Karen Redman

[The Environment, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is more of passing interest to me that the member opposite could make the statement that we had no plan, when it was our plan that party was presenting internationally.

The initiatives the Conservative government has announced are underfunded and they are re-gifted programs that the government itself cancelled. What is worse, there is no money for them, for the EnerGuide refit, for the renewables, for Quebec and other provinces.

How soon will Canadians see the government's actual detailed plan to battle climate change? What funds is the government committing?

[The Environment, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that he would respect the will of Parliament regarding the plan to meet our Kyoto commitments, but in the next breath he called it meaningless.

Will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring quick passage of the bill he said that he would respect?

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to my hon. colleague and I know that she has a sincere interest in all of the topics that she covered. However, I listened to her speak about the investment that our party, the Liberal government, had made in child care, and her question was why we did not do it sooner.

I would point out to her that we had a $42 billion debt that we had to deal with when we became government. Then we had a deficit that we needed to pay down, and that happened with the help and on the backs of Canadians right across this great country.

Make no mistake. There was pain and there were worthwhile social programs that could not be invested in until we got our fiscal house in order. Once we did, our government brought in agreements with every province and territory. We had a pan-Canadian child care system that was going to go ahead, that offered real choices to Canadians, not just working families, because we were investing in programs in the community that at-home parents were also able to access. It was a far more comprehensive program than what the government has offered, which is a taxable amount of $100 a month per child up until the age of six.

My hon. colleague also talked about the need for social housing. I know that in Kitchener Centre and the Waterloo region, we have invested at the local level in ensuring that social housing is being built. The supporting community programs initiative that was brought in under our Liberal government was investing in partnership with agencies at the community level to ensure that we were addressing those needs.

My question to my hon. colleague is this. Why, when all of these important things were in place, when we had the Kelowna agreement signed, and I would underscore her comments that we are judged by our actions not just our words, did the NDP decide to pull the plug on all these progressive social investments, these programs--

[Committees of the House, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem and do give unanimous consent, but I would note for the table that the member for Scarborough Southwest has left the chamber and he did vote on the previous motion.

[Committees of the House, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to respond to my hon. colleague, but there are a few things I need to point out, having been in the Liberal caucus when we brought in this legislation when we were in government and now being in opposition.

I would like to point out to my hon. colleague that there are from time to time, as a matter of fact I think on most topics, a variety of views within this House. One should not speak disparagingly of others who do not share the same point of view. I have never sat in his party's caucus, but I hear that it is somewhat of a monolith of views and they feel very righteous in the fact that there is very little variation in the public face that they present.

I would like to point out to my hon. colleague, who I know has many years in this House and is a thoughtful man generally speaking, that the sunset clause was actually put in when we were in government as a backstop to what could have been perceived as draconian measures, what could have been seen as something that impinged on individual rights and freedoms. It was absolutely fundamental to us as a Liberal Party which then, I would underscore, was the government, but now is in opposition, to make sure that we had the balance appropriately calibrated between standing up against the new menace of terrorism and demonstrating to our international partners that we did take this very seriously, but not tipping the balance to such a degree that we indeed were giving up many of the values and characteristics that we hold dear as Canadians.

Thus we put in a sunset clause. Thus it is very consistent to ask hard questions that the Conservative government does not seem to want to ask, such as, if these have not been used in the intervening time, and we have been able to uncover a cell of terrorist activities as we did in Toronto in the recent past, one can legitimately ask if these are indeed necessary.

I would say that it is beneath members of this House in any way to pick that as being inconsistent or less valuable than the decisions that other individuals and parties in this House might make.

[The Environment, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, last week both the Minister of the Environment and his parliamentary secretary asserted that the former U.S. vice-president, Al Gore, supported the Conservative government's climate change policy. We now know that is not true. Today Mr. Gore issued a formal statement repudiating the government's abandonment of the Kyoto principles.

Since it is no longer possible for the minister to mischaracterize Mr. Gore's position, will he now take the former vice-president's advice and embrace the fight for Kyoto on the world stage?

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting yes.

[Canada Elections Act, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals present will be voting yes.

[Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I fear my hon. colleague has missed the point of my question. I will repeat it.

Rumours that the dismissal of the environment commissioner is related to a report that she presented last September will simply not go away. We on this side of the House have always believed in the importance of having a true, non-partisan defender of the environment who reports to Parliament.

Would the Prime Minister ensure that the next environment commissioner has the ability to advocate on behalf of the environment? Will he also agree that only Parliament should be able to dismiss the commissioner from her position?

[Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in 1997 the Liberal government created the position of environment commissioner to provide sound, independent advice to Parliament about protecting Canada's environment and working toward sustainable development, but after this past week it appears that the environment commissioner is not as independent as Parliament had originally thought she would be.

Will the Prime Minister support a motion to establish an independent environment commissioner as an officer of Parliament?