House of Commons Hansard #92 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was copyright.

Topics

Hydroelectricity
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the federal government never provided Quebec with any financial assistance to develop its own hydroelectric grid. Quebec proceeded independently and on its own dime.

If the Prime Minister wants to demonstrate fairness, will he promise not to subsidize other provinces' power grid development projects, such as the proposal for a subsea electricity cable linking Newfoundland and Labrador with Nova Scotia?

Hydroelectricity
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, energy development is under provincial jurisdiction. All Canadian provinces want to create a cleaner energy sector. The government will always listen to the provinces' needs.

Oil and Gas Exploration
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Paule Brunelle Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, a note obtained by the media clearly indicates that the department considered it risky for the Minister of Natural Resources to talk about oil spills such as the one in the Gulf of Mexico. The minister's silence proves that the government wants to play down the risks associated with offshore oil and gas development.

Can the government explain its lack of transparency and why it hid this information from the public?

Oil and Gas Exploration
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Mégantic—L'Érable
Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, I presume that the member is referring to the documents quoted in the Canadian Press yesterday. These documents were not prepared for me and did not make their way to my office.

The real issue here is environmental safety. We have always said that we have independent regulators with international standards that are some of the most stringent in the world. It is clear that no project will be approved until the regulator is confident that environmental protection and worker safety are assured.

Oil and Gas Exploration
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Paule Brunelle Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, the minister's lack of transparency indicates that there are risks with any operation in the St. Lawrence seabed. The National Assembly of Quebec adopted a motion calling for a moratorium on drilling and seismic testing permits for Old Harry and the suspension of existing permits until environmental assessments have been completed.

Will the government honour the unanimous motion of the National Assembly of Quebec?

Oil and Gas Exploration
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Mégantic—L'Érable
Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board is an independent regulator with standards that are some of the most stringent in the world. Emergency plans must be filed. No project can be approved until the regulator is confident that the environment is protected and the safety of workers is guaranteed. At present, there are no drilling permit applications for this sector.

Potash Industry
Oral Questions

November 2nd, 2010 / 2:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, according to the news reports, a handful of people in Industry Canada have somehow reached the conclusion that the sale of Potash Corporation could somehow be of benefit to Canada.

The Prime Minister's officials are desperately trying to spin this as though he has absolutely no say in the matter. I do not think that is going to wash. I think people know how the government operates.

My question for the Prime Minister is very simple. Is the Prime Minister willing to pronounce himself on this matter, right now, and simply say no to selling Potash Corporation to the Australian company?

Let us hear it today. Let us hear it from the Prime Minister.

Potash Industry
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the other day the leader of the NDP was congratulating me for blocking the takeover, and today he is criticizing me for allowing the takeover.

The truth of the matter is that no decision has been taken. The Minister of Industry is responsible for this decision under the act. I am confident that he will render a decision that is in the best long-term interest of the Canadian economy.

Potash Industry
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to control everything; everyone knows that. I was in Saskatchewan yesterday, and there is a consensus there. Everyone knows that selling the potash industry to foreign interests is not in Canada's economic interests. It is clear: there is no net benefit.

Why is the Prime Minister not sending a clear message now? The potash industry should remain Canada's pride and joy.

Potash Industry
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, there is a legal process. The government is prohibited from commenting on the benefits and costs of this transaction. It is up to the Minister of Industry to make a decision, and once he has done so, he will communicate it in the appropriate manner.

Potash Industry
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister or his delegate issues a decision to give the final green light to the takeover of Potash Corporation, Conservative Saskatchewan MPs will need to decide on whose side they will stand.

Will the Prime Minister commit to bringing the issue of the approval of the takeover to a vote of this House before the final approval, and will he let his 13 Saskatchewan members of Parliament vote for the people of Saskatchewan, or will he make them toe the line on the sellout?

Potash Industry
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, under the law, decisions as regards these kinds of bids are not taken by votes in Parliament; they are taken according to a legal process. The government is obligated to listen to all sides, to consider all factors. That is precisely what it is doing, including, I may add, hearing from all members of our Saskatchewan caucus.

I am sure when the Minister of Industry makes the decision he is required to make within a certain time period, everybody will recognize that he has taken a decision in the best long-term interest of this country.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Richmond Hill, ON

Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board guidelines clearly state that competition remains the cornerstone of the Canadian government's procurement process. It is the most effective way of achieving the goals of procurement and gives suppliers the incentive to bring forward their best solution at a competitive price.

What makes the government think it knows better than the decades of experience that goes into laying out these guidelines, and what gives it the right to bring its own rules when borrowing $16 billion from taxpayers to buy fighter jets without holding an open competition?

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I repeat once again that this is a win-win situation for Canada, for the Canadian Forces and obviously for the Canadian aerospace industry.

There was a competition, and after the competition, the only next generation fighter identified was the F-35. We have now exercised the option to continue with the program, which was begun by the government of the member opposite.

We have followed along now. The majority of the payments, incidentally, will be made around the year 2013. We will take delivery at the optimum point of production, at the lowest cost per aircraft, with enormous benefits to the Canadian aerospace industry. The member opposite used to believe that when he was in government.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Speaker, another new report from the Pentagon says that we can expect more cost overruns and delays in the production of the F-35s. Maintaining these planes will cost 50% more than maintaining the current planes. Delivery in the United States has been delayed from one to three years. The Prime Minister has already planned to borrow $16 billion to buy these planes.

With this new report, now how much do we have to pay for these planes?