Gilles Duceppe

[Taxation, October 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, a federalist, has already responded to this proposal by saying that the increasing federal interference is proof of the fiscal imbalance and the abuse of federal spending powers so Ottawa can dictate to the provinces and Quebec.

Since the government has given the go-ahead to implement the plan of the new Liberal leader, a man who wants the federal government to deal directly with the municipalities, will the Prime Minister admit that his government is preparing to tell Quebec what to do within its own areas of jurisdiction?

[Taxation, October 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, by voting in favour of the Canadian Alliance's motion, the government is supporting the next Liberal leader's wish to provide a portion of the federal gasoline tax directly to the municipalities, without going through Quebec.

By voting in favour of interference, does the Prime Minister realize that his government, encouraged by his successor, has just given the green light to even greater encroachment in Quebec's jurisdiction?

[Taxation, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister may or may not know, there is a surplus in Ottawa, but there are deficits in nine provinces, and $45 billion has been stolen from the unemployed. He should also know that.

A change in leadership, whether in Quebec City or in Ottawa, will do no good, since the future prime minister also denies the existence of a fiscal imbalance.

Will the Minister of Finance recognize that, regardless of the party in power in Quebec City, be it the PQ or the QLP, the federal government will never admit that Ottawa has the money, while Quebec City has to meet urgent needs in health, among other things?

[Taxation, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec minister Benoît Pelletier has reminded Ottawa that there is a real fiscal imbalance. He said that, with all its money, the federal government can afford to look after its own jurisdictions properly, start paying off the debt and invest in areas of provincial responsibility, while the provinces can barely keep their heads above water. That is what the Quebec Liberal minister said.

If Ottawa is serious about wanting to cooperate, what is the Minister of Finance waiting for to recognize the fiscal imbalance and give Quebec the financial means to look after all of its jurisdictions?

[Canadian Grand Prix, October 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in order to keep it, we must act. According to Normand Legault, on Grand Prix tickets alone the federal government pockets $10 million in taxes each year, enough to supply the $5 million being requested, while still making a profit and maintaining the $80 million in economic benefits for Montreal and all of Quebec.

In order to save the Canadian Grand Prix in Montreal, what is the Minister of Justice waiting for before contributing financially and reaping a benefit for his government, for Montreal and for all of Quebec? It is all very well to be favour of it, but a little money needs to be put on the table.

[Canadian Grand Prix, October 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, for weeks, the Bloc Quebecois has been asking Ottawa to do its part to save the Canadian Grand Prix in Montreal and the related $80 million in economic benefits, but the government is not budging. Normand Legault is only talking about a small government contribution of $5 million, while the private sector would do the bulk of the work and pick up the lion's share of the tab.

In this context, just 10 days before the final schedule is published, has the Minister of Justice, who opposes all federal financial contributions, no matter how small, finally changed his mind so that the Grand Prix can be held in Montreal in 2004—without tobacco advertising?

[Former Privacy Commissioner, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would appreciate it if the government House leader could tell us who else has received the same privileges and the same excessive privileges, for three years. He said that there are others. He should give us the list. We would be interested in knowing the names.

Someone made this decision and allowed George Radwanski to do something for three years that he should have done for just one. I am asking again if the President of the Privy Council was the one who made that recommendation?

[Former Privacy Commissioner, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, on behalf of the members of the Bloc Quebecois, I want to offer our condolences to the families of the two soldiers who died under tragic circumstances today in Afghanistan.

That said, the government cannot deny that George Radwanski's working conditions were negotiated by Eddie Goldenberg, at the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister's Office, the Treasury Board and the Privy Council did not want to disclose who recommended that George Radwanski maintain two principal residences over three years, at a cost of $85,000, when the initial agreement was for one year.

Can the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada tell us if he recommended that George Radwanski be allowed to shuttle back and forth between Ottawa and Toronto for three years, at the taxpayers' expense, thereby signalling that all kinds of abuses—

[Former Privacy Commissioner, October 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what the Auditor General said. To use the phrase of the minister, who said there was no indication of a need to bring out the big guns, I think that the report very clearly indicates that the Treasury Board failed to take firm action.

Did the minister fail to take firm action because she learned from Alfonso Gagliano's experience that, “If you want to hold on to your job, you had better not impose sanctions”?

[Former Privacy Commissioner, October 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, to justify her inaction in the Radwanski affair, the President of the Treasury Board said that there had been no indication of the magnitude of the problems. Yet the Auditor General is categorical: the Treasury Board was aware of the Privacy Commissioner's outlandish expenses, but the minister did nothing.

Will the President of the Treasury Board admit that, while she knew about it for at least a year, she did nothing to put an end to this abuse, because George Radwanski was the Prime Minister's man and, having protection from the top, he was untouchable?