Michel Gauthier

[Human Resources Development, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, according to TVA, René Fugère, not content to act as the Prime Minister's representative, is also collecting fees as a lobbyist, lobbying Human Resources Development Canada in particular.

In this context, how can the Prime Minister deny political intervention in Human Resources Development Canada, as the departmental employees have decried, given his known closeness to René Fougère?

[Government Response To Petitions, February 11th, 2000]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make life easier for everybody. I do not want to bother anyone and I will be very brief. To make life easier for everybody, I would like the government House leader to tell me officially what the order of business will be for today. Could any changes be made or is the order of business fixed? That is what I would like to know.

[Government Response To Petitions, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question to the government House leader concerning the business of the House? It is a very short question—

[Points Of Order, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, over the past two days, a number of events have taken place in this House. Today, it is happening again.

Yesterday, referring to one of our questions to the Minister of Human Resources, the Speaker of the House commented that the question was too specific.

Earlier, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Prime Minister had told us “Your questions are too vague. We would appreciate more specific questions. Give us examples of mistakes that were made, of instances where money was misappropriated”.

We did our best, even though we still do not have access to all the lists, to find the most specific examples possible, including one, which I raised myself, involving a $5 million subsidy.

With due respect to the minister, it seems to me that $5 million is important enough an expenditure for the minister to at least look at before authorizing it.

The Speaker of the House seemed to back down on this issue and, later, he let us ask our very specific questions. Then, the minister even told a Reform member that his question was too vague and she wanted a clearer one.

You have the responsibility to tell us how my colleagues and myself must act in this House. Even today, after the minister replied that the question was too precise, too in depth, you said you agreed with her. I have not heard such comments very often in my life.

How should opposition members act to please you, Mr. Speaker? Should we ask very broad questions, so as to allow the minister to say anything, or ask very precise questions and be told they are too precise and cannot be answered?

I would like to know the rules for asking a question in a parliament such as this one. In the other one that I have known, the more precise the question, the more accurate the numbers quoted, the happier the journalists, the happier the public, and the more the Speaker would let us carry on.

[Human Resources Development, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister, whose statements in this House contradict her department's documents, as I just demonstrated, also told us to do our own research. She will not give us her lists, on the ground that we have access to them.

We checked. I phoned Mr. Gagné, the regional director for Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, who referred me to the minister's office. My colleague, the Bloc Quebecois leader, phoned in his riding of Laurier—Sainte-Marie. He too was referred to the minister's office.

Not only does she contradict her own department's documents, but the minister is denying us access to them, contrary to what she told the House this week, and contrary to what the Prime Minister said.

[Human Resources Development, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, what has gone on here is very serious. The minister is denying one of the statements she made on December 16, or, rather, is justifying it by saying “I was not talking about all the projects. It was not about those you are referring to. It was about those I was being questioned on in the Prime Minister's riding”.

I have just shown that in the riding of the Prime Minister, in the case of this project, the situation is exactly the same. There are questions everyone is asking. What is she still doing here? Why is she not resigning? She misled the House.

[Human Resources Development, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development has just told this House that what she said here on December 16 pertained to the project referred to in the question of my Reform colleague, that is the projects in the Prime Minister's riding.

What can she say about the project of the Auberge Mastigouche in the riding of the Prime Minister, which received $300,000 in grants from the budget ending in March 1998, when approval followed only eight months later? What can she say about that?

[Human Resources Development, February 10th, 2000]

When we want answers, it is too specific. We do not take that, Mr. Speaker.

She must know what is going on in her department. She will tell us why she told this House it did not happen when it did in dozens of cases, not in just one, in dozens.

[Human Resources Development, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of specific projects, the Prime Minister, like the minister, like the government, never hesitates to cite specific examples in the ridings of opposition members.

[Human Resources Development, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development learned of the mess in her department on November 17, 1999, she says.

Why, one month later, did she tell us in this House that no money had been paid out before it was authorized, when Industries Franc Bois in the riding of Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle had received $400,000 in 1997-98, funding that was not approved until much later, namely, on February 1, 1999? Why did she tell us that?