Gilles Duceppe

[Taxation, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is not what we are saying and it is not what the Auditor General is saying. We are simply saying that, once the government knew how large the surpluses would be, based on its own forecast, it would have been possible, through an act, to use these surpluses for something other than the debt and not wait until after the end of the fiscal year.

The government had that option and it still does. Based on its forecasts, and the government should review them, because we all know how it plays with numbers, the government could, until March 31, 2005, decide to use some of the surplus for other purposes, to help Quebec and the provinces. They can do that; the minister cannot deny it.

[Taxation, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that, under the existing legislation and accounting rules, his government had no choice but to apply the whole $9.1 billion surplus to the debt. That is not true.

Indeed, the Auditor General has said there is no law or accounting rule that says we must apply the whole surplus to the debt.

Instead of continuing to mislead the public, will the Minister of Finance admit that the government had other options in terms of the use that it could make of the surpluses, but preferred to put all the money on the debt? I defy the minister to say otherwise.

[Taxation, October 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when they say “more” they mean they want even more sponsorships for their friends. When they say “more” they mean they want even more cuts to the provinces. They did not eliminate the deficit, they had the provinces and the unemployed pay it and they stole from the employment insurance fund.

On October 26, will the government resolve the fiscal imbalance instead of making someone else pay for it, as it did in the past purely hypocritically?

[Taxation, October 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is Liberal style. They delight in cover-ups. It is not $1.9 billion, but $9.1 billion. This Minister of Finance suffers from financial dyslexia, and the government suffers from chronic under estimation. They are hiding the truth.

Enough is enough. Should the fiscal imbalance not be resolved by October 26?

[Taxation, October 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance estimated the surplus to be $1.9 billion, but it is more like $9.1 billion—

[Taxation, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec, the provinces, the territories and all the opposition parties in Ottawa agree that the fiscal imbalance must be eliminated.

Therefore, will the federal government commit not to discuss, but to negotiate, on October 26, a comprehensive accord on the fiscal imbalance, an issue which only the Liberals stubbornly keep referring to as “financial pressures”?

[Taxation, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on September 16, the Prime Minister announced that the October 26 meeting would deal with equalization and the “other financial pressures” facing the provinces. However, according to federal public servants, Ottawa only wants to discuss equalization. As regards other transfers, negotiations are out of the question.

Does the government intend to negotiate in good faith, not only to improve the equalization program, but also to address all the other financial pressures that Quebec and the provinces are facing, something which everyone except the federal government calls the fiscal imbalance?

[Aerospace Industry, October 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in order to maintain a level of success, we should definitely encourage exports.

Over the past three years, Canada has funded 41% of Bombardier's deliveries of regional aircraft, while during the same period, Brazil funded in excess of 80% of the deliveries of Embraer, which is Bombardier's direct competitor. The difference is obvious.

When will the federal government increase its funding for business exports to the level of our competition, a measure that would greatly help Bombardier, not only with its regional jets, but also with all its current and future products, since we must keep the future in mind?

[Aerospace Industry, October 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's minister for economic and regional development, Michel Audet, is asking the federal government to help Bombardier, which just announced the elimination of 1,400 jobs in Montreal.

Will the Prime Minister commit now to helping Bombardier by implementing a clear aerospace policy, as the Quebec government has requested, so that the company can develop the new aircraft that it needs and create jobs?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition, and I believe that you will find unanimous consent of the House to amend the amendment to the amendment so that it reads as follows:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following paragraph after the word “continental”:

“and we ask Your Excellency's advisors to ensure that all measures brought forward to implement the Speech from the Throne, including those referred to above, fully respect the provinces' areas of jurisdiction and that the financial pressures some call the fiscal imbalance be alleviated”.

I therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House.