Alexa McDonough

[Climate Change, December 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, delegates representing 180 countries will gather in Bali, Indonesia, today to craft a new agreement to combat climate change following the Kyoto protocol's expiry.

To our collective embarrassment Canada will bluster from the sidelines because the government is hellbent on abdicating its leadership and will keep Canada out of step with every progressive nation on the globe.

These Conservatives mouth platitudes about family values but what a legacy they leave to Canada's children. Over the past decade the Canadian government has marginalized itself on the climate change challenge. Both this government and its Liberal predecessors violated our international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Conservative government heaps the burden for action on the world's poor while the largest per capita polluters, Canada among them, get off scot-free.

If the government was serious about engaging the developing world on climate change, the Prime Minister would not have axed the Canada climate change development fund. With all the hot air rising from members opposite, no wonder Canada's emissions continue to rise.

[Violence Against Women, November 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jody Williams reminded parliamentarians that brutal crimes against women have become the norm as weapons of war in Darfur, Congo and elsewhere.

In 2000, when Canada supported Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, the government pledged to develop a plan of action for protecting women in warfare and involving women in peace processes. Seven years later, Canada has no plan.

With millions of women victimized by unspeakable sexual atrocities, where is the promised plan? What is it going to take for the government to act?

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, November 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Liberal member who has just spoken is not from Atlantic Canada, but hopefully we are all here in this place continuing ongoing nation-building.

The member will be very aware of the fact that what was originally labelled the Atlantic accord has become a major source of Atlantic discord. I am sure that the member will be aware that her members, together with all other opposition members, were represented in a briefing that finally came about. It was like a Keystone Cops routine, three times scheduled, three times cancelled.

It finally took place and what became most clear of all is that there is enormous discord between the federal government's interpretation of what the new provisions contained in the bill that is before us mean and what the Nova Scotia government interprets it to mean, and in fact was set out in a householder that went out to every single Nova Scotian.

I wonder if the member could comment on whether she thinks it is not really a cop-out for the Liberal opposition members to sit in their seats rather than take a stand against the budget for a number of reasons. Among them, there is the fact that the Atlantic accord, in its original form, a signed, sealed, legal document, no longer exists, and actually it exists in a form that is so wide open to interpretation that it actually is the same thing as shredding the Atlantic accord.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, November 29th, 2007]

By way of a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca just made my point. He knows perfectly well that the very things which not just he alone but every one of his members is standing up and calling for the government to support, the very things that he is criticizing the government for not having done with this budget, cost money.

If we give away over $50 billion in tax cuts to the corporations--and let us be clear, the single biggest beneficiaries of these tax cuts are the banks that are gouging people with service fees and the oil companies that are gouging people at the pumps--then there will be no money to support the projects that he is talking about and that his members are criticizing the government for not funding.

Where is the sense in that? Is this just an act of hypocrisy? Or is this the case of an entire Liberal caucus that has not done the math and has not done its homework in analyzing the negative impact of this budget that is taking us in the wrong direction?

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, November 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say in listening to the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca that one has the sense he and his party are still fighting the last election instead of addressing this issue, the current bill that is before us, Bill C-28, which effectively combines the budget in the spring with the mini budget that was brought in this fall. I am not sure how that serves Canadians.

I listened very carefully when he conducted what was a fairly vicious attack, actually, on my colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina, around the issue of balance. His criticism of her speech on the budget before us, and also on the NDP's decision to oppose this budget, was that budgets need to be about balance.

Speaking of balance, I am sure the member is well aware that the government's corporate tax cuts alone will cost $50.5 billion, phased in over six years, and will keep costing the treasury $14.8 billion every year. If this member has done his homework, and he usually does, then he will also know that this budget actually will benefit the average hard-working Canadian by about $1.50 a day.

I want to ask the member whether this is his idea of balance. If it is not, why is it that not only this member but his entire caucus have decided that instead of taking a stand against the lack of balance contained in this budget, they are actually going to sit in their seats, as they have already done, and are not prepared to commit themselves or vote one way or the other?

[Atlantic Accord, November 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotians still await the federal government's tabling of a clear, binding agreement on the revised offshore resources revenue sharing with Nova Scotia's Conservative government.

In opposition, federal Conservatives championed the Atlantic accord. In government, they tore it up. Now they ask us to trust that their replacement deal will protect the full benefits of the Atlantic accord, but where is any legal document that can hold the government to its promise?

In the last 10 days alone, the government has three times scheduled a briefing of Nova Scotia MPs on the latest deal and three times it has cancelled.

After a year of this reneging on agreements, punishing critics and backroom dealing among the Prime Minister, the Nova Scotia premier and Conservative MPs, Nova Scotians are fed up.

The Atlantic accord was a clear deal with clear benefits. Nova Scotians will accept nothing less. The Conservative deal is not worth the paper it is not even written on. So much for transparency, accountability and integrity in government.

[Aeronautics Act, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc Québécois member for his comments.

I listened very carefully to the member who just indicated that he and his colleagues will be supporting Bill C-7. I also listened with rapt attention to the concerns that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster expressed.

Chills went up and down my spine, and probably the spines of many others as well, as I thought about the parallel between the possible safety hazards for airline and rail passengers and what happened in my province of Nova Scotia with the Westray mine. Basically, the company was put in charge of safety. There were inadequate regulations in place. It was an accident waiting to happen. Of course, it is well known that 26 lives were lost. It was absolutely predictable that this would happen.

I am particularly puzzled by the Bloc's support for this bill, because the province of Quebec, over time and across political lines, has always had a better understanding of the importance of strong regulations, an understanding of the structural requirements to ensure, in this case, health and safety, but in other cases other kinds of progressive measures and initiatives.

I want to understand the response from the member. Did he listen to the many interventions of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster when he raised the concern about how ill-advised it is to basically put, and I do not know if it works in French or not, the fox in charge of the henhouse?

[Border Security, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this government has learned nothing from the Maher Arar fiasco.

Retired U.S. colonel, Ann Wright, and CodePink co-founder, Medea Benjamin, were blocked at Canada's border because they appeared on an FBI watch list. Their crime was peaceful protest, time-honoured civil disobedience, in opposition to the Iraqi war.

Why is the Prime Minister hiding behind the FBI to ban respected U.S. citizens from entering our country?

[Pugwash Conferences, June 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been further consultations among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the House congratulate the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs on the occasion of their 50th anniversary for their significant contribution to nuclear disarmament.

[Committees of the House, June 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that the House congratulates the Pugwash conferences on science and world affairs, on the occasion of their 50th anniversary, for their significant contribution to nuclear disarmament.