House of Commons Hansard #43 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was gas.

Topics

Securities
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Mégantic—L'Érable
Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, we are referring this to the Supreme Court; that is a sign of our good will. I repeat: it is voluntary.

Let us talk about studies. The study by John Coffee, from Columbia University, also talks about the loss of tens of billions of dollars annually. That is what it costs Canada to have a fragmented approach. Then there is the matter of the 65,000 jobs that may be affected, and that is a point worth debating. I have said it before and I will say it again: this is a voluntary approach and any province that wants to opt out can opt out.

Securities
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Paillé Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, by making it voluntary, they are showing how ignorant they are.

The Barreau du Québec, the SGF, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, the Groupe Jean Coutu, the Quebecor group, the Cascades group, the Chambre des notaires du Québec, various chambers of commerce, the Fonds de solidarité and the CSN fund all reject the federal government's plan.

Why are the Conservative members and ministers from Quebec the only ones proposing the financial destruction of Montreal to the benefit of Toronto?

Securities
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Macleod
Alberta

Conservative

Ted Menzies Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, instead of taking away, we are adding to the security for investors. This is a voluntary system that will be an opt-in if they wish, if Quebec or any other province wishes.

The member listed a whole lot of supporters of his. There is a whole lot of supporters who reiterate that we are the only industrialized country in the world that does not have a common securities regulator. Let me start the list, but I am sure I cannot finish it in 35 seconds. OECD, IMF, Canadian Council of Chief Executives, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives--

Securities
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Perhaps in the supplementary. The hon. member for Hochelaga.

Securities
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Paillé Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, he should talk to the Alberta Securities Commission—it is against this.

The government's stubborn insistence on creating a single securities commission in Toronto is an example of predatory federalism. It is bulldozing Quebec. It is depriving a nation of an essential economic and financial tool. By going after the AMF, it is going after Quebec.

How can the Conservative members from Quebec be complicit in such a destructive plan? How can they cut Quebec out like this? What a pathetic bunch they are.

Securities
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Macleod
Alberta

Conservative

Ted Menzies Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, it has been proven by many experts that 13 separate bodies in this country is not efficient. They do not protect investments made by Canadians.

Let me refer to a comment that was made earlier about John Coffee's study at Columbia University: $10 billion a year in savings; 65,000 jobs preserved. The most important thing we are preserving is the safe investment of dollars by Canadians.

The Environment
Oral Questions

May 10th, 2010 / 2:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico should be a lesson to us all.

But have the Conservatives learned anything? That is the question.

BP wells in the gulf were approved because the industry said that the risk of a disaster was negligible. It seems the industry was wrong in this case.

That same industry is giving us the same assurances about drilling in Canada.

Does the government realize that the proposed transfer of environmental assessments to the National Energy Board would be a monumental mistake?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean
Ontario

Conservative

John Baird Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are horrified with what they are seeing going on in the southern United States.

Let me say to the leader of the New Democratic Party very directly that Canada has strong offshore drilling regulations to prevent what has happened in the United States. Our government will continue to enforce strong environmental and safety standards right across this country.

Canadian regulators will not allow anything unless they are convinced that the environment will be protected. That is our government's bottom line.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, today Chevron Canada began drilling the deepest oil well ever in Canadian waters. The Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board says that it might have to rethink its standards in light of the disaster in the gulf. That is hardly reassuring.

In the interests of prudence and precaution, is the government willing to participate with the province to reassess the financial capacity to deal with a spill, the ability to respond to a blowout, and the industry's claims regarding the reliability of its technology?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean
Ontario

Conservative

John Baird Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that this government has an important responsibility to stand up and protect the environmental situation in this country, particularly in our far north.

This government accepts that responsibility. We have chosen a very different route than has taken place south of the border in the United States.

I am sure all Canadians and all of us in this House are horrified with what we see going on in the Gulf of Mexico. That is why we are committed to making sure that Canadian regulation is strong so that we can protect our environment for future generations.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, Imperial Oil is going around claiming that the likelihood of a spill in the Arctic would be 1:285,000. It says that the risk is manageable. It says that it would have no problem containing any spills. It is really not credible. These are exactly the same things that BP said about its drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Does the government agree that the chances of 1:285,000 of a major ecological disaster in the Arctic Ocean is worth the risk and somehow manageable?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean
Ontario

Conservative

John Baird Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the Arctic is one of the most pristine natural environments of anywhere in the world. That is why this government and our Prime Minister have taken many initiatives to support our far north, whether it is quadrupling the size of Nahanni National Park, whether it is establishing a whale sanctuary in Nunavut, or whether it is ensuring that we have responsible environmental legislation.

Just in this session of Parliament alone we passed tougher legislation for our transport sector in the far north, extending powerful Canadian environmental laws another 100 nautical miles.

This government will do everything it takes. We are committed to ensuring that we protect the Arctic. It is a vital ecosystem and this government will not stand for any pollution.

Government Programs
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Mississauga—Brampton South, ON

Mr. Speaker, Friday afternoon the government continued its Conservative culture of deceit by quietly cutting off its support to Toronto's Gay Pride Festival.

Last year the former secretary of state for small business and tourism was stripped of her responsibilities for funding Pride and for appearing in a photo with drag queens. Canadians see this for what it is: blatant discrimination and political pandering among the Conservative right-wing base.

How can the government possibly defend this decision?

Government Programs
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka
Ontario

Conservative

Tony Clement Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth in regard to the hon. member's characterization of things.

This is a two-year stimulus program. In year one of this program, almost 75% of the funding went to events in Canada's largest cities. In year two, we wanted to ensure that the money was spread out to some of the smaller cities so they were able to benefit as well. That means that 19 new events are being funded through this program in smaller urban centres. I think that is a win for all of Canada.

Government Programs
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Mississauga—Brampton South, ON

That argument does not hold water, Mr. Speaker.

Cuts to women's groups, cuts to access to reproductive health abroad, and now cuts to arts and Pride tourism funding. The marquee tourism program is supposed to be about economic stimulus, but what we see here is blatant discrimination and political pandering.

Pride leaves $100 million economic footprint, creates 650 jobs, and generates $18 million in tax revenue. Why does ideology trump economics in this Conservative government?