Gilles Duceppe

[Equalization Payments, November 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec finance minister Séguin says that this is terrible, because although the provinces together will receive $2 billion, they then are going to have $2.4 billion taken from them. They will end up with $400 million less.

While the provinces want to negotiate an increase of $15 billion over the next five years, what the federal government is proposing, with the present formula, will in fact leave them with $11 billion less.

Does the Prime Minister not realize that it is all very well to talk about helping them with health services, but in the long run the provinces are going to get a lot less money, which is why finance minister Séguin describes this whole business as terrible?

[Equalization Payments, November 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the cat is out of the bag. With one hand, the federal government will be paying Quebec and the provinces the promised $2 billion for health care, while with the other, it will be taking away $2.4 billion in equalization payments, something the Quebec finance minister has condemned.

With a shortfall of $400 million in federal funding for 2003-04, does the Prime Minister realize that, despite his promise, Quebec and the provinces will be even less well equipped to deliver quality health care to patients, although his government is trying to conceal this?

[Minister of Finance, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has indicated that he paid for a stay at the Irving family lodge, and that the cost was $1,500. I would imagine, therefore, that a week aboard a boat in the Caribbean would be pretty pricey.

I would like to know whether the minister can tell us how much he paid to stay on the manufacturing association's boat and whether he declared this to the ethics counsellor as the other ministers did?

[Minister of Finance, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance said he had no need to account for his vacations, where he spent them and with whom, provided he paid the bill himself. Last winter, he enjoyed a family sailing holiday on a boat chartered by the Brewers Association of Canada.

My question is a very simple one: Did the Minister of Finance pay for his time on the brewery association's sailboat? We are not asking whether he paid for his airline tickets, but whether he has reimbursed the cost of his stay on the boat?

[The Economy, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, not only is the Minister of Finance contributing to a climate of uncertainty but he is being cynical, because he could very well confirm right now that the $2 billion will be forthcoming. He is not doing so simply to allow the future prime minister to come and save the day, when he was the one who created this whole mess.

Is it not cynical to give the future prime minister the opportunity to say during the election campaign, “By the way, I have come up with the $2 billion”?

Another fine promise rehashed two or three times, in true Liberal fashion. That is all the minister is doing, and nothing more.

[The Economy, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Minister of Finance is acting like his predecessor, the future prime minister, by grossly underestimating the government's budget surplus.

The minister is announcing now that Quebec and the provinces will not know until September 2004 whether or not they will be receiving the $2 billion for health.

Does the government not find it improper to wait until September 2004 to confirm that the $2 billion will be forthcoming, when Quebec and the provinces have pressing needs and need to know now, not ten months from now, whether or not they will be receiving this money?

[1995 Referendum, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that evening, the Prime Minister also said that the decision was irreversible, that the question was clear and that it was about staying or leaving. It is fraudulent to say, “Yes, I agree, I agree to this debate and to taking part in this debate, and yes, it was their last chance”. What both he and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs did was to mislead the public by letting them believe that he had agreed to take part in this debate, when he had a speech in his pocket that said the opposite.

The fraud artists, no matter what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs says, are on that side of the House.

[1995 Referendum, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated that the 1995 referendum was a fraud, which is strangely at odds with the Prime Minister's comments. In his victory speech on the night the referendum on that same question was won, the PM stated, “We have every reason to be proud of democracy in Canada”.

Will the Prime Minister, who also said that the people are always right, admit that the Quebec people had understood the question, that it was completely democratic and that there was no fraud about it, as his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said?

[Liberal Government, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the system here is not the same as that in the United States. The reality is that the Prime Minister wanted another mandate. It was his own troops that said no, and it was the member for LaSalle—Émard who pushed him out. That is the reality. What is happening now is that we have a virtual prime minister, but the real decisions are being made by the member for LaSalle—Émard.

In the name of democracy, can he let the true leader of the party come into the House and be accountable for his actions, and let democracy rule here again?

[Liberal Government, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, because of the behind-the-scenes games the future Liberal leader is playing, the Prime Minister can claim all he wants that he is governing, but he is not the one leading the government any more. His successor has confirmed that his government will be reviewing all the decisions made by the current administration.

So that the government does not spin its tires for another four months, will the Prime Minister, for reasons of state, leave office as quickly as possible, so that the man who is really leading can finally be held accountable to the House?