Christian Ouellet

[Business of Supply, April 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has said that it is quite likely that the Liberals, in moving their motion today, are creating a distraction in order to not have to vote for a more binding law.

Earlier the government said that it has made significant progress in terms of greenhouse gas reduction. Yet, Canada won the third fossil award of the conference in Bonn for having moved from a 3% reduction to a 3% increase in emissions compared to 1990, just like the United States.

I would like my colleague to comment on this because this is not what we are currently hearing from the government.

[Business of Supply, April 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Langley said that they are laying the foundations. I do not see how, after four and a half years, they can still be laying the foundations. But that is what he said. I think that they are planning to do exactly what the Liberal Party did: talk the talk, but never walk the walk. They are certainly heading in that direction.

I would like him to comment on an article about the Bonn conference published in the Washington Post the day before yesterday. According to the article, negotiators have apparently given up hope of signing a global agreement.

I would like him to comment on the global agreement he just talked about.

[Business of Supply, April 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Ottawa South has expressed the point of today's opposition day very well. Does he believe that what the Conservative member just said is true? Does Europe have a continental approach while simultaneously having different targets? I believe so. We can have different targets and a continental approach.

As well, he said that subsidies given to western Canada's large oil companies—subsidies which they then pass on to their shareholders—should be phased out in order to create jobs in a green economy. Could he tell us how that would work?

[The Environment, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Trailbreaker project would bring tar sands oil to the United States by reversing the flow of the pipeline between Montreal and Portland, thereby increasing the potential for accidents.

Can the Minister of Natural Resources confirm for us that he will not allow any permits to be issued for that purpose until an environmental assessment is done by the BAPE and permission is received from the Government of Quebec?

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie on his excellent speech. And I quite like the name of his riding.

He raised a very key point: electric and hybrid cars. An announcement was made today that we will reach an agreement with the U.S. on the number of litres per 100 km that cars can consume a few years from now.

Are we not taking a very big step backward that we will not be able to recover from? We are not investing in what we should be investing in, in other words, research and development of hybrid or electric cars or super performance cars like the ones in Europe. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Alfred-Pellan on his excellent speech.

He touched on the most important points in the budget, including the issue of low-income households, which is of particular interest to me.

The government is concentrating more and more wealth in the hands of a few. The number of low-income families is constantly increasing. I have a question for my colleague.

Does the budget contain any measure to support social housing for low-income people? Those who have to pay more than 30% of their income for housing are in dire straits. Is the government doing anything for them?

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the speech by my hon. colleague from Scarborough Centre was very passionate. I hope he keeps that up when it comes time to vote.

He spoke about the isotopes produced by the CANDU reactor and accused the other government, the government opposite, of wanting to sell its CANDU reactor. He said that everyone agrees CANDU is a respectable and safe reactor.

How can he not know that the CANDU reactor is not safe, and that it leaks plutonium and heavy water? Heavy water was even recently found in the Ottawa River behind Parliament. Heavy water is very harmful to our health, and it could cause cancer if ingested.

Furthermore, my colleague blamed the other government. But this CANDU reactor, which is not safe, was developed when the Liberals were in power.

And my colleague did not mention this, but the Liberals could have developed the MAPLE nuclear reactor project.

Why did they not develop the MAPLE nuclear reactors? I would like to know. I think it is because the top brains, the scientific brains, left the country and headed to Sweden and the United States. That is why we had to drop the MAPLE nuclear reactor project, which only had a cooldown problem.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I think it is pretty clear that certain interests are at stake, and this explains their actions.

As I have already indicated, this is not a matter of trade, because the people of Colombia are poor. This is so that companies can mine there, without having to respect the environment, people's health, the unions or the areas around the mines. This is very important. We should not blindly accept this simply because two people from Colombia—who probably have a vested interest—tell us that human rights practices are improving.

The Liberal Party certainly found a compelling lobby to follow. That explains why they changed their minds so suddenly.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the hon. member heard a single word of my 20-minute speech. How could he say such a thing if he had been listening? Two Colombians are telling us that humanitarian laws are slightly better than they used to be, but our colleague just said that 48 trade unionists were killed in 2008.

Perhaps the situation has improved, but 2008 was not 20 years ago. It was only two years ago. Even if things have improved, it is not enough. I do not understand why the Liberals feel it is not serious that people are being killed. They are only worried about trade. To me, the fact that 48 trade unionists were killed is very serious. It is unacceptable.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer that question, I would like to add that introducing strong, robust laws in Colombia will not do any good if they are not enforced.

The government is looking to protect Canadian investments that will be made there. It means nothing to them to sign an agreement with Colombia, even though there are robust laws, since they are not enforced.

Why did the Liberals change their minds so fast? As I explained earlier, in the event of an early election, the Liberals are afraid of being perceived as not being open to international trade. But they do not explain the real dangers of violating human rights or the dangers of signing an agreement with a very poor country. We cannot sign a balanced agreement with a poor country.