Gilles Duceppe

[The Economy, April 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the governor of the Bank of Canada has been forced to admit that the recession will be deeper and longer than anticipated. For his part, the Prime Minister is in denial and is refusing to modify his recovery plan, saying that it is the perfect way to deal with the crisis. But his plan is woefully inadequate, because the economic crisis is far more serious that predicted. That is why we voted against his plan.

At a time when unemployment is rising steadily and the forestry industry is going through an unprecedented crisis, how can the Prime Minister cheerfully tell us that his recovery plan meets people's needs?

[Forestry Industry, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue recognized that, at first glance, loan guarantees respect the softwood lumber deal. However, so far, the Conservatives' attitude has been the same as that of the Liberals at the time: they are caving in to the American threat.

Yet, it is very simple: the industry needs cashflow and loan guarantees exist for that reason. What is the government waiting for? After all, such guarantees are legal, as its own lawyers are saying.

[Forestry Industry, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the union at AbitibiBowater, the Quebec Forest Industry Council and the Forest Products Association of Canada were all unimpressed by the establishment of a working committee on the forestry crisis.

If the government really wants to help the forestry industry, it should provide loan guarantees immediately. In fact, its own lawyers are arguing before the London court that such guarantees are legal.

Therefore, if its lawyers are defending loan guarantees, what is the government waiting for to put words into action and to provide such guarantees to the forestry industry, whose survival is at stake?

[Forestry Industry, April 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it does not take much to make the minister happy. He needs to be more aware of what is happening in his riding.

The forestry industry is short of cash and facing a serious crisis. One solution to the industry's problems is loan guarantees. The Government of Quebec, the unions, the Quebec Forest Industry Council and the federal government's own lawyers agree that loan guarantees are legal. If they are not legal, then the government needs to tell us why Ottawa's lawyers are arguing that they are.

Is the government paying lawyers who are contradicting the ministers, or do the ministers not understand their own lawyers? We want to know.

[Forestry Industry, April 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, all the government has done to address the forestry crisis is set up a task team. Yet just a few days ago, the Government of Quebec gave AbitibiBowater a total of $100 million in loan guarantees. Meanwhile, lawyers for the federal government are arguing before the tribunal in London that loan guarantees are legal.

If its own lawyers are saying that, then they must be legal. What is the government waiting for to give the forestry industry loan guarantees, as it has done for the automotive industry? The forestry industry needs them now.

[Employment Insurance, April 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the OECD has asked that more be done to provide income support for laid off workers. The five additional weeks of benefits for unemployed workers is a good measure, but most unemployed workers will not benefit from that. The waiting period, which translates into the first two weeks of benefits, must also be eliminated, and that measure would affect all unemployed workers.

Does the government realize that it has the opportunity with such a measure to help all unemployed workers and inject money into the economy?

[G20, April 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has contradicted himself. He allows himself to lecture his counterparts at the G20 by asking them to do more to combat the economic crisis whereas, in this very Chamber, he has told us that he has done enough. And yet, the economy continues to falter. We need only think of the difficulties experienced by Abitibi-Bowater and Bombardier.

After missing the G20 official photo, the Prime Minister is going to miss the boat. What is this government going to do to deal with the economic crisis? Will it do more or less?

[Goods and Services Tax, April 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly not a fake debate. This was the object of a unanimous motion in the Quebec national assembly, in other words by the Liberals, PQ and ADQ. There are $2.6 billion at stake. The Quebec finance minister has identified the single difference between the Ontario and Quebec sales taxes, which requires a simple adjustment for companies with over $10 million in revenue for whom certain goods are not reimbursed.

If she makes that little adjustment, will the federal government compensate Quebec to the tune of $2.6 billion? That is the question.

[Goods and Services Tax, April 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is refusing to compensate Quebec, which has harmonized its sales tax with the GST. Yet the situation of Quebec and Ontario is the same: neither has experienced a loss of revenue as a result of harmonization and their respective sales taxes do not apply to certain products. In fact, the only difference between Quebec and Ontario is that, in Quebec, medium and large businesses with sales in excess of $10 million do not get a QST rebate on the purchase of certain goods.

Since the Quebec finance minister has made a commitment to reimburse the businesses concerned, will the government commit to compensating Quebec as it has Ontario?

[Goods and Services Tax, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, he is the most comical of the token Quebeckers. He drove around in a truck during the election campaign, with this result.

Getting back to the GST, Paul Martin said in 1996:

...the federal government does not owe Quebec any money for harmonizing its sales tax with the GST. Provinces are eligible for payments when they lose more than 5% of their revenues by harmonizing.

Ontario did not lose anything and its revenues will even rise. Despite that, it is going to be compensated. Why will it be compensated when, as Jean Charest says, Quebec has harmonized its sales tax?