You should be ashamed of yourself.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 44% of the vote.
Citizenship and Immigration March 6th, 2008
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Citizenship and Immigration March 6th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that we learned earlier that, despite massive support from many groups and individuals in his community, Mr. Kulenthiran Amirthalingan will be deported this evening to his country of birth, Malaysia.
Kulen called Montreal home and felt welcome in our country, which made no fuss about his sexual orientation, although unfortunately that is not the current situation in his country of origin.
Amnesty International tells us that homosexual acts are illegal in Malaysia, that for simply being who he is, Kulen could, under section 377 of the Malaysian penal code, be sentenced to whipping and to imprisonment for up to 20 years. Yet the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration of Canada has refused to stop the deportation.
The masks are truly off. Kulenthiran Amirthalingam could become a victim of the Conservative government's indifference because of his sexual orientation and because of his ethnic origin.
As a Canadian who believes we can and must do better, I am ashamed.
Infrastructure March 5th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, when I was the minister, I told the government that it was so dangerous, I would not even consider it.
The government recently approved another project called Keystone that will send 100 million litres of Canadian oil per day to the United States. Just as in the Rabaska situation, NAFTA requires us to keep exporting, and we cannot stop this from happening.
Rabaska is for the U.S. market. Instead of protecting American economic interests, why not spend more time working for the right of future generations in Canada to energy security? Why not keep our resources here at home? Why endanger—
Infrastructure March 5th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recently approved the construction of the Rabaska liquefied natural gas terminal across from the provincial capital, Quebec City, at a very narrow spot along the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Last summer—or rather, at the beginning of September—our new Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke out publicly against a similar project on the coast of Maine in the United States because, he said, he wanted “to protect the people and the environment”.
Why does our minister, the member for Beauce, care more about the Americans and their environment than about Quebeckers and theirs?
The Economy March 4th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, try telling that to the 130,000 people who lost their jobs last year in manufacturing.
Statistics released just yesterday show that economic output contracted 0.7% in December, a major decrease in fourth quarter exports caused by a drastic 2.7% decrease in international shipment of goods. Manufacturing activity was down 3.2%, the lowest level since 2001. Motor vehicle production shrank 27%, the largest drop since 1990. All these declines amount to one thing: ordinary Canadians losing their jobs.
Is the Minister of Finance sure that ignoring it is going to make it go away?
The Economy March 4th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, by lowering its key interest rate, the Bank of Canada has just sent a message that it believes the economic slowdown in the United States is going to have a strong negative impact on the Canadian economy. Unfortunately, the Conservative budget does nothing for the manufacturing sector, nothing for forestry workers and nothing for the middle class.
How is it that the Governor of the Bank of Canada understands the scope of the coming economic slowdown, but our Minister of Finance understands nothing?
Mr. Speaker, that is garbage and nonsense. The only thing the Conservatives did in Bali was embarrass us.
Contrary to what the hon. member just said, there are no binding targets. There are intensity targets. That means that if the amount of greenhouse gases emitted to produce a barrel of oil is at level 10, for example, then a polluter can indeed say that the intensity of greenhouse gases has been reduced when the amount emitted drops to level 8. Nonetheless, if they triple the number of barrels, they are still increasing the quantity of greenhouse gases considerably.
That is the Conservatives' real plan. It is directly related to oil production from the oil sands. The way oil is being mined there right now will cause the worst environmental crisis in the history of Canada for generations to come. That is the Conservative philosophy: take as much as possible today and let future generations fend for themselves with the problems we are leaving them. That is what the Conservatives are doing.
Mr. Speaker, to put this evening's debate into context, this discussion follows up on a question I asked the Minister of the Environment on November 26, 2007. It is now March. I would like to suggest that this is an indication of how important this issue is to the Conservative government. This is probably the most important issue the current government will face, since it is our duty to future generations to try to do something concrete to curb global warming caused by the increased amount of greenhouse gases we are emitting.
The question was asked in November at the height of the Bali conference where, unfortunately, the Conservative government embarrassed us on the world stage. Instead of being a leader on the environment, the Conservatives decided to point the finger at other countries who are not only signatories, but are respecting their obligations under the Kyoto protocol. I am referring to India and China. The fact is that when the protocol was signed, it was always understood that emerging economies would have a little more time to adapt. This was considered fair by all signatories, including Canada.
Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that China emits one-fifth the greenhouse gases per capita that Canada does. Nonetheless, we know that on average, Quebeckers emit half the greenhouse gases that other Canadians do. And in some parts of Canada, 10 to 20 times more greenhouse gases are emitted per capita. There is nothing to be pleased about here and no reason to hide behind China and India.
The Bali conference was the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. A similar conference had been held in Montreal. We must stand up to the Conservative government. Just this evening, we saw another example of exactly how badly the so-called official opposition, the Liberal Party, is doing its job. Later this week, during the opposition days, each party will have a chance to express its concerns about the most important issues facing our society.
It is a shame that we cannot put forward a non-confidence motion against the official Liberal opposition, because its representatives had a lot to say about the Kyoto accord, but the party did not do a thing. They no longer stand for anything. They did not take a stand on the budget, which ignored this serious issue, except for a brief mention of carbon sequestration, which is a solution few support.
Canada has a legal obligation under the Kyoto accord. The Conservatives claim that respect for the law is one of their government's greatest priorities, but they are contravening the international law that Canada has signed. Perhaps the Conservative government should refrain from lecturing people on failing to comply with the law, seeing as this country's own obligations as a state have been flouted by the government's failure to comply with the Kyoto accord.
I invite anyone interested in this issue to listen carefully to the minister's statements in the House, and to read the record. He has demonstrated a complete failure to understand his file. No doubt his assistant, who will read us a text prepared by the Prime Minister's Office, will look as though he understands it, but the Conservatives have no inkling.
The Budget February 27th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the answer for my colleague is no, there was no problem. Quite the contrary, employment statistics showed that we continued to have a quite robust economy in Canada. The choices made in a budget are, in the final analysis, societal choices. What do we want to do in this country with all this wealth?
Canada is a wealthy country in every sense of the word. We have abundant natural and human resources, but we are also blessed by nature. Water is part of our wealth. Mines which can be found anywhere are part of our wealth. Forests are part of our wealth, but are often abused.
Nevertheless, we, in the New Democratic Party, have always advocated the use of this wealth for the people, and not for the structures.
The Budget February 27th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, it is quite something to hear the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse defend the methane port project as sustainable development. The proposal is absurd. The risks of this project are known. If the hon. member is interested, he should go to Boston and talk to the coast guard, as I have had the opportunity to do.
Let us come back to the second part of his intervention when he talked about sharing the wealth. I invite him to consult what I was referring to earlier to convince him. On page 201 of the budget plan, table 5.4, the distribution of wealth he is talking about consists of taking money out of the pockets of individuals and giving it to corporations that are making the highest profits in Canada. The biggest polluters will receive money from individuals. In the meantime, for affordable housing in Lévis and elsewhere, there is nothing. To hire new doctors to help provinces in their jurisdiction of health, there is nothing. There is nothing interesting in this budget for the people.
There is indeed something in the budget for the existing infrastructure plan, but much more is needed. The deficit is in the order of $123 billion. It has come to that because successive Conservative and Liberal governments ran such high deficits here that in order to get back on track they had to offload expenses to the provinces. Nonetheless, there is nothing magical about this. Infrastructure that is crumbling needs to be maintained in the long term. Even if responsibility is shifted from one party to another, in the final analysis the only thing that accomplishes is passing the buck from the federal to the provincial level, then to the municipal level and then to the property tax bill for individual homes and real estate.