Karen Redman

[Business of the House, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that I do not envy you in your position because it is a difficult one. However, I would like to point out that I was standing in my place and I was calling, “point of order”.

Mr. Speaker, the heckling you are hearing from the government benches is the same heckling that was going on when I said, “Mr. Speaker, point of order”. I will not name the member but it was a government member who said, “Oh, just keep reading. Ignore her”.

Mr. Speaker, I was indeed standing in my place before you had ruled and government members were heckling because they saw that I was rising on a point of order to ask if I could debate this issue. If you were to look at the sequence of events, Mr. Speaker, you will have auditory verification that I was indeed standing in my place.

[Business of the House, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, where my hon. colleague and I depart is that I would again reiterate that I stood on a point of order. I was standing in my place and I was asking if this motion was debatable. I would say, from the reading of the Standing Orders, that this motion is debatable and the question be put at the end of the hour of debate.

I would ask for the Speaker, with obviously the aid of our knowledgeable clerks, to rule on whether or not we are indeed debating for one hour before this question is put to the House.

[Business of the House, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that I had risen on a point of order before you had finished reading that and I would also like clarification on whether or not this is debatable.

I would point out that the House is not scheduled to rise until June 22, so I fail to see the rationale of extending this day when we have before us another two weeks to debate this issue. As important as the government feels it is, the House can rest assured that our party is more than happy to point out the things that are missing and the failures of the budget which is why the Liberals of the House will not support the budget.

Given that we have two weeks further to sit, I see no emergency necessity to extend the sitting hours today. It was my understanding that this could not be done at this point in time.

Therefore, I would ask for clarification from the Speaker as to whether or not this is indeed in order and whether or not it is debatable. I feel that there are many good points that can be made to the other side to indicate that we do not have to extend the sitting today, given that we have a full two weeks.

I know our colleagues in the other place would be more than happy to sit after June 22. As a matter of fact, they have said so publicly in order to get through very important pieces of legislation, dare I point out, like the private member's bill of one of my Liberal colleagues on the Kelowna accord, as well as other important pieces of legislation.

[Business of the House, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that this motion is out of order because we are into private members' hour.

[The Environment, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in the Prime Minister's race to the basement he has even poured cold water on the next round of global climate change talks in Bali. The Prime Minister simply does not get it.

There is only one approach to combating climate change and that is aggressive, ambitious, early action which is guided by clear limits and firm targets. The government refuses to do that. Its own plan allows emissions to continue to rise beyond 2020.

Why did the Prime Minister even bother getting on the plane? Clearly the Bush administration could easily have represented this Conservative government on the world stage.

[The Environment, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the science is clear: allowing the Earth's temperature to rise more than 2° C will spell disaster. It will mean severe heat waves, floods, droughts and hurricanes. However, Canada fought to ditch any reference to these 2° which was a major goal of this G-8 meeting. Canada fought the science.

Why does the government reject science which tells us what must be done?

[June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to my colleague. This is not a debate about the budget. This is a debate about the estimates.

I would say that in my 10 years in Parliament one of the things that I have come to realize is that intent matters with the government. My hon. Bloc colleague did talk about the meanspirited way in which the government has dealt with many things. He referred to some of the vestiges of the Harris Ontario government, the triumvirate, the ministers of health, finance and environment, that we actually see very much in evidence in this Parliament.

I recognize that while there are many things that make the Bloc unique in some of its approaches, I find that its social approaches to many of the solutions in Parliament are actually quite aligned with the Liberal Party.

I want to refer to something very specific in my riding. The Kitchener-Waterloo Multicultural Centre in my riding has actually put forward a stunning presentation. It is a very integral part of my riding which is the fourth largest settlement area for new Canadians in Canada, despite the fact that as a region we are only half a million people.

There was a proposal for ethnocultural racial minorities to participate in public decision making. The centre had been through many levels of scrutiny and I think had actually been agreed to by three different levels of government which said this was something worthwhile doing.

Three program officers and departmental approval was gained. Yet, at the very final hour, as a matter of fact today, it found out that this wonderful project was not going to receive funding.

A similar thing happened with the K-W counselling services in my riding as well. These services fit perfectly with the criteria that the government was saying it wanted in order to engage new Canadians in order to make a good community. Yet, the government decided that this funding was not worthwhile.

I would ask my colleague from the Bloc this question. Has he seen similar cutbacks in the fundamental bedrock of what helps define communities, not only in Kitchener Centre, but right across Canada? Has he experienced the fact that to the government their intent matters. The government believes in the trickle down theory, that there is only a certain sector of Canada that it is speaking to, and it happens to be its electorate. If people do not fall into that minority then they are not covered by the priorities of the government. Would my colleague like to comment on that?

[Africa, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Bob Geldof and Gerry Barr say the minister is wrong.

There is a simple fact. Canada made a commitment and these Conservatives want to walk away from that commitment.

Africa needs help to fight AIDS. It needs help to fight tuberculosis and malaria. It needs better governance. It needs more schools and it needs clean water. It needs micro loans. It needs economic opportunities.

What Africa really needs is for Canada to keep its word. Why will the government not show some respect for the world's poorest people and stop nickel-and-diming them?

[Africa, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in 2005 Canada's Liberal prime minister went to a G-8 meeting and promised to double Canada's aid to Africa. The 2005 Liberal budget actually doubled Canada's aid to Africa by spending $2.8 billion in 2009. That is on page 213.

However, the Conservative government has reduced that amount and is trying to tell the world that none of this ever happened. It is an absolute fabrication.

Will the minister admit that she is either unable or unwilling to protect all the money the Liberals committed to the world's poorest people in Africa?

[The Environment, May 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are sick and tired of the eco-fraud that the government keeps dishing out.

Yesterday the Pembina Institute punched holes through the environment minister's plan. Today the minister was caught saying there were fewer greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants while he was a member of the Ontario government, when in fact there were more. The government's environmental agenda has no credibility.

Why will the Prime Minister not admit that Parliament created a better plan than his minister did? Why will he not bring back Bill C-30 for a vote in the House?