Gilles Duceppe

[The Environment, May 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, just as we are learning that Canada could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2020, the government appoints an individual who has denied the existence of climate change to the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council. This same government has called climate change a socialist plot. I would like to remind members that the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council provides funding to scientists who study climate change.

By appointing a person who does not believe in climate change to a scientific research council, is the Prime Minister plotting with the oil companies this time?

[Pulp and Paper Industry, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, paper mills in the United States have access to a tax credit that gives them an unfair advantage worth about $200 per tonne. Paper mills in Quebec and Canada cannot compete with that. That is why the Fraser mill announced plans to lay off 330 people in May.

When will the government put pressure on the United States to change the tax credit rules and get rid of this unfair subsidy?

[Pulp and Paper Industry, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Fraser paper mill in Thurso has been forced to close its doors because of unfair competition from the Americans, who have been able to reduce their production costs because of a biofuels credit. So far, the Canadian government has done nothing to help the pulp and paper industry.

How long will the government carry on bowing and scraping to the Americans and not doing anything to help?

[Science and Technology, May 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is successful all right. It has succeeded in sending 25 researchers to the United States so far.

As well, the Minister of State (Science and Technology) stated yesterday that Canada leads the G7 countries in the percentage of GDP spent on research and development. That is false: Canada is fifth and only invests 1.9% of its GDP.

Does the government realize that its stubborn refusal to give priority to scientific research, on creationist and ideological grounds, will have irreversible repercussions in this area?

[Science and Technology, May 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of State (Science and Technology) misled the House when he declared that he has invested $5.1 billion in research and development. What the minister did not say is that a large portion of this money has been allocated to infrastructure and not to funding research per se.

The Obama administration is announcing a $10 billion investment in research in the United States, at the same time that our government is announcing cuts.

Does the government realize that its attitude will only result in researchers heading south of the border?

[Employment Insurance, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, fortunately, ridicule never killed anyone. With the economic situation getting worse every day, what the unemployed really need is an overall improvement in the employment insurance system. The Prime Minister asked for proposals and we made some. He has a copy of our assistance plan.

What is the government waiting for to show some leadership on this issue? It must act now so that people will have enough money to make ends meet and stimulate the economy at the same time.

[Employment Insurance, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have no credibility when it comes to employment insurance. In 1993, on the eve of the general election, Jean Chrétien, who was then the opposition leader, promised a change of direction on employment insurance. Once elected, the Liberals made further cuts to EI. The Conservatives did the same thing in 2006, although they promised to restore the program for older worker adjustment, which they never did do.

If it wants to get some credibility back, why does the government not take a page from our assistance plan, which includes several proposals to improve employment insurance, including eliminating the waiting period?

[Employment Insurance, May 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, everyone is calling for a reform of the employment insurance system. One of the first things that needs to be done is to eliminate the waiting period. That would help unemployed workers directly and stimulate the economy.

What is the Prime Minister waiting for to go ahead with this other proposal in phase 2 of the Bloc's assistance plan, which is supported by the CSN and the FTQ?

[Employment Insurance, May 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, for years, the Bloc Québécois has been asking that the minimum to qualify for employment insurance be 360 hours. That proposal is included in phase 2 of our assistance plan. The Liberals suddenly understood the importance of such a measure at their convention and are now proposing to introduce it. We need to remember that the Supreme Court ruled that the Liberal government illegally took money from the EI fund in 2002, 2003 and 2005. We are talking about a surplus of more than $8 billion over three years.

Instead of legalizing what the Liberal government did, why does the Prime Minister not use that surplus to improve the employment insurance plan?

[Goods and Services Tax, April 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a brainwave.

That being said, how can the Minister of Finance say he is negotiating with Quebec in good faith when a unanimous motion was passed here in the House of Commons, not somewhere else? We are entitled to ask them questions about their attitude. There was also a unanimous motion by the National Assembly.

How can they say they are acting in good faith when 10 minutes after voting he turns to the journalists and says he does not agree with what he just voted for? How can that be called anything other than hypocrisy?