Gilles Duceppe

[Employment Insurance, November 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, parental benefits account for 75% of the total cost of all of the special EI benefits, compared to 25% for compassionate care and sickness benefits. But self-employed workers in Quebec will pay more than their Canadian counterparts, simply to be entitled to sickness and compassionate care benefits, since they are already entitled to parental benefits from the Government of Quebec.

Does the Prime Minister realize that the contribution rate he will impose on self-employed workers in Quebec is unfair in relation to the benefits being offered?

[Employment Insurance, November 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the bill concerning self-employed workers contains provisions regarding parental leave. But self-employed workers in Quebec are already entitled to parental benefits through the Quebec government's parental insurance plan.

Will the government admit that there is an overlap when it comes to parental benefits, and will it compensate Quebec?

[Points of Order, November 3rd, 2009]

They do not want to listen.

We cannot say that those uttering lies are liars. It is not permitted to say that there are liars in the House. Outside the House, it can be said, but not here. However, we can use the words “mensonges” and “lies”. You have regularly allowed them in questions. I said, “lies, lies, lies”, “mensonges, mensonges, mensonges”. I am not withdrawing my words. They are permitted, Mr. Speaker.

[Points of Order, November 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I did indeed say, about six times, "lies, lies, lies" or "mensonges". It is permissible. You regularly allow us to use the words "mensonges" or "lies" in our questions. We cannot say that the person who utters—

[Citizenship and Immigration, November 3rd, 2009]

Lies, lies.

[The Economy, November 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, let the Prime Minister come to Rivière-du-Loup to have a debate and explain that seasonal and forestry workers do not qualify and that all benefits will go to southern Ontario. I am up for that any time.

Rather than going after the unemployed, why does he not go after the oil companies, those that have the means, the big banks? Why does he not eliminate tax havens? Why does he not stop handing out presents to oil companies? Why does he not impose a 1% surtax on those who have taxable income of $150,000 or more? I am prepared to debate these measures in Rivière-du-Loup but not measures that serve Ontario and western Canada to the detriment of Quebec. He is welcome to do so any time.

[The Economy, November 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that the government is on the wrong track when it claims that economic growth alone will bring down the deficit. That is true but that does not mean however that they should stick with ill-advised measures such as those of the Minister of Finance who, in his economic update, indicated that he plans to take $19 billion out of the employment insurance fund by 2015.

Will the government admit that, in the end, its plan is to have the unemployed pay for the deficit?

[The Environment, November 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that the minister for big oil is defending the oil companies. What we cannot understand, though, is why ministers from Quebec are defending Alberta's interests instead of Quebec's.

The National Assembly of Quebec unanimously called on the federal government to meet the Kyoto protocol targets. Is there a single minister from Quebec who can explain why he or she is defending Alberta instead of Quebec?

[The Environment, November 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Pembina Institute report is clear: a 25% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would have little impact on the economy, leaving polluters such as the oil companies in Alberta to pay for pollution. To enable companies to meet such targets, the government must introduce a carbon exchange that the paper companies in Quebec could join. But the government is refusing to go ahead with the Pembina Institute's proposal, claiming that it is divisive.

How can the Conservatives say that implementing the Kyoto protocol targets is divisive? Is it because it is not as good for Alberta's economy and good for Quebec's?

[Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated, October 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, all the rules were followed, except the crown corporation's ethics rules. That is very clear.

Let us look at the facts. This government appoints the directors of a crown corporation, who in turn appoint the directors of a subsidiary. Senator Housakos, who works for BPR, organizes a cocktail fundraiser preceded by a private cocktail party to which Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated directors; executives of BPR, the firm that will win the contract for the Champlain Bridge; and the Quebec lieutenant are invited. There is name for that: favouritism.

Is that not the reason why the Prime Minister is refusing to disavow his Quebec lieutenant?