Gilles Duceppe

[Goods and Services Tax, April 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House of Commons voted unanimously in favour of a Bloc Québécois motion calling for Quebec to be compensated in the amount of $2.6 billion for harmonizing its sales tax with the GST while continuing to be responsible for collecting and administering those taxes.

And yet immediately after the vote, the Minister of Finance went out and told the media that say he supported the principle of harmonization, but not the $2.6 billion compensation.

Voting for one thing and saying the opposite 10 minutes later is called hypocrisy. Will the minister admit that his attitude is totally contrary to the principles—

[Goods and Services Tax, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister says that he will negotiate in good faith does this mean that Quebec must forego collecting its sales tax? The agreement was working well and even the federal government, whether Liberal or Conservative, boasted over the years that Quebec had harmonized its tax. Now they are finding all sorts of excuses to avoid giving Quebec what is being given to Ontario.

When the Prime Minister says he will negotiate in good faith does that mean that Quebec must forego collecting its sales tax, yes or no? The question is very clear. He must be able to reply.

[Goods and Services Tax, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to harmonizing the sales tax and the GST, the Prime Minister says he wants to negotiate in good faith with the Quebec government. Yet, his Minister of Finance declared, in a letter sent to the media, that the federal government does not intend to compensate Quebec unless the federal government becomes responsible for collecting its sales tax.

How can the Prime Minister say that he wants to negotiate in good faith when his Minister of Finance has set a condition for providing compensation to Quebec?

[Goods and Services Tax, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when the federal government collects the tax for the provinces, it does so free of charge. When Quebec collects the tax for the federal government, Ottawa pays for that service. In no way is this compensation. The Prime Minister knows that. This is another excuse the government is using to refuse to give Quebec what it has given the Maritimes and Ontario.

Is that the government's idea of open federalism: setting a condition so that Quebec will drop something it has jurisdiction over?

[Goods and Services Tax, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of harmonizing the GST, the Minister of Finance told us that the federal government had no preconditions for compensating Quebec. But in his letter to the newspapers, the finance minister was very clear: “This is the consistent and fair harmonization model that exists in harmonized provinces, which the Charest government can choose to join.”

Will the Prime Minister admit that the Conservatives take the position that the only way Quebec can be compensated is if it transfers responsibility for collecting its sales tax to the federal government, as Ontario and the Maritimes have done?

[Goods and Services Tax, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that is all very nice, but I did ask him a question.

He wrote a letter to the newspapers saying that there was one condition: there would be no compensation unless Quebec stopped collecting its tax.

So I will ask my question again. He wrote in the papers that Quebec would not be compensated unless the condition was agreed to. Is that a sine qua non or not?

[Goods and Services Tax, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec was the first to harmonize its sales tax with the GST. Over the years, the federal government has come up with all manner of excuses for not compensating Quebec. Recently, the Minister of Finance said that he would not compensate Quebec unless the province handed over the responsibility for tax collection to the federal government.

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether his condition is a sine qua non?

[Foreign Affairs, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Omar Khadr is a child soldier and the Canadian government has contravened the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which it is a signatory, by leaving him in a Guantanamo cell for six years.

Will the Prime Minister comply with the Federal Court order and, if so, why has he waited so long?

[Foreign Affairs, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, a Federal Court Justice has just ordered the Prime Minister to promptly return Omar Khadr, the young Canadian prisoner held in Guantanamo for 6 years, to Canada. To date, the Prime Minister has steadfastly refused to repatriate Mr. Khadr, stating that the young man was accused of serious crimes, namely murder.

Will the Prime Minister comply with the Federal Court order and finally repatriate Omar Khadr from Guantanamo?

[The Economy, April 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister just read means that Canada is better placed to do more, not to do less.

The fact is that the recovery plan was designed purely to win votes. The government has agreed to help the automotive industry and the oil companies, which are concentrated in Ontario and Albert respectively, but it is refusing to give loan guarantees to the forestry industry, which is concentrated in Quebec.

Will the Prime Minister change his approach and finally help the unemployed and the forestry industry, which desperately need help?