Michel Gauthier

[Human Resources Development, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister can say what he likes, everyone in the riding of Saint-Maurice, it is common knowledge, knows that René Fugère regularly represents the Prime Minister.

I have understood one thing, though. In the last election, the Prime Minister said, and I quote “When something involving Saint-Maurice ends up in a minister's office—I need not say more”. He should have said “When something involving Saint-Maurice ends up in a minister's office—I need not say more. René Fugère will attend to it personally”.

[Human Resources Development, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister acknowledged with our help that René Fugère had represented him a number of times. He was not paid, of course; he works on commission. It would really be beyond all if he had two salaries.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that when René Fugère, a man very close to the Prime Minister, who represents him everywhere, intervenes with Human Resources Canada, he has impact, almost like that of political intervention?

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I join the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to thank members of the opposition parties, who accepted this debate, which is of paramount importance to us, and made it possible.

The questions I would like to ask at this time are: why is there a parliament and why are we here today? Why have we been elected to this parliament?

Parliament was not created to be used by the government or the monarch but to serve the people. Parliament is much more ancient than democracy; at the time of the monarchy, it was decided to bring together elected representatives of the people to act as a check and balance, give advice and tell the king “We like this, but we do not like that”. The voice of the people could be heard through parliament.

Parliament was never meant to be used by the king, the monarchy or the government. Parliament's role is not to support the government. Its role is to express ideas and to serve as a check and balance to the huge powers of the executive. This is why ministers and the Prime Minister have to answer questions by the elected representatives of the people every day. It is a normal process. We call it democracy, and this is what gives it strength.

The government, before making important decisions, must submit to a public debate and face all members of parliament. This process allows us to improve legislation; it is the fundamental difference between a monarchy or a dictatorship, where decisions are taken and imposed from the top down, and a democracy, where the government does not have all of the power. Of course, it does have the power to manage the affairs of the country, but this power is subject to public debate.

For the government, there is a political price to pay when decisions are taken. This is what democracy is all about. This is what we are doing here. I hope that members understand that they have an important responsibility to express views that differ from the ones held by the government, since government members are bound by the principle of cabinet solidarity.

Opposition members are here to express points of view. This is why society has been able to solve problems without fighting. There is no more bickering, no more war; we do not fight any more, we debate. We have found a civilized way of expressing points of view.

It is all very well for those who have the majority to rule, but they will have to pay a political price for their actions. If those actions are not good, then parliament can debate them. It alerts the population. The media are an integral part of the democratic process and they ensure that our decisions, our debates are made known to the public. This forces the government to improve its legislation. It restricts the scope of the government's activity. It does not give the government all the power because parliament acts as a check and balance.

There are three principles underlying parliament. The first is that parliament is totally independent from the executive. Parliament is where the people are heard. Parliament should not have to serve the executive. Parliament is not the servant of the executive; it is rather a check and balance to the executive. The second principle is that the Speaker has to be neutral.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you this sincerely. I consider that you have always made very high quality rulings in this House. I wanted to say this to you during this debate. The Chair must maintain this neutrality at all cost because the Speaker is the one who protects me. He is the one I called upon this morning, asking “Does our presence here means something or not? Just because we are separatists, does that mean we do not have the right to speak?” It is up to the Speaker to protect me, give me the right to speak, allow me to put questions to the government and make my point of view known. You have always done this admirably.

The third principle is the one of confidentiality regarding everything going on here. Every political party has the right to work in full confidentiality, to avail itself of the services of the employees of the House, who serve us admirably. We call upon the Clerk, we call upon the Sergeant-at-Arms, we call upon the whole staff that works here, and we always get impeccable service. We are entitled to such service.

Those with a long career in parliament know that their first duty is to set aside their political opinions and be as generous with a separatist—even though we are in the federal parliament—as with a government member. They have always done so admirably.

But a problem has occurred. There has been a breach of the principle of confidentiality and openness with respect to a political party, in doing its job; as a result of administrative measures taken in the past, and to which we subscribed in good faith, the confidentiality of the services of the legislative counsel who is here to serve members, be they members of the Bloc, Conservatives, members of the Reform Party, New Democrats or even Liberals, has come under question.

