House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 29% of the vote.
The Environment December 4th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not want to agree to any plan on climate change unless China and India are on board. These two countries produce far fewer greenhouse gas emissions per capita than Canada does.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to support a greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan on the polluter pay principle, taking into account emissions per capita, with absolute targets and 1990 as the base year? This is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to show leadership.
The Environment December 4th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Jean Charest said that the federal government must take a leadership role on the issue of climate change. The Prime Minister is doing exactly the opposite. When he was in opposition, he did everything he could to stop Canada from signing the Kyoto protocol. Now that he is in power, it seems he truly wants to stop the fight against climate change.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his “all or nothing” policy has just one objective: to ensure the failure of post-Kyoto and please western oil companies?
The Environment December 3rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, in its note, the Department of Foreign Affairs admits that the two degree threshold set by Europe was beneficial and allowed targets to be implemented accordingly.
Is the minister saying that what is good for Europe is not good for Canada? Is he saying that a standard he considers effective for fighting climate change in Europe is “scientifically uncertain” when it applies to Canada?
The Environment December 3rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, in Bali, the UN is recommending that the international community limit to two degrees the increase in the Earth's temperature in order to prevent the irreversible and dangerous consequences of climate change. An internal note from Department of Foreign Affairs states that Canada is preparing to reject the UN's recommendation, describing the two degree threshold as “scientifically uncertain.”
The UN proposal is based on political and scientific consensus. Does the government realize that it is once again being dogmatic and denying the existence of climate change?
Finance November 29th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, thousands of workers and older people are living below the poverty line. The manufacturing and forestry sectors also have urgent needs, as do all these people.
By refusing to have any debate, even though that is what the Conservatives called for when they were in opposition, and by dedicating almost all of the surplus to the debt, does the minister realize that he is depriving thousands of people of basic financial assistance, which he could immediately provide to them with his $11.6 billion in surplus?
Finance November 29th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the government has forecast a budget surplus of $11.6 billion for 2007-08, even though back in the spring it was forecasting a surplus of $3.3 billion. Yet the Conservatives repeatedly criticized the Liberals who, when they were in power, underestimated the surplus year after year and always allocated it to paying down the debt, without any debate.
Since by underestimating the surplus the minister is doing exactly what the Liberals did, could he at least hold a debate on the use of the surplus, just as his party called for when it was in opposition?
The Environment November 28th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, speaking of irresponsible, when the Prime Minister was the leader of the opposition, in every debate on the Kyoto protocol the Bloc Québécois pressured the Liberals to accept it, and the Prime Minister pressured them to reject it. He was protecting the oil companies, saying that it was a socialist conspiracy and that there was no science behind climate change.
Will he admit that he is doing exactly the same thing today that he was doing from the opposition benches? He is trying to put a different, yet equally hypocritical, spin on this than he did when he was on this side of the House.
The Environment November 28th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, in response to a question asked a little earlier, the Prime Minister suggested that the Government of Quebec shared his position on climate change. I will read the proposal, the motion from the National Assembly of Quebec, “that the National Assembly express its disagreement regarding the position of the Canadian Government on climate change—”
Does the Prime Minister think that when the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously expresses its disagreement, that means it shares his position?
Airbus November 27th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I have been here quite long enough to understand how federalism works and I understand particularly well just how some federalist parties operate.
I also understand how this minister operates. When a problem crops up, he puts a process in place, and when he cannot answer a question, he sidesteps the question. He has the power. If he does not exercise that power, it is because he is protecting someone who might do some harm to him, and to some of his colleagues.
Is that not the reason?
Airbus November 27th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I am telling him that he does have the power to delay the extradition. We want Karlheinz Schreiber to appear now. Will he understand that he does have the power to delay this extradition so that this man can appear?
Will he do this, or will he not? I want to know what he plans to do. Let him tell us in plain words.