House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 35% of the vote.
The Environment January 31st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, one of these days, we will have a clear answer to a clear question.
The Prime Minister organized a fund-raising campaign to fight against the Kyoto protocol. He called the protocol “dangerous and destructive”, and said he would go “all the way” to stop it from being enforced.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he admit that he was wrong about the Kyoto protocol or will he continue to mislead the public?
The Environment January 31st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the British Prime Minister has said that climate change can only be addressed through a robust, inclusive and binding international treaty, but this Prime Minister wants Canada to stand alone. In 2002 he promised:
We will oppose ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and its targets. We will work with the provinces and others to discourage the implementation of these targets. And we will rescind the targets when we have the opportunity to do so.
Now the Prime Minister has the opportunity.
The Environment January 30th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, we at least have a plan. They do not have any with respect to the Kyoto protocol. Every major greenhouse gas can be regulated nowadays through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. No new piece of legislation is required in order to act now.
Why does the government not use the existing legislation to put a cap on greenhouse gas emissions?
The Environment January 30th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP say that they support the Kyoto protocol while the government has spent years fighting it. These allies are now partnering to tinker with the clean air act. They say that they support it. Why are they supporting this law? Nothing good can result from this marriage of convenience.
Will the government commit to a plan that honours its Kyoto obligations?
The Environment January 29th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, at least the Liberal Party knows it has a job to do. The government spent a year pretending it had no job to do at all.
Let me ask the question again. Last week the United Kingdom special envoy on climate change pleaded with Canada to stop ignoring the issue and to rejoin international efforts to develop a plan for long term action on climate change. Will the Minister of the Environment work with our international partners to develop a binding international long term plan?
The Environment January 29th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, last year, the former environment minister in this Conservative government announced in Nairobi that Canada was backing away from its international obligations and no longer wanted to do its part to fight global warming.
Will the government promise today to again make Canada an international leader, and will it again commit Canada to honouring the Kyoto protocol?
Government Programs December 13th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, despite what the Prime Minister said about phantom cuts, the cuts reveal a clear intention to slash investment in post-secondary education and in science. In so doing, that lays bare the very clear intention of the government to have no policy whatever on productivity and competitiveness.
Why is it that the government has no policy to create jobs today for Canadians in the future? Why is it that the government has no policy whatever to meet the competitive challenges this economy faces?
Marriage December 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the moving speech given by my hon. colleague.
Yet, what would she do if her government—the government of which she is a member—were to introduce a motion redefining marriage?
Her remarks seem to suggest that the government is expecting the motion to be defeated. Yet, proposing such a motion implies the prospect of introducing a bill. I would like to know her opinion on the need for such a bill. Based on her speech, she would have to vote against it.
Marriage December 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I have tried to argue on the basis that we have to have clear grounds as to how to balance rights. I am trying to describe a respectful position in which we take very seriously the religious rights of groups who feel they cannot, in accordance with their conscience and in accordance with holy law and in accordance with whatever they choose, solemnize marriage. To the degree that it is a question about my personal opinion, I would stand very strongly against any attempt to coerce or deny that right to a religious group.
As I said in a response to an earlier comment, this is about how Canadian society manages disagreement on ultimate questions. Any serious politics of human rights has to give very clear grounds as to why one set of rights might trump over another. I have tried to say that the equality claims of gay citizens is so important that they must have the right to claim equality in marriage. I am very strongly of the opinion that if that is true, it is extremely important for fellow citizens of an opposing opinion, especially those in religious communities, to be able to withhold solemnization of marriage and that the law should never be used to coerce them.
To the degree that this is a personal opinion, and we are talking about deeply held moral views, it is vital to the civility and harmony of our society that no coercion be exercised against a religious group that as a matter of conscience and religious doctrine does not want to solemnize marriage. In other words, my position is an attempt to find a balance of principles, an equilibrium of principles, that would allow us to manage disagreement in our society in a civil manner.
Marriage December 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I think the question of the citizenship of origin of the leader of this party is not relevant to the question, but I will address the issue raised about pactes de solidarité.
My view of that matter is simple. The claim the gay citizens of our country are making is that they cannot have full entitlement to respect and they cannot consider themselves fully equal citizens of this country unless they have a right to marriage, pure and simple, and that anything that creates a pacte de solidarité or a civil union does not meet the test of full equality and full respect. I accept that claim.
I respect the point being made here, but I think it does not meet the claim. It does not meet the demand of our fellow citizens to equality of respect and equality of rights.