The work of the legislative counsel must be absolutely non-partisan, and entirely confidential. He is a person who works selflessly to allow members to put their point of view across, draft a bill, or draft amendments. All this is in the realm of political strategy, it is a sensitive issue, it is hard to do. It is a sensitive issue because the legislative counsel must abstain from expressing his own opinion. He has to be an expert at the service of MPs of all political stripes, and that is hard to do.

The way the work is organized has, however, resulted in a situation where their proximity with the clerks of the House of Commons, and the fact that the computer, a new working tool, now allows people to access anything that is being worked on, has led to certain elements of the Bloc Quebecois strategy—and it could just as easily have been the Reform, the Conservatives or the NDP—being used in good faith by someone wishing to expedite decision-making on whether to accept or reject amendments. This is what the Speaker has to do, and a number of people are involved in it.

What I wish to say is this. Unfortunately, a problem arose. It has now been realized that this close proximity means that confidentiality is no longer assured. One of the basic principles of parliament is right of access—and I know that the Liberal members across the floor are completely in agreement with me—to non-partisan technical assistance.

This is why I believe you need to reconsider the ruling that was made, perhaps a little too hastily, or perhaps without all aspects being presented. I would ask you to reconsider this decision, because it is fundamental and it concerns one of the principles of parliament.

Everybody will come away from this motion with their head a little higher if you make one of the following decisions.

The first would be to re-establish the matter of confidentiality by changing our current procedure, which no longer ensures confidentiality for us.

The second would be to provide resources directly to the parties to enable them to have their own legislative counsels to ensure their data will not be disclosed again. Otherwise, we will have to assume that confidentiality is no longer valued by parliament, and I know that this is not the case.

Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to propose the withdrawal of this motion or to vote against it if you honestly agreed to give the principle of confidentiality its full due. Administrative changes are required: either the parties must be given their own legislative advisors or this matter must be put before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for its consideration and recommendations.

This is what we are asking you, it is the aim of the motion. I am sure that, in your usual wisdom, you will consider our remarks to be extremely serious and intended to serve parliament and nothing else.

In concluding, I move:

That the motion be amended by adding after the word “Beauharnois—Salaberry the following:

“on Friday, March 3, 2000,”

This is simply to make it clear that the matter was raised then. I consider it important to add it. It does not change the substance.

I would ask you to consider our request with your usual open-mindedness and you will have our full support. But it seems to us something must be done to ensure confidentiality.

[Business Of The House, March 16th, 2000]

Fine. I had not understood that.

[Business Of The House, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the motion, but I want to ensure there still will be an oral question period at the expected time.

[Government Response To Petitions, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday, a rather unusual situation occurred, when a substantive motion was introduced in this House questioning the impartiality of the services provided to parliamentarians of our political party, the Bloc Quebecois.

The actions in question led us to take the most serious step possible in a parliament, a motion of non-confidence in the Speaker. While there is before this parliament a motion of non-confidence in the Speaker, something that has not occurred since 1956—it has been 44 years since such a motion has been tabled in this House—a motion amply justified by the abhorrent actions by the House of Commons administration in connection with the confidentiality of services provided to this party, yesterday, the government refused to debate this substantive motion.

It preferred instead, because the Liberal Party convention is starting, to run roughshod over Quebec with Bill C-20. There was a vote against Quebec yesterday in this House. Today again, the government is getting ready to run roughshod over this motion. Parliament is in crisis, the Chair is in crisis, the entire institution of democracy is in crisis. The Liberal Party is using parliament as a partisan tool, on the eve of its convention.

What is going on in this parliament? Watching as things unfold, debating motions and bills, as if nothing were wrong. This historical institution of parliament is in jeopardy, and the Bloc Quebecois motion will not be debated. Do sovereignists no longer have any place in this House? Do the members of parliament representing Quebec—indeed 70% of Quebec is represented by sovereignist members—no longer have a place?

Does the fact that we have concerns about the Chair, that we are questioning the institution, that we are the victims of an unprecedented partiality of House of Commons services mean nothing?

