Bob Rae

[The Economy, May 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, 37 days ago, the Minister of Finance knew the forestry industry was in trouble. He knew EI was up. He knew the auto industry was in the tank. Thirty-seven days ago, the minister said, “I'm staying with our budget projection. We're on track”.

I would like to ask the minister a very simple question, which he has still not answered. How could he have made such a terrible statement a mere 37 days ago with respect to the financial situation in Canada?

[The Budget, May 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, having dined out on me for 15 years, the minister will perhaps understand why some of us want to have one simple meal with respect to what he has done and what he has said.

The simple fact is that 36 days ago the Minister of Finance said, “I'm comfortable with our projections. I'm staying with our budget projection. We're on track”. How could he have gotten it so wrong just 36 days ago?

[The Budget, May 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, 36 days ago, on April 21, the Minister of Finance said, “I'm comfortable with our projections. I'm staying with our budget projection. We're on track”.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a very simple question. Do we believe the Minister of Finance who spoke on April 21 or are we to believe the Minister of Finance who speaks today about a budget deficit that is completely different? What is the answer to that simple question?

[Sri Lanka, May 25th, 2009]

We have to deal with a serious situation that is affecting the very lives of close to 300,000 people. There may be some members on the other side who want to make partisan comments, but I am not one of those who will return.

I simply want to ask the minister this. What plan does Canada have to lead the rest of the world in an effort to ensure that there is in fact international observation and there are efforts to find a political solution?

[Sri Lanka, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because it would appear that the president of Sri Lanka has rejected those appeals and those calls that I am asking the minister what Canada is going to do now.

[Sri Lanka, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, last week the United Nations secretary general visited Sri Lanka and visited the largest camp in the country. The camps now contain somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000 Tamils.

It would appear now that the government of Sri Lanka has taken a decision to exclude any international observation of what is taking place in those camps. Could the minister tell us what Canada's plan is to deal with that truly disgraceful situation?

[Sri Lanka, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it really makes a mockery of any sense of questions and answers for the member to simply give us a rote answer.

I will try again on another subject. Could the parliamentary secretary comment on the situation in Sri Lanka? The Red Cross has referred to it as a catastrophe. The United Nations has sent one of its senior officials to try to deal with the situation.

All politics aside, we face the prospect that as many as 50,000 people could be facing death as a result—

[Foreign Affairs, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government with respect to Omar Khadr. It now appears that President Obama is making plans with respect to the possible revival of military tribunals to deal with a number of cases.

Could the government tell us what discussions it has had with respect to Mr. Khadr and why would the government not be making representations to say that a child soldier should not be charged in the same way as others and that we have a responsibility as a country to patriate a Canadian citizen who deserves to face Canadian justice rather than a military tribunal?

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member for Mississauga South would like to comment. Not only do we have a clear and principled objection to the bill from the AFN, the Assembly of First Nations, we also have it from the Native Women's Association of Canada.

This is in response to the member for Laval, who participated in the debate. Yesterday, aboriginal chiefs in Quebec and Ontario issued a very clear statement.

We have a clear statement from the chiefs of Quebec, from the chiefs of Ontario, from the Assembly of First Nations and from the Native Women's Association, all saying that this bill should not go any further.

Would the member for Mississauga South like to comment further on those statements from the leadership of the first nations?

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 14th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the member and I may have a different view of what that fiduciary obligation is. I certainly believe we have a fiduciary obligation with respect to the rights of all Canadians, and constitutionally the federal government obviously has a responsibility with respect to first nations and those who are described as Indians in the Indian Act.

I also believe we have a fiduciary obligation to recognize that there is an inherent right to self-government. I have spent most of my political life arguing in favour of that, sometimes in situations where it was very difficult. If we are to take self-government--