of Human Resources Development has repeated on numerous occasions that the $1.2 million paid to Placeteco had made it possible to preserve—

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to move the following motion:

That Motion No. 59 be withdrawn and replaced by the following:

That the issue of the confidentiality of the work of the legislative counsel be examined by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; that the various possible solutions, namely a ) the restructuring of the service to ensure confidentiality; or b ) the reallocation of current resources to the various political parties to allow them to have their own legislative counsel services

be reviewed by the Committee, and that a report proposing concrete solutions be tabled in the House by June 1, 2000.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to move the following motion:

That Motion No. 59 be withdrawn and replaced by the following:

That the issue of the confidentiality of the work of the legislative counsel be examined by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; that the various possible solutions, namely a ) the restructuring of the service to ensure confidentiality; or b ) the reallocation of current resources to the various political parties to allow them to have their own legislative counsel services

be reviewed by the Committee, and that a report proposing concrete solutions be tabled in the House by June 1, 2000.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There might perhaps be unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That Motion No. 59 be withdrawn and replaced by the following:

That the issue of the confidentiality of the work of the legislative counsel be examined by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; that the various possible solutions, namely a ) the restructuring of the service to ensure confidentiality; or b ) the reallocation of current resources to the various political parties to allow them to have their own legislative counsel services

be reviewed by the Committee, and that a report proposing concrete solutions be tabled in the House by June 1, 2000.

If we had unanimous consent, I think we could perhaps vote on this motion.