Monique Guay

[Natural Resources, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Environment Canada maintains that we have had the hottest spring since record-keeping began. This is just more proof that it is imperative to do something about global warming. Without any warning, the government axed the EnerGuide program and placed a moratorium on the WPPI program, the Wind Power Production Incentive.

How can the Minister of Natural Resources be so inconsistent by freezing the WPPI program when just yesterday he was boasting about the merits of wind energy during his testimony in committee?

[National Revenue, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to understand. The case of Vincent Lacroix' personal taxes is no longer before the court. Quebec relinquished the taxes to benefit those who were defrauded.

Why will Ottawa not do the same immediately?

[National Revenue, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, to our repeated questions about whether the federal government will take the same decision as Quebec and relinquish the taxes owed by Vincent Lacroix to compensate swindled Norbourg clients, the government repeatedly says that the case is before the court. However, that is not so. Vincent Lacroix did not appeal the final ruling that is driving him into bankruptcy.

Since the Government of Quebec was able to act and take a decision, could the federal government not take a positive decision and announce it to us?

[Kyoto Protocol, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, one of the scientists at the meeting asked, and I quote, “How can an environmental plan that does not respect Kyoto be better than Kyoto? I find this somewhat hard to understand”.

The government claims to want to go above and beyond Kyoto, but it is brushing off Canada's commitments.

Does the government realize that in order to go beyond Kyoto, it absolutely must respect the commitments that have been made, not toss them aside?

[Kyoto Protocol, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, once again this government is being taken to task by 800 scientists who find its lack of commitment to fight greenhouse gases totally irresponsible. They do not understand why the government is not respecting Canada's commitments with regard to the Kyoto protocol.

Does the government intend to drop its dogmatic attitude toward Kyoto and accept the arguments of the 800 scientists who are asking it to respect the Kyoto protocol?

[Firearms Registry, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the registry helps saves lives, and that is what matters.

Police forces consult the registry over 6,500 times a day, and they were the first to say that the registry is an essential tool for ensuring public safety.

The minister says he wants to improve safety on city streets, so why is he so dead set against a registry that, as everyone knows, helps meet this goal?

[Firearms Registry, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the government that the Auditor General said, and I quote, “We did not examine the effectiveness of the Canadian Firearms Program or its social implications”.The governments of Quebec and Ontario, police associations and victims' rights groups, not to mention 76% of Quebeckers, want the firearms registry to be maintained.

Is the Minister of Public Safety planning to abandon his dogmatic approach and, along with the vast majority of the population, recognize the usefulness of the firearms registry, and—

[The Environment, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that yesterday, we had an entire day to talk to the government about Kyoto.

A recent Canadian report to the UN recommends that the objectives of the second phase of Kyoto not only be reduced, but that they be made voluntary. The report also asks that the deadlines be extended and that countries such as Canada, whose economies depend on the development of natural resources, be granted various exemptions.

Is this not further proof that the minister's true intention in Bonn is to convince participating members to abandon the Kyoto protocol?

[The Environment, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the environment minister is only adding to her ludicrous statements when she claims that implementing Kyoto will force us to abandon the train, plane and automobile. She was even more ridiculous when she added that we would have to abandon electricity and even agriculture. This is incredible.

Rather than repeating these irresponsible statements, should the minister not be honest and say, purely and simply, that her government's choice has already been made, that it has decided to drop Kyoto and that it does not recognize how urgently greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced?

[The Budget, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this budget has allocated $800 million for affordable housing. It is true that CMHC has $4 billion, but we must not forget that the House has other ways of trying to get money back. We can go about it through a bill. Her own party introduced a private member's bill to recover the $4 billion from CMHC.

We have also introduced a bill. There are other ways of making progress here.

Obviously, it will never be enough. I would rather hear that the $4 billion will be given back, but that is not the case. What we get is $800 million.

Let us fight for more. Let us keep up the fight here in the House by all means available to us, including private member's bills and government bills. That is how we fight the battles.

Remember that this is a minority government. If all of the parties agree, we can move forward. If we work toward that goal, we will get results.