Debates of May 26th, 2008

The Environment

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a damage control mission. Will the Prime Minister tell the world that, for the past 10 years, he has denied the existence of climate change and raised money to abolish the Kyoto protocol, which he described as a “socialist scheme”? Will he admit to European leaders that he rejects their target dates, their exchange quota system and their fixed greenhouse gas reduction targets?

How can anyone believe what he is saying about climate change when the 11 groups that studied the plan dismissed it outright?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it was 33% above target, the mess that the Liberal Party left in Canada. Now the Liberals are talking about a carbon tax, the mother of all carbon taxes. They are going to be forcing seniors to try to decide: “Do I buy my prescription, do I fill my fridge, or do I fill my gas tank?”

I have a great quote. This person said, “In eleven years in politics, I have never broken my word...there will be no carbon tax”. Who said that? It was the leader of the Liberal Party.

Multiculturalism

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the report of the Bouchard-Taylor commission clearly rejects multiculturalism as a model for integrating newcomers to Quebec. The report says, “The Canadian multiculturalism model does not appear to be well suited to conditions in Québec”.

Will the Prime Minister admit that Quebec has to be exempt from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act because, as commissioners Bouchard and Taylor point out, it is not well suited to conditions in Quebec?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I have not yet read the report of the Bouchard-Taylor commission. The commission was set up by the Government of Quebec and not by the Government of Canada.

Since coming to office, our government has been focusing on promoting integration, tackling radical tendencies and on cooperation between communities. Our vision is contributing to achieving national cohesion based on our common values.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bouchard-Taylor commission recommends that French be the language of work for all sectors in Quebec. And yet, the government voted against our bill on applying Bill 101 to companies governed by the Canada Labour Code. The government is also refusing to support our request to exempt Quebec from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

Was recognizing the nation of Quebec nothing more than smoke and mirrors to the Conservative government, since it is refusing to put its words into action?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, as I already said, the Bouchard-Taylor commission was set up by the Government of Quebec, not by the Government of Canada. The federal government has not dictated anything to Quebec regarding the right balance between national identity and cultural pluralism.

Services in French

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is another example of the fact that Quebeckers are considered second-class citizens by the federal government. According to La Presse, more than a quarter of the air carriers that operate out of Montreal offer no telephone services in French. These companies are not subject to the Charter of the French Language because they fall under the federal government's jurisdiction.

Will the Prime Minister finally understand that the only way to ensure that French, the language of the Quebec nation, is respected is to make all companies on Quebec territory subject to Bill 101, with no exceptions?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. This government has actually taken the first steps in the world in order to ensure that pilots communicating with ground do speak in either French or English. This government is clear in its promotion and protection of both official languages in this country and we are going to continue to do so.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about airline pilots; we are talking about services for consumers in Montreal. This shows that the Conservatives do not take such unspeakable situations very seriously. Such situations are an insult to Quebeckers.

Since the Quebec nation has been recognized, it only makes sense that the common language—French—should be respected. Only Bill 101 can make this happen.

Will the Prime Minister finally realize this and accept this principle?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Secretary of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is once again trying to stir up arguments. I want to make it clear. Our approach here is a multicultural one. Every Quebec citizen can be served in his or her language, and francophones will never be denied service in their language.

What we need to understand is that the Bloc is trying to create problems to hide its own powerlessness. It has been around for 18 years. We recognized the Quebec nation, we practice open federalism, and all Quebeckers benefit from that. Quebec is growing stronger.

The Environment

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will try to convince Europeans that someone else can do what he should be doing. However, he knows that the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is by fixing a price for carbon by establishing a cap and trade system. The big polluters must pay their share, and we must use the revenues to invest in environmental solutions. That is exactly what the Europeans are doing.

When will the government establish a real carbon cap and trade system?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of the Environment has already said, we intend to put into place a system such as the one the NDP leader spoke about.

We are introducing just that and, in fact, we are introducing mandatory caps on carbon emissions for the first time as well as mandatory rules that will ensure that carbon reductions will go down. This will mean that by the year 2020 we will see a 20% reduction, a stark contrast with the failures of previous governments.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a complete myth what the hon. member has just said. The emissions will not be capped in any significant or real way, and yet we know that cap and trade can work when it is done right.

