House of Commons Hansard #66 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was money.
Jason Kenney ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, Bloc Québécois members continue to pretend that the oil industry is receiving subsidies, but I would like to see proof of such subsidies in our government's budget which, incidentally, was supported by the Bloc.
The fact is that we have not given any advantage to the oil industry. However, following the measures announced yesterday by the Minister of the Environment, the oil industry will be affected, like all the other industries, by our environmental regulations.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that the oil industry enjoys huge tax benefits here in Canada.
Quebec has come out firmly in favour of the Kyoto protocol and does not agree with postponing the 2006-2012 “window” to 2050. The minister, Mr. Béchard, confirmed this yesterday, saying that not only the Government of Quebec would not take no for an answer from Ottawa: all Quebeckers support the objectives of the Kyoto protocol.
How can the government be so out of touch with reality that the only hard target it has set has a deadline as far off as 2015, when—
Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have put in place a target of up to 65% absolute emissions reduction by 2050.
We will also be negotiating over the next four months with every province and territory and industry sector short term targets to be put in place by spring.
The difference is that we have given our word to the provinces and territories, including Quebec, and every industry sector that we will set those targets with them, not arbitrarily like the former government, without any economic analysis or any environmental analysis. We will do it together.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the situation is completely absurd. The Government of Quebec has taken action and made real progress toward achieving greenhouse gas reduction targets, and instead of rewarding it, Ottawa is turning its back.
How can the federal government allow the big oil companies to continue polluting with impunity and turn a deaf ear to Mr. Béchard, the minister who says that Ottawa's abandonment of the Kyoto protocol is costing Quebec its significant comparative economic benefits?
Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the work that we do with the Government of Quebec on this file. The Government of Quebec has introduced a very good environmental plan. It is not in law yet.
Yesterday we introduced a piece of legislation that will have repercussions in every industry sector, every province and every territory across this country, including Quebec.
We look forward to working with the Government of Quebec to ensure that there is no duplication in terms of the legislation that it hopes to bring in one day on the environment. I look forward to my continued work with Quebec.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's announcement, a hot air announcement is what it really amounts to, answers the question: Who was the government listening to in preparing this so-called plan? My question is for the Minister of the Environment because, clearly, she was not listening to Canadians.
Canadians wanted Kyoto respected and now it has been torn up and thrown on the floor. The Conservatives were obviously listening to the oil and gas companies because they have decided to continue their accelerated capital cost allowances to this industry as a special deal. Scientists, on the other hand, say we should limit temperature rise to two degrees.
Will the Conservatives' plan meet that goal or not?
Jason Kenney ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that not even the Government of Canada can guarantee what the temperature is going to be tomorrow or a week from now.
However, what we can guarantee is that we are keeping an election promise to introduce a clean air act with teeth that will protect the health of Canadians, an act, by the way, which the NDP demanded during the last election.
We are pleased to see the support for the environmental plan announced yesterday from the head of the Canadian Medical Association who said, “--by recognizing and targeting the role clean air has in ensuring good health, the government appears to be on the right track”.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, like all Canadians, we called for real legislation to improve air quality. What we have before us is not real legislation that can protect Canadians.
Scientific evidence indicates that an increase of 2oC can cause environmental catastrophes around the world. Can the government's plan prevent such a temperature increase? Yes or no?
Jason Kenney ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the leader of the NDP has decided that it is up to the Government of Canada to control global temperatures. I think that shows a lack of scientific knowledge on his part.
This government takes its responsibilities and its commitments to improve the environment seriously. That is why, yesterday, we introduced Canada's first clean air bill.
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the Minister of Foreign Affairs insulted the office he holds and confirmed Canadians' reservations about his suitability as our face to the world. The minister's role as Canada's top diplomat requires him to exercise a little diplomacy.
The government pretends to champion Canada's role on the world stage, but it seems that decidedly undiplomatic behaviour is just fine, as long as it is coming from a senior minister.
How can Canadians trust the minister to bite his tongue when snide little smears cross his mind at the UN, at NATO, or at other vital international meetings?
