Gilles Duceppe

[CINAR, October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that is the type of answer the Prime Minister railed against during the sponsorship scandal.

I am telling him that the current Department of Justice was asked to hand over Mr. Becker's memos. I received a pile of blank pages and not one word.

The Liberal government hid things from us. Why is this government also hiding the truth?

[CINAR, October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we asked serious questions about the CINAR case to which we received highly unsatisfactory answers. There were many irregularities in the RCMP's initial investigation. Mr. Robinson fought against all odds to shed light on this whole affair, the Bloc Québécois did its part in the House and Mr. Robinson recently won his case. Nonetheless, some questions still remain in all this.

Can the Prime Minister explain why Justice Canada intervened directly to block the RCMP's second investigation?

[Cinar, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the CINAR case has been in Justice Canada's hands since they came to power, and they have not done any more than the Liberals did.

This case involves shell companies, tampering with contracts and other violations, all right under Telefilm Canada's nose.

Does the Prime Minister agree that it is about time for a public inquiry to reveal the details of Justice Canada's involvement in this case and to explain why the RCMP never laid charges under either the Liberals or the Conservatives?

[Cinar, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, a team working for the television program Enquête showed that the RCMP was all set to lay criminal charges in the CINAR case, but decided not to following what appears to have been political intervention. According to a former RCMP investigator, Justice Canada sent a memo stating that the CINAR case was not a public matter and that it did not have enough evidence to lay charges.

Can the Prime Minister explain why the RCMP decided not to go ahead with criminal charges when it was prepared to proceed? Did it have something to do with political pressure?

[Tax Harmonization, October 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what Quebec wants is to be compensated like the Maritimes were to the tune of $1 billion, like Ontario is being compensated to the tune of $4.3 billion, and like British Columbia will be to the tune of $1.6 billion. That is what Quebec wants.

Why is he reneging on the 1992 agreement? Everyone considered that agreement to be a kind of standard. How can he talk about open federalism? How can he say that he respects the Quebec nation when he is prepared to tear up an agreement that everyone looked to as a standard?

[Tax Harmonization, October 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when people ask the Prime Minister about harmonizing the GST, he says that he is negotiating in good faith. But that is not true. We know that negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa have reached a stalemate because Ottawa is refusing to compensate Quebec unless it agrees to give the federal government the right to collect the GST and the QST.

Quebec signed an agreement to harmonize the GST in 1992. Does the Prime Minister realize that by adding new conditions to the agreement, he is basically reneging on what the Conservative government signed at the time?

[Tax Harmonization, September 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's minister of intergovernmental affairs himself, Claude Béchard, admitted that negotiations on GST harmonization are far from being concluded; in fact, they are now stalled. I remind members that Ottawa owed $8 billion to Quebec, and compensation for the GST represents only one-third of the total amount.

Quebec harmonized its tax with the GST in 1992, and Quebec was designated as the one to collect it. Why is the government changing its mind? Is this the government's way of showing openness? Is this the government recognizing the Quebec nation, by giving Ontario and the Maritimes what it will not give to Quebec?

[Tax Harmonization, September 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, negotiations between the Government of Quebec and the federal government over GST harmonization have stalled. The federal Minister of Finance is refusing to release $2.6 billion to Quebec unless it agrees to let Revenue Canada collect the GST and QST.

But Quebec signed a GST harmonization agreement in 1992. Why is the Prime Minister now deciding to put conditions on this agreement, and blocking the transfer of $2.6 billion that rightly belongs to Quebec?

[Forestry Industry, September 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to EDC, the Prime Minister is referring to guarantees in the event of buyer bankruptcies.This does absolutely nothing for corporate liquidity.

I would like to ask him a question: is it just a fluke that we suddenly find, in his wonderful stimulus package, on page 142, $10 billion dollars for the auto sector in Ontario and $70 million for forestry throughout Canada? Quebec only has a share of the $70 million.

Is that the fairness the Prime Minister is talking about—everything for Ontario, nothing for Quebec?

[Forestry Industry, September 29th, 2009]

The Prime Minister's stimulus package is unfair to Quebec. Yesterday's progress report states in black and white, on page 142, that the government has given almost $10 billion to the auto sector, concentrated in Ontario, and only $70 million to the forestry sector, which is concentrated in Quebec and where job losses continue to accumulate.

Does this not prove that the Prime Minister's stimulus package does nothing for the forestry sector and Quebec regions?