Debates of Dec. 8th, 2009

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to Pauline Marois' spokesperson in the House, who mirrors the ideas from headquarters.

To manage the Canadian federation is to recognize the efforts Quebec has made towards climate change. There are results from these efforts. In 2007, Quebec received a transfer of $350 million, which was more than Pauline Marois' spokesperson asked for in the House. The Premier of Quebec himself said that this would help Quebec achieve its climate change goals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not ashamed to say the same thing as Pauline Marois, but I would be ashamed to misrepresent the interests of Quebec.

Efforts made between 1990 and 2006 by paper and aluminum manufacturers in Quebec to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions have been completely ignored by Canada. Quebec's environment minister has said she is disappointed in the federal government.

How can the government have the nerve to tell us it is representing Quebec in Copenhagen, when Ottawa is misrepresenting everything Quebec proposes?

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

Mr. Speaker, Pauline Marois' spokesperson may not be embarrassed in this House, but one thing is certain: he does not have a monopoly on Quebec's values.

The people of Rivière-du-Loup sent him that message recently. Some of them still believe in the Canadian federation and we will succeed in our approach. We will sign a binding agreement. Canada will assume its share of responsibility. We will have a North American plan because the Obama administration has decided to adopt targets similar to ours.

Those are results.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment says that he wants to align his climate change policy with that of the United States. The U.S. has just acknowledged that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a threat to public health.

Does the minister, who says he wants to follow in the footsteps of the United States, intend to do the same here and acknowledge that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member well knows that Canada is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, 20% by 2020. That is one of the toughest targets in the world. It is definitely the toughest that Canada has ever had.

Canada wants an agreement. It is in our best interest to have an agreement. We are prepared to accept our fair share of the responsibility.

I call on that member to stop the bickering and the political games. Let us work together in the interests of Canada and a cleaner environment.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, studies show that oil sands extraction is five times more polluting than the oil industry will admit.

Does the fact that the minister refuses to acknowledge that greenhouse gas emissions are a threat not prove that he has chosen to protect Alberta's oil sands to the detriment of the health and the interests of Quebeckers?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that is nonsense. Canada emits 2% of the world's GHGs. The oil sands account for about 4% of Canada's total greenhouse gas emission output and for the transportation sector it is 27%.

That is why yesterday the government released features of the draft regulation on greenhouse gas emissions for newer vehicles. Our challenge is to be a clean energy superpower and that includes clean oil, clean vehicles and clean technology.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada has just received another fossil of the day award. Meanwhile, other countries are moving the debate forward. We have the example of the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who is speaking in Copenhagen tomorrow, and here is what she is saying:

This administration will not ignore science or the law any longer, nor will we avoid the responsibility we owe to our children and our grandchildren.

Could the Conservative government say that it is doing everything it can for our children and our grandchildren when it comes to the climate change crisis?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. We are in Copenhagen working hard for a strong and effective agreement to fight global warming. We are in Copenhagen because it is in our national interest to be in Copenhagen. We are in Copenhagen to work with our partners and not to play partisan games.

We are in Copenhagen standing shoulder to shoulder with the Obama administration to seek a meaningful agreement that will deliver the goods for our environment, and we welcome the NDP aboard our fight.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the government were serious we would be treated to some good news. However, the Conservatives have made bad choices. I will give an example. While the government provides billions of dollars to the oil industry and oil sands, the Zenn electric car plant in Saint-Jérôme has to close its doors.

Why must Zenn close? What are the Conservatives waiting for to take sustainable transportation in Canada seriously?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to sustainable transport, our government has taken more action in the last four years than any government in Canada's history.

Under the leadership of the previous minister, we took substantial actions with respect to public transit. This past year, despite difficult circumstances, the government doubled the gas tax transfers to the municipalities. We are investing in public transit, whether it is the Canada Line in British Columbia, whether it is in Montreal, whether it is in Toronto or right across this country.

The government is making unprecedented capital investments in public infrastructure and we are proud to do it.

Public Transit

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

Mr. Speaker, the municipal governments, directly or indirectly, control up to 44% of the emissions in Canada. They could bring forward 55 megatonnes of reduction if the government were to be serious about forming a partnership with them.

A strategic approach, led in part by the government and working with the municipalities, could achieve a lot, and a strategy around public transit for the country could achieve even more. They need $40 billion for transit alone and all they are getting is 8¢ on every tax dollar raised.

When will the government get serious about a strategy to work with our communities?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, this government is taking the issue of public transit incredibly seriously. We are matching our talk with action. We are putting substantial new investments in British Columbia, whether it is the Canada Line or the Evergreen Line. We are making substantial investments in Toronto with regard to the subway extension on the Spadina line to the new Scarborough LRT.