Jason Kenney ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, I understand this matter was raised as a point of order yesterday. I believe that your honour has the trust of all members of Parliament to rule on such matters and certainly, as always, we have confidence in you to do so.
I would invite the member opposite to acknowledge, as all members must, that we could all work to improve the decorum of this place.
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the minister in question is Canada's face to the world. He is our representative in the global community and the spokesman for our foreign policy.
The world of high diplomacy, he should know, is one that demands pointed communication and respectful language. Yet, the minister has shown his inability to refrain from schoolyard antics when the opportunity comes his way.
How can Canadians possibly trust the government to avoid domestic embarrassments, such as this one, in the international community?
Jason Kenney ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, as I intimated before, if we were to train a live camera on the member who asked that question through most question periods, we would see schoolyard antics.
I think we can recognize that this is a problem. It is a challenge for all of us. We could all be part of the solution by working with you, Mr. Speaker, to improve the decorum of this place.
Belinda Stronach Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Mr. Speaker, the evidence that this minority Conservative government is disrespectful of Canadian women is mounting.
First, the government eliminated equality from the mandate of the Status of Women, the only agency within government that protects and fights for women's rights. Then, yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board confirmed in this House that the government has no intention of supporting advocacy.
Why does the government insist on turning its back on women's rights and the groups who advocate on their behalf?
Lynne Yelich ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member that it was a Conservative government that gave women the right to vote in 1917, a former Conservative government. The first female cabinet minister was in the Diefenbaker cabinet. The first female premier in British Columbia was from a Conservative government. I would just like to remind the member.
I have to agree about the decorum in the House. Perhaps all members could support my former motion. I would like to see the decorum in the House change.
Belinda Stronach Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Mr. Speaker, may I also remind the House that they also took the word “progressive” out of the name of the party. The evidence of--
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
Order, please. The hon. member for Newmarket--Aurora has the floor to ask a question. We will have a little order, please.
Belinda Stronach Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Mr. Speaker, the evidence of what the Treasury Board President said yesterday is documented in the official record of this House for everyone to read. Canadian women and the groups who work to advance women's rights in this country are paying attention. The evidence is there: no equality and no advocacy.
Why does the government insist on being so disrespectful of women? Is it because it would prefer that we simply shut up and stick to our knitting?
Lynne Yelich ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that the Government of Canada is committed to the full participation of women in Canadian society.
We have undertaken initiatives to improve women's economic well-being, including: lowering taxes; putting more money in women's pockets; creating more child care spaces; and protecting women and children from sexual exploitation, violence and abuse.
We have increased the amount Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax, which impacts on low income women and women living in poverty. We are cutting taxes for small businesses to help women entrepreneurs, who contribute in excess of $18 billion annually to the economy.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry is making much of the pseudo-program announced recently. But the fact is that it misses the mark, because it does not include any support measures for older workers affected by mass layoffs. Take for example this former employee of Whirlpool in Montmagny who tried to seek assistance from the office of the Minister of Industry and was directed to the 1-800-O-Canada line.
How can the Minister of Industry claim to care about the plight of older workers, when all the assistance his office can manage to give them is some phone number?
Lawrence Cannon ConservativeMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague failed to mention that with the program we have put in place come very concrete measures, particularly for industry workers and for workers between the ages of 55 and 64.
These people will be able to take advantage of the government support provided through this program, one which, I repeat, is Canada-wide. This program is essential for our affected communities and regions.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, there is so little support for the alleged support program for older workers announced this week that, in an effort to sell his program, the Minister of Industry was forced to twist the words of Claudette Carbonneau, the president of the CSN, who then fired off an official letter of complaint to the minister.
Instead of trying to justify his program by twisting other people's words, would the minister not be better advised to put his energy into developing a real income support program for older workers?
Lawrence Cannon ConservativeMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed by the kind of remarks coming from the Bloc Québécois, especially the kind that says, “the alleged program announced this week”. The program has been announced; it is therefore not an alleged program. Facts have been stated.
What did the CPQ have to say on that? It said:
Between being given a fish and learning to fish, the choice is clear. We have to help the affected workers retrain in different areas, and the sooner the better.
That is what employers want, and that is what we are delivering.