House of Commons Hansard #139 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was environment.
Gordon O'Connor ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, our military commitment at this moment is to the end of February 2009. I do not know how many times I can say that but I will keep saying it as long as they keep asking.
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the member for Ottawa South kept up his game of smoke and mirrors by claiming that the 2005 Liberal environmental plan, project green, had been fully funded by the previous Liberal government.
Would the Minister of the Environment please expose the shell game being played by the Liberal environmental critic?
John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, if he insists, I will. The following is what the former environment commissioner had to say about the Liberal Party's record. She said:
As of 2005, it was $6.3 billion that had been announced. In terms of spending, at the end of the 2003-04 fiscal year $1.6 billion had been spent.
In fact, the commissioner found it hard to substantiate the $1.6 billion that the Liberals claimed that they had spent. What we do not know is how much of this money ended up in brown envelopes over the tables of restaurants.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have not taken any concrete action on climate change. After hundreds of hours of work by all parties in committee, after a successful rewrite of the clean air act, the Minister of the Environment is going to throw everything out the window. But members of all the parties worked together on this. That is what ordinary Canadians want to see.
Why does the minister not bring the clean air act before the House so that the members can adopt it?
John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I have said nothing of the kind. In fact, I think the clean air act has a lot of important components, one being the capacity to engage in provincial equivalency agreements. We have had the fact that we want to bring in regulations for air pollutants, which is very important. Energy efficiency components in the bill are very important but, most important, as the Minister of Agriculture announced yesterday, are the measures in the bill for our biofuels sector. We would like all those things to be the law.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, what was true on day one is even more true now and that is that Canadians no longer trust the Conservatives to protect the environment. They are in desperate need of some adult supervision.
The minister will not even let his own clean air act come before this House for debate so that ordinary Canadians can compare it to the half measures that his government has presented.
Why will the government not get behind the process that the NDP created that was supported by all members in the House? Where is the minister's courage and his bravado when the time has come to put his convictions forward and bring the bill back to the House?
John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, we have indicated very clearly that we have serious concerns about parts of that bill. One of the concerns that we have involves the Liberals' proposals that were put into the bill. What they said is that there would be an unlimited licence to pollute.
This causes us great concern. We do not support an unlimited licence to pollute. That is the Liberal policy. That is the same Liberal Party that wanted taxpayers to backstop polluters, something that this government just cannot support.
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment's apocalyptic report is deeply flawed. But how can we win the fight of our generation if our hands are tied? Bill C-30, as amended by the committee, enables Canadians to use all the tools available to them under the Kyoto protocol.
Why can the minister not decide whether he will bring the bill to a vote? When will he make up his mind?
John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the member chairs the committee for a party that did not get the job done over 13 long years. The member chairs the Liberal committee that brought out a proposal that is not compliant with Kyoto. The member also voted for Bill C-288.
Let us look at what the National Post and Don Martin said about Bill C-288:
Look, anyone who believes Canada can actually meet its Kyoto obligations on schedule without serious economic complications is a common sense denier.
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Mr. Speaker, last fall the Environment Commissioner reported that Canada can reach 21% of its Kyoto targets each year annually through a domestic offset and trading system, but the government's own Kyoto report last week announced that it would never allow such a system to be used.
Between Chicken Little's report and his refusal to be clear about Bill C-30, one thing has become clear. The government is doing everything it can to do nothing about global warming.
We all know now what the Conservatives will not do, so can the minister finally tell us what percentage of Kyoto he is willing to--
John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the government accepts its responsibilities to clean up the mess that the previous Liberal government left us. The government understands the important science and environmental consequences of global action.
What I can tell the member opposite is what is not an option: sitting back and watching harmful greenhouse gas emissions rise. We want to see them decline. We have come forward with a number of initiatives and we will continue to do that.
Gary Merasty Liberal Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Mr. Speaker, the sad legacy of the residential school era is well known to most Canadians, except for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who believes these schools were simply set up to educate.
In fact, they were not. They were set up to assimilate a people against their will. They were places of disease, hunger, overcrowding and despair. Many children died. In 1914 a departmental official said “fifty per cent of the children who passed through these schools did not live to benefit from the education which they had received therein”. Yet, nothing was done.
I ask the Prime Minister again, would he please apologize to the residential school survivors?
Aboriginal AffairsOral Questions
Calgary Centre-North Alberta
Conservative
Jim Prentice ConservativeMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians
Mr. Speaker, I intend to fully proceed with the implementation of the residential school agreement which was concluded on May 10, 2006.
In the time since that date, there has been an approval by the court of this agreement and 10,310 individuals have received advance payments. A truth and reconciliation commission is being set up.
