House of Commons Hansard #78 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was copyright.

Topics

The Environment
Oral Questions

February 10th, 2012 / 11:25 a.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, a study has shown that emissions from the production of shale gas are twice as great as the industry claims. The effects are comparable to coal production, not to mention the serious risks of water pollution and earthquakes. It is not surprising that people are concerned.

The Conservatives are watching the industry inject chemicals into the soil without sharing the environmental studies. When will adequate regulations be put in place for the shale gas industry?

The Environment
Oral Questions

11:25 a.m.

Calgary Centre-North
Alberta

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague opposite that shale gas development as well as natural resource development are primarily issues of provincial concern and provincial jurisdiction.

I would also like to encourage her to take a look at what some of the industry is doing. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers recently announced voluntary disclosure of fracking fluids. This is a very positive development.

The Environment
Oral Questions

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hear about what industry is doing. I want to hear about what the government is doing, which is nothing. Let us try another question.

On December 6, the government authorized the Minister of Foreign Affairs to denounce the Kyoto protocol on behalf of Canada. The trouble is that the Minister of the Environment on that same day was in Durban supposedly negotiating an extension to Kyoto. This is bad faith negotiating at its best, or perhaps its worst, depending on how one looks at it.

How can the government expect Canada to have any credibility when it is cutting off international negotiations at the knees?

The Environment
Oral Questions

11:25 a.m.

Calgary Centre-North
Alberta

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how my colleague opposite and her party can have any credibility when they consistently work against Canadian jobs in our energy sector.

With regard to the Kyoto protocol, our government has been very clear in saying that in order to see real reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions, we need a new international agreement, which includes all major emitters, including those that were not included under the Kyoto protocol. This is what we are striving for. We are continuing the good work that we saw in Copenhagen, in Cancun, and now in Durban.

The Environment
Oral Questions

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, so international talks are bad and foreign funding apparently is also bad because yesterday at the natural resources committee the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca proposed banning foreign funding for so-called radical environmentalists.

The government has attacked everything good, holy and decent about protecting our coasts from oil spills. It even suggested that first nations chiefs are taking payoffs for opposing the northern gateway pipeline.

I have a simple question for the government. Does it agree with its committee member, yes or no?

The Environment
Oral Questions

11:25 a.m.

Cypress Hills—Grasslands
Saskatchewan

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, he said no such thing yesterday. Actually, there have been great discussions and great information brought forward in committee. What that confirms, even from the NDP witnesses, is that this government is on track.

We have adequate refinery resources across this country. We have heard that we need more pipelines. Even the NDP witnesses have come forward and concluded that we need a better energy structure in this country; we need pipelines.

I wonder why the NDP will not get onside with its own supporters.

The Environment
Oral Questions

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, now I understand. Foreign funding from the Conservatives' friends is good for Canada, but foreign funding for their critics is bad for Canada, and radical.

We still do not have any explanation for the member's insult against first nations chiefs. The member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca did say that he had no evidence the chiefs are taking money, yet he said, “It wouldn't surprise me if they were”.

Why is the government throwing out offensive accusations instead of trying to work with first nations chiefs? Is this the Conservatives' new strategy for relationship building with first nations?

The Environment
Oral Questions

11:25 a.m.

Cypress Hills—Grasslands
Saskatchewan

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, we work with groups all across this country. We work with first nations. We work with the provinces.

I have to say that there is a radical group that wants to stop development of all our hydrocarbons. There is a radical group that wants to destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs across this country because of its ideological bent. There is a radical group that wants to destroy billions of dollars of economic development in this country. That group is called the NDP.

Campaign Advertising
Oral Questions

11:30 a.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable what you can hear in the House. This is now comedy hour on Canadian television.

The Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, think that they are above all the rules and like to say one thing and do the opposite. An evangelical website that was encouraging people to vote for Conservative members was clearly used for partisan purposes during the last election. I am convinced that the Conservatives will applaud this fact but, following an investigation, the Chief Electoral Officer confirmed that this constituted campaign advertising, and was illegal.

Does the minister intend to review the definition of “campaign advertising via the Internet”?

Campaign Advertising
Oral Questions

11:30 a.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the laws and regulations are clear. This is a question for the Chief Electoral Officer.

Campaign Advertising
Oral Questions

11:30 a.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin Gatineau, QC

Ouch, Mr. Speaker. The government is really taking Canadians for fools. That response is not satisfactory to anyone. The website in question opposes gay marriage and abortion. It encourages people to vote Conservative. A site disguised as campaign advertising is a way of misleading people. Elections Canada saw many sites like this during the last election, and those responsible for them are not always based in Canada.

Can the government explain why it is fighting against foreign radicals when it comes to environmental issues but not when it comes to those who are against abortion and gay marriage and who provide free advertising for this government?

Campaign Advertising
Oral Questions

11:30 a.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, one of our greatest values in this country is freedom of speech. That is something we encourage in this country.

When we talk about questions like elections advertising and spending, there are very clear rules that are set out in the Canada Elections Act. It is up to Elections Canada to administer and prosecute if it sees the need for prosecution. As members know, it is an independent, arm's-length organization. I think the record on that is quite clear. Elections Canada does not follow the direction of the government. It follows its own direction. I am sure it will in this case as well.

Pensions
Oral Questions

11:30 a.m.

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Mr. Speaker, once again, the government is refusing to disclose its intentions with respect to the old age security program. Canadians have clearly had enough of this utter lack of transparency. That is why, yesterday, in several provinces, people besieged Conservative MPs' offices to find out more about their plans. The Parliamentary Budget Officer and many experts have made it clear that the program has long-term viability. Now Canadians are telling the government not to touch old age security.

I will ask the question again; perhaps you have heard it. Will the government—

Pensions
Oral Questions

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Pensions
Oral Questions

11:30 a.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk
Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why the NDP does not want to support seniors. Why does it not want to ensure that both today's seniors and tomorrow's have access to an old age security program? We want the system to last. That is why we have to make changes to protect this generation of seniors and future generations.