Gilles Duceppe

[Ethics, April 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in the affair involving the former minister for the status of women, the government is using the same tactics the Liberals used during the sponsorship scandal: it is refusing to answer, because the matter is under investigation. That is a bit rich coming from a government that campaigned on transparency.

Since rumours are often worse than the facts—unless the reverse is true in this case—will the government tell us what prompted it to relieve the former minister for the status of women of her duties and turn the case over to the RCMP?

[Points of Order, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I never claimed that the government had lied. I said that the Conservatives had established a pattern of lying. That is quite different.

The Speaker already confirmed to the House that we may talk about reaching the heights of hypocrisy. That was one of your rulings, Mr. Speaker.

[Points of Order, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, during member's statements, the member for Beauport—Limoilou falsely stated that I was defending criminals, such as Mr. Olson, saying that they should receive their pension, which is completely untrue. I said the same thing as the Prime Minister said: that I understand that people are shocked by the situation and that I am as well, that the law needs to be reviewed, but that there is no simple solution. I do not have a solution and the government does not have one, given that it has not introduced a bill either.

It is appalling that people, such as the member for Beauport—Limoilou or Senator Boisvenu, would take part in such grandstanding and deceit. Yet, it does not surprise me because I know that the Conservatives have established a pattern of lying.

[Employment Insurance, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I invite him to debate with me in front of any group of unemployed workers anywhere in Quebec or Canada.

Incredibly, seven months before he was elected, this member signed a petition calling for the waiting period to be eliminated. As mayor of La Pocatière, he was in favour of eliminating the waiting period; during his campaign, he was in favour of eliminating it; but once he got here, he became a yes-man, just like his fellow yes-men, the token Quebeckers.

Will this Prime Minister take a stand and give Quebec something else?

[Employment Insurance, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, by way of explaining why he had voted against eliminating the waiting period, the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup said that there had to be a minimum period for analysis, to ensure that people were really entitled to EI. The time for analysis has nothing to do with the waiting period. What is more, the member is implying that the unemployed are out to defraud the system.

Instead of coming up with bogus, insulting excuses for refusing to eliminate the waiting period, will the Prime Minister abide by the will of the House and give royal recommendation to the Bloc Québécois bill?

[Tax Harmonization, March 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Prime Minister just spread untruths. In 1997, an agreement was signed with the Maritimes. That agreement was quickly changed to suit Ontario and British Columbia. In that case, it was possible to change the rules of the agreement so that Ontario and British Columbia would get their money. But when it comes to Quebec, the federal government is digging in its heels, which is depriving Quebec of $2.2 billion.

Is that Canadian federalism, where Quebec never gets its due and all the Conservative members from Quebec blindly applaud as Quebec suffers injustices?

[Tax Harmonization, March 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government, which prides itself on having recognized the Quebec nation, is stubbornly refusing to compensate Quebec for harmonizing its sales tax with the GST. A unanimous motion adopted yesterday by the National Assembly of Quebec states that Quebec's sales tax has been harmonized with the GST since 1992. Only the Conservative government denies this.

Will the Prime Minister dig his heels in and keep reneging on the 1992 agreement, or will he comply with the unanimous motion of the National Assembly and provide Quebec with $2.2 billion in compensation?

[Tax Harmonization, March 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the 1992 harmonization is not fake; it is true harmonization. It has been cited as an example by all federal governments since 1992.

The government's stubbornness is depriving Quebec of $2.2 billion that it really needs.

Why is the Prime Minister insisting on putting federal shackles on the Quebec nation?

[Tax Harmonization, March 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, from a letter sent on March 18 to the Quebec finance minister, we learn that the Conservative government is refusing to compensate Quebec for harmonizing its sales tax. Under the 1992 agreement to harmonize the GST, Quebec collects and administers the tax, and that works very well.

Why is the Prime Minister intent on scuttling an agreement that has been in place since 1992 and refusing to pay Quebec $2.2 billion in compensation?

[Taxation, March 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I just told him they are opening a new tax loophole and he has nothing to say in response.

I will give him another example. He told us the government is dealing with tax havens. At the same time, he wants to negotiate a free trade deal with Panama, which appears on the list of tax havens published by the OECD. How can they ask their fellow citizens to tighten their belts and at the same time sign a deal with a country that is on the OECD list of tax havens? I would like an answer this time.