Gilles Duceppe

[Forestry Industry, June 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Ottawa is giving $5 billion to General Motors, thus bringing to $10.2 billion federal assistance to the automobile industry. By comparison, the Conservative budget, which the Liberals supported, provides only $170 million for the forestry sector, which is critical for the regions of Quebec. The government also added $100 million for silviculture, but that is still far short of the $10 billion given to the automobile sector, which is primarily located in Ontario.

Will the government finally admit that loan guarantees are legal under all trade agreements, and that Quebec's forestry companies need them immediately?

[The Economy, May 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives and Liberals alike, they have nothing to offer to really revive the economy. As for the Bloc Québécois, we have put forward some realistic proposals to help the unemployed by improving the employment insurance program, to compensate Quebec for harmonizing the GST, and to give loan guarantees to the forest industry. His Liberal-backed budget is quite obviously not up to the task.

What is the Prime Minister waiting for before he takes inspiration from the proposals we have made to him?

[The Economy, May 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said, in these exact words, “If the recession gets deeper, we will do more to help the unemployed and to help people.” Things are already worse, the unemployment rate is skyrocketing, no one can keep count of the numbers of jobs lost in the manufacturing and forest sectors, and the deficit, which only months ago was zero, is now $50 billion. What more does it take?

Will the Prime Minister admit that the crisis is deeper and that he must take action today to propose real support measures for the unemployed and for the economy?

[The Economy, May 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I know that in October I was out campaigning against this Prime Minister, who was telling all Canadians and all Quebeckers that there was no crisis. He said so in two debates. That was the Prime Minister's attitude, denying reality. The measures he got adopted in his budget with the Liberals' backing are inadequate.

What is the Prime Minister waiting for before presenting a real set of measures which would help out the unemployed and business, while at the same time stimulating the economy?

[The Economy, May 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, before and during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister stubbornly denied the existence of any crisis. He then even presented an ideological statement about dealing with the crisis, promising a surplus. A few months ago, his Minister of Finance was talking about a $34 billion deficit, and yesterday he admitted that it would be $50 billion instead. Today there are 1.5 million people unemployed and half of them are not receiving employment insurance benefits.

Was the Prime Minister totally incompetent in not seeing the signs of a looming economic crisis, or did he want to conceal the economic reality in order not to compromise his chances of being re-elected?

[The Economy, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, now I have heard everything.

The government's inaction in dealing with the crisis is inexcusable. Last November, the Bloc made some proposals, but they all went nowhere. A few weeks ago, we submitted phase 2 of our recovery plan, which included loan guarantees for the forest industries, compensation for the harmonization of the GST with Quebec, implementation of the Kyoto protocol, and improvements to unemployment insurance. Those are all serious and rigorous measures.

What is the Prime Minister waiting for before he takes action?

[The Economy, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, for a year now, the government has kept on making contradictory statements on the real economic situation. During the election, the Prime Minister denied the very existence of a crisis. Then his Minister of Finance admitted there would be a slight deficit. A few months later, he set the figure at $34 billion, and finally yesterday admitted that it will be still larger than that.

Will the Prime Minister admit that he made a mistake in his homework, that his recovery plan is totally inadequate and that he must now take action and present a new plan which will better meet the needs of the population?

[Points of Order, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in response to your ruling, I withdraw my comments. I wish to point out that I would never have used such words had those used by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services the day before been disallowed. Now that he has been asked to retract his remarks, I shall retract mine as well.

[Employment Insurance, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the question was very clear: how can the Conservatives talk about 52 weeks of benefits when they know that is not true? If I were wrong, they would not hesitate to tell me so. If the minister is not saying so, that means he knows that that is false.

This same minister also said that a 360-hour eligibility threshold would encourage people to work under the table.

Can he explain how giving more people access to employment insurance would encourage moonlighting? Would he not do better to attack something other than the unemployed? We are not asking the government to encourage moonlighting, but to give more people the right to employment insurance.

[Employment Insurance, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said again recently that a 360-hour eligibility threshold for employment insurance is completely absurd because it would give the unemployed 52 weeks of EI benefits, which is the maximum. Nothing could be further from the truth. The maximum number of weeks of benefits an unemployed worker can receive with a 360-hour eligibility threshold is 36, taking into account the different variables that determine the benefit period.

Why is the Prime Minister spreading such falsehoods?