Speech (House debate)

{
    "time": "2010-03-16 11:55:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ)",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"1810630\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Mr. Speaker, we have just witnessed an excellent example of the NDP vision of Canada. Throughout the party's history, its vision has been of a federal government playing big brother and watching over the provinces, specifically Quebec.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1810631\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Quebec takes responsibility for its own affairs. The Bloc is willing to get involved in all debates on subjects under federal jurisdiction, but it wants Quebec and its National Assembly to be responsible for managing the province's affairs.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1810632\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Here are a few examples of why interference is a problem. That was the problem with their last motion dealing with, among other things, GST harmonization and the Quebec Pension Plan. If the provinces want to harmonize their own sales tax with the GST, they are free to do so. Quebec did it in the early 1990s. Now, it wants compensation for that. Here again, the government interfered in jurisdiction belonging to Ontario and B.C. People talked about keeping a close eye on the Canada Pension Plan. No problem there, since it is under federal jurisdiction. But they wanted to have a say in the Quebec Pension Plan.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1810633\" data-originallang=\"fr\"> In conclusion, when it comes to important issues like enforcing the Charter of the French Language on businesses under federal jurisdiction, or like the securities commission, the hon. member\u2019s party has always been divided. We cannot trust a party that does not defend Quebec's interests unequivocally. </p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"1810630\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, je pense qu'on vient d'avoir le plus bel exemple de la vision n\u00e9o-d\u00e9mocrate du Canada. On l'a vu au cours de toute son histoire, selon le NPD, Ottawa est le grand fr\u00e8re qui doit surveiller les provinces, particuli\u00e8rement le Qu\u00e9bec.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1810631\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Le Qu\u00e9bec prend ses responsabilit\u00e9s. Le Bloc est pr\u00eat \u00e0 s'immiscer dans l'ensemble des d\u00e9bats qui sont de comp\u00e9tence f\u00e9d\u00e9rale, mais il laisse \u00e0 Qu\u00e9bec, \u00e0 l'Assembl\u00e9e nationale, la responsabilit\u00e9 de g\u00e9rer les choses.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1810632\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Je donne quelques exemples du probl\u00e8me que cela peut repr\u00e9senter. Dans la derni\u00e8re motion qu'ils avaient d\u00e9pos\u00e9e concernant, entre autres, l'harmonisation de la TPS et le R\u00e9gime des rentes du Qu\u00e9bec, c'\u00e9tait cela le probl\u00e8me. En fait, si les provinces veulent harmoniser leur taxe de vente avec la TPS, libre \u00e0 elles. Dans le cas du Qu\u00e9bec, on l'a fait au d\u00e9but des ann\u00e9es 1990. Maintenant, on veut \u00eatre compens\u00e9s. Encore une fois, il y avait donc ing\u00e9rence dans un champ de comp\u00e9tence de l'Ontario et de la Colombie-britannique. Il \u00e9tait dit qu'il fallait absolument avoir un oeil sur le R\u00e9gime de pensions du Canada. Cela ne pose pas de probl\u00e8me puisque cela rel\u00e8ve du f\u00e9d\u00e9ral. Par contre, on a voulu rajouter le R\u00e9gime des rentes du Qu\u00e9bec.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1810633\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Je termine en disant que, sur des questions importantes comme la Charte de la langue fran\u00e7aise et son application sur des entreprises relevant du f\u00e9d\u00e9ral, comme sur la question de la commission des valeurs mobili\u00e8res, son parti a toujours \u00e9t\u00e9 divis\u00e9. Or on ne peut faire confiance \u00e0 un parti qui ne d\u00e9fend pas, sans compromis, les int\u00e9r\u00eats du Qu\u00e9bec.</p>"
    },
    "url": "/debates/2010/3/16/pierre-paquette-7/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/pierre-paquette/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/1781/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "3038557",
    "h1": {
        "en": "Government Orders",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "h2": {
        "en": "Business of Supply",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "h3": {
        "en": "Opposition Motion\u2014Throne Speech and Budget",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "document_url": "/debates/2010/3/16/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2010%2F3%2F16%2F"
    }
}