Pablo Rodriguez

[The Environment, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, Conservative members ground to a halt the work of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

The Prime Minister is trying to act as though he had a majority. When the opposition calls him to order, he throws a temper tantrum like a spoiled child, and he sulks.

When he was opposition leader, the Prime Minister said it is Parliament that leads this country, not just the party that has the most seats. He was in favour of democracy at the time and showed at little judgment.

Can the acting chair of the committee assure this House that the committee agenda will allow for fair and responsible work on my bill on Kyoto?

[The Environment, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today's edition of the French newspaper Le Monde refers to “Canada's surrender”. It mentions that “—Canada, a former leader in environmental issues, now cuts a sorry figure”.

The minister is being attacked on all fronts. The Quebec government is furious and feels betrayed. Environmental groups and top scientists are losing hope in the face of so much irresponsibility. And now, the international press is coming down on Canada.

I am sad to say the minister must be feeling very lonely. Apart from George Bush, does she have any friends left?

[The Environment, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, while the Minister of Transport was battling the Quebec government about the Kyoto protocol, his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, obtained a perfect score, if her aim was to be criticized by absolutely everyone.

Today's edition of the French newspaper Le Monde criticizes the government for caving in to George Bush. This is becoming embarrassing. The comments on her plan range from “bad” to “very bad” and even “rotten”.

Which of these descriptions does the minister like best for her plan?

[The Environment, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last May, the Minister of the Environment said she was prepared to provide financial assistance so that Quebec could achieve its Kyoto objectives. Since then, the Prime Minister, who is allergic to Kyoto, has decided otherwise. Quebec will not get one red cent.

Instead of standing up to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and his colleagues from Quebec are simply being doormats.

How could he agree, on the very day of the tribute to Robert Bourassa, to go to Quebec City to criticize the Charest government?

Who is he to put Quebec in its place?

[The Environment, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, every politician from Quebec gathered at the National Assembly to commemorate together the heritage of Robert Bourassa. It was a solemn occasion.

With his odd sense of timing, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities chose that moment to attack the Liberal government of Jean Charest. After renouncing the Kyoto protocol in the morning, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities gave a slap in the face to the Government of Quebec and scoffed at the will of the Quebeckers in the afternoon.

Does the minister not think this was too much for one day?

[The Environment, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would never vote for something so irresponsible.

A few months ago, the minister made an announcement saying that she would announce something shortly. Since then she has come to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to announce that there would be an announcement that would announce the announcement of the announcement.

Recently the Prime Minister confirmed in an announcement that he was going to shortly make an important announcement about the announcement that would precede the announcement. Today they are finally announcing that they are going to consult. They are going to consult for years.

We have been consulting for years. We want action. When is it going to happen?

[The Environment, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has just delivered the final blow to the Kyoto protocol.

She has no short-term objectives, no measurable targets, no binding timetable; her only specific target is for 2050. I wonder how old the minister will be in 2050. By then will there still be any glaciers in the Far North? How much land will no longer be arable? How many coastal cities will have been flooded? How many people will have died as the direct or indirect consequence of climate change?

How can the minister do this to our planet and, more important yet, how can she do this to our children and grandchildren?

[The Conservative Government, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have misled Canadians many times, and have done so once again with their orgy of patronage appointments.

They said they wanted to put a stop to cronyism, but their actions suggest the opposite.

Who is the new consul general in Boston? None other than the former Conservative finance minister, Neil Leblanc.

Who is the new negotiator in the land claims file? The Mulroney-era former Conservative minister, Harvie Andre. It must be pure coincidence that his son-in-law sits on the executive in the riding of the minister responsible.

New judge in Alberta? No problem, they called upon the former money man for the Reform and Alliance parties, Bruce MacDonald, whose daughter just happens to work in the Prime Minister's Office.

Summit of la Francophonie? Why not pay for a vacation for Gilles Bernier, the father of the current Minister of Industry and a former Conservative MP?

The Conservatives are breaking one promise after another. At this rate, they will soon have no promises left to break and will have to invent new promises so they can break them, too.

Canadians will remember this.

[The Environment, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as always, the Minister of the Environment is swimming in contradictions. She says she wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but she has no targets. She says she wants to act quickly, but she has no implementation schedule. She says she wants a made in Canada plan, but she consults with George Bush. She says she had a plan, but now she has lost it.

If the minister has no targets, no implementation schedule, not even a plan, why does she not just admit that she feels the same about climate change as she does about Quebec: she just does not care?

[The Environment, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, during an important vote this week, the House reiterated its desire to support the Kyoto protocol. In a panic, the Prime Minister thought it was more important to go see a hockey game. In his absence, the Minister of the Environment, surrounded by her team of right-wing cheerleaders, voted against Kyoto.

The Kyoto protocol is an international law and Canada is bound by that law. By voting against Kyoto, the minister sent a message to the entire world that her government would break that law.

Is intentionally breaking the law what the new government is all about?