This government is making significant investments in public transit. We are transferring more money to the municipalities to support these types of activities than any government in Canadian history.

Finally, public transit has a strong voice on the government side of the House.

Afghanistan

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in June 2006 a Canadian soldier found an Afghan detainee with blood running down his face. He recorded in his field diary that he “assumed positive control of the individual and removed him”.

Photographs and medical examinations, which the government refuses to release publicly, corroborate the eye witness account. Other notes show clearly the abuse. The detainee was “a person in custody detained by Canadian troops”.

Why are the Conservatives attempting to discredit these two front line Canadian soldiers? Why are they calling them liars?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Simply put, Mr. Speaker, we are not. We are applauding them. We are encouraging all Canadian Forces personnel to continue to do what they always do, which is marvellous, which is spectacular, something we are all very proud of.

Let us look at what was said by General Natynczyk, who testified this morning, and three years ago he also answered this question. He said, “This was an operation where our Canadian troops were assisting the Afghan national security forces. We had no interest in the individual, but the ANSF did, and they took control of him”.

He went on to say, ”We didn't take this person into custody”. He went on to say, “We did not take this person under our control. What we did on the ground was just basic routine questioning”. That is what he said.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, either the Conservatives believe the eyewitness accounts of our soldiers on the ground or they do not. It is as simple as that.

In 2007-08 two senior Canadian officers further corroborated the accounts of the soldier and the medic under oath in court. Detailed notes show the name of the Canadian platoon that captured the Afghan before he was handed over and beaten. There are even photos.

The Conservatives not only refuse to release this information but they deny it exists. Why will they not come clean? Why will they not believe our soldiers?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, last time I checked, the Chief of the Defence Staff is not only a soldier but the top soldier. I will take his word. He said that what Canadian soldiers “did on the ground was just basic routine questioning”. He also went on to describe this in a sequence. He said, “The notes you see are from the military police who were called in at that time”.

So it was after the fact. This is a recitation of an after the fact description of the event. He said, “We didn't take this person into custody”.

If the hon. member does not accept my word on this, she should accept the word of General Natynczyk, and not like the hon. member opposite who suggests that somehow it is morally weak and—

[The Speaker]

Order. The hon. member for Beauséjour.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the Red Cross gave warnings about the conditions that detainees transferred by the Canadian Forces to the Afghan police were being exposed to.

What was the Conservative Party's priority? Its priority was not to ensure that Canada was respecting its international obligations, but rather to come up with a communications strategy to cover up the matter.

Why was making better arrangements for the transfer of detainee at the bottom of the Conservatives' priority list?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite the contrary. Our first priority was to clean up the mess that we had inherited. That was to improve the transfer arrangement. We have been clear and consistent in telling the House, committees and everyone that we acted upon credible evidence that was presented to us at the time, two and a half or three years ago.

We have been clear. We have been consistent. We acted at the time. We continue to act and we rely on the credible information we receive from senior diplomats and senior military. We have heard them all testify. They all corroborate the government's position. Why would they not? They were acting at the time. We were acting on their advice. I wish the hon. member would take the advice of the individuals closest to this issue.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, a Department of Foreign Affairs document from 2007 on the strategy for managing Afghan detainees demonstrates that the Conservatives were more worried about their image than they were about protecting human beings, including our soldiers.

In a document entitled “Strategic (Macro) Level Engagement”, the possibility of establishing a better transfer and oversight mechanism is last on the list of priorities.

Why was it more important to cover up the matter than to solve the problem?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, it was not. It was in fact our priority to go about improving the transfer arrangement, investing in the justice system, mentoring the police and prison officials, improving the physical surroundings where Taliban prisoners were being held, and ensuring that the Canadian Forces had the necessary resources to do that important work.

Again, that is a mess and a failing by the previous government. It deployed into Afghanistan with inadequate equipment and forest green uniforms. We should be having a public inquiry into that move by the members opposite.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no fewer than 23 former ambassadors have released a letter criticizing the Conservative government's attitude and its treatment of Richard Colvin. They are denouncing the personal attacks against him and reminding us that diplomats must be free to produce reports that accurately reflect their observations.

Does the government realize that, instead of imposing a code of silence on our diplomats, it should make public any information that could shed some light on the torture of Afghan prisoners?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, let us take it out of the highly charged, accusatory place called question period. Let us look at what impartial senior public servants had to say. Paul Chapin said, “I think what set me back is how serious the allegations are and how flimsy the evidence was”