Christian Paradis

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what is important here is that Quebeckers will quickly understand that the centralizing and domineering vision of the Liberal Party does not suit them. I would like to reassure Quebeckers who are listening to us now that the Conservative Party will not let them down. We do not want to practise domineering and centralizing federalism and, at the same time, we are not going to dig everywhere to uncover any possible trifle to prove that the country does not work, as the Bloc Québécois is trying to do every day in this House.

The Bloc's motion today asking the Conservative government to negotiate in good faith is a farce. Why? Because the Bloc Québécois itself acts in bad faith on this matter. It does not want things to work. It wants us to do one thing—

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond to today’s motion saying that the federal government should negotiate in good faith with the Government of Quebec over tax harmonization. I am happy to reiterate the position of the Conservative government. I say reiterate because I have said it many times in the House. However, the Bloc members seem to need to have things repeated over and over. They pretend to be deaf. They never want to listen to reason, especially when it runs counter to their option, their goal, their obsession. Today, though, they are giving us an opportunity to reiterate our position. I want to take advantage of this chance to explain the differences between the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party when it comes to the Government of Quebec.

If Quebec decides to harmonize completely, as Ontario and the Atlantic provinces have done, it will be treated equitably. We will show good faith, as we have always said. Our position has not changed on that and will not change.

As a Quebec nationalist, I joined the Conservative Party because it is the only federal party that respects the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces while trying to make Canada better.

The Liberal Party, on the other hand, has the opposite ideology. Since Trudeau especially, it has tried to reduce the powers of the provinces and primarily the powers of the Government of Quebec. According to Liberal Party ideology, we need a strong, domineering central government. That was the position of Trudeau, Chrétien, and the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, and it is certainly the firm position of the current leader of the Liberal Party.

Since he first started writing, he has always aligned himself with that band of Liberal intellectuals who think they know better than Quebeckers themselves what is good for them. The current leader of the Liberal Party of Canada speaks of Trudeau as the “Prince”. Those are his words, not mine. The current Liberal leader wants to imitate Trudeau’s approach to Quebec. He wants to dominate Quebec and centralize everything in Ottawa. I am sure, though, that he will try to hide his true intentions, just as he already did in regard to UNESCO and some other matters, including his approach to Quebec nationalists. We are starting to get to know the Liberal leader and his tactics. He seems to think that nothing has changed since the Trudeau years. He seems to think that Canada has not changed in the 30 years since he left the country. Maybe when the leader of the Liberal Party was young, very young, before leaving the country therefore, politicians could get away with saying one thing—

[Justice, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse for his excellent question.

This is an excellent bill that was eagerly anticipated. It provides for minimum sentences for criminals who commit aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against a child or cause death to a child.

As a father, I cannot understand why the Bloc members would turn their backs on families in Quebec on such a crucial issue. I cannot understand why the Bloc members support easy sentences for criminals who attack the most precious members of our society, our children.

[Firearms Registry, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois philosophy is unacceptable. It wants to punish criminals less in order to punish honest citizens more.

He wants to talk about young people, so let us do so. We had a bill here yesterday about child trafficking. Those people voted against it. That makes no sense.

Not looking after our children, or our families, is that their message?

[Firearms Registry, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we have always been very clear about this, and our approach is the right one. We focus on arms dealers and street gangs and we fight crime, rather than picking on honest citizens such as our farmers, hunters or first nations.

The Bloc Québécois ought to be thinking about the people in the regions. How does he explain himself?

[Goods and Services Tax, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. It has been said before, even by the Premier of Quebec in the National Assembly: this is not a matter for public negotiation. The Bloc Québécois is trying to make a big deal out of this. There is only one party with which we will negotiate in good faith, and that is the Government of Quebec, not the Bloc Québécois.

The Bloc Québécois is not trying to advance the interests of Quebec. It is trying to advance its own ideals. That is no good.

[Goods and Services Tax, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we have made our position on this issue clear from the beginning. I would like to remind the member that our Conservative government wants this federation to work, and that is what we are doing with our open federalism approach. We have an agreement with Quebec. Quebec gets money for collecting the tax, and we have said that if Quebec harmonizes fully, we will negotiate in good faith. That is what we have been saying all along.

[Firearms Registry, April 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, to finish my sentence, what my colleague is saying is simply nonsensical. Let us look at what happened in committee. There is a bill aimed at crimes committed by street gangs, such as drive-by shootings. They want to reduce minimum sentences for drive-by shootings and punish criminals less, while punishing hunters, farmers and first nations more.

That is the Bloc's wishy-washy approach, and one our government does not endorse.

[Firearms Registry, April 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that is simply nonsensical. Let us keep in mind—

[Firearms Registry, April 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows very well what I mean. The registration process is a burdensome one and discourages people from renewing their possession and acquisition licences. This is a real safety monitoring process and one that allows us to know who is likely to have guns and who is not.

That said, however, we must address the real target: the criminals. For this reason I encourage the hon. member to support our program, which is focused on criminals and not on hunters, farmers and the first nations.