House of Commons Hansard #110 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was home.
Leona Aglukkaq ConservativeMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, the provinces, territories and the federal government have been working together to plan the rollout. We were early with the rollout of the vaccine. We got the vaccines to the provinces by October 26 instead of the second week of November.
We will continue to rollout the vaccines. In fact, by the end of this week, some jurisdictions will have completed their vaccine rollout.
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, early rollout? It was seven weeks behind China. I do not think so.
Canadians are getting increasingly worried that they will not be vaccinated before the H1N1 virus hits its peak. Mid-February 2010 is too late. At least 41 people died last week, which brings the total number of deaths in Canada to 190.
Can this government explain to Canadians why the vaccines will not be delivered before the virus hits its peak?
Leona Aglukkaq ConservativeMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, again, I will say this in the House, the medical experts stated that it was very important to complete the vaccination program of the regular flu vaccine. As soon as that was completed back in July, we started to produce the H1N1 vaccine and have rolled that out as well.
As the member should know, many Canadians die of the regular flu every year. Medical experts stated that it was very important to complete the regular flu vaccine program, so that Canadians have that vaccine available in addition to the H1N1 vaccination.
We are well ahead of schedule than other countries.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, while countries like France and Brazil are working to reach a concrete agreement at the Copenhagen summit, Canada is taking a blatantly counterproductive attitude on the international stage. The Prime Minister even took advantage of his presence at the APEC summit to immediately rule out the possibility of an agreement on greenhouse gas emissions in Copenhagen.
Will the government admit that it is trying to destroy any chance of reaching an agreement in Copenhagen just to please its friends, the oil companies?
Christian Paradis ConservativeMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, that is not true.
One thing is certain: Canada wants to take part in the discussions at the international level. The Prime Minister was clear: building consensus requires that the major emitters be involved. Another thing is certain: the worst trap is to get tangled up in legal wrangling. That is what the Prime Minister said.
We are going to deliver the goods, but realistically and in balance with our priority, which is the economy.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has stated clearly that he is open to discussions about climate change, but that oil sands development must not suffer. Since the oil sands are largely responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, this amounts to saying that the minister could not care less about climate change.
Will this government admit that its priority is to sabotage the Copenhagen summit at all costs so that Canada can keep on polluting with impunity?
Christian Paradis ConservativeMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, it is possible to balance economic priorities with the environment, contrary to what we are hearing. I can say that Canada has adopted bold targets. We will pursue our goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% compared to 2006 levels by 2020 and by 60% to 70% by 2050.
That is action, it is tangible and, most importantly, it is achievable. We will not do what the previous government did, which was to sign an agreement like the Kyoto protocol without being able to comply with it.
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the environment, this government is making an increasing number of bad decisions, such as supporting oil sands development and subsidizing the traditional auto industry to the tune of billions of dollars. Yet, the economy of the future will not be based on oil, but on alternative energies and technologies such as the electric car, which is an option proposed by both the Parti Québécois and the Bloc Québécois.
What is the government waiting to show some foresight and propose concrete measures such as support for research on rechargeable batteries and the deployment of charging stations?
Lisa Raitt ConservativeMinister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the House exactly what this government has been doing on those matters.
Not only have we put aside approximately $10 billion in the past three years with respect to renewable forms of electricity and fuels but most recently, we conducted four national round tables just on those issues of what does the next generation look like.
We are talking to industry. We are talking to academia. We are hearing what they have to say. That is how we are moving forward.
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is this government which ended subsidies to the eco-auto program. Instead of subsidizing oil companies, the government must provide incentives to convince consumers to buy rechargeable electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids.
Why does the government refuse to take such measures?
Lisa Raitt ConservativeMinister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, in fact, it is through the natural resources department that we have actually set out a road map on how to get to the electric car. There is a lot of research being done in the area. We have been supportive of it.
As I indicated, the province of Quebec has received an enormous amount of support on renewable energy and on research and development through SDTC, and through our other forums with respect to biofuels.
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are doing a good hatchet job of undermining the Copenhagen conference on climate change, before it has even begun. Five months ago, the minister promised he would table his plan before the UN conference, but that was a lie. Instead, he set up a team of communications officers and spin doctors to deal with the fact that his government does not have a plan. Worse still, in today's newspapers, the minister is announcing, for all intents and purposes, the failure of the Copenhagen conference.
Is this the legacy that the government has decided to leave to future generations?
