House of Commons Hansard #101 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was indian.

Topics

Taxation
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, the government says that helping families care for sick loved ones is reckless, fixing long-term disability pensions for desperate Nortel workers is risky, helping students get to university is risky, but somehow it is not risky or reckless to borrow another $6 billion to give an extra tax break to big corporations.

Those corporations already had their taxes cut by 35%. They already have the second lowest rate in the G7 and a 10-point tax advantage over the U.S.

Why is helping families reckless, but $6 billion for the richest corporations is not?

Taxation
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean
Ontario

Conservative

John Baird Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what is important. It is important that we create a tax dynamic in Canada that makes us a magnet, a magnet for jobs, a magnet for investment, and a magnet for opportunity. That is exactly what we are doing.

What we know is that high taxes kill jobs. We saw that in Ontario during the last recession and we will not make those same mistakes in Canada.

Infrastructure
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, more than 1,000 infrastructure projects are in jeopardy because of the arbitrary March 31 deadline imposed by the Conservatives.

They have no problem making announcements and posting signs to the tune of $40 million, but when it comes time to pay the bill, the Prime Minister hides.

It is as though the Prime Minister invited the municipalities out to a restaurant and now he wants to slip away before the bill arrives and leave it to his guests to pay.

Is that what the Minister of Finance calls fair and reasonable?

Infrastructure
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon
B.C.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, we have already announced that we are going to be very fair and reasonable on this. In fact, I have met now with virtually all of the transport and infrastructure ministers across the country. We are getting all the data in on the status of various projects from coast to coast. That data is very useful as we do an analysis of what projects may be at risk and how we can help.

When I met with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities executive last week I was able to show how, by working closely together, we were able to get not only the best projects for Canada but we were able to create some 420,000 to 430,000 new jobs. That obviously is good co-operation.

Infrastructure
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the government is being vague on purpose. We need clear answers.

What will their criteria be? We want to know which municipalities will have to increase their property taxes to finish the construction abandoned by the Conservatives. Will the Conservatives agree to pay their share of the projects that they promised to the municipalities and citizens? If not, we are going to end up with 1,000 broken promises and 1,000 unpaid bills. What are their criteria for projects that exceed the March 31 deadline?

Infrastructure
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon
B.C.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, it has gone exceptionally well. The Auditor General audited this program. She said it is a model on how to roll out a big economic action plan.

Let me quote:

As we go into an era of deficit fighting, we cannot return to the 1990s--what we call the lost decade....We feel the economic action plan has been very successful, (but) we feel it's time to move on.

Who said that? Brock Carlton, the CEO of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, said that. The municipalities know the 1990s, the Liberal era, the lost decade, the decade of darkness. What we are doing now is co-operative federalism with the municipalities.

Afghanistan
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, in the middle of the NATO summit, the Prime Minister had the nerve to promise not to extend the mission in Afghanistan beyond 2014. Yet on January 6, 2010, the Prime Minister publicly stated that there would be no military presence in Afghanistan beyond 2011, aside from what was needed to protect the Canadian embassy.

Does the Prime Minister realize that when he broke his promise not to extend the military mission in Afghanistan, he lost all credibility as to what would come next, and that people no longer believe him?

Afghanistan
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean
Québec

Conservative

Denis Lebel Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)

Mr. Speaker, we clearly stated, with our allies, that Canada's combat mission would end in late 2011. That has been very clear from the start. During the transition, we will continue to provide aid, focus on development and help that country, as we have said.

Afghanistan
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, in May 2006, the Prime Minister said there would be a vote on any troop deployment abroad, whether or not it was in a combat role. That is what the Prime Minister said here in the House.

Will the Prime Minister at least keep that promise and hold a debate and a vote in the House on extending the mission in Afghanistan beyond 2011, regardless of the form the mission will take, because Canada will still have military personnel there? Will he go back on the promise he made?

Afghanistan
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean
Québec

Conservative

Denis Lebel Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)

Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, after a decade of darkness, our government has supported the armed forces as never before, and we will keep on doing so. As the Prime Minister has said, this training role, which is a non-combat role, will ensure that the progress the Canadian Forces have made to date continues. The sacrifices made by our brave men and women in uniform have helped build a safer, more stable, more prosperous Afghanistan that is no longer a haven for terrorists.

The Environment
Oral Questions

November 22nd, 2010 / 2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, according to documents obtained by Climate Action Network Canada, three departments have put in place an extensive international lobbying effort to defend oil sands operations. This “oil sands advocacy strategy” primarily targets the efforts of California and the European Union to improve the quality of fuels and automobiles.

Why is the government lobbying against the environmental policies of countries that want to do more? Why adopt such a strategy?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Cypress Hills—Grasslands
Saskatchewan

Conservative

David Anderson Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, one thing that annoys the Bloc more than anything is that this government is able to work with everyone. We are able to work with the provinces. We are able to work with industry.

The Bloc just cannot seem to understand that we are working for the future. We are developing future policy in terms of environmental issues and in terms of dealing with natural resources. At every turn, the Bloc opposes each of those steps.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, what annoys the Bloc is that this government is working with the oil companies. That is the reality.

The government lobbyists have developed a number of communication tools to torpedo international efforts and help Canadian oil companies. In one of its lobbying campaigns, the former Minister of Natural Resources even made veiled threats that legal action would be taken against California if it did not drop its greenhouse gas reduction measures.

How can the government justify devoting more energy to fighting international greenhouse gas reduction efforts than to reducing its own emissions?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean
Ontario

Conservative

John Baird Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, we know very well that Quebec profits from the oil sands industry. The Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec invested more than $380 million in the oil sands. It invested more than $600 million in Canadian Natural Resources Limited. Furthermore, even the leader of the Bloc has personally benefited from this industry through the Caisses populaires Desjardins's Helios program. Those on the other side of the House should call themselves the new PQ, the “Pétrolières québécoises”.

Afghanistan
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' decision to extend the mission in Afghanistan without a vote in Parliament is beyond understanding. They have extended it twice now.

NATO is now making it clear that 2014 is not a fixed date.

We do not yet have clear figures on the costs.

What is the Prime Minister waiting for to present a clear plan? When will the House of Commons vote on extending this mission?