House of Commons Hansard #112 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was small.

Topics

Afghanistan
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Thornhill
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Kent Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)

Mr. Speaker, that is an outrageous question.

The previous government did not have any detainee policy. Since our government's 2007 strengthened agreement on the transfer of detainees, the Department of Foreign Affairs has received no complaints regarding the treatment of transferred prisoners.

Afghanistan
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ujjal Dosanjh Vancouver South, BC

Mr. Speaker, there is abundant evidence that many in government knew about allegations of torture, dating back to May 2006. There is clear evidence that the government ordered diplomats not to put information in writing about the torture. There is evidence that public servants were threatened if they did not comply with this order. There is also evidence that the government has not been telling the truth about all of this to Canadians. It is time the government levelled with Canadians and told us the truth.

Afghanistan
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Thornhill
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Kent Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)

Mr. Speaker, the allegations are simply not true. There is no evidence.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Chinese and American presidents have publicly stated that they want to make the Copenhagen summit a success. They have said that they want to reach an agreement on climate change that would have an immediate impact. That is leadership.

The Canadian government cannot be said to be showing leadership when it is constantly coming up with ridiculous excuses for not tabling its plan to fight climate change.

In light of the statement by the American and Chinese presidents, will the government stop trying to sabotage the Copenhagen summit at all costs?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Mégantic—L'Érable
Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is very clear: the Copenhagen summit will be a success. There will be international commitments when the major emitting countries agree to sign on.

One thing is certain: we have always been clear, in addition to committing to bold targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 2050. We are also waiting because we want to work with the Obama administration on a North American approach.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the reason the government is constantly putting off introducing a regulatory framework with absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets is that it would have an economic impact on the oil companies.

Will the government admit that it is acting solely in the interests of the oil companies, at the expense of the environment and the economy of Quebec?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Mégantic—L'Érable
Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, it would be a mistake to introduce a plan that sabotages the economy in general, and we do not want to make that mistake. It is possible to balance environmental protection and economic prosperity. Mr. Obama and the Prime Minister have both said that they want an international commitment that includes the major emitters.

In addition, we will have a North American approach and work with the Obama administration. But one thing is certain: we will not sign an agreement like the Kyoto protocol that we can never comply with. That is irresponsible and it is not leadership.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, now that the American and Chinese presidents are getting behind Copenhagen and calling for a complete agreement with immediate effects, Canada no longer has a choice and must present tangible and credible proposals to fight global warming.

Does the government intend to use the Bloc Québécois plan, which proposes an absolute target of a 25% reduction in greenhouse gases below 1990 for industrialized countries by 2020?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Langley
B.C.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's question is, no. Our targets are the toughest in Canadian history; that is, a 20% reduction by 2020.

What he is asking us to do is support something that does not exist.

Canada is hard at work with our international partners, striving to come up with a new international agreement on climate change. That member needs to support our government.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, while Quebec is increasing its efforts to meet the Kyoto objectives, the federal government is doing the opposite. The federal approach will be the one heard in Copenhagen because Quebec will not be able to speak directly.

Will the Conservative government comply with Quebec's request to speak with its own voice and defend its own vision in Copenhagen?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Langley
B.C.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the member is misleading this House. This government's plan is clear. We now have in effect a North American target of 20% by 2020. We are also making progress on tailpipe emissions standards, aviation standards, carbon capture storage, and a North American integrated cap and trade.

We are getting it done. Why will that member not support good environmental legislation?

Nuclear Energy
Oral Questions

November 18th, 2009 / 2:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, India's nuclear facilities are on high alert and the region is quite volatile, as we all know.

Yet, the Conservative government is about to sell India nuclear materials and technology. The last time that Canada did this, India took the opportunity to build the bomb. India is still refusing to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. For that reason, Australia is refusing to sell nuclear technology to India. The party of Lester B. Pearson should note this before supporting the initiative.

What guarantees does the government have that Australia does not seem to have?

Nuclear Energy
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean
Ontario

Conservative

John Baird Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, those of us in the government believe that India is a responsible democracy and shares with Canada the fundamental values of freedom, democracy, human rights, and respect for law.

India has made substantial non-proliferation and disarmament commitments to achieve the trust of the nuclear suppliers group. As the Prime Minister said earlier this week:

We have great faith in our Indian friends and partners. We are not living in the 1970s. We are living in 2009.

Nuclear Energy
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, 2009 remains a very dangerous period of time.

Choosing nuclear energy sources poses many problems and exporting nuclear technology is not a good idea. The potential for environmental damage is huge. The issue of nuclear waste disposal has not been resolved, for example, and then there are the very great risks to people's safety.

Has the Canadian government abandoned such Canadian principles as sustainable development and nuclear non-proliferation just to make a buck? Is that the low point we have reached?

Nuclear Energy
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean
Ontario

Conservative

John Baird Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, we know that India has a like-minded liberal democracy. It is a like-minded country that respects democracy and human rights, shares our values and our commitments with respect to the environment.

One of the very important benefits of nuclear energy is that it produces electricity in a non-emitting form, something that is much better than dirty coal which is proliferating greatly in that part of the world.

We are committed to working with our friends in India. We are committed to working with the responsible, respected international government in India. We are committed to getting the job done for the environment.