Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be sharing my time with the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, the dean of this House.
It is time to ask what is really going on here. What is the real motive behind the Bloc Quebecois' fascination with this issue?
When smart people do odd things, it ought to make a person suspicious. I am just a little suspicious about the motives operating here.
It cannot be that the Bloc wants to embarrass the previous government. That is a rather bizarre thing, not that I object.
It cannot be that the Bloc believes that the government has not acted on the auditor general's recommendations because it has done so. First, there was a moratorium on additional tax rulings; second, a referral to the finance committee; third, a very serious piece of work from the finance committee and, from that will undoubtedly flow action on the recommendations of that committee.
This fascination of the Bloc cannot be because its members think we have not responded in a timely fashion. We have.
The fascination cannot be based on some perception of interference or wrongdoing in the decision making process because the auditor general has admitted that there was no such thing.
The fascination with this issue cannot be because there is something wrong in taxpayers seeking advance tax rulings on complex transactions. As they well know, the auditor general in previous years has reviewed and praised the advance ruling process.
If the taxpayers in question wanted to do something untoward, wanted to get away with something, they certainly would not have
come to Revenue Canada and asked for a tax ruling. I suggest that they would have done it.
One of the reasons the auditor general praised the tax ruling process was that it provided, if you will, a heads up to Revenue Canada about transactions and actions out there so that Revenue Canada would be right up to date on the things that were happening. This taxpayer talked to Revenue Canada. He or she did not have to do that.
The fascination of Bloc members can be understood. It is not for any of the reasons above. It is because of who they believe the taxpayer is. Maybe it is someone rich, they say. Maybe it is an anglo. Maybe it is an ethnic. We can draw a lot of lessons from their fascination with this issue.
What lessons can we draw from the way the Bloc has handled this matter about the kind of society it would build in Quebec? Let me tell members. Based on its performance on this matter, its members would build a society in which being successful would bar a person from fair treatment.
They would build a society in which there would be no taxpayer confidentiality. They would build a society in which envy would be the basis for policy, a society led by accountants that envy, bookkeepers of offence, measurers of science. What kind of economy would be left in Quebec in that environment?
What kind of society would they build? Based on the Bloc Quebecois' minority report on this issue, I will say what kind of society it would be building: a society in which expertise and experience is dismissed if someone's opinion disagrees with its ideology.
In their minority report, Bloc members dismiss out of hand the seven out of eight tax experts who appeared before the committee and concluded that the opinions Revenue Canada provided, based on the law and regulation as it then was, were incorrect.
What kind of society would they build? It would be a society in which your opinion would be unassailable if you agreed with their ideology. They cite Professor Brooks, the other of the eight who supported the Bloc's position and disagreed with the seven other experts.
His opinion, of course, was unassailable but the other experts, in the Bloc member's opinion, had a conflict of interest. How convenient.
What kind of society would Bloc members build? A society in which minorities in Quebec might hope to be tolerated but never be quite equal. We are all minorities. It just depends where you draw your borders.
What kind of society would it be? It would be a society led by historical revisionists recasting and perverting history for their own ends. The francophone history in Canada is not one of shame but one of which to be proud. It is one of building a great country together, of opening a continent. What do they want to do? They want to lock francophones up in Quebec.
What kind of society would they build? It would be a society in which someone else is always responsible for the problems: the anglos, the rich, the ethnics, the federalists. Who will they blame if they go it alone?
It would be a society built on an insecurity so severe that they, the separatists, attempt to insulate themselves from criticism, labelling those who have criticized them as sellouts or part of some great overarching conspiracy, a society where government would decide when to suspend the rule of law, and the rule of law is all that stands between us and tyranny.
They would also build a society where it appears, based on the separatists own actions and statements, that there is collective responsibility. The Jewish community is responsible for Mr. Galganov, but the separatists and the francophone community are not responsible for Mr. Parizeau's comments about ethnics, for Mr. Landry's treatment of ethnics or Mr. Villeneuve's comments.
I am pleased to have had this opportunity to participate in this debate but I weep for Quebec, for the decent, hardworking, fair, open people of Quebec who are demeaned by the behaviour and attitude of the separatists as we have seen in this debate and in so many other debates.
I have confidence in the people of Quebec. They will never allow themselves to be led down the garden path to the narrow, stifling, miserable future the separatists have in mind for them.
