Gilles Duceppe

[Forestry Industry, September 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that there are not many shovels opening logging roads in Quebec.

Even the Minister of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec has admitted that he has done nothing to help the forestry industry. This federal member even said, and I quote, “Why is it up to me to table solutions?” It must be done.

Will the Prime Minister admit that it is not by setting up phoney committees, as the minister just announced last week, that he will help the forestry industry to get back on track?

[Forestry Industry, September 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's stimulus package is inadequate and does not meet Quebec's needs. In fact, the Prime Minister himself has admitted that the forestry industry is still experiencing serious difficulties even though there are signs of economic recovery. However, the Prime Minister did nothing to help this industry, which is so important to Quebec.

Will the Prime Minister admit that his stimulus package does nothing to help the forestry industry while giving a major boost to the auto industry?

[Employment Insurance, September 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what a nerve. We proposed going to committee right away, in order to hear from unemployed workers. They are afraid to hear from the unemployed, afraid to hear from the experts. And all the minister can tell us is that the regular system is good enough for forestry workers. In other words, he is telling them to be happy with the system they cannot qualify for. That is this minister's meaningless and painful logic.

[Employment Insurance, September 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, workers at AbitibiBowater, which is due to close, will not be able to take advantage of the additional weeks of employment insurance benefits the government has announced. Like many other workers, those at AbitibiBowater have been laid off intermittently, which means that they are not eligible for the new measures. Even Quebec's labour minister is calling on the federal government to consider forestry workers.

Does the minister realize that her bill does nothing to address the real problems facing the unemployed, starting with eligibility for EI?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the Minister of International Trade agrees with my analysis.

However, the Prime Minister is proposing that the principle of full reciprocity should dominate trade relations between the United States and Canada. Such an agreement would prevent Quebec, the provinces and the municipalities from using preferential purchasing as a tool for economic development. Furthermore, Canada's position during the negotiations on free trade in 1988 and on NAFTA in 1992 was to maintain that privilege.

Does the Minister of International Trade realize that full reciprocity could have a very negative impact on small and medium sized businesses?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, during his visit to Washington, the Prime Minister talked to the American President about the dangers of protectionism. Under NAFTA, the American government does not have the right to engage in preferential purchasing, that is, buying only goods that originate in the United States. However, Mr. Obama's plan gets around the problem by forcing states and municipalities, which do not come under NAFTA rules, to buy American exclusively.

Does the Minister of International Trade realize that the real problem is not the buy American act, but rather the American President's plan?

[Resignation of Member, September 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Hochelaga, who was my MP for a number of years. The Montreal ridings change boundaries with nearly every election. He was an excellent MP. I was born in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. It is my part of the country. The member for Hochelaga was continually involved with all of the community and economic development associations in Montreal east. He was very present there and he was very present here in the House of Commons as well. He liked the role of MP, and I am sure he will enjoy public life in the future, but at another level.

He was responsible for a number of files within the Bloc, but in recent years, in particular, he looked after justice and health. He did so rigorously, and he gave the same attention to human rights, as colleagues have pointed out.

I would like to point out another aspect of his work, that of promoting the role of private members over these many years, by insisting that greater importance be given here to private members' bills and by working as well with the parliamentary associations. He is one of the founding members of the Quebec-Palestine association. He has performed all aspects of the work of a parliamentarian rigorously, with great skill and with great ability.

I will close by saying that he is an ardent sovereignist who has shown the rest of Canada what sovereignists want and what sort of country they want to live in. This he has done in friendship with the rest of Canada. The speeches we have heard make this amply clear. I thank him deeply. I was lucky to have such an MP in our caucus.

[Justice, September 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, if someone should sense the simmering public discontent, it is the party opposite. We have been proposing this since 2007. The minister found the bill complex. A bill with two clauses is too complex for the minister. It is unbelievable.

What is he waiting for to give the go-ahead to a bill that would have an immediate impact, when they have no plans for abolishing parole after one-sixth of the sentence has been served? What are the Conservatives waiting for? The Liberals and the NDP are in favour. Now—

[Justice, September 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has introduced a bill to abolish parole after one-sixth of the sentence has been served, including for white-collar criminals. This bill could have been passed in a single day, but for crassly partisan reasons, the Conservative government decided otherwise. If our bill were passed, it would apply immediately to Earl Jones and Vincent Lacroix, if they are found guilty.

How does the Conservative government explain its refusal to proceed with a bill that would have actual, immediate effects on the fight against white-collar crime?

[Employment Insurance, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, let us consider older workers, those 55 and over. These are people who have been working for the same company for 25 or 30 years—that is what I call long-tenured. But every year, they go through a period of unemployment. According to the criteria, they will not be entitled to the new benefits, but Ontario auto workers will.

Will the conditions that apply to Ontario auto workers also apply to Quebec forestry workers? That is my question and I would like an answer.