Twenty-five years ago we had acid rain throughout northeastern North America. The lakes were dying. Sudbury looked like a moonscape. The government brought in cap and trade, forced the polluters to pay. The money went into the solutions.

I just got back from Sudbury this weekend and the city is coming back to life. The lakes are coming back to life. This is a system that we know works.

Why will the government not bring in a real system and do it now?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the leader of the NDP has been travelling a fair bit.

I invite him, on his next trip on the plane, to read the turning the corner plan which lays out in impressive detail the exact approach that this government is using to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are putting in place mandatory caps on the major, large emitters, not taxes that line the government's pockets, while allowing polluters an unlimited licence to pollute, not that Liberal approach but mandatory rules that they cannot exceed unless they use something like a cap and trade system that will mean real reductions resulting in a 20% reduction by 2020.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Sudbury.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

International Aid

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the NDP for the accolade. I know Sudbury has turned around and done a great job.

Now we are on to the question. In response to the tsunami that hit south Asia on December 26, 2004, the Liberal government announced matching funds four days later and made them retroactive to December 26.

The government's announcement for matching funds for Burma only covers three weeks of donations, starting on May 15, two weeks after the disaster.

We know the majority of funds are given in the first 72 hours of a disaster. The cyclone hit Burma May 2. Why are the contributions not retroactive to that date?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been supporting organizations that have been able to deliver relief directly to victims, and now we are optimistic that the Burmese government will allow open access to all humanitarian workers.

In fact, our government program to match individual contributions of Canadians to organizations working in Burma or China will cover a period of six weeks from the date of the occurrence of the cyclone or the earthquake. This government will continue to do its part and support the generosity of Canadians.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is the first time we have heard this fact. Could we know when the decision was made to have these contributions be retroactive to the date of the disaster?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, what is important to Canadians is that the needed help gets to the victims of the cyclone and the earthquake. It is not the amount of money. It is not how it gets there. It is the requirements, the needs, the food, the water, the sanitation, and the medication. It has to get to the victims. This government is making sure it gets to the victims. We are doing that responsibly with respected organizations.

Search and Rescue

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, while the government is blindly focused on extending the life of our current search and rescue planes until 2015, it is becoming clear, at least to the experts at the Department of National Defence, that this plan is potentially dangerous. The current planes are so old that there are no guarantees that spare parts will continue to be available to keep them in the air. That is why the previous government launched an accelerated procurement plan for new planes which the Conservative government cancelled.

Will it take a disaster? Will it take human lives? Will it take Canadian lives until the government recognizes that Canada needs modern search and rescue planes now?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke with the head of procurement at National Defence this morning on this very subject. There have been steps taken already to improve the life of the Buffalo aircraft with respect to search and rescue. We of course augment that with other aircraft including the Hercules and Cormorant helicopters.

But I am surprised that a member from the Liberal Party would even talk about military procurement given his party's disastrous record, the cancellation of the Maritime helicopter program at a cost of $500 million. Those types of decisions were disastrous for the Canadian Forces. We are taking decisions to rebuild the forces.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, why was the minister talking about Buffalo aircraft this morning when he knew a year ago that the recommendation was that they could not last as long as he wants them to last.

In 2004, the previous Liberal government announced $1.3 billion to buy new search and rescue planes, but that plan was scrapped by the Conservative government. Canadians across Canada, especially in British Columbia and my riding of Yukon, depend on those planes for their safety. The government is failing them.

Will the minister reverse this dangerous course and commit to immediately ordering new search and rescue planes now?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite and his government made a lot of plans, made a lot of promises, but they did not deliver. They did not get the job done. We have made the most significant investment in military in this country's history. Let me remind the hon. member what the Winnipeg Free Press had to say just a few days ago:

--some Canadians have forgotten that just a few years ago the Forces were on the verge of collapse because they lacked the means to do much more than hold a parade.

That was the history of the Liberal Party when it came to national defence.

Public Safety

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Foreign Affairs' former girlfriend's shady past was brought to light, the government has been downplaying the threat the relationship posed to public safety. Today we learned that Ms. Couillard was involved in a security company that had access to strategic airport security documents belonging to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.

Can the Minister of Public Safety tell us whether security screenings are conducted before giving strategic documents to possible bidders on airport security contracts?