Daniel Paillé

[Sales Tax Harmonization, March 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, nothing is keeping the government from paying Quebec what it is owed right now. The Conservatives are slinking off like thieves, without paying their debts: $2.2 billion for tax harmonization, $1.5 billion for equalization, $800 million for post-secondary education, and $137 million for stabilization payments. That adds up to more than $5 billion.

Can the Prime Minister wipe the oil sands from his eyes and pay Quebec? If his government falls, it is because he is refusing to pay Quebec what it is owed.

[Sales Tax Harmonization, March 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have chosen to deny Quebec $2.2 billion for harmonizing its tax more than 6,500 days ago. The Conservatives have chosen to ignore the choices and values that we set out in our budget expectations. The Conservatives have chosen to dismiss Quebec, telling it to wait its turn. In short, they are forcing an election at Quebec's expense.

Does the Prime Minister realize that if his government falls today, it is because he is refusing to treat Quebec fairly?

[The Budget, March 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, no one is better at derailing a train than he is. If the Conservatives did not want an election, they would not have organized a $26 million pre-election campaign at taxpayer expense, like the one last week. If the Minister of Finance did not want an election, he would have abandoned his infamous and predatory plan for a securities commission.

Will the Minister of Finance admit that he and his government will be responsible if an election is triggered?

[The Budget, March 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives’ hypocrisy truly knows no bounds. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance knew very well that by refusing to meet the legitimate demands of Quebec, in particular the $2.2 billion in compensation, they ran the risk of provoking an election. The Prime Minister was guiding the Minister of Finance’s hand when he deliberately brought in a budget that does not meet Quebec’s demands.

Will the Minister of Finance admit that it is his intransigence and stubbornness that are responsible for a possible election?

[The Budget, March 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Outremont, who was also once a member of the National Assembly, as was the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin and the minister from Pontiac. Yesterday, the member for Pontiac said with regard to harmonization and the compensation Quebec is seeking that neither he, who was a member of the Liberal government, nor I, who was a member of a PQ government, had ever requested compensation for harmonizing the GST.

What does the hon. member for Outremont think about the comments by the hon. member for Pontiac and Minister of Foreign Affairs?

[The Budget, March 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I was not clear. I am doubly sorry and withdraw my remarks.

[The Budget, March 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in the heat of the moment, I said that the member for Lévis—Bellechasse was a liar. That is true, and I am sorry.

[The Budget, March 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, there is some confusion. If incompetence had a name, it would be the name of the member for Lévis—Bellechasse.

I do not blame the member for Lévis—Bellechasse for not having the financial skills, since he must have other ones. However, he is not capable of reading what Dimitri gives him and repeating it properly. Unless what Dimitri gave him was wrong, in the budget, on page 114, it clearly says that the credit is non-refundable.

What does “non-refundable credit” mean? It means that people who are really struggling do not pay taxes because they do not have a high enough income. The member for Lévis—Bellechasse is telling these people that they will receive some aid, a refundable credit. That is untrue. The member for Lévis—Bellechasse is a liar.

[The Budget, March 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, to leave time for other questions, I will simply say this: $10 billion for the automotive sector and $60 million for the forestry industry. That is 167 times less. That difference speaks for itself.

[The Budget, March 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, let us take the example of small businesses. The Conservatives are saying that they are going to give SMEs a credit for the employment insurance fund. In other words, the government is unable to provide direct assistance to SMEs.

In January, I proposed to the Minister of Finance—his parliamentary secretary was present—a business start-up program modelled after one that was implemented in Quebec in 1994 and 1995. What did the government do instead? It allowed and plans to continue to allow entrepreneurs, SMEs, to dip into the employment insurance fund, which does not belong to them. In other words, in addition to stealing from the employment insurance fund, the government is also letting others steal even more from it. The Conservatives are a gang of thieves.