Denis Coderre

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know where the member was when we were grappling with the economic mess and succeeded in taking this country out of that slump.

We acted with transparency. We were stuck with a $42 billion deficit. We have a debt to control. We acted responsibly and with speed and, moreover, we will reach a zero deficit in 1998.

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, excuse me but I had said that I would share my time with the hon. member for—

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

We won in terms of votes and in terms of seats.

If an election were held tomorrow morning, the Bloc Quebecois—and I am quoting our friend Jean Lapierre, the former Bloc member, who says the Bloc has no reason to be in Ottawa—would take quite a beating. It would disappear from the political map.

In 1993, it was passion that brought Bloc members here. In 1997, it is pensions, because they have no other reason to be here. Year in year out, they look for reasons to save their leader's political life. They have to apologize. They always have to say that errors of judgment were made. We saw that.

On what was said about biker gangs, I personally would have been ashamed. It is sad, so sad. And when we get back to the economy, they show us once again that it is just a shot in the dark.

One thing is certain: we were right and, to paraphrase what my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Outremont, said, our government acted without engaging into partisan politics. When we choose to protect the interests of Quebeckers and all Canadians, we can see that we are doing something positive. Why? Because we have the figures to prove it.

In 1991-92, Quebec's revenues increased by 20,4%; in 1992-93 by 17.4%; in 1993-94, by 9.1%. It is with this money that, together, we can help improve people's quality of life.

I took some courses in economics. My knowledge of macroeconomics tells me this is positive. Even editorialists agree. However, when one has nothing to say, when one constantly tries to justify one's existence, we end up having to put up with things like this. I find it most unfortunate.

The figures speak for themselves. When Reformers take the floor, all Canadians start laughing. Flip-flaps, flap-flops, flip-flops, you name it, they do it all.

In 1990, when, unfortunately, a Reformer was elected for the first time, he said “We will scrap the GST”. In 1991, the current leader of the official opposition changed the Reform Party's position on the GST. He said:

It could not be repealed because it would increase the deficit, but in public speeches the Leader of the Opposition talked about applying part of it to the debt, which would keep it even longer.

In 1992 the Reform changed its position again, saying that it would reduce the GST in stages after the budget was balanced. In 1994 in the finance committee minority report on the GST the Reform Party supported harmonization.

I do not understand. On the one hand, they are saying it is terrible, that we are trying to buy Canadians. On the other hand, they keep changing their minds.

Do you know why we have been elected? Because we look after the interests of Canadians and we have a consistent policy. When we all work together as partners with the Quebec government, when the separatist government understands that we have to co-operate in the interests of Canadians, we all benefit from it. Statistics confirm this. More improvement is needed. There is always room for improvement. I hope we will keep on improving things, but, at some point, we have to stop talking about allegations and stick to the facts.

What we want to do is make sure Canadians can have a decent living. Our policy has been effective. Thanks to its revenues and good management, the Canadian government will finally balance its budget. All countries that are members of the OECD and other countries throughout the world speak about the Canadian miracle. We will balance the budget because everything is going just fine, with increasing revenues and good management in the government. Obviously, we will then look for ways to ease the tax burden. I will certainly be doing that. We have demonstrated that we were a responsible government, we have made the right decisions, and that is what Canadians think also.

Later on, we will have to look for the means to make our businesses more competitive. Facts prove it: compensation would mean losses. Once more, Quebec has had a winning partnership with the federal government. Despite all the partisanship of the Bloc Quebecois, we realize one thing: when Canadians and Quebekers are given the facts, they understand that the federal government has looked after their best interests.

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am always greatly pleased to participate in these debates and today we are obliged to respond to this Bloc motion, with which they are trying once again to cause instability.

When one is a member of the Bloc, things are easy. One makes all sorts of motions. All that one has to do is to say it is the federal government's fault—

Today we are talking about harmonization, and, once again, the Bloc Quebecois is looking for a lifeline. With all they have done in recent weeks, the issues of the biker gangs and drinking water, their flailing away in the water, they are looking for something to cling to. They think they have found one more life raft to cling to called the harmonization of the GST and the QST, and they say they need compensation.

I am not an economist, but I know how to count. In 1990, the governments of Quebec and Canada announced they had signed an agreement. In agreeing to harmonize, they realized over the years that revenues increased by over $2 billion.

