Gilles Duceppe

[Employment Insurance, May 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is most unfortunate.

The unions feel that implementation of the recommendations made in 2001, supported and signed off on by the Liberals, would be a step in the right direction toward a comprehensive reform of the EI system, including the establishment of a self-sustaining fund that could no longer be raided by the government. Even three years later, however, the Prime Minister is still refusing to take that first step.

Claiming as he does a desire to govern, could this Prime Minister reach a decision, despite his seeming inability to make decisions? He is the poster boy for indecision and—

[Employment Insurance, May 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we will try to continue inside the House.

Quebec's labour unions, and the CLC are unanimous: there must be overall reform of the employment insurance program, and not just the limited changes advocated by the Prime Minister.

Rather than applying a band-aid solution and crossing his fingers that it will last for the election campaign, will the Prime Minister take his cue from the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, simply pigeonholed by the Liberals more than three years ago, and initiate a thorough reform of employment insurance?

[Government Contracts, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it would be a good idea to ask the minister, because she is the minister, but it seems she does not know.

This money was diverted from the Official Languages program.

Can the minister deny—and it is her own answer I am seeking—that in the list of projects funded by the secret national unity fund, $5 million that appeared in 1995-96 under the heading of “Canadian Heritage: Unity—Quebec Referendum” was never used to promote official languages but rather to finance Option Canada? Can she deny that?

[Government Contracts, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in 1998, the Auditor General came up against a brick wall at Canadian Heritage in his attempts to find out what use was made of the $5 million spent by Option Canada. We still do not know who benefited from that money, but we do know that the funds allocated to Option Canada were allocated under the guise of official languages.

Can the minister confirm that the official languages program was used as a channel to conceal the payment of $5 million to Option Canada?

[National Unity Fund, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing he did not refer to is my question.

For the year 1996-97 alone, according to the Auditor General and the public accounts, $300,000 was directed into the sponsorship program, although, on the list we have been provided, that amount is $17 million.

So the government has doctored the figures to conceal the approximately $800 million for the hidden fund, the existence of which the Prime Minister denied. He said that he did not know it existed. It is strange nonetheless to claim ignorance of the existence of a fund when his own department received $1 million when he was minister—

[National Unity Fund, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal sponsorship scandal represents the misappropriation of taxpayers' money to the tune of much more than the $100 million out of a $250 million budget suggested by the Auditor General. Sheila Fraser did not know there was a hidden national unity fund, which, according to the list made public, was also used to fund sponsorships to the tune of $100 million.

Will the government admit that, with the regular Canadian unity program plus the secret funding combined, the sponsorship scandal cost a total of $350 million?

[National Defence, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, they are absolutely opposed to the weaponization of space, but they are ready to sign on and take part in the missile defence shield. Go figure.

President Bush wants to start deploying his missile defence shield in the fall. The pressure on Canada was so intense that the government caved in to President Bush.

Will the Prime Minister, who supported the war in Iraq last year, admit that Canada's participation in the missile defence shield has already been decided upon and that he does not want to talk about it in Washington for the simple reason that he wants to hide the truth on the eve of the election?

[National Defence, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Globe and Mail , the government has secretly agreed to sign on to an aerospace early warning system for North America, smoothing the path for Canada's participation in the U.S. missile defence shield and the weaponization of space.

In this context, how can the Prime Minister meet with President Bush and not raise this issue, especially without telling Quebeckers and Canadians, who will soon go to the polls, that his government has already decided to take part in the U.S. missile defence shield program?

[Employment Insurance, April 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is in the Prime Minister's interest to promise this, as was the case in 2000, but he has done nothing. It is in the Liberals' interest to have signed the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development in 2001, which made 17 recommendations that they immediately tossed. Guarantees are needed to prevent the Liberals from making more promises they have no intention of keeping.

I am asking this of the Prime Minister. From now until the House adjourns for the election, can he commit to tabling in this House a comprehensive reform, similar to the plan they signed three years ago?

[Employment Insurance, April 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, for the past three years, the Liberal government has done nothing with a unanimous report by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, which is recommending significant improvements to employment insurance. Then, suddenly, just before the election, as they did in 2000, the Liberals are dangling changes before the workers in seasonal industries.

Instead of again making promises they will later break, will the Prime Minister, who claims he wants to govern, now introduce a comprehensive plan to reform employment insurance as outlined in the unanimous report that the government has had for the past three years?