House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 56% of the vote.
The Environment November 20th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the minister and her parliamentary secretary are living in a world of illusions and contradictions.
The industrialized nations are supposed to set an example by reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, the Prime Minister met with Australian officials to explore ways to reduce emissions outside the Kyoto framework.
How can one support Kyoto and be fully committed to it while at the same time exploring ways to circumvent it and, in so doing, destroy the protocol?
The Environment November 20th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment said that Canada would continue to participate in the Kyoto protocol and that all our obligations would be fulfilled, except those having to do with greenhouse gas emissions of course. But Kyoto is essentially objective based, and targets have to be met by 2012.
How can the minister support the Kyoto protocol without supporting the Kyoto objectives?
Infrastructure November 10th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the broken promises.
On November 30, 2005, the Conservative members from Quebec City, whom their leader was unable to name at the time, revealed their regional platform. They promised to repaint the Quebec Bridge. A year later, rust is still ravaging the structure. I want to know what the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities is waiting for to deliver cans and brushes to his Quebec caucus.
The Environment November 8th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of the Environment plans to support the Montreal Exchange, does this mean she will set specific short-term targets for greenhouse gas reductions?
Luc Bertrand, president of the Montreal Exchange, believes that governments have a clear role to play in putting a value on carbon reductions. In other words, governments should take the Kyoto protocol's approach and not that of the oil and gas industry.
Will the minister deliver real targets, real reductions and a real policy?
The Environment November 8th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, clearly, this government does not know where it stands.
The Minister of the Environment promised a carbon credit trading market in Montreal but, within a week, was contradicted by the Minister of Industry and by the Prime Minister's press secretary. Now, the Prime Minister is contradicting his own press secretary and is also promising a carbon credit trading market in Montreal.
What is the government's response to the Montreal Exchange's fears that the carbon trading market will not see the light of day, due to these contradictions?
Aeronautics Act November 7th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave a well organized, concise and clear presentation on this important bill.
I would like to come back to the idea of smart regulation, which is important if we want our economy to be productive and competitive. Whenever we talk about safety, I personally believe that it is better to be safe than sorry. The hon. member made a point about how this bill would require airline companies to keep records but that somehow there will be a change in focus. In other words, under the bill, as I understand it, the airline companies would no longer need to show their company records to the government for verification. It would simply require them to submit record keeping plans to the government.
I was watching an interesting program on television the other night about an air accident that occurred in Hawaii a few years ago, where part of the plane came off in mid-air. It turned out, after the investigation, that one of the screws used when the fuselage was being repaired was actually too small for that particular piece. In fact, using the naked eye, one could almost not see it. The investigators discovered the problem by pouring over the company's very detailed records of which screw the engineer took out of inventory, so on and so forth. It was all because of very detailed records that the citizens of the world found out why the accident happened.
I would like the hon. member to comment on whether he thinks the bill, as it is written now, could perhaps lessen the likelihood of finding the answers in cases like the one I just mentioned.
Business of Supply November 2nd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, we have been witness to some pretty simplistic and rash statements in this House in the last half hour or so. We had a member from the NDP say that the Conservatives love war and we have had a member of the Conservatives say that the Liberals do not like veterans. I think we should inject a bit of moderation into our speeches.
My question for the hon. member relates to a facility that happens to be located in my riding of Lac-Saint-Louis, a facility of which I am very proud. I have visited this facility many times over the years and I will be visiting it again on Monday. The facility is the Ste. Anne's Hospital for veterans which is the last standing federally owned and operated veteran's hospital in the country.
One of the issues that is very important to people in my community, especially to the families of veterans, is whether the widows of veterans, the widows who did not serve in the armed forces, will be allowed to receive care in that hospital, either while their spouses are there or even though their spouses have passed on.
If, as the member says, his party has the interests of veterans so much at heart, will he, on his own behalf, push his government to allow the widows of veterans admittance to the Ste. Anne's Hospital for veterans?
Criminal Code October 31st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his erudite and considered remarks, and I mean this quite sincerely.
My question has to do with the ideological conflict that surrounds this issue. I will get beyond the technicalities and ask the hon. member this. Why does he believe that those who do not accept the Conservative Party's view of law and order are somehow vilified and seen to be soft on crime? Over and over again today, members from the government have stood and said that Liberals and members of other parties who did not support them were soft on crime.
What is it that would make some parliamentarians soft on crime and put other parliamentarians on the side of virtue? Are we not all concerned about violence? Do we not all want to live in safe communities? Do we not all want our families to be safe? What is the ideological basis for this seemingly irreconcilable difference of opinion?
Committees of the House October 23rd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, let me take a case in point of a proposal from the previous government that appears to be doomed, much to the chagrin of the editorial board of the Globe and Mail as a matter of fact.
I am talking about the portrait museum. We put forth a vision for a portrait gallery in this country. It does not seem to be going anywhere under this government.
The hon. member also mentioned the cultural spaces program. That was a very visionary program and concept put forward by the previous Liberal government. I agree that things were not maybe as they should be, that the museums policy required a revamping or a rejigging or whatever it is called. That is why the heritage committee developed some recommendations for a new museums policy in the last Parliament.
I think we have demonstrated a vision. We hope that things will go forward and that we will continue with some of the ideas that the previous government and the previous committee put forth.
Committees of the House October 23rd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I had thought of the member's point. Namely, museums are a place for people to gather. They attract youth and in some ways make our streets safer by giving our young people constructive and educational pursuits.
I would like to pick up on the theme of community in the hon. member's question. I think this is very important. It is something that is lacking more and more in public policy in Canada, the importance of building communities. I lament this fact.
I think community building is not all about government spending and using taxpayer money to fund projects left, right and centre. That does not exclude the fact that there are some important expenditures that governments at all levels can make that will benefit the community and reinforce the social fabric.
I agree with the hon. member that money is not wasted on small, local and regional museums if it is well spent on good projects. I am going back to the point I made when I asked the parliamentary secretary what he thought of the abilities of public servants who are responsible for disbursing government funds to museums. I go back to that point. We have excellent people in the Department of Canadian Heritage who know the difference between a good museums project and maybe one that should be rethought or redeveloped.
I put my faith in these people. I think they can make good spending decisions and put the money in the right place in such a way as to build up our community infrastructure from coast to coast to coast.