House of Commons Hansard #166 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was scotia.

Topics

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville
Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister said that he wanted to be a bridge at the G-8, he did not say that it was a bridge to nowhere; to a watered down declaration that does not recognize the scientific imperative to limit a temperature increase to 2°C, that does not set targets for global emission reductions, and that does not set clear energy efficiency targets.

Why has the Prime Minister failed Canada and the world?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, we are quite proud of what has happened at the G-8 meetings. There is a declaration that has been issued today by the G-8 which states:

In setting a global goal for emissions reductions in the process we have agreed today involving all major emitters, we will consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissions by 2050.

Canada is now being cited as a leader in the world after a decade of waste.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville
Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, the bar has been set so low to please the Prime Minister of Canada that this agreement does not achieve what is needed to really fight climate change. The Prime Minister wanted the world to agree to do the minimum, because that is all he wants to do here in Canada, the bare minimum, with his bogus plan.

Will the government not admit once and for all that it is prepared to do only the bare minimum for climate change in Canada and around the world?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, the bar was set ridiculously low by that leader's track record as an environment minister. But there is something else that is ridiculous that is going on for which he must be held accountable.

The Liberal leader must be held accountable for an alarming development unfolding in the Senate. Liberal senators have initiated an extraordinary process to unilaterally amend Canada's Constitution, grabbing powers that are granted solely to cabinet, the power of reference to the Supreme Court.

I ask the Liberal leader, will he instruct the senators to abandon this dangerous attack on Canada's Constitution and ask them to do their job of dealing with government legislation?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville
Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, the proof that this government is embarrassed by this watered down international declaration is that it is even unable to speak about it.

Canadians expected from their Prime Minister that he would raise the bar. Instead, he helped President Bush lower the bar. This is not what Canadians expect from a Prime Minister who is supposed to be a leader.

Is this what the Prime Minister calls leadership? Is his definition of leadership to lower the bar so much that all the experts have said that this argument was not what was needed to fight climate change?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I notice that leader will not even answer a question about his senators' conduct. They have brazenly launched a resolution that represents a real danger to Canadian democracy.

If passed, it would allow the Senate to refuse to deal with any government legislation. It irrigates to the Senate a power to compel references to the Supreme Court, something not even allowed the House of Commons. This is all to avoid losing their entitlements through Senate reform.

I ask the Liberal leader, will he direct his senators to respect the Constitution? Is there any leadership in the Liberal Party prepared to stand up for Canada's Constitution?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Ignatieff Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, at the G-8 the Prime Minister made empty commitments on the world stage to conceal his lack of leadership here at home. Like a child crossing his fingers behind his back, the Prime Minister committed to stabilize emissions overseas while his plan at home would allow emissions to continue to rise beyond 2020. And he hopes no one will notice.

Why has the Prime Minister continued this campaign of dishonesty on the world stage? And why did he join this rush to failure at the G-8?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I think the G-8 is quite proud of what it has declared and we are quite proud of being seen as leaders by the G-8.

However, I was hoping that when he stood there might be a leader there in the Liberal Party willing to stand up for Canada's Constitution against the senators' efforts to brazenly amend Canada's Constitution unilaterally.

This member is also an academic with a distinguished record, like his leader. They both know how the Constitution works. They both profess to be defenders of the Constitution. And now we are having a brazen usurpation of constitutional power by the Senate to protect their entitlements.

Will they, for once, stand up for democracy and protect Canadian democracy and the Canadian Constitution?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Ignatieff Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, the House leader makes reference to my academic experience and he has as well. He will understand that he has just engaged in a non sequitur. It is not an answer to the question he was asked.

The German chancellor called for global action, but instead—

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, please. The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Ignatieff Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, the German chancellor called for global action, but instead, everyone agreed to do nothing. There are no targets, no limits on temperature increases, no mention of 1990 reference levels, and therefore no leadership.

Why did our Prime Minister contribute to this weak compromise?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I guess nobody there in the Liberal Party is willing to show any kind of leadership on Canada's Constitution, but I will tell the House who is showing leadership. It is our Prime Minister at the G-8, leadership that has been recognized in a G-8 declaration which says that Canada has a leading position that should be given regard for in terms of long term commitments.

What did Angela Merkel, who is president of the G-8 meetings and president of the EU, say right now? Merkel said that the goal is to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050. She hailed the decision as a huge success.

Everybody but the Liberal Party says this is a great success. I guess that is because the Liberals do not know what a success is. That is because they had--

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

The hon. member for Laurier--Sainte-Marie.

Option Canada
Oral Questions

June 7th, 2007 / 2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, last week Judge Grenier said there were still a number of grey areas around the role the federal government played during the 1995 referendum campaign. In fact, yesterday Chuck Guité revealed the existence of a pamphlet promoting the no side that was supposed to be distributed to all the homes in Quebec during the 1995 referendum period. We still do not know how much that pamphlet cost.

Will the government admit that a public inquiry is needed to get to the bottom of how federal public funding was used for partisan purposes during the 1995 referendum?