House of Commons Hansard #174 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was gun.

Topics

Devils Lake Diversion Project
Statements By Members

2:10 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, over a week ago, with no notice and in flagrant violation of the boundary waters treaty and a Canada-U.S. agreement requiring the installation of an advanced filter system, North Dakota opened the tap on its Devils Lake outlet dumping contaminated water into the Red River water system.

High chemical levels together with alien species, including at least three parasites, clearly pose a threat to the huge Red River ecosystem and the largest inland commercial fishery in Canada.

The Manitoba government has done what it can, calling for the 2005 agreement to be honoured and challenging North Dakota's decision to water down its environmental standards. But where is the federal leadership on this international crisis?

The NDP initiated an emergency Parliamentary debate, resulting in a unanimous motion for the strongest possible actions, but empty rhetoric and diplomatic niceties have to end on the part of the federal government. Canadians want action, not more shadowboxing.

Where is the plan to put the plug back into Devils Lake?

Government Policies
Statements By Members

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro York West, ON

Mr. Speaker, with any luck, this time next week members of the House will be back home enjoying a barbecue with family and friends and talking to constituents about the session that was.

No doubt there will be questions about how a government can get things so wrong: detainees in Afghanistan, two disastrous environmental plans, the twisting of truth on the matters of income trusts and the Atlantic accords, and of course, the biggest spending budget in Canadian history.

Whatever happened and where did this train wreck come from? I believe it comes down to leadership. We have a Conservative leader who would rather be confrontational than cooperate, would prefer needless confrontation with the opposition as well as with the media, and would prefer confrontation with the provinces and even with his own caucus.

I encourage all members to enjoy their summer. With this government still at the helm it is the only peace they are lucky to enjoy until a Liberal government is back in power and we get rid of the rascals across the hall.

Audréanne Campeau and Vincent Rainville
Statements By Members

2:10 p.m.

Bloc

Johanne Deschamps Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the ingenuity of two senior high school students at the Saint-Joseph composite school in Mont-Laurier. They took top honours at the provincial finals of the Bell science fair. Audréanne Campeau, 17, from Lac-des-Écorces, and Vincent Rainville, 16, from Mont-Laurier, won a number of prizes with their “passive house” project, which was among the 100 best projects presented.

With 120 hours of work and a $20 investment, they designed a model of an environmentally friendly home, along with pamphlets, posters and fact sheets, which won them the Université du Québec prize. They will be part of the Quebec delegation at the Canada-wide science fair and will participate in the international science fair in Durban, South Africa. They also won the Synapse silver medal, awarded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Agence de l'efficacité énergétique bursary.

My colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and I wish them much success in the next round of competitions.

Veterans Affairs
Statements By Members

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Mr. Speaker, last week the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo accused me in the House of trying to score cheap political points over the issue of extending VIP benefits to widows of deceased World War II and Korean War veterans.

In a letter to Joyce Carter, dated June 28, 2005, the current Prime Minister wrote that a Conservative government would immediately extend the VIP to these widows.

On October 28, 2005 the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, as veterans affairs critic, also wrote Ms. Carter and said that she had been advocating for an extension of the VIP benefits and that this position was adopted by the Conservative Party.

War widows know who has acted to score cheap political points. After a year and a half in office, Canada's not so new government, the Prime Minister and the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo clearly did not get the job done.

Must war widows now resort to taking the Prime Minister up on his challenge to the provinces and sue him over another example of breach of faith in order to get what was promised to them by these promise-breaking Conservatives?

Justice
Statements By Members

2:10 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not want to wait any longer for mandatory sentences for gun crimes or for an increase in the age of protection for young people. They waited long enough while the opposition stalled and delayed at committee.

In fact, just this morning the member for Yukon filibustered a discussion on Bill C-32 which would increase minimum penalties for alcohol and drug impaired drivers.

Bill C-22, increasing the age of protection from 14 to 16 years, was held up at committee.

Bill C-18, the DNA identification bill, was held up at committee.

Bill C-10, the bill for mandatory sentences for gun crimes, was also held up at committee by opposition members who are so out of touch with Canadians and still prefer to coddle criminals.

The good news is these three bills have finally passed the House. The bad news is that they are down the hall at the Senate.

Will the Liberal interim leader tell his unelected senators who are preoccupied with protecting their terms to protect Canadians and pass these bills?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville
Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, despite the usual attempts at censorship, Professor Jaccard, the author of the C.D. Howe Institute report that I was talking about yesterday, was finally able to appear before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

He confirmed what he said in the report, which was that the government's greenhouse gas reduction plan is so weak that it will not meet the targets and that emissions are likely to rise not just until 2012 or 2020, but until 2050.

Will the Prime Minister face the facts and join Professor Jaccard and other experts in acknowledging that his plan is doomed to fail?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in Canada's history, we have a plan to control and regulate greenhouse gases.

Obviously, there are different reports and perspectives. Now they are speculating about what will happen decades down the road. Nevertheless, I can assure my hon. colleague that the government will undertake consultations and consider all perspectives as it develops its regulatory program.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville
Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, all the experts are saying that this plan will fail.

The Prime Minister should have some familiarity with Professor Jaccard since he appointed him to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. We know today from an access to information request that the government gave him sole-source contracts on the grounds that he is, and I quote the government, “one of Canada's preeminent policy advisors in the area of climate change and industrial policy”.

Why does the Prime Minister not agree with the experts that his plan is doomed to failure?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is obviously a little bit ahead of himself in condemning a plan to failure before we even have actually tabled and put the regulations into place.

The government is in the midst of consultation. The government's targets are clear. This government has been clear that, unlike the previous government, it is not going to rely on voluntary targets. These will be mandatory targets and we will reach them.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville
Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, I invite the Prime Minister to stop distorting reality. I invite him to admit what is so obvious: that he killed the Liberal plan that had targets. According to the Pembina Institute, those targets were six to seven times more efficient than those in his plan.

He killed the Liberal plan. He cannot have invented a plan. If they speak about the Liberal plan that was six to seven times more effective than the Prime Minister's plan, it is because he killed the Liberal plan.

Can the Prime Minister stop distorting reality? Can he be honest with Canadians for once?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition talks about the obvious and goes on to speculate about what may or may not happen in the decades to come, but we know for a fact what occurred over the past decade.

What occurred over the past decade was that the hon. member committed Canada to the toughest environmental targets in the world, then did nothing to achieve them.

When this government took office, we were 35% above the target and rising. There was no plan in place. Everyone knows that. It is time the Leader of the Opposition admitted it to the country and to the world.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Ignatieff Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, for months Canadians have watched the government trumpet the targets of its so-called climate change plan. We have had the photo ops.

But last week the C.D. Howe Institute released the fourth independent report to conclude that this plan is a fraud. In response, a spokesperson for the environment minister says that it is premature to draw conclusions about the government's plan since it is still developing it.

Suddenly the government does not have a plan at all. Why is the environment minister engaged in premature self-congratulation instead of getting down to implementing a plan?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean
Ontario

Conservative

John Baird Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I read with great interest the reports produced by Marc Jaccard on climate change.

Here is what he had to say about the former Liberal government: “For 15 years” Liberal governments “have layered one greenhouse gas policy over another”, including the 1995 action plan, action plan 2000, the 2002 climate change plan, and project green. He said of the Liberal plan that “it consisted primarily of offering information and subsidies to encourage voluntary reductions in emissions”.

That is the member of Parliament who went right across this country saying that his own leader did not get the job done.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Order. We will have a little order. I would remind hon. members that it is Tuesday, not Wednesday. We will save some energy for tomorrow.

The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore has the floor. We will have some order.