Monique Guay

[Taxation, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, recently in this House, my efforts and those of the Bloc Québécois to have the fiscal imbalance recognized have been called into question. I would like to start by emphasizing that without our efforts, the existence of the fiscal imbalance would never have been recognized.

Defending the interests and sovereignty of Quebec is and will remain our primary objective. Ever since the release of the Séguin report, which confirmed what the Bloc Québécois brought to light through hard work, discipline and research, that there is a fiscal imbalance, we have, as members from Quebec, questioned the successive governments and forced the current government to recognize the existence of the fiscal imbalance.

In conclusion, if we were not right about the fiscal imbalance, why would this government claim to be so proud that it had partly corrected it? I hope that our efforts and those of my colleagues, who want first and foremost to defend the interests of Quebec, will get the respect they deserve in this House.

[The Environment, April 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister did not understand my question. I will try again.

This government did not keep its word on the environment. On Tuesday it voted in favour of the Bloc Québécois motion to set absolute targets for reducing greenhouse gases, but today it is sticking to the ridiculous idea of intensity targets, which is not a real constraint, because with technological innovations they are being achieved anyway.

Does the minister realize that he is thereby giving the oil industry an advantage by choosing the polluter pay principle to the detriment of Quebec, which will be achieving its targets on time?

[The Environment, April 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment would have us believe Canada is turning the corner, in fact his plan does not respect the Kyoto targets because instead of achieving these targets between 2008 and 2012, it will reach the target 15 years later, in 2025.

The minister knows perfectly well that we can still achieve the Kyoto targets on time. What is he waiting for to change course?

[The Environment, April 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec joined with all the observers in expressing his concerns and saying that the real question is the actual costs involved if we do not act.

Instead of causing us to waste time and money, should the minister not resolutely get to work and inform us of his plan to achieve the objectives of the Kyoto protocol?

[The Environment, April 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the attempt by the Minister of the Environment to scare everyone with his catastrophic report has failed. The minister only succeeded in seriously undermining his credibility. Incidentally, the new Quebec Minister of the Environment, Line Beauchamp, did not hesitate to call the report alarmist, and said that inaction will have an even more disastrous impact for Quebec.

Will the minister pull himself together, stop his fearmongering and, instead, respect the consensus that is emerging in Quebec in favour of implementing the Kyoto protocol?

[Virginia Tech University, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, April 16 will live in memory as a sad day in history, the day 32 people, including Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, a teacher from Quebec, were murdered at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Virginia. The person who committed these murders took his own life. This campus shooting is said to be the deadliest in United States history and comes in the wake of shootings at educational institutions around the world, including the shooting at Dawson College in Montreal last September.

There is no explanation for such acts of violence, which leave only sadness, bewilderment and bitterness. We need to find a solution so that our students can be safe at school. This is one more act of violence that seems to be linked to easy access to firearms, and it bolsters the Bloc Québécois' argument in favour of maintaining the gun registry.

My colleagues and I offer our condolences to the victims' families and friends at this difficult time.

[National Defence, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this aircraft's problems are so numerous that the Pentagon even looked into dropping it because none of the 50 aircraft it had acquired between 1996 and 2004 were able to enter combat zones.

How can the government justify spending $4.9 billion for an aircraft that, according to experts, cannot do its job?

[National Defence, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, according to a recent annual report from the Pentagon, the C-130J aircraft, which the government is planning to purchase to replace its Hercules fleet, would be ineffective for operations in dangerous environments, and in some extreme weather conditions, the aircraft would not even be able to airdrop soldiers or materials.

Why is the government so bent on purchasing an aircraft that a number of reports claim is unreliable and poorly adapted to the missions for which it is intended?

[Afghanistan, March 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is a highly important matter and that is why we ask so many questions. We have not received an answer from this government.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons came to the rescue of the Minister of National Defence by saying that a million dollars has been given to the Afghan independent human rights commission to supervise the transfer of detainees. What the leader did not say is that this million dollars was given five years ago, in 2002.

Does the leader realize he has to find another explanation to help out his colleague because this version is not very compelling?

[Afghanistan, March 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the way Canadian soldiers treat detainees in Afghanistan is a problem. The Minister of National Defence tried in vain to hide the truth by referring to an alleged agreement with the Red Cross. The minister was out of luck when the Red Cross denied this agreement and he had to retract his comments. By all accounts, the minister's situation is not improving. In fact, things keep getting worse.

Does the minister not think that the only honourable solution is for him to step down?