House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 56% of the vote.
Excise Tax February 5th, 1997
moved:
Motion No. 55
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 199.
Motion No. 56
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 200.
Motion No. 57
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 201.
Motion No. 58
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 202.
Motion No. 59
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 203.
Excise Tax February 5th, 1997
moved:
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 174.
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 175.
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 176.
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 177.
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 178.
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 179.
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 180.
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 181.
Motion No. 37
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 182.
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 183.
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 184.
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 185.
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 186.
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 187.
Motion No. 43
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 188.
Motion No. 44
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 189.
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 190.
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 191.
Motion No. 47
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 192.
Motion No. 48
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 193.
Motion No. 49
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 194.
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 195.
Motion No. 51
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 196.
Motion No. 52
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 197.
Motion No. 53
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 198.
Excise Tax February 5th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with my Reform colleague. This debate on the GST is very important. Quebecers and Canadians are entitled to obtain all the information surrounding this botched agreement, this political agreement involving the payment of a $1 billion subsidy to the maritimes.
Since you have started out so well, I would suggest, on behalf of the official opposition, that you continue. It is very interesting.
Excise Tax February 5th, 1997
moved:
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 161.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 162.
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 163.
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 164.
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 165.
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-70 beamended by deleting Clause 166.
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 167.
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 168.
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 169.
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 170.
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 171.
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 172.
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 173.
Excise Tax February 5th, 1997
moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 152.
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 153.
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 154.
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 155.
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 156.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 157.
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 158.
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 159.
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 160.
Excise Tax February 5th, 1997
moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 150.
Excise Tax February 5th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to speak to this clause of Bill C-70 concerning a partial lifting of the tax on books purchased by libraries and literacy organizations, which the government has decided should be exempt not just from the new sales tax that applies in the maritimes, but also from the GST in the rest of Canada.
We applauded this measure, but we also told the government that it was not going far enough in this objective of exemption from the GST or from the new national sales tax in the maritimes. All books bought by educational institutions, by institutions, by literacy organizations, as well as those bought by consumers must be exempt from the sales tax.
In Quebec, there is no provincial sales tax on books. We have understood that culture is important to a people. We have understood that taxing books is taxing ignorance, something the government has not yet figured out.
Before going any further with this analysis of the clause in the bill, I would like to remind the House that the initial seven members of the Bloc Quebecois were the only members in this House to defend the exemption from the GST of all books sold in Canada. They were the only ones to say that the GST should not apply to books, because culture is important, knowledge is important, and that consideration must be given to the fact that Quebec and Canada constitute two distinct cultures that must be protected and promoted, and that their authors must be protected as well.
I would like to pay tribute to those who defended this principle: the former member for Lac-Saint-Jean, Lucien Bouchard, now premier of Quebec; the former member for Shefford, Jean Lapierre; the former member for Hull-Aylmer, Gilles Rocheleau; the member for Rosemont; the member for Longueuil; and the member for Saint-Hubert. Without their conviction regarding two cultures, Quebec's and Canada's, there would never have been any talk in
this House of tax exempting books and culture generally. They were the sole defenders.
I wonder why, and actually I think I know why the government does not abolish all taxes on books. This is a government made up of ignorant people. This government has no culture and does not care about culture, not even about the Canadian culture it claims to defend. It cares even less about Quebec culture and the preservation of that culture.
Not long ago, the Minister for International Trade gave us a good idea of what he thought about protecting Canadian and Quebec culture. Everything is on the table. Canadian and Quebec culture are just pawns in the new trade relations with Canada's partners. Nothing is sacred.
Traditionally, those who called themselves Canadian nationalists and those who call themselves Quebec nationalists and still do as I was saying, all Canadian nationalists were intent on preserving what make them different, just as Quebec nationalists and especially sovereignists are intent on preserving what they are and the very basis of what they are, their culture and also their literature, which is an important cultural link.
