Debates of June 14th, 2011

Keith Ashfield Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway

Mr. Speaker, we have indicated all along that bilingual services will be available. There will be no change in the service provided. The Canadian Coast Guard will ensure that bilingual capacity will be made available at the consolidated joint rescue centres.

Yvon Godin Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, this reminds me of Service Canada in the Atlantic provinces.

Quebeckers want services in French. Since this government cannot even ensure that Canadians can have their cases heard in French in the country's highest court, it should come as no surprise that it cannot guarantee French-language services after it closes the search and rescue offices in Quebec City.

Search and rescue means saving lives. Does this government realize that Canadians did not give it a mandate to endanger people's safety?

Keith Ashfield Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway

Mr. Speaker, I thought I was very clear in my answer to the previous question.

The maritime communities across Canada will continue to be served in both official languages by the Coast Guard ships, the Coast Guard auxiliary and the Canadian Forces aircraft. The Canadian Coast Guard will ensure that bilingual capacity exists at all of the joint rescue coordination centres.

Peter Kent Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, that is a gross miscalculation of reality. In fact, the report was accurate. In the year in question, 2009, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by 42 megatonnes, which was as result of the economic downturn.

In the separate report to comply with the Kyoto treaty reporting, we also very accurately reported the forecasts and the megatonne emissions.

Kirsty Duncan Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, the report to the UN painted such a rosy picture because the government deliberately left out the oil sands. That is a pretty big omission.

Why did the government deliberately try to mislead the UN?

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

I would caution the member that the term “deliberately mislead” has consistently been found to be unparliamentary.

I see the hon. Minister of the Environment is standing to answer so I will allow him to respond.

Peter Kent Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the assumption of the question is absolutely false. We did report, in the document provided to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, precise acknowledgement that in 2009 the oil sands industry contributed precisely 6.5% of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions.

Pat Martin Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, in the private sector it would be unthinkable to dismantle the largest and most successful grain marketing company in the world without at least a comprehensive cost benefit analysis, without impact studies to measure the impact on the Prairie communities and without an assessment of liabilities, like broken contracts for ships that are already on order. Some would say that it would even be foolish.

I do not think the minister of agriculture is a fool by any means, an ideological zealot maybe but not a fool. Would he table these analyses to defend his principles if he so believes--

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Gerry Ritz Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quotes that I think the member opposite would be interested in. One is from Kevin Bender of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association. Just recently he said, “...give farmers the freedom to market their wheat and barley crops using whatever sales agent they want”.

It is followed by another quote that says, “They have a monopoly. A monopoly has to be regulated or reigned in or it can’t be allowed to exist”.

Do members know who said that? It was said by the member from Winnipeg Centre.

Pat Martin Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, obviously, from the minister's answer, he does not have these documents. He has not done even the fundamental research on the impact studies.

Can anyone Imagine legislating a multi-billion dollar corporation out of existence without even doing the basic fundamental research? The only sure outcome of this ideological crusade is taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the pockets of Prairie grain producers and putting it into the pockets of the shareholders, of the very robber barons who used to gouge them for a century until we created the Canadian Wheat Board.

if the minister has evidence that it is a good deal, why will he not table it here in the House?

Gerry Ritz Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, the best way is to move past these partisan attacks, get the politics out of this and actually talk about the people involved in the industry.

When he talks about a cost benefit analysis, Phil de Kemp of the Malting Industry of Canada said, “The Malting Industry of Canada would like to extend our support for your government's announced plans to begin the legislative process to allow for the marketing choice of barley via the removal of the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board”.

The Malting Industry is saying that it will enjoy being able to market its malt barley and actually do it in a more fulsome way.

We know that all of the processing sectors, whether it is a flour mill or a pasta plant, have moved south of the border simply because they cannot do it in Canada. That has to change.