Gilles Duceppe

[Aerospace Industry, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the lack of growth is due to the lack of plan at the moment. Moreover, there is a significant problem with Bombardier regarding the development of a new aircraft. Quebec has 5,000 jobs at stake.

Instead of waiting, could the government not say to Bombardier, “We will help you on condition that you invest in Quebec”? This is exactly the kind of deal the Liberals offered to Ford and GM in the middle of the election campaign, for renovations at their Oakville and Oshawa plants. The companies were told, “Here is $500 million if you will invest here”. Let them do the same thing for Bombardier.

[Aerospace Industry, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Aerospace Association, the FTQ, the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal and the Conseil duPatronat du Québec are unanimous, saying “We do not have the luxury of timeto wait”. The federal government must act quickly on a national aerospace policy.

Does the Prime Minister realize that without an immediate plan, Bell Helicopter, Pratt & Whitney, Bombardier and the entire aerospace industry concentrated in Quebec will not be able to prosper and grow?

[Aerospace Industry, November 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, they are so prominent and so good that the government is still waiting, and and does not know what it wants.

When it talks about help for the sector across Canada, the fact is that at least 55% of the Canadian aerospace industry is concentrated in Quebec. This is a reality that the Liberals must not forget.

Therefore, will the government refrain from sprinkling money about and make sure that Quebec gets the lion's share of the benefits generated by the federal aerospace policy, just as Ontario benefits in the case of the automotive industry? We are asking for equal treatment.

[Aerospace Industry, November 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Aerospace Association, the FTQ, the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, the Quebec Employers' Council, basically Quebec's entire financial community is demanding a real federal aerospace policy. It is urgently needed, and the Bloc Québécois laid proposals on the table this morning, but the Liberals are continuing to drag their feet.

Quebec's aerospace industry needs a policy now. What is the Prime Minister waiting for to act?

[Employment Insurance, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it was because of such harebrained comments that the Liberals were swept out of Quebec. During the election campaign the Prime Minister made promises. More has to be done for seasonal workers, he said in Rimouski. The 910-hour eligibility requirement penalizes young people and needs to be changed, he said during the leaders debate.

Now that he has the means, could he, for once, go ahead and keep his promises?

[Employment Insurance, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, instead of using the surplus to improve the employment insurance system to benefit the unemployed who have been waiting for far too long, the government is considering reducing contributions.

Does the Prime Minister realize that his government is completely missing the point and that the priority should be to improve the system, since currently 60% of workers are not eligible for employment insurance when they need it?

[Mirabel Airport, November 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, It is rather obvious that the parliamentary secretary did not understand the question. I am referring to the claims made by farmers and to the 17,000 acres of land that still belong to the federal government. The people who were expropriated want 11,000 of these acres for farming. This would leave 6,000 acres for the operations of Mirabel and for its future development. Incidentally, this is twice the area occupied by the Dorval airport.

Since the Liberals' expropriation initiative was totally out of proportion and since there is still room for future development, will the government pledge to give back the 11,000 acres of farm land claimed by the people of Mirabel?

[Mirabel Airport, November 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, not only does the government refuse to apologize for its poor handling of the whole Mirabel issue, but the Liberals are pushing the limits of arrogance by refusing to give back to those who were expropriated a portion of the land that was needlessly taken from them, even though this could be done without impeding the development of the airport.

Under these circumstances, how can the government explain the refusal of the Minister of Transport to let go of the 11,000 acres claimed by the Mirabel people whose land was expropriated?

[Sponsorship Program, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we will get back to open competition and transparency later. What is clear is that Ms. O'Leary is very transparent: she proposes a company very close to the PM. That company is Earnscliffe.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that he and Terrie O'Leary are the ones who opened the door, or paved the way, for the Ekos-Earnscliffe team to obtain a $300,000 contract? This is not testimony. It is a fact. I have sent him the memo, and he has it in his hands. It comes from his office. I am sure this is not the first time he has seen it.

[Sponsorship Program, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in May 1994, Terrie O'Leary, the present Prime Minister's executive assistant, intervened in the selection process for communications agencies on behalf of Ekos, a partner of Earnscliffe, the Prime Minister's favourite company, and the source of his advisers David Herle, Scott Reid, Elly Alboim and Mike Robinson.

The Prime Minister has Terrie O'Leary's memo in hand; I had it given to him at the start of oral question period. Is he going to admit that he also brought political direction to bear, as Jean Chrétien did, on the sponsorship scandal?