Ujjal Dosanjh

[Health, December 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, since 2006, the Conservatives have not given one extra dime to health care. The scary thing is not just their inaction, but their opposition to a kind of plan which would improve our health system.

A national family care plan would do just that. Instead, the Conservatives say that easing the load of the hospitals would be reckless, that improving the financial stability of our public system would be reckless and that helping 600,000 families care for their loved ones at home would be reckless.

Not having a plan is what is reckless. Where is their plan?

[Health, December 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the views of the Prime Minister on the health care system are well known. Instead of defending our public health care system, the Prime Minister has argued for the scrapping of the Canada Health Act. Last year he had a chance to defend our system against Republican attacks in the U.S. He stood idly by and let the lies persist.

The federal government has a role and the jurisdiction, along with the provinces, in health care. Therefore, the federal government must track its path into the future.

Why are the Conservatives missing in action?

[Tobacco Products, December 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, records show that Conservatives were heavily lobbied by big tobacco, so the government scrapped the new warning labels. Like Ezra Levant, who ran the Conservatives' 2008 election campaign, many of the big tobacco lobbyists have very close ties to the Conservative government.

Why did the government ignore the recommendations of Health Canada? What does it not understand about cigarettes, cancer and the health of Canadians?

[Tobacco Products, December 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the new warnings on cigarette packages, the government had a choice to tell big tobacco to get lost. It had a choice to put the health of Canadians ahead of the commercial interests of big tobacco. The Conservatives spent $4 million to create new warnings for cigarettes, then buckled under the pressure of big tobacco and killed them.

How can the Conservatives justify promising new warnings, spending $4 million on them, and then killing them?

[Foreign Affairs, November 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The issue is not whether or not the government is part of the plea bargaining, because the government cannot be part of the plea bargaining. Only the prosecutor, defence or anyone else that is allowed by Khadr to be part of the process can be part of the process.

The question is this. The government talked to the U.S. Department of State and said, “If you arrive at an agreement, we would agree to have him transferred into this country”. That is an agreement by any name. By any other name that is an agreement to say Khadr can come back.

Did you not negotiate with the United States Department of State to have Khadr come back?

[Foreign Affairs, November 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He just said that the government will keep the promise it made to the U.S. to allow Khadr to return to Canada after he serves the first year of his sentence.

However, the government has forever claimed that it was not involved in any discussions or dealings with anyone on this issue. Now we know obviously it was talking to the United States government all of the time.

Why did the government continue to mislead Canadians, the media and the House of Commons?

[Chinese Canadians, November 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in June of this year, CSIS director, Richard Fadden, accused municipal politicians in British Columbia and provincial politicians in at least two provinces of being under the influence of a foreign government and then went on to identify China as a country aggressively engaging in this practice.

The people of the Chinese community were justifiably outraged. They were being accused of being disloyal Canadians.

At the public safety committee, Mr. Fadden failed to clarify his remarks and failed to apologize saying that he would forward a report to the minister. The minister has not adequately shared that report with Canadians. Mr. Fadden must apologize and, if not, he must resign. Failing that, the minister must ask Mr. Fadden to resign and, if not, the minister himself must resign.

As for the Prime Minister, his silence is deafening and insulting to all Chinese Canadians.

[Health, October 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, let me try the Prime Minister.

The leadership candidate from Beauce is parading the firewall federalism nonsense that our charter of health care, the Canada Health Act, violates the Canadian Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Will the Prime Minister stand in the House today and publicly rebuke the member for Beauce? If not, were the remarks of the leadership candidate from Beauce pre-authorized?

[Health, October 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has offered to end the federal spending power. The Minister of Finance will no longer guarantee federal health transfers. The member for Beauce wants to give tax points to the provinces in place of transfers. If the federal spending power is eliminated by giving tax points or otherwise, the Canada Health Act would be no more. It would be history.

What does the Minister of Health think about this issue?

[Family Caregivers, October 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, today, the leader of the official opposition announced our party's plan to stand with Canadian families by helping family caregivers with the cost of caring for sick or aging loved ones at home.

These are difficult economic times so that means government and Canadians must choose. The Conservatives choose tax breaks for wealthy corporations. We choose to help Canadian families. Canadians want choices when it comes to caring for their families and allowing their loved ones to live in dignity, an effort supported by Canadians like Leny Van Ryn-Bolland who is here in Ottawa today.

A Liberal government would invest $1 billion annually in a new family care plan to help reduce the pressure on hundreds of thousands of struggling Canadian families. The Liberal plan includes a new six-month family care employment insurance benefit so that more Canadians can care for gravely ill family members at home without having to quit their jobs, and a new family care tax benefit of $1,350 per year to help low and middle income family caregivers who provide—