But this government is breaking with every tradition. This government has chosen to ignore all the principles defended by the greatest federalists, the greatest Canadians in our history. It is true in the cultural sector and it is also true in Canada's external relations.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mr. Pearson who was a great Canadian Prime Minister. Mr. Pearson was the image of a diplomat who was a supporter of world peace and a defender of freedom and human rights. And he stubbornly defended this typically Canadian policy.
Today we have a government that could not care less about human rights. It does not mind doing business with countries that ignore human rights and basic freedoms. The important thing is to sign trade agreements.
The government has broken with a tradition of defending Canadian and Quebec culture. It has broken with a tradition of conducting a foreign policy intent on preserving and promoting peace and basic freedoms. This government is destroying everything it claims to defend as being fundamentally Canadian.
If there were no Société des auteurs dramatiques or Union nationale des écrivains or their Canadian counterparts to defend and promote Quebec and Canadian culture, this government would certainly not do it for them.
If we did not have people like Mr. Beauchemin, for instance, one of our well-known authors, the author of The Alley Cat , and if we did not have Margaret Atwood on the Canadian side, this government would certainly not defend Canadian culture.
Ms. Atwood is a great writer to whom I want to pay tribute, because her last two books are truly outstanding. I really enjoyed reading Wilderness Tips last year, and the Robber Bride , published recently by Ms. Atwood. She is one of the greats. So, if Ms. Atwood had not vigorously defended Canadian culture, this government would not have been there to do so.
Recently, again, she was not afraid to stand up to the attitude of these lowbrow governments, which do not care about their own culture and ridicule Quebec culture with such stupid and shameless decisions as the one to put everything on the table during trade negotiations, when no one was protecting Quebec and Canadian culture.
The government penalizes learning. Every day, the government is killing off Canadian and Quebec culture and the likelihood of developing new authors and keeping the ones we have, like Mr. Beauchemin and Ms. Atwood.
The government does not realize it is destroying what it claims to be representing. It prefers to spend tens of millions of dollars promoting the flag. Behind this flag, however, there is a cultural, a patriotic, reality it claims to be defending. When I hear the Minister for International Trade and see the government taking positions such as this, which resolve a minor part of the problem, when we should be removing all tax on cultural products, I say these people are irresponsible.
The position of the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, as contained in the first group of motions, is that books should be exempt from the GST, as they are from the sales tax in Quebec. That seems clear. There are not hundreds of millions of us in Quebec or Canada. It seems to me that each of the two peoples has a distinct identity, which it wants to promote both within and outside its borders.
I think it would be worthwhile to give these two cultures a hand up so that their influence can spread across Canada, in Quebec and even abroad. If the Minister of International Trade wants to discuss trade, he should talk about the real thing. Before cultural products can be traded, a favourable environment must first be created for their production.
We have to start by promoting authors, and the sale of their books so that they can earn a living and go on producing the master works they make us so proud of every year.
Seeing how ignorant and unrefined this government is, and how insensitive it is to the Canadian identity, let alone to the Quebec identity, one can understand why it has such a hard time doing
things that come naturally between two peoples that respect one another.
Excise Tax February 5th, 1997
So, it is about the GST as it applies to books.
I am very pleased to discuss this provision of Bill C-70 concerning the partial zero rating-
Excise Tax February 5th, 1997
moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 69.1.
Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken, we are now dealing with Group No. 1. Is that correct?
Personal Income Tax February 5th, 1997
I want to thank the Minister of Finance for the publicity he gave my candidate for the leadership. He is a great man for the job.
The Minister of Finance actually said, actually referred to the tax loopholes he put in place. Just imagine. He produced these tax loopholes and that is the problem: he did nothing about it. In three months and a half, with a small team, the Bloc Quebecois did what he failed to do in three and a half years. That is a fact.
I have a second question. Regarding the changes in personal income tax, is the Minister of Finance prepared to give serious thought to a proposal by the Bloc Quebecois for creating a kind of employment RRSP to help people who are unemployed?