I intend to continue to fully implement the terms and conditions of what I consider to be a fair, honourable and generous agreement.
Gary Merasty Liberal Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Mr. Speaker, above all else, I stand for these children, many of whom buried their friends, families and siblings at these schools.
Last year the Prime Minister complimented aboriginal British colonial policies as the most generous of the period. Today we are fortunate our children do not have to suffer what aboriginal children endured through these supposed generous policies of the residential school era, of which the Prime Minister is such a big fan.
I ask that we all think about this for a moment as we go forward and think about what is really fair. Will the Prime Minister commit to the repatriation of the bodies and an apology to the residential school survivors?
Jim Prentice ConservativeMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member goes too far in his question.
I spoke to the media about this subject on Friday. I will say now what I said then. I have three daughters myself. The thought of losing any of them is unimaginable. The thought that they would go away to a school and never return is something I cannot even contemplate.
We will get to the bottom of the disappeared children. The truth and reconciliation commission will hear much about that. I have instructed our officials to look into that and to work with oblate records of the churches to get to the bottom of this issue, and this sad chapter in our history.
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Speaker, reconstruction of highway 175 in the Parc des Laurentides has begun. The official in the Minister of Transport's office who is responsible for the construction has stated that the necessary funds are in place. No one in our region has any doubts about the reconstruction.
Why then, all of a sudden, in the middle of construction, is the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec throwing into question the funding for this project? Does his government intend to backpedal and stop the project?
Lawrence Cannon ConservativeMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is asking a question with an obvious answer. The government is moving forward. My colleague, the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, has spoken about the benefits of this project.
As has been the case these past 15 months, the government promised to get things done, and we keep our promises.
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Here is another example of an announcement with no financial commitment, Mr. Speaker.
Last Friday, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities gave the Canada Lands Corporation the mandate to develop the site of the Ottawa Street mail sorting facility, in southwestern Montreal. While the purpose of this initiative is to clean up contaminated land, the government did not announce any funding for the initiative.
Beyond the rhetoric, could the minister responsible for Canada Post and the Canada Lands Corporation tell us how much money will actually be put toward the cleanup operation on the site of the mail handling facility and Montreal's new harbourfront, and when?
Lawrence Cannon ConservativeMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, had the member followed the issue at all, he would have seen that we have actually transferred nearly five million square feet of land to the Canada Lands Corporation, which will ensure the harmonious development of greater Montreal. This is a first, and we on this side of the House are very proud of the work done in that regard.
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, Robert Mugabe is engaged in massive human rights violations against his own people. Zimbabweans now have the shortest lifespan in the world, a shocking 33 years. Sadly, the Conservative government sees nothing beyond Afghanistan and as a result millions suffer due to this negligence.
If the Conservative government is not willing to reverse the cuts that it made to aid for the country, or indict President Robert Mugabe for crimes against humanity, will it at least do the right thing and expel the Zimbabwean high commissioner to Canada, and do it now?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member opposite chooses to politicize an issue such as this, that is so serious.
We agree with him. The monstrous behaviour of President Mugabe is one that should be condemned by all, which I and the parliamentary secretary have done publicly. We continue to work on all multilateral mechanisms to bring about some compliance with universal standards of human rights and good governance.
We are going to continue to work on this issue, not withdraw from this issue, as the hon. member would suggest.
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal and NDP opponents of the new fisheries act have been touring Atlantic Canada, intentionally fearmongering. They say that the new act will prevent fishers from transferring their licences.
Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans assure hard-working fishers that the existing process for transferring their licences will remain absolutely 100% unchanged in the new fisheries act?
Fisheries and OceansOral Questions
St. John's South—Mount Pearl Newfoundland & Labrador
Conservative
Loyola Hearn ConservativeMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me assure anybody involved in the fishery that in relation to disposing their assets, nothing has changed at all. Whatever they could do in the old act, they will be able to do in the new act, if we ever get it through the House.
However, we have made it easier for them with the help of the member who just asked the question. We brought in the capital gains break for them, up to $750,000 or no limit within the family. We have also, in fisheries renewal, made it possible for them to buy each other out. We are encouraging that rather than trying to stop it.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, poor trade policies by the Liberals and now the Conservatives have put the auto industry in reverse.
The minister knows that a few years ago Canada was the fourth largest automaker in the world. Now we have dropped to 10th. The minister also knows that Canada has a $3 billion trade deficit with South Korea. The minister also knows that right now Toyota has surpassed General Motors in auto production and Canada has become a net importer of cars.
Despite all that, the minister has yet to table an auto plan in this House. How can that be? Why is the minister willing to sell us out with a deal with South Korea costing us Canadian jobs without examining the situation?
