Bob Rae

[Hon. Member for Toronto Centre, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am not at a loss for words, but I do want to thank members. I will not take long. I was very happy to hear the comments by my colleagues.

My first reaction was, what took them all so long? However, my second reaction was to express thanks that I know cannot be expressed by my wife and family for the very kind comments my colleagues have said about them.

I cannot readily find the words to express the extent to which this life of politics I have led for many years has only been possible because of the love, support and partnership that Arlene and I have had. Also, to have had it added to by three wonderful children, my mother, who I know is watching on television, my sister and brother has been very special and meaningful to me. It is not always possible to find the words to express the thanks and gratitude for that love, affection and support.

I was also very pleased that my daughters were able to be here to hear some of what was said, because I do not think they realize what a great guy I really am.

[Canadian Heritage, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a straightforward question for the government. Today, we are hearing rumours that the board of directors plans on changing the name of CBC/Radio-Canada.

Given the reputation of CBC/Radio-Canada, can the government tell us today if the name “CBC/Radio-Canada” will be kept for the years to come?

[Justice, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, President Clinton, President Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron have all indicated that over the last few years, they have had a change of heart on the subject of gay marriage. In light of the fact that there are today thousands of Canadian couples who have celebrated their relationships, and those relationships have been recognized by the provinces, by the states and by civil authorities, could the Prime Minister tell us whether he, in fact, has had a similar change of heart to his colleagues around the western world?

[Elections Canada, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister has considered again the question of the power of Elections Canada with respect to the issue of Peter Penashue, the former member of the Conservative Party. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would now reconsider the wisdom of calling a byelection just at the time when Mr. Penashue's investigation under Elections Canada is still going on.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the minister another chance to explain to people why the government will be spending $200 million under budget 2013-14, when it spent $1.7 billion last year.

The minister must recognize that having less money in this year's budget than in last year's is a problem. In our opinion, that is what is wrong with the government's plan.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer from the minister, but the fact remains that in 2013-14, that is to say the fiscal year under way, the government is actually going to be spending $1.5 billion less in the fund that last year was $1.7 billion. This year it is simply going to be $200 million.

How can the minister stand up and say this is great news for the municipalities, when, in fact, they are going to be spending $1.5 billion less?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the budget is always important to Quebeckers, but this one contains two items that are going to cause them some serious problems.

The first problem is the attack on labour-sponsored funds, which have provided an important foundation for venture capital in the province of Quebec.

The second major problem is that the government is spending less on infrastructure this year than last year, and it will spend even less next year.

Those are the two major problems that this budget poses for Quebeckers.

[The Environment, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I know it is hard for the Prime Minister to believe this, but actually I think this is a good idea. There is no catch to this and no side to this. There is simply a statement that says we have an opportunity to reinforce the importance of the economics of this federation. We have an opportunity to reinforce co-operation between the provinces, between the provinces and the federal government, and dare I say it, even among those in the coalition of the willing in the House who believe that actually getting our products to market is a good idea.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister to lead the way.

[The Environment, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes tough economic times create opportunities.

We have premiers going to Washington as private individuals, and others are as well. I think it is important that the United States is fully aware that it is in Canada's national interest to have the opportunity to export what we produce in this country to the United States and elsewhere.

Why not have a real team Canada, one that includes members of the opposition, premiers and other people, under the leadership of the Prime Minister of Canada, of course?

[The Environment, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, they may want to wait for the question before they stand up and applaud.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question, and I have a simple proposal to make to him. We have had the leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives say that her understanding from a recent conversation with the leader of the New Democratic Party was that Canadians were opposed to the pipeline to the United States. I wonder if the Prime Minister would consider this. Instead of simply having hockey coaches talk to the President of the United States about the importance of this issue, would the Prime Minister consider leading a delegation of team Canada, members of this House who agree that this is an important question for Canada and the premiers of Canada? Would the Prime Minister consider leading that delegation?