Gilles Duceppe

[Points of Order, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when I say that the government is telling lies, I am not addressing a specific individual, but an institution.

When, in response to a question from an hon. member, someone says that member has just told a lie, that is specific to an individual.

I would submit that you ought to be reprimanding the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and not myself. I was referring to an institution, and he to a very specific individual.

I think that the point the parliamentary secretary has just raised is totally in my favour, and I thank him for it.

[Points of Order, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, he is not allowed to mention my absence. He should be familiar with the Standing Orders.

I also want to point out that I was just echoing what the Minister of Public Works and Government Services said yesterday. In response to a Bloc statement, he said, rather directly, “To say that we are hindering Quebec is an untruth”. If he can say that, then I can say that the government tells untruths too. It is the same thing. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Employment Insurance, May 14th, 2009]

I ask the minister to stand up and explain the falsehood we heard yesterday.

How would 360 hours equal 52 weeks of benefits? That is not true.

The people who elected us expect us to tell the truth. I ask the question again. If the government has even a modicum of honesty, let her stand up and correct her answer.

[Employment Insurance, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I used the same language the Minister of Public Works and Government Services used yesterday. If he can use it, I can use it.

[Employment Insurance, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government's answers, and especially the Prime Minister's, are full of lies. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that an employment insurance eligibility threshold of 360 hours would give unemployed workers 52 weeks of employment insurance benefits. That is not true.

It is not true under the current system. It is not true under the bills the Bloc has introduced. It is not true under any mechanisms.

Can the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development explain how a 360-hour eligibility threshold would automatically give—

[The Environment, May 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, wanting to make Quebec a country does not mean wanting the destruction of Canada. As for creating division in Canada, I will leave that to the Prime Minister, since he is managing that very well on his own.

President Obama has been very clear. He has chosen absolute targets, not intensity targets, for reducing American greenhouse gas emissions. Since the Prime Minister intends to have Canada take part in a North American greenhouse gas emission credit exchange system, what is he waiting for before putting absolute targets in place?

[The Environment, May 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has a truly abominable record as far as climate change is concerned. The report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development tells us that the government has totally overestimated its greenhouse gas reductions, basing its false predictions on carbon capture, a technology that will not be perfected for some years yet. In the meantime, the Government of Quebec forges ahead with its carbon exchange.

Does the Prime Minister realize that his lack of environmental vision is a hindrance to the sustainable development of Quebec, when its purpose is merely to protect the interests of his buddies, the oil companies?

[The Environment, May 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. The Prime Minister is not referring to absolute reduction targets, but rather to intensity targets. They are not at all the same. Not at all the same, and he knows that very well , but he keeps on changing reality.

He is the one who spoke of a socialist plot when discussing the 2002 Kyoto protocol. Recently he has even appointed people to a research council who deny this scientific reality,and one person who has spoken out against Kyoto.

Will he put an end to this I don't care attitude, which essentially backs the oil and gas sector at the expense of the manufacturing and forestry sectors, when these have made efforts to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?

[The Environment, May 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as Quebec prepares to create a carbon exchange, we learn from a document obtained through access to information that the lack of any federal legislation on the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions has harmful economic effects on the natural resource sector. The lack of any guidelines hampers research and development investments in the area of renewable green energies.

Will the Prime Minister wake up at last and put in place some real and absolute greenhouse gas emission targets? This is an economic issue too.

[The Environment, May 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am having some difficulty understanding this answer.

I would like to come back to the fact that this appointment is absurd. It is like appointing someone who does not believe in the existence of cancer to a medical research council.

Will the Prime Minister admit that by appointing people who dispute a scientific reality, in this case climate change, he is once again taking an ideological approach?