Pablo Rodriguez

[Minister of Public Works and Government Services, April 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is at it again. He knows the rules: public servants must “avoid or withdraw from activities or situations, including procurement actions, that would place the public servant in real, potential or apparent conflict of interest—”.

When a minister holds shares in a company described as a “strategic partner” of another company to which his own department is going to award a $400 million contract, that looks like a conflict of interest. Or is it a conflict of interest for any Canadian except Michael Fortier?

[The Environment, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, just because he is speaking does not mean that he has something to say.

The Prime Minister fought all attempts by both Houses to take concrete action on climate change. He refuses to make any announcements about his plan for tackling global warming. Why? Because he does not have one. In fact, the actions of the Prime Minister are nothing more than a sad show and his ministers are just puppets.

This government is incapable of even establishing one objective. It is incapable of doing anything. On this very day, why not adopt and support its own bill—

[The Environment, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, for weeks the Prime Minister has been saying that he will soon announce his so-called made in Canada plan for greenhouse gas emissions, including all of the targets, but Canadians are still waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

Even more disturbing is the fact that the government kept its plan secret and refused to include it as part of the rewrite of Bill C-30. Why has the Prime Minister shown Parliament so much contempt? Does he think the work of the committee is beneath him?

[Minister of Finance, March 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, we have witnessed a flood of prebudget spending on the part of the government: money handed out right and left with no financial framework and no long term vision, in other words, spending to buy votes.

When he was the Ontario Minister of Finance, the current federal minister said that everything was fine in the province. Soon after that, Ontario found itself with a $6 billion deficit. Therefore, it is worrying to now hear him say that everything is fine in Ottawa. It brings back bad memories. It also reminds me that, shortly before his last budget, the minister tried to be reassuring, just before making deep cuts to social programs. He took advantage of that budget to target the poor, women, aboriginals, the illiterate and minorities. He cut recklessly and blindly in the environment, and let us not forget also that he had said he would reduce our taxes, when he in fact increased them.

[Official Languages, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, how can she explain the brutal cuts to official languages in the case of the court challenges program?

The Commissioner of Official Languages finds it difficult to reconcile the minister's intentions with the actions of the government to which she belongs.

In other words, the minister says one thing and her government does another. She talks about linguistic duality, but her colleague the Minister of National Defence abandons francophones in the armed forces. She says she wants to support communities, but her Prime Minister cancels the court challenges program.

How does the minister feel, knowing that she has no credibility, no power and no authority in her own portfolio?

[Official Languages, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, a Senate report has warned us that the Olympic Games may be an embarrassment for Canada in terms of the use of French. The Commissioner of Official Languages tells us that the CRTC is not meeting its obligations in respect of official languages, and the Minister of National Defence does not even believe in bilingualism in the armed forces.

When is this government going to realize that in Canada, in our country, there are two official languages—not one, but two, and I can even name them if the minister wants?

[The Environment, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Minister that he will need more than a green tie and green underpants to convince us of his sincerity.

I am curious to know what the Prime Minister will say to the co-chair of his election campaign, John Reynolds, who said that denying the legitimacy of private members’ bills was the mark of dictatorships.

Can the Prime Minister of Canada now decide which law he will respect and which one he will break? Is he going to throw away the foundations of our democracy and close down Parliament? Is he going to say that democracy is over; long live his dictatorship?

[The Environment, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard the voice of democracy; democracy has spoken. The government will now be forced to take concrete action so that Canada can meet its commitments to the Kyoto protocol. The government does not have the choice. It can no longer say one thing and do another. Either it complies with the law, or it decides to waste the taxpayers’ money to defend itself in court.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to break the law, as his Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and his Minister of the Environment suggest? Is he above the law?

[Points of Order, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is the third time in a very short while that we are having this debate. The government is trying to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. It is a crying shame.

You studied the matter once. Then you studied it again. The House counsel also studied it. Every time the committee studied this bill, its members ensured at all times that nothing they discussed would incur any costs or require the reallocation of funds.

This bill proposes a number of options, many of which do not require additional expenditure. It will be up to the government alone to choose. We are not trying to usurp the government. We are not trying to do anything indirectly. Mr. Speaker, you understand. You said so clearly twice. This third attempt leads me to believe that there is a lack respect for you and for this House.

[Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday evening, Valentine's Day, the members of this House will be called on to vote one last time on my Bill C-288.

This bill seeks to force the government to meet Canada's commitments under the Kyoto protocol.

It is a bill that talks about the future, a bill that seeks to ensure that Canada takes tangible measures today for tomorrow, measures that the government does not want to take. Why worry about the future?

The government is totally isolated on this issue. The three opposition parties stand together on this important bill. In fact, all the parties except the Conservative Party want immediate action on climate change. That is why this bill is so necessary.

When a government respects neither international law nor the will of its own people, when it does not shoulder its responsibilities in response to one of the most serious challenges facing our planet, Parliament has the ability and the moral duty to force the government to do so. That is why this bill is so important.