House of Commons Hansard #114 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was right.

Topics

Canada-U.S. border
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Etobicoke—Lakeshore
Ontario

Liberal

Michael Ignatieff Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, there is a basic issue of competence here.

The Conservative government gave us the fiasco of the G8 and G20. The Conservative government lost us a seat on the Security Council. The Conservative government lost our troops the rear base at Camp Mirage. Now the government is asking the Canadian people to trust it in secret negotiations that put in question the sovereignty and liberty of Canadians.

Everybody wants to thin down this border, but the question here is about trust. Can the Conservative government be trusted with the sovereignty and freedom of Canadians?

Canada-U.S. border
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Provencher
Manitoba

Conservative

Vic Toews Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, we do in fact work in harmony and co-operation with the Americans. The Conservative government believes it is essential that our borders with the United States be bridges between us and not barriers. We have already taken important steps forward to ensure our borders are closed to crime and open for business.

I am wondering what the member opposite has against ensuring that there is a legitimate flow of traffic, goods and people across our borders.

Tobacco Products
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ujjal Dosanjh Vancouver South, BC

Mr. Speaker, regarding the new warnings on cigarette packages, the government had a choice to tell big tobacco to get lost. It had a choice to put the health of Canadians ahead of the commercial interests of big tobacco. The Conservatives spent $4 million to create new warnings for cigarettes, then buckled under the pressure of big tobacco and killed them.

How can the Conservatives justify promising new warnings, spending $4 million on them, and then killing them?

Tobacco Products
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Nunavut
Nunavut

Conservative

Leona Aglukkaq Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to standing up to big tobacco and curbing smoking, we have no lessons to take from those members. We have no lessons to take from the former health minister who did nothing on this file.

The CBC story is simply wrong. While additional health information on labels is still under review, an announcement will be made soon.

Tobacco Products
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ujjal Dosanjh Vancouver South, BC

Mr. Speaker, records show that Conservatives were heavily lobbied by big tobacco, so the government scrapped the new warning labels. Like Ezra Levant, who ran the Conservatives' 2008 election campaign, many of the big tobacco lobbyists have very close ties to the Conservative government.

Why did the government ignore the recommendations of Health Canada? What does it not understand about cigarettes, cancer and the health of Canadians?

Tobacco Products
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Nunavut
Nunavut

Conservative

Leona Aglukkaq Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, again the CBC story is simply wrong.

Our government is committed to reducing youth smoking, helping Canadians quit smoking, and addressing the pressure of contraband tobacco. We are taking action. Shortly after the election, we introduced tobacco legislation that is now in effect, so we are demonstrating our leadership in this area.

The Environment
Oral Questions

December 9th, 2010 / 2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, as an excuse for its inaction in the fight against climate change, the Conservative government keeps repeating that an agreement with greenhouse gas emission reduction targets is useless unless it includes emerging countries. But Canada emits three times the amount of greenhouse gases per capita that China emits and 15 times the amount that India emits, and those are two emerging countries.

When will the Prime Minister understand that we need a plan to fight climate change with binding greenhouse gas reduction targets and that we need to impose tariffs on products from countries that do not meet these targets?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Mégantic—L'Érable
Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, we have an action plan. We want to reduce greenhouse gases by 17% by 2020. That is also why we have a continental approach. We will harmonize our transport regulations, which is what we are currently doing. We know that that is the sector that pollutes the most. Canada and the United States are taking a common approach to this. We want to get the major emitters together to come to a real, effective agreement that will produce results.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, does this government realize that if it does not move forward with greenhouse gas reduction targets, other countries will do so and will impose their own tariffs, which will have an impact on exports from Canada and Quebec and will leave us seriously behind technologically?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Mégantic—L'Érable
Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, we will take a harmonized approach to transport. We know that that sector pollutes the most in North America. We will have a continental approach that will produce results. When we talk about international negotiations with other countries, the major emitters must absolutely be present, otherwise we will be wasting our time. What we want is an agreement that will produce results.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Gérard Asselin Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Speaker, there have been four times as many storms in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the past decade as in the previous four decades, and the Sept-Îles region has been hit the hardest. The environment commissioner noted that climate change is causing severe meteorological events that are accelerating shoreline erosion.

Does the government understand that greenhouse gases must be reduced in order to prevent further disasters like the one that just hit eastern Quebec?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Langley
B.C.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, if the member really believes that climate change is a serious issue, he would agree with this government that all major emitters have to be part of the solution, and that is what science has said. That is why 139 countries have signed onto the Copenhagen accord, representing 85% of greenhouse emission makers. The Kyoto protocol only covered 27% and the Copenhagen accord 85%. That is the obvious way to go.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Gérard Asselin Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Speaker, in 1997, the federal government abolished the St. Lawrence shoreline protection program. The considerable damage that has been caused in the lower St. Lawrence, Gaspé and north shore regions is proof that a fund is needed to deal with the impact of climate change.

Will the government create such a fund?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Langley
B.C.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, we have committed millions of dollars, which the Bloc continually votes against, to fight climate change. We are in Cancun right now working with our intentional partners to see a new international agreement that covers all the major emitters. Why do we do that? So we can fight climate change. Why does the Bloc not get that?

Office of public sector integrity
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's damning report merely confirms that not only was the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, Christiane Ouimet, not doing her job, but she was undermining the work of the entire office. One hundred and seventy complaints that were not followed up is quite a significant number. The Conservatives were never concerned about the lack of results.

Why did the Prime Minister turn a blind eye for so long? Why did he do nothing?