Debates of Oct. 19th, 2009

Infrastructure

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, this is part of a wider pattern. More than 50 Conservative MPs have handed out $600 million in cheques with their own signatures on them. The Prime Minister walks around and his spokesman says, “We're shocked. We're shocked. Let's round up the usual suspects,” but everybody knows nothing is authorized by the government unless it goes through the Prime Minister's Office.

Would the Prime Minister tell the House whether he personally signed off on this strategy? Did he or did he not approve these actions?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

No, Mr. Speaker.

Let us be very clear. The members of Parliament who support our economic action plan should be very proud of its achievements. Members of Parliament should not apologize for their achievements.

Here is what the Prime Minister said:

Listen, we are the government... I don't see why we can't try to get credit for what we do. I hope we do so. There is nothing to be ashamed [of] in that.

Do members know who said that? It was Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal logo was not on the cheques.

On May 20, Senator Leo Housakos of BPR Engineering organized a fundraising cocktail party for Conservatives in Montreal. Four other BPR executives were present.

That same day, the government awarded a $1.4 million contract to BPR.

How did taxpayers' money get into the coffers of a company that has Senator Housakos on its payroll?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely clear that the government did not give this company a contract. That is not what happened.

The real reality is that the government in fact made no such contract with this company. There is a crown corporation that operates at arm's length. No minister or minister's office had any involvement in this matter.

If the member opposite wants to stop her drive-by smears, she should put some evidence upon the table, or is she not concerned with the facts?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are the masters of drive-by smears.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Order, order. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has the floor.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Senator Housakos, the PM's main fundraiser in Quebec, was vice-president of BPR.

When the media came out with the story, the Conservatives tried to cover up his relationship with BPR.

Can this government explain how taxpayers' money ended up in the coffers of a company with such close ties to the Conservative Party?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite, if she has any evidence, if she has any facts with respect to the outrageous allegations she is making, if she wants to stand up in her place and prove me wrong, and prove that this is not a drive-by smear, let her do it.

Let her stand in her place. Let her table the allegations she has made. Better yet, let us see if she has the guts to make those allegations outside this place.

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

Mr. Speaker, although it promised to clean up the Liberals' sponsorship scandal mess, this government is doing exactly the same thing by using taxpayer money for party purposes. First we learn that they distributed hundreds of cheques with the party logo on them, and now we learn that a company with a Conservative senator on its payroll was awarded a federal contract.

How does the Prime Minister explain this influence peddling and this partisan use of taxpayer money?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, those are very serious allegations. My colleague is talking about influence peddling; that is a serious charge. He must know that the Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges corporation is independent of the government.

The contract was awarded in an open and transparent manner.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is funny; Conservative ministers were there to announce the renovation of the Champlain Bridge. Now, they want nothing to do with it. It is rather odd, to say the least.

This government does not have money for unemployed workers, for families, for the forestry industry or the manufacturing industry. But it does not think twice about spending more than $100,000 to announce its latest progress report on the economic recovery. That is unacceptable.

How can the Conservatives explain this?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. We know that renovations on the Champlain Bridge had become necessary, and this government has finally provided some political direction.

We voted for a parliamentary appropriation to repair the bridge, and after that, a corporation that operates independently of the government, Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated, took over.

Once again, that party is trying to confuse everyone, because it will never manage anything. All it ever does is complain in this House.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the government refused to modernize the Access to Information Act, it broke a 2005 election promise and ignored repeated requests from both the standing committee and the commissioners responsible for the act. The government said that it would clean house after the Liberals' 12-year regime, but it has all kinds of skeletons in its closet.

Why is the government refusing to be transparent? What does it have to hide?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member missed it, but we passed the Federal Accountability Act, which was the most significant step in access to information in the last 25 years in this country.

Despite opposition from the members of the Liberal Party and other members, we have now made 70 different organizations, including crown corporations, including the Canadian Wheat Board, subject to the Federal Accountability Act. That is accountability. That is transparency.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, he did not answer the question, but whatever.

The government came up with an economic plan that does not meet Quebec's needs, and now it is hiding information about the true impact of its most recent budget from Parliament and the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Why is the government hiding the truth from Quebeckers?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to transparency and openness. This is why we have done more than has been done in many, many years under previous Liberal administrations.

Instead of complaining, the hon. member should get up on her feet and applaud this government for all it has done for transparency and accountability.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, our Copenhagen bill is very clear. We want science-based greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. That is what investors in the new green economy want. They want to know the rules of the game. Without solid targets, there will be no investment. It is as simple as that.

Canada is lagging behind while our competitors are doing what needs to be done. When will the Prime Minister jump on the bandwagon?

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is proposing a climate change bill that would devastate the economic recovery and force Canada to diverge from the very singular targets that our government and President Obama have identified.

The NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals just do not get it. They would have Canada move away from a North American target and isolate Canada continentaly.

Everyone agrees that a climate change plan must be done in partnership with our international trading partners and must include economic realities.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is suggesting that we should wait, somehow cap-in-hand, for the American administration to come up with its plan.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Cap and trade.

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

I wish they would support cap and trade, Mr. Speaker.

Meanwhile, we have the environment minister saying that the discussions in Copenhagen will be a failure. That is a heck of a way to go into a negotiation: predict failure and then indicate that we would not take any action until the other side comes forward, until our neighbour takes action first.

When will the government and the Prime Minister demonstrate some leadership on the most important issue facing the world today, which is the climate change crisis, or does he still think it is some kind of a--

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that effective action on the environment would require a balanced approach. Canada is taking that balanced approach to meet our global responsibilities in a way that balances environmental protection and economic prosperity for Canadians, and is comparable to the level of effort from other industrialized countries.

We have committed to reducing our total greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2020, which leads to a 60% to 70% reduction by 2050. Those are the toughest targets in Canadian history.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not quite follow the argument. The Conservatives are saying that they want to develop environmental policies that are in harmony with the U.S. Yet at the same time, the government is asking the U.S. government to weaken its air pollution rules so that Great Lakes freighters can continue to use polluting bunker oil.

According to the EPA, ship exhaust contains cancer-causing chemicals that travel hundreds of kilometres, and that pollutes the lungs of people in Canada, not just in the U.S., as well as producing disease, particularly in children and in the elderly.

Why is the government then refusing to improve air quality for millions of Canadians exposed to--