Gilles Duceppe

[The Environment, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to an article in the National Geographic, the whole world can now see, with pictures to prove it, that operations in the Alberta tar sands are a real disaster for the environment. Just yesterday, however, the Minister of the Environment and the Liberal leader were refusing to recognize the responsibility of the oil companies in this environmental catastrophe.

Will the Prime Minister assume his responsibilities and force the oil companies to do their part and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?

[Arts and Culture, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister would be a great act at the Just for Laughs festival.

Yesterday, as the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages was telling the House he was investing more in culture, the Minister of Finance surprised me by shouting abuse at me and saying that making cuts to culture was a political choice because we were in a recession and cuts had to be made somewhere.

Does the Prime Minister realize that his cuts to culture are having a disastrous effect on an economic sector that was doing fairly well up to now and was creating thousands of jobs in Quebec?

[Arts and Culture, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages could not say enough about the Canada Prizes for the Arts and Creativity, stating, and I quote: “This is a great project that will help unify our country.” On Tuesday, when questioned in the House about what he had said, the heritage minister denied having made the statement and even had a new version for us.

I am sure the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages tells us the truth one time in two. The question is when he told the truth. Did he tell the truth on Monday or on Tuesday?

[The Environment, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tells us that 1990 is in the past. I would point out to him that so is 2006. That seems pretty obvious. If he opts for 2006 as his reference year, that is because that year gives the advantage to the gas and oil companies at the expense of Quebec manufacturers.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, with that as a target, his party is serving the interests of the oil patch, which has, unlike the Quebec manufacturing sector, done nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions since 1990?

[The Environment, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when asked about the reference year for the fight against climate change, the Minister of the Environment has accused the Bloc Québécois of looking back to the past by referring to the year 1990. Yet that year, 1990, is the reference year for the Kyoto objectives, for the European Union, and is also the reference year for President Barack Obama.

Does the Prime Minister realize he is being the odd man out by opposing environmental protection and the economy, especially with intensity targets and using 2006 as the reference year?

[The Environment, February 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this is very clear. Absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets are based on the polluter-pay principle, whereas intensity targets are based on a polluter-paid approach. Worse yet, intensity targets would cast aside Quebec's GHG reduction efforts while allowing Alberta and Saskatchewan to continue polluting.

Will the Prime Minister recognize that his so-called green policies are nothing more than window dressing and that his government is continuing to serve big oil?

[The Environment, February 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in his joint press conference with the U.S. president, the Prime Minister said, “You say we have intensity, they have absolute -- but the truth is these are just two different ways of measuring the same thing.” But with intensity targets, there is no guarantee that greenhouse gases will be reduced globally, while with absolute targets come real greenhouse gas reductions.

With such comments, is the Prime Minister not engaging in a dialogue with the U.S. president on the wrong basis, by allowing big oil to continue polluting?

[Culture, February 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, during the vote on the budget, this House voted $25 million in funding for an unknown project, and to boot, the government is cutting cultural programs without familiarizing itself with the analyses justifying these cuts. So much for sound management of public funds.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages shoulder his responsibilities and take his cue from Edgar Allan Poe, saying, “Nevermore, nevermore”?

[Culture, February 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Prizes for the Arts are turning into the blooper prizes, with the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages in the leading role. Yesterday, he had the audacity to say that the prizes were not even his project.

I would remind this House that in its latest budget, the government earmarked $25 million for something that is allegedly not its project.

Does the Prime Minister realize that he has no option but to cancel this project, which has been universally condemned, and transfer the $25 million to the cultural programs he cut?

[Culture, February 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, all the groups that he claims to have consulted and that supposedly supported the prizes have said they did not. The government is not consulting, it is just manipulating public opinion.

Does he realize that this is just smoke and mirrors and that he has no intention of reinstating the cultural programs he slashed essentially for ideological reasons?