House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 35% of the vote.
Elections Canada February 26th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, just one minute. The truth must be told. I want to set the record straight. The Bloc Québécois has always denounced all calls for violence of any kind. Is that clear?
And in case the minister did not understand, I repeat: denounced and condemned. Is that clear?
We know the Conservatives are very quick to condemn others, but they were less quick when it came to shedding some light on the in and out scandal denounced by the Chief Electoral Officer—
Business of Supply February 24th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to make suggestions regarding the Autorité des marchés financiers, since it falls under provincial jurisdiction. What we are asking for is to maintain the status quo. We want the existing structure to remain the same, because it is working.
Moreover, the Autorité des marchés financiers has uncovered scandals in Quebec. White collar criminals are a reality. We had some in Quebec, such as Vincent Lacroix and others. I could give names.
This structure is working. The market can regulate itself and the Autorité des marchés financiers is able to do its job effectively.
Since they are asking for a suggestion, I will give them one: let us keep things as they are and maintain the status quo.
Business of Supply February 24th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill, whom I know well and also appreciate. She and I have been in this House since 1993. My answer is simple.
Securities fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces, which includes Quebec. Just thinking about proposing this is a direct interference in an area under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has no business there. The existing system works. The Bloc is not the only one to say that: the World Bank and the OECD also agree. What more does the government need?
In Quebec, there is a consensus that this does not make sense. The hon. member represents the region of Calgary. There is a legislative assembly in Alberta. I am convinced that deep down, and because she is a parliamentarian of integrity, she respects the decisions of the Alberta legislature. This is precisely what we are doing here. This is why I said that we are carrying the Quebec consensus.
This new body is not accepted in Quebec. The government cannot claim that this is done on a voluntary basis. Everything is based on the offer. This entity will weaken the provinces' position, and financial market authorities in each of the provinces will become irrelevant. The federal government—
Business of Supply February 24th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain on his speech, but also to thank him for having presented this motion which is today before the House, because the subject is very important for Quebec and Quebeckers.
To begin, we have here with this motion another demonstration of the effective role played by the Bloc Québécois. For proof of this, what party is focusing on this situation brought about by the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 which will substantially penalize Quebec as well as the entire population because of the services that this province has to provide to the citizens we represent?
Under the calculation of equalization, Quebec would be penalized $991 million. That is no small amount. And what is that money being used for? By the way, we will not be guilty of the same paternalism we often encounter from the Conservatives, who say we have voted for a budget with billions and billions of dollars in infrastructure programs. They would almost have us believe that this money is coming out of the pockets of the Conservative ministers and members. Hold on there. Quebeckers pay $54 billion in income taxes to Ottawa every year. When the federal government invests in Quebec, I hope that no one here—among those listening to us and those in the gallery—thinks that the federal government is giving us any gifts. That is our money. This is precisely what Maurice Duplessis, in his time, was saying when he referred to federal encroachments in fields of provincial jurisdiction: give us back what is ours. That is what this motion means.
Which party is defending the consensus of the National Assembly at the three-day special session in January? Not one Conservative member has risen on this subject, nor one member of the Liberal Party. Only the members of the Bloc Québécois have addressed this. Our objective and our role, our reason for being, is to defend the interests of Quebec. This we demonstrate on a daily basis, not just during election campaigns, as we saw on the trailer of the former senator and minister Michael Fortier, which announced that the Bloc is unnecessary, that it has cost so many billions of dollars.
One thing: when you lie, your lie must not be so big that no one will believe it. If you tell a little lie, something a little more restrained, it raises a doubt, and people will say, yes, maybe it is true, maybe it is possible. They said that the Bloc had cost $450 billion because we were in the opposition. Hold on there. From 1900 to 2006, over 106 years, the Conservative Party was in opposition for 62 years. That means that, when the Conservatives were in opposition, that cost money, billions of dollars, and they did nothing? That is patently ridiculous.
When we say that the Bloc is here to defend Quebeckers' interests, it is because we can back up that statement. We raised this issue here in the House. The House is going to vote. Members from all parties will have the chance to say yes to Quebec, yes to the National Assembly consensus, or else to trample on that consensus. By the way, when we refer to the National Assembly consensus, we are talking about a unanimous motion passed by all three parties represented in the National Assembly, not just the Parti Québécois. There is also the Liberal Party of Quebec, headed by Jean Charest, and the Action Démocratique party, which was then led by Mario Dumont, who should be leaving political life today. That is the consensus we are talking about: a unanimous motion passed by the National Assembly.
Two provisions of the budget implementation bill clearly penalize Quebec: the new method of calculating equalization payments and the creation of a centralized securities commission in Toronto, even though the current system works well and Quebec and the provinces have their own commissions.
Quebec's Autorité des marchés financiers plays its role fully. Why does the federal government still want to stomp on the provinces' jurisdictions? Why are this Prime Minister and this Conservative government, which kept on saying they were going to practise open federalism, throwing everything out the window and slapping Quebec in the face at the first opportunity? This is totally unacceptable.
I call on the elected members of the Conservative Party from Quebec. I am a member from the Quebec City area. I call on the members for Beauport—Limoilou, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Lévis—Bellechasse and Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. I could also mention the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is the member for Pontiac. I challenge them. What do they think of the consensus reached by the National Assembly of Quebec? Do they agree to vote with the Bloc Québécois for this motion, which only confirms that consensus?
That is the difference between a Bloc Québécois member and a Conservative Party member from Quebec. My colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain has brought that difference to light by putting this motion before the House for debate so that the masks come off and we see who is really defending Quebec's interests in this House.
Member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles February 23rd, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles has once again shown a flagrant lack of judgment. When asked to explain the absence of any Conservatives at the Québec Horizon Culture event, the member acknowledged the Conservatives' indifference towards artists.
I would remind the House of the full statement made by the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. He said: “We are not all that buddy-buddy with artists. That is not what we are about.” And there is more. He went on to spew, and I quote him word for word: “—that is $2 billion spent by you and me, and all workers, so artists can entertain us.”
What scorn. He was true to form, as all Conservatives are. After giving the finger to the Bloc Québécois, which made the annual TV review list, after accusing the Bloc Québécois of being responsible for the riots in Montreal North in the summer of 2008, after showing such scorn towards artists, the spokesperson for the Quebec nation said out loud what Conservatives really think.
Business of Supply February 12th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois members will vote against this motion.
National Battlefields Commission February 11th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, more than 80 leaders of Quebec society, including lawyers, former elected members, artists and academics have signed a letter to the chairman of the National Battlefields Commission, André Juneau, asking him to drop what has been quite rightly called an ill-advised plan to commemorate the battle of the Plains of Abraham.
To quote from their letter:
When a project has been announced that is so unacceptable and untenable, there is no way any kind of argument, even if contained in the most attractive publicity kit imaginable, could manage to rehabilitate it in the eyes of public opinion—
The minister responsible for the Quebec City region cannot just tell them to stay home, if they are not happy with it. As Quebeckers, they are already at home.
Taxation February 9th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, no matter what the minister's future decision with respect to Ontario, will he commit to treating Quebec fairly and providing retroactive compensation for harmonizing its sales tax with the federal GST between 1992 and 1994?
Taxation February 9th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, Ontario intends to harmonize its sales tax with the federal GST. When New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador harmonized their taxes, the federal government provided compensation. It refused to do so for Quebec, thereby adopting a double standard.
Does the minister intend to financially compensate the province of Ontario if it harmonizes its sales tax with the federal GST?
Business of Supply February 5th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for having interrupted him. He was in the middle of a very interesting speech, but he neglected to mention to the Table and the House that he would be sharing his time with the member for Joliette.