Gilles Duceppe

[Goods And Services Tax, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have indeed spoken with my colleagues and with my leader. On this side of the House, we are very clear. We want no tax, not the old GST, not a new GST, not an XYZ tax, no hidden, half-hidden or unhidden tax. We want no tax on medicine, food and health care. The other side's position on that is not clear.

I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to be as open as this side of the House and to speak out. I ask her if she does not admit that the first victims of a new tax, hidden or not, on medicine, health care and food would be low-income people, especially single parent families and seniors?

[Goods And Services Tax, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we have the same problem as yesterday, because that was precisely the question raised in the House yesterday. We were told that there would be no new GST, but on leaving the House, he told us that he misunderstood the question.

Now the question is very clear today: we are not talking about the GST; we are talking about a new tax. The Prime Minister told us yesterday that he misunderstood the question he was asked about the GST, that he was not talking about other taxes. That is why we are asking the question again today. I think it is very clear.

I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to give us an answer, because there will be no new GST, there will be no old GST, we agree on that, we understand that. But are we to understand that the government's preferred option is to tax more products, including health care, medicine and food, in some other way, perhaps a hidden tax?

[Goods And Services Tax, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In answer to a question from the opposition, the Prime Minister said that his government did not intend to extend the GST to food, health care and medicine. Questioned as he left the House, the Prime Minister pretended that he misunderstood the question and went back on his statement by refusing to oppose a new tax on health care, medicine and food.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us the government's real position? Is it the categorical no in the House or the Prime Minister's openness to new taxes when he met journalists on leaving the House?

[Indian Affairs, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, that was not the question. Therefore, it is not surprising that I did not receive an answer.

There is, however, one question that the minister can surely answer, as it relates to a matter that is not before the courts. I will speak slowly so that the minister hears it clearly.

This question relates to the argument of genetic purity used to justify the eviction of the families from Kahnawake. Does the minister not recognize that this kind of argument reflects a discriminatory attitude which blatantly contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Indian Affairs, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. Yesterday, I put a question to the minister concerning the eviction notice issued to 143 families living on the Kahnawake reserve. The minister did not answer the question, arguing that the case was before the courts.

Can the minister confirm to us whether this case is still pending because of the stalling tactics of the federal government, as one of the parties involved, the purpose of which is to delay a decision in this case?

[Indian Affairs, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, is the minister telling us that he cannot give us an opinion on such a shameful decision that was taken yesterday? And does he intend to intervene, as the minister responsible and also personally, to put an end to this disgraceful and discriminatory operation, instead of hiding behind legalistic rhetoric which in no way reflects the reality that some men and women are faced with on the Kahnawake territory, several of them being aboriginal people expelled by their peers?

[Indian Affairs, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs.

Yesterday, we learned that the Kahnawake band council had issued an eviction notice to about 143 families that had been living on that reserve for several years. Among the arguments used to justify that decision, there is the lack of space and even genetic purity.

As a trustee of aboriginal rights, does the federal government support this eviction notice, which is unacceptable and which totally contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Commonwealth Day, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for the Bloc Quebecois to join the government

today in recognizing the importance of Canada's membership in the Commonwealth. As you know, the Bloc Quebecois remains vigilant to ensure that resources allocated by the federal government to the francophonie reflect its importance in Canada and correspond to the priorities established by Quebec and the francophonie as a whole.

That being said, we have no intention of neglecting Canada's relations with the Commonwealth. As the Leader of the Opposition has said before, the Commonwealth is a very important forum for Canada to maintain close ties with nearly 50 countries throughout the world and to encourage the exercise of the rights and values cherished by Canada and Quebec.

On Commonwealth Day, I think it is important to recall that a sovereign Quebec would wish to maintain those ties. Without taking on additional financial burdens, Quebec would be able to maintain and intensify its relations with countries in the Caribbean, Asia and Africa. A sovereign Quebec will want to be more open to the world, and I think this should give you a clear indication of what its position will be.

The Bloc Quebecois is pleased to celebrate this commemorative occasion under the special theme: "Sports and the Commonwealth". And we are certain that Canada will be the perfect host this summer at the Fifteenth Commonwealth Games in Victoria.

[Youth Employment, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again for the Prime Minister. The reason that Quebec gets less is that vocational training and the education system do not include apprenticeship courses or programs as they exist in the rest of Canada. Quebec has a different system.

Given the failures of this program, can the Prime Minister promise to give Quebec its fair share of the funds allocated under this program so that Quebec can use them more effectively, according to its own priorities?

[Youth Employment, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Nearly 20 per cent of young Quebecers and Canadians are unemployed today-an unacceptable record of 428,000 people under 25. In the speech from the throne, the government announced that it wants to better prepare young people to enter the labour market.

Does the Prime Minister admit that his youth apprenticeship program in no way meets the needs of Quebec since Quebec got only $2 million out of a total budget of $225 million in 1993 under this program, or less than 1 per cent of the money spent?