Mark Warawa ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the minister has said repeatedly in this House that the Government of Canada supports an international binding treaty that will balance environmental protection with economic prosperity, that it will maintain a long-term focus, that it will focus on the development and deployment of clean technologies, and that it will engage all of the major emitters. Why would the NDP not support that?
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives provide answers that are not supported by facts.
They were just awarded a series of booby prizes at the international level for their mediocre performance regarding the environment. This is what happens when one chooses oil sands over sustainable development. The Conservatives made Canada the most obstructionist country at the preliminary talks in Barcelona, and now at APEC.
How could Canadians believe that things will be any different in Copenhagen?
Mark Warawa ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, again, the fact is the government has made it very clear that Canada wants an international binding treaty that includes all the major emitters. One hundred and ninety-two countries are going to be at that table. This government will ensure that any treaty will include Canada's economic, geographic and industrial realities. We will not sign a deal that is bad for Canada.
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are not doing their homework on the international scene, and they are not getting the job done here on the home front.
More than 90% of the infrastructure projects will go ahead without a federal assessment of their environmental impact. Speeding up the stimulus projects is one thing, but doing so by disregarding any environmental impact is completely irresponsible and illegal.
The exemptions for federal assessments were not approved by Parliament. They are being challenged in court, which could end up slowing each and every project further if due process is not followed.
Why do they not follow the law, respect future generations, and evaluate the environmental impact of all of these infrastructure projects?
Vic Toews ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board
In fact, Mr. Speaker, together with our partners at all levels, our government is taking unprecedented action to eliminate duplication and streamline the environmental assessment process. As one former NDP premier said, “one project, one approval”. We think that is sufficient and it works.
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, first the leader of the ADQ publicly and formally disassociated his party from the Conservatives and its chief fundraiser in Quebec, Senator Leo Housakos. At that time, Mr. Housakos' municipal fundraising practices and his friendships were being aired in public. Then the leader of the ADQ revealed he had discovered troubling information regarding fundraising practices at the ADQ.
Were any of these issues raised in the inquiry conducted before naming Mr. Housakos in the other place?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, if the member has any specific allegations, he should make them to the authorities, or better yet, he should have the courage to say them outside of the House of Commons.
Senator Housakos has proactively asked the Senate ethics commissioner to examine this matter. But let me be clear, it was this government that acted to put an end to the influence of big money on political parties. We banned contributions from corporations and unions. We limited individual donations to $1,000, and we banned private or secret gifts. That is real action for accountability.
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are avoiding the question. Yet, it is a very simple question.
What was taken into consideration during the inquiry on Mr. Housakos' background, before his appointment to the other place? Was the expertise of the RCMP and of the Sûreté du Québec used during this inquiry on Mr. Housakos? If this inquiry did not reveal anything wrong, then the Conservatives will surely agree to table the report in this House.
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to make allegations, he should make them to the authorities, or repeat them outside the House. Senator Housakos wasted no time in seeking the opinion of the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner regarding this issue.
Let me be clear: this government has acted to put an end to the influence of big money on federal political parties. We banned contributions from corporations, unions and organizations, and we limited individual donations to $1,000.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, today's media says the government is musing about tinkering with the rules for crown corporations and other agencies, but it refuses to investigate alleged wrongdoings.
The Toronto Port Authority is so out of control that even the board of directors is calling for the Auditor General to clean up the mess. However, the government says it is beyond her mandate.
Will the government get out of the way and authorize the Auditor General to do the job that the government refuses to do?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Port Authority is an arm's-length organization. The authority has said many times that all expense and hospitality policies were followed.
The board has since stated that the management and staff clearly followed all of these policies.
The chairman of the audit committee stated that there was nothing unusual about these expenses for an organization of this size.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, the governance of the port authority has been called into question for many reasons: fiscal mismanagement on hospitality and other expenses, altering board minutes to cover up political interference and gross mismanagement, a feuding and dysfunctional board, unauthorized use of government offices for Conservative political fundraising, and violations of the Privacy Act.
The chairman of the board of directors is pleading for the Auditor General to be brought in to do the job.
When will this shameful cover-up stop?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Port Authority is an arm's-length organization. The authority has said many times that expense and hospitality policies were in fact followed.
The board has since stated that the management and the staff have clearly followed all of these policies.
The chairman of the audit committee stated that there was nothing unusual about these expenses for a business of this size.