Mr. Speaker, what message are you sending to Quebec? That it is more important to debate any old motion than it is to debate the issue concerning the Chair? Will the government members from Quebec allow scorn to be heaped for long on the right of Quebecers and on democracy in this parliament?

Yesterday, we had a discussion. I spoke to you outside the House. I respectfully put my point of view to you.

If the Parliament of Canada is not in fact a partisan instrument used by the Liberal Party, because the Liberal convention is coming up, and if the Parliament of Canada has an ounce of pride left, it seems to me that the Chair has full authority to decide that, in this House, we will not do as the government tells us, but will debate a fundamental issue.

Does democracy still have any meaning in this House? Are the individuals legitimately elected by the people of Quebec entitled to speak? Are they entitled to question the institution? Are they entitled to want to debate the question of impartiality? Are they entitled to debate their rights or is it more important to proceed to government orders?

In what kind of country are we living? What is going on? Does parliament no longer have any value? Have parliamentary principles disappeared? Is it that, because the government wants to get rid of the separatists in this parliament, a non-confidence motion concerning the Chair is unimportant? It is business as usual.

When the Speaker leaves the chair he is replaced. You have all the powers. You can decide. You, Mr. Speaker, can decide that we will discuss the real issues. You can tell the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada that you will not let this parliament become an instrument of the Liberal Party of Canada. You can tell Canadians that you consider the parliamentary institution more important than the Liberal Party convention.

We know this is embarrassing for the government. We know that it is a pain. We know that it is annoying to have to tell Liberal supporters “Parliament is in crisis. We acted in such a way that we will now have to debate a motion”. We know that it is tedious, but it is a serious issue. Parliament is not at the service of partisanship. Parliament is here to allow parliamentarians to hold debates in a democratic fashion.

The reason for this institution to exist is that, over the course of history, people realized that conflicts could not be resolved through violence and that it was not possible to lead nations through a monarchy, with one person deciding and telling others what to do. People realized that it was necessary for their representatives to talk to each other.

There is a green carpet in this place, which is called the House of Commons. One day, it was decided that England's districts would be represented in a place where everyone would have the right to speak.

Do you know what distance separates both sides of the House? The length of two swords, plus a foot, plus an arm's length. Do you know why? Because people used to fight in parliaments. But times have changed. Today, we have an institution where it is possible to settle ideological differences in a civilized manner.

Issues must be settled democratically. But for the first time in years, actually for the first time in the history of this parliament, we have taken a giant step backwards, with members now being told that from now on in parliament decision are made by the government and the government alone. It is disturbing to the government to see separatists across the way, as if there were no separatists in Quebec. Half the people in Quebec are separatists and, the way you are acting, it will soon be three-quarters.

I must tell you that there is a political price to pay. I want the Speaker to know, I want this institution to know, I want the officials who are here to know. They are accustomed to democracy being respect and they cannot believe what is happening: they are being denied their right to speak, and they cannot believe the cavalier fashion in which this government is acting and its partisanship in reducing the Parliament of Canada to slavery. What is happening here is ugly, very ugly.

Everyone is outraged. I am outraged. People who are watching us are outraged. Quebecers are outraged. International democracy is outraged, because this will be known.

I know that there are democrats on the other side, people listening right now, and I appeal to their sense of democracy. It will become known in certain countries that the Parliament of Canada, which is challenging its Speaker, because the rights of an entire political party have been violated, does not wish to discuss the problem. It prefers to present a motion to proceed with the orders of the day. It prefers to pass a bill that will take away the rights of Quebecers. It prefers to consider a motion by the Progressive Conservative Party, which is very interesting in itself, I agree, but is completely out of step with what is actually happening here.

The institution of parliament is in crisis. Canada is in crisis and there is a price to be paid. I cannot believe that there are not members opposite who, deep down, agree with what I am saying.

Whatever my opposition to this country, if there is anyone who respects the institution of parliament, it is I. I have told my colleagues a hundred times that we must respect parliament because, when parliamentary debate ceases, when people believe that democratic expression is no longer possible, there is a serious problem.

