Bob Rae

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 5th, 2009]

With regard to Canadian citizens held in foreign countries: (a) how many Canadian citizens are being held abroad; (b) what are their names; (c) where are they being held; and (d) what steps are being taken to retrieve them and assess their respective legal situations?

[Justice, June 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Minister of Justice does not take the court ruling seriously. It is a pity that he does not take a Supreme Court ruling seriously. We have read it, it is available. It is out there as a public document. One can take the time to read it.

I have a very simple question to ask the minister. The ruling says that the government's interpretation leads to a nonsensical result.

I would like to know what the minister is going to do to ensure that the laws of Canada are respected by the Government of Canada , since this is certainly not the case at the present time.

[Justice, June 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

He will no doubt know that the Federal Court has ruled this morning in a very emphatic judgment that there is a serious question of the federal government's adherence to the rule of law, and the court has said very clearly that Mr. Abdelrazik should have been granted a passport. He was not. He should be allowed to come back to Canada. So far he is not.

I would like to ask the minister a very simple question. Will he now change the decision of the Government of Canada and recognize that, as a citizen of Canada--

[Human Rights, June 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this month marks the 25th anniversary of the Indian army intervention at the Golden Temple in Amritsar.

As we express our empathy with our fellow Sikh Canadians who are commemorating this solemn event, we also reach out to all those who have been the victims of violence in India and beyond. These terrible events include the Air India bombing and recent attacks in Mumbai and Lahore.

They remind us of the futility and the destruction of violence, and the resilience of the human spirit in overcoming it. They also remind us of our solidarity with all the people of South Asia, of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka.

We are in the world, and the world is in us. In this Parliament, we stand together for justice, democracy, peace and respect for pluralism and human rights at home and everywhere.

[Tobacco Act, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. It is an important subject and one that has touched all members. We also realize the extent to which the evidence is now in very clearly and emphatically with respect to the impact of tobacco on health.

I remember the first meeting I held of the premier's health council in 1990 and asking members around the table what was the one single thing I could do as premier to improve the public health of the province. The answer was simply to deal with the question of tobacco. If we can reduce tobacco consumption, access to tobacco by minors, the extent to which kids get hooked and the usage, then we have made progress.

We have made progress, both federally and provincially. We have done a lot to deal with the challenge, but we have two particular problems that we have to continue to deal with. This bill deals with one of them but it does not deal with the second one.

The first problem is the fact that, try as we may, we cannot convince the tobacco companies to get it. Unfortunately, we keep having to go back to the well each and every time to remind tobacco companies that they are dealing with a product which is bad for human health. It causes cancer and heart disease. It affects the health of each and every one of us and is something which needs to be dealt with in a most emphatic way.

This bill, in its own way, is intended to deal with tobacco companies directly luring young people into the consumption of alcohol. It is truly deplorable that tobacco companies are back at it again and we have to revisit this question. We should simply tell them this door is going to close and keep on closing, that no matter how inventive they may try to be, we as parliamentarians are not going to do anything that will permit the sale and smoking of tobacco to be more attractive to people. We are simply not going to permit it or allow it to happen.

Liberals are fully supportive of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I know you are about to stand and see the clock, but before you do, I want to introduce my next topic, and that is the question of price. The big issue which continues to affect the consumption of tobacco is price.

We can do all we want on ads, we can do all we want with respect to packaging, and we can do all we want with respect to the issues which have been raised by the government. It is an important step and I am not minimizing what is being proposed, but until we deal with the critical issues of price and contraband, we will not be dealing with the fact that there are still people selling green garbage bags full of cigarettes in the yards of our schools and giving kids--

[Foreign Affairs, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer.

We face a humanitarian crisis. I am sure the minister will be aware of the fact that close to 300,000 people are now in camps in Sri Lanka. The number is very high and the conditions are very poor. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is concerned. The U.N. Secretary-General has expressed his concern.

I would like to ask the minister, particularly, what additional steps is Canada going to take to make sure that we are responding to the level and degree of humanitarian concern that the world now shares about the situation in Sri Lanka?

[Foreign Affairs, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The necessity of a public investigation into the events in Sri Lanka is now clear. There is a serious and difficult humanitarian situation in that country. We are also well aware that there have been close to 20,000 recent casualties.

What will the minister do to ensure that an international investigation into this situation will be held?

[Employment Insurance, May 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the question is very specific. The government's refusal to have one eligibility threshold for all Canadians means that it is passing the cost of the recession along to the provinces. It wants to offload its problems and unload its responsibilities onto the provinces. The cost of social services will increase because of this government's refusal to budge. I hope this government will have the opportunity in the next three weeks to change its very negative policy.

[Employment Insurance, May 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I sense a wrinkle in the answers that have been given.

The comments by Premier Campbell that were contained in today's Globe and Mail show that employment insurance has now become an issue of national unity. We know from experience that downloading costs on to the provinces, causing them to have higher welfare costs, will have a serious effect on the costs of province and what is happening to them.

Why is the government so rigid in its refusal to consider a single national standard for eligibility on employment insurance?

[Senate Ethics Act, May 28th, 2009]

I thank the hon. member. I wish he would.

I will say to the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour that I think this is an attempt to change the subject. On the face of it, one might say one wants to have an ethics officer for both chambers and what is the big deal. The answer is, maybe not much, but the fact is the Senate says it wants to have its own ethics officer dealing with its own situations, that it will apply the law fairly and it has the ability to apply the law fairly. The House of Commons should have sufficient faith in its institution that this is what it will do.

I do think the government is trying to change the subject and get back to the question of Senate bashing. I know it will please members of the New Democratic Party and others who say that is a great thing to do, but I do not know why they are taking the bait. I would not take the bait, and this side of the House has no intention of taking the bait.