House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2019, with 29% of the vote.
Foreign Affairs November 23rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, whether here in Canada or outside our borders, the Conservatives remain consistent: they always abandon those most vulnerable. The conflict in Congo, which has already claimed millions of lives, is another sad example. The rebels have taken Goma and are now threatening to take control of the rest of the country.
What are the Conservatives doing to help prevent all-out war in this African country?
Securities November 21st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives truly wanted to work with the provinces on this important economic issue, the Prime Minister would have gone to Halifax to meet with his provincial counterparts or would be on his way there.
During his first attempt, the Minister of Finance chose to go to war with Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia, and after suffering a crushing defeat at the Supreme Court, he is at it once again with a similar plan. The minister's proposal will eliminate jobs, decision-making autonomy and valuable expertise in the provinces.
Why is the minister so obsessed with centralizing the securities commission?
Securities November 21st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' record includes making up stories, exporting our jobs and handing over control of our resources.
It seems as though the Minister of Finance's stubbornness knows no bounds. Even though the Supreme Court rejected his plan to create a single securities commission, and even though there was an outcry from Montreal to Calgary to Victoria, he refuses to budge.
Instead of stubbornly working against the provinces, why not work with them to bring about change, in order to improve the existing passport system for securities?
Fisheries and Oceans November 19th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, a leader in scientific research, has already paid the price for the Conservatives' excessive and ideological cuts.
Now, its library, the only Fisheries and Oceans Canada library that services the French-speaking science community, will be dismantled. This is the most recent victim of the Conservatives' insistence on destroying our scientific institutions. The complaints are already piling up on the Commissioner of Official Languages' desk.
How can the Conservatives justify the destruction of this priceless library?
National Defence November 2nd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' had the time to figure out how to reduce these expenses, but they did not do it. And now, taxpayers must foot the bill for the Conservatives' incompetence. They will have to pay between $500 million and $1 billion to bring back equipment from Afghanistan.
Why did the Conservatives not budget for these expenses from the beginning? Why deliberately take a diplomatic hard line knowing that taxpayers will have to foot the bill?
National Defence November 2nd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the cost of Canada's mission in Afghanistan continues to rise, long after our combat operation has ended.
Because of Conservative mismanagement of our diplomatic relations with the United Arab Emirates and due to the subsequent closure of our base, Camp Mirage, in the country, we now have to pay between half a billion dollars and a billion dollars to bring our equipment home.
Why do Canadian taxpayers have to foot the bill because of the Conservative diplomatic meltdown with the United Arab Emirates?
Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act November 1st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I asked the same question when my colleague from Churchill gave her speech earlier. I think this question warrants another look.
She talked about the fact that consultations were held with aboriginal groups, or at least that is what this government claims. In a situation that should involve a nation-to-nation relationship and the right to self-determination, those consultations were completely ignored. They did not lead to any recommendations, and the Conservatives did not take any of the priorities set by aboriginal groups themselves into account.
The Assembly of First Nations, the Aboriginal Women's Summit, the Native Women's Association of Canada and aboriginal women like Ellen Gabriel, a former Quebec Native Women's Association president, have all said they do not agree with the government's approach, which involves shoving inadequate legislative measures down their throats—measures that will not help the overall situation.
I wonder if my colleague from Nickel Belt would agree that the government's consultations absolutely must culminate in the unanimous consent of first nations in order to move forward?
Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act November 1st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, my friend, the member for Churchill, was spot on in saying that consultation must lead to consent. When we look at how several groups have reacted to this bill, we see clear opposition, particularly from the Native Women's Association of Canada, which does not agree with this bill, the Assembly of First Nations and the Aboriginal Women’s Summit. Ellen Gabriel, the former president of Quebec Native Women's Association, and Dr. Palmater, a lawyer and professor of aboriginal law at Ryerson University, are also opposed to this bill. These individuals have very prominent voices, and they are very familiar with the housing problems in aboriginal communities.
With this bill, the way that the government is reacting and the arguments it has presented, I can see that it wants to force an inadequate legislative solution down the throats of the first nations, without actually solving the problems.
I would like the member for Churchill to comment in more detail on the fact that consultation must lead to consent; otherwise solutions are forced on people, which is a completely inadequate way of addressing the problem.
Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act November 1st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned consultations, particularly with aboriginal organizations. It is obvious that these consultations were not productive because groups such as the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada have very serious reservations about the implications of this bill. She talked about sending the bill to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and not the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
How can the government introduce this bill knowing that the main aboriginal groups have very serious reservations about it and do not want it to move forward?
Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 October 30th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is very concerned about the way that Bill C-45 was introduced. On a number of occasions, several of our members have asked that various specific sections of the bill be separated from the bill, since, in our opinion, those sections should be examined in detail on their own.
Yet, since the beginning of this debate, the government has been saying that all of these measures were announced in the 2012 budget. The Minister of Finance has also said it, but the NDP does not believe that such is the case.
Here is an excerpt from the 2012 budget.
Over the next few years, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board (CEIFB) will continue to set the [EI premium] rate, but the Government will limit rate increases to no more than 5 cents each year until the EI Operating Account is balanced.
This measure appears in the 2012 budget, but we learned in the budget implementation bill that the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board is going to be abolished.
I would like the hon. member who just spoke to explain to us how the government can justify saying that the measures in this bill are in the budget when that is clearly not true of a number of items in the bill.
Second, I would like him to explain why the government is not being transparent and is refusing to allow a number of items that have nothing to do with the 2012 budget to be examined separately.