Today, I appeal the government's decision. As the Speaker, as the guardian of my rights, as the guardian of the rights of this political party, as the guardian of the rights of all the opposition parties, as the guardian of the rights of all members of the House who are not members of cabinet, and as the guardian of ministers' right to speak, I ask you now to require the government to take the much more urgent route of a substantive, rather than an ordinary, motion.

If you fail to do so, if you fail to listen to us, Mr. Speaker, not only will you disappoint us, not only will you strike us a hard blow—we separatists will understand that we are not important in this parliament, that the vote of the thousands and millions of Quebecers who elected us means nothing here in Ottawa, and I did not think it had come to that—not only will you be denying the representation of all these members, but you will also be allowing an extremely sad message to be sent to international democracy.

The message will go out that the institution of parliament in Canada is in crisis and that it prefers to resort to motions.

That is inadmissible, and I can understand—I am speaking for myself, not for my party, but people might support what I say—that nothing more can be done in this institution. In every forum, I will explain it very ardently to Quebecers. I know that right headed federalists will find it sad that I should do so, but in all the forums in Quebec, in all the radio stations, in all the media, I will explain to citizens that nothing more can be achieved in the Parliament of Canada. Even though we have been elected, we are second-class citizens.

The fact that the rights of all these members are trampled on does not matter at all to the Chair. The members just have to deal with some motions about health or whatever, routine business. It just does not matter. The Bloc Quebecois, which represents two thirds of Quebec, has been cheated. Our rights have been trampled on. We have been the victims of a process that carries for us a high political price.

We want to defend ourselves legitimately. We want to explain to citizens that the only tool we, sovereignists, have in this Parliament is our voice, the possibility to speak, to explain our views, to confront our ideas and to confront the government.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, you are party to that situation. You, the Deputy Speaker, the Speaker and all those in position to make decisions—better let me speak, because I might as well tell you that this may be the last time I speak in this Parliament—are all accessories to this dubious manipulation. The Chair is now serving the Liberal Party. That is the message people will get if you fail to made a decision.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the government House leader's proposal is all about. Is he asking that the time allocated both to my hon. colleague from the NDP and my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party be extended? Does this apply to both?

[Government Response To Petitions, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question?

I had the impression, given the special nature of the substantive motion by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, that the 48 hour period provided by the standing orders permitted and inevitably led to a debate on this substantive motion at the end of this period. This means today, now, as we speak. make !sense.

I put the following question to you. Are we to understand that if, through a motion, a political party raises the very serious matter of the credibility of the Chair and questions one of the foundations of the House of Commons, of parliament in Ottawa, the motion will be brought to the attention of the members only if the government wishes to debate the matter.

That amounts to saying that, by giving precedence to a proposal by the parliamentary secretary, the Chair of the House of Commons accepts that if the government does not wish to debate a substantive motion such as confidence in the Speaker, we will not discuss it.

This is so basic that the members of the Bloc Quebecois unanimously want to debate this urgent matter now. A lot of opposition party members are interested in debating the matter of the Chair and—

[Government Response To Petitions, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, given the situation in which we find ourselves, a situation which has not occurred since 1956, if my memory serves me right, where the House must deal with a most urgent issue, namely the tabling of a substantive motion by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois on the issue of confidence in the Speaker of the House of Commons, it seems to me that this issue must be dealt with now.

I do not think we can simply move on to Government Orders as if nothing had happened when, in fact, the Chair of the House of Commons is being called into question. It would be much better, not only for the sake of all the members of this House, but also for the Chair itself and for parliament, to give absolute priority—and I thought there would be no doubt whatsoever about this—to the non-confidence motion moved by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

Mr. Speaker, I would not understand if you were to agree to simply move on to Government Orders as if nothing had happened, when parliament is going through a crisis the scope of which it has not seen since 1956.

[Human Resources Development, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the Prime Minister can say what he has just said in this House, when there is proof that René Fugère acted as a representative of the PMO in a regional tourism symposium, using the PMO address, the Prime Minister's telephone number, the Prime Minister's fax number, and what is more, had a letter from the PMO designating him as his official representative?

How can he say such a thing?