You seek compensation because you have been misled. You seek compensation because you have lost something. Perhaps they lost their credibility, but for sure Quebeckers gained a lot.

They started by setting up a Quebec sales tax. This tax cost them over $1.3 billion. They understood that harmonizing would make things a lot more attractive for businesses. They would become more competitive. What happened? Harmonization was indeed a positive thing.

They are still going after the government, and we certainly know why they are. Why? Simply because elections are coming up in Quebec. We have seen the disastrous state the PQ government is in. It does not know how to administer its own funds and has to come up with something. They need to find ways to get elected.

What is in the PQ separatist stew every time? It is the federal government's fault. In order to win votes, they say it is the federal government's fault.

We had a federal election in 1997. What happened? In 1997, the Bloc Quebecois lost 500,000 votes and 11 seats. If the Bloc were so strong, if it had the absolute truth, it would have won.

[Quebec Government, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, another scandal has rocked the beautiful Quebec City area. According to a secret memo from Quebec's international relations department, the separatist government plans to establish bilateral relations with secessionist regions of Europe.

The separatist government continues to act like a virtual sovereign government.

The same government will not take a stand on the sovereignist aspirations of Tibet, arguing that because of its current status Quebec cannot hazard an opinion on the matter.

A few days ago, the same separatist government admitted making an error in judgment with respect to Guadeloupe.

If we pay attention, next we will hear that Sylvain Simard is going to Corsica to promote its liberation.

The separatists should stop acting like amateurs and start behaving responsibly in a matter of such importance to Quebec and Canada.

Once again, the colonized separatists are acting like colonials. Quebec deserves better.

[Status Of Young People, November 4th, 1997]

You are not angry enough. Get real mad.

[Quebec Premier, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, look out, look out, Lucien Bouchard is in China.

In 1994, the sovereignist leader of the Bloc Quebecois stated, in connection with the Canadian mission to China, that our Prime Minister, and I quote “has made a 180 degree turn and set a course that is guided by strictly commercial interests, thereby turning his back on protecting human rights”.

Lucien Bouchard also asked whether our Prime Minister would “allude to the oppressive policies of this dictatorial regime only in very polite terms and in private, on the—advice of his Minister of Foreign Affairs”.

Today, in 1907, as part of his own trade mission to China, the same sovereignist leader, but now Premier of Quebec, is planning to use courtesy and respect on this question. He does not want to see this mission turn into a big problem.

So, who then is telling the truth, Lucien Bouchard, 1994 version, or Lucien Bouchard, 1997 version? It seems as if what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander, where principles are concerned. Will the real Lucien Bouchard please stand up.

I hope that the Bloc Quebecois, 1997 version, thinks the same way as the leader of its head office in Quebec.

[Bloc Quebecois, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there were questions this week by the Bloc that I find rather disturbing.

I am referring of course to the questions concerning Mr. Deslauriers and the unfounded allegations of his relations with a biker gang.

I congratulate the solicitor general for the integrity, the wisdom and the caution he showed in answering the questions. Canadians are in good hands with him.

I also congratulate the Bloc member for Chambly, who has shown that he has deep convictions and that he is a man of principle. He did not get caught up in the unfortunate tactics of his leader, who tried once again to do anything he could to get noticed. I agree with the member for Chambly who said, and I quote “I am saddened that at times reputations are destroyed by questions we need not ask and by doubts we need not have”.

I congratulate him for his courage. He saves the face of his party today and I invite the leader of the Bloc to consult the hon. member for Chambly more often.

[Quebec Premier, October 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois' head office, Quebec's premier designate Lucien Bouchard, concluded that the Prime Minister of Canada was washing his hands of the fate of the amendments designed to help establish linguistic school boards in Quebec by allowing a free vote on this issue.

How dishonest, how hypocritical, how heretical on the—

[Canada Co-Operatives Act, October 22nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I can understand that our hon. colleague is new to this place but one must not wander too far away from the subject matter. We are discussing co-operatives.

We are interested in the opposition's views on co-operatives. Besides, if we start dealing with what the Reform Party has done wrong, I could speak for a very long time. I could indeed, but I would like us to stick to the matter at hand and discuss Bill C-5.