House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 29% of the vote.
Minister of Natural Resources June 9th, 2009
By leaving important documents at a television station, the Minister of Natural Resources has contravened the rules of ethics established by the Prime Minister himself. She ought to have been dismissed then, but the Prime Minister refused to do so. We have since learned of her irresponsible comments concerning the isotope crisis.
Will the Prime Minister respect his own rules and at last dismiss his Minister of Natural Resources?
The Environment June 8th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, if the minister did not see the document, he should ask his press secretary. Maybe he saw it.
At the Poznan conference, one year after the Bali conference, the federal government did everything it could to divide the European countries and sabotage the common stand they had taken on climate change.
Given that this government seems to have a talent for secrecy, does the minister promise to table in committee and have the House vote on the position he plans to take at the conference in Copenhagen?
The Environment June 8th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, according to documents obtained as a result of an access to information request, the government, despite public statements to the contrary, felt that the greenhouse gas reduction targets set at the 2007 Bali climate change conference were unrealistic.
How could the Prime Minister brag at every international forum that he was a climate change leader when Canada never had any intention of achieving the GHG reduction targets that the industrialized nations at Bali had set for themselves?
Minister of Natural Resources June 4th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, in other words, the minister has just told us that she is shunting the responsibility of her own mistakes off onto other people.
There is a double standard involved here. After much hesitation, the Prime Minister accepted the resignation of his former Minister of Foreign Affairs on the pretext that the latter had left secret documents in an inappropriate location. That pretext, for pretext it was, has become a rule in the code of ethics. Now we have the Minister of Natural Resources doing exactly the same thing, but this time the Prime Minister excuses her.
Are we to conclude that not only do ministers not respect the code of ethics, but the Prime Minister does not respect it either?
Minister of Natural Resources June 4th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has defended his Minister of Natural Resources by stating that it was not her fault if secret documents were left behind at a television station. He preferred to lay the blame on the minister's press secretary. Yet the government's code of ethics states that the Prime Minister holds ministers personally accountable for the security of their documents.
If the Prime Minister is to be consistent, he must respect the rules of his own code of ethics. Why then does he not accept the resignation of his Minister of Natural Resources?
Minister of Natural Resources June 3rd, 2009
Mr. Speaker, we are told that this situation is different than the one involving the former minister of foreign affairs. If I have understood correctly, leaving secret documents at a television station full of journalists is less serious than leaving them at a girlfriend's. They cannot be serious.
Either the Minister of Natural Resources is being given preferential treatment or the reason given by the Prime Minister for accepting the resignation of his former minister of foreign affairs was not the real one.
Minister of Natural Resources June 3rd, 2009
Mr. Speaker, according to the Prime Minister's office, it was the Minister of Natural Resources' aide who left secret documents at the CTV office. Although they may try to have her take the blame, the Prime Minister was very clear at the time of the Couillard affair: ministers are responsible for their secret documents.
Consequently, will the Prime Minister ask for the resignation of the Minister of Natural Resources because of her negligence?
Forestry Industry June 2nd, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister justified helping the auto sector by saying that demand had plummeted and that it affects thousands of indirect jobs, and that is true, but that is what is happening in the forestry industry too. The forestry industry is also critical to the survival of entire regions, and the industry's problems affect thousands of indirect jobs. What is good for the auto sector should also be good for the forestry industry.
Can the Prime Minister explain why he has given so little financial help to the forestry industry?
Forestry Industry June 2nd, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the federal government gave the auto sector $10 billion in aid, which adds up to over $650,000 per job. Nobody knows the details of the aid package, or even whether any guarantees were required. In contrast, the government gave just $270 million to the forestry industry, which is the equivalent of $1,000 per job. That is way out of proportion.
How can the government give that much money per job to the auto industry, which is concentrated in Ontario, and a mere pittance to the forestry industry, which is concentrated in Quebec?
Forestry Industry June 1st, 2009
Mr. Speaker, in London, the workers paid by the federal government are arguing the exact opposite of what the minister just said in the House.
As for the Minister of Finance, he stated that the government had no choice but to help the automobile sector, otherwise thousands of jobs would be lost. The fact is that, over the past two years, 50,000 jobs were lost in the forestry sector in Canada, with half of those in Quebec.
When will the government realize that, just like the automobile sector, it has no choice but to help Quebec's forestry sector immediately, to put an end to these job losses?