Debates of Oct. 20th, 2010

Raymonde Folco Laval—Les Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives want to spend $30 million more for a lower-quality census.

The data will be based on a response rate of about 50%, which is a far cry from the previous rate of 94%. We can imagine the consequences.

The Prime Minister's anti-scientific action is even being condemned by the union representing government scientists.

Why abolish the long form census? Is it to bury the government's lousy socio-economic record over the past five years?

Tony Clement Minister of Industry

Not at all, Mr. Speaker. We support a voluntary questionnaire to protect Canadians' rights.

We understand that we can get useful data from a national household survey, which will be going to 4.5 million households. We can do this in a way that balances the privacy rights of individuals, allowing them to choose not to answer intrusive questions, with the need to collect data for Canadians.

Carolyn Bennett St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker, today is the United Nations' first World Statistics Day. Sadly, unlike the rest of the world, Canada's Conservatives are attacking statistics instead of celebrating international progress.

Elimination of the long form census would reduce the response rate from 94% to a paltry 50%. This wasteful decision would add $30 million to the deficit, and it will cost provinces and municipalities millions more, because they will lose the ability to target programs to their citizens' needs.

When will Canada lead again and restore the long from census?

Tony Clement Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day, in a world statistics way, when the party of the official opposition is wedded to the idea that it is best to coerce Canadians, to threaten them with jail time or massive fines, if they do not fill out a government form. That may be the official opposition's policy.

We have a fair and reasonable policy, designed to get useful and usable data by covering 4.5 million households. At the same time, our policy protects Canadians from coercion on the part of their government, which has an obligation to represent Canadians' interests. Maybe the opposition is not aware of that, but we sure are on this side of the House.

Mark Warawa Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the report, like this government, supports developing the oil sands in an environmentally responsible manner. That is why the minister under this government struck a federal panel of Canada's leading scientists and tasked them with ensuring the proper and accurate monitoring of water.

We have also invested in state-of-the-art analytical equipment for chemical fingerprinting, so that we can determine where the toxins are coming from.

When it comes to the environment, the member knows we are getting it done.

Nathan Cullen Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would like to know where the toxins are coming from. They are coming from the tar sands.

What we realize today is that the negligence with respect to this project is only going to get worse. Today's report shows that greenhouse gas emissions from the tar sands are ballooning out of control. By the year 2050, emissions will be 40 times above the government's own pathetically weak targets. Under this nightmare scenario, using carbon capture and storage to make up the difference is going to cost between $60 billion and $70 billion.

When will the Conservatives realize that runaway growth in the tar sands will hurt Canada's economy and the environment? When are they going to start doing their jobs?

Mark Warawa Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame the member could not attend a tour of the oil sands. It is the oil sands, and it is improving. Because of the Liberals? No, they made a mess of it. Because of the NDP? No, and not even the Bloc. It is this government that is taking leadership on the environment. The oil sands will be developed in an environmentally responsible way.

Cathy McLeod Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the status of women committee, the Leader of the Opposition once again chose show over substance. Members of the committee work long and hard to ensure that women's rights are addressed seriously, respectfully and honestly. Yesterday members of the committee were insulted that the Liberal leader used his private member's bill as an excuse to play politics with women's rights or, as the National Post said, “just window-dressing”.

Can the President of the Treasury Board tell the House why we think women deserve better?

Stockwell Day President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway

Mr. Speaker, we firmly agree with and support the principle of equal pay for equal work.

The past Liberal government used to force women into court and, in fact, for years forced them to wait for fair compensation. We do not think that is the right way to treat women in these situations, so our Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act allows for these issues to be dealt with right up front, right in the bargaining process.

We do not think women should be forced to wait. We do not know why the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberals want to force them for years to wait for fair compensation.

Borys Wrzesnewskyj Etobicoke Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, on September 23 the Prime Minister met Ukrainian President Yanukovych under whom democratic and human rights transgressions are regularly occurring: intimidation of media, restrictions to freedom of assembly, tampering with election rules, secret police even pressuring university rectors to spy on students.

Sadly, the Prime Minister did not make clear that Canada stands united with Ukrainians who demonstrated their will to be a free democratic state during the Orange Revolution. Will he do so on October 25 while meeting with the president in Kyiv?

Peter Kent Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. We do have concerns about the encroachment of fundamental democratic freedoms in Ukraine, and yes, the Prime Minister will raise those concerns during his visit.

Robert Bouchard Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

Mr. Speaker, the National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion calling on the federal government to respect its commitment to pay for 50% of the cost of Highway 175 between Quebec City and Saguenay.

Given the importance of Highway 175 for the economic development of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, will the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities undertake to split 50-50, with the Government of Quebec, the total cost of Highway 175?

Chuck Strahl Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, it is in black and white. I have a copy of the agreement between the Governments of Canada and Quebec. It states that the respective contribution to the project of Canada and Quebec will be 50% of eligible expenses, up to $262 million each, for the first phase of the project.

In fact, we not only committed to this and paid this; we have also funded 50% of phase two of the project. We have not only met the terms of the agreement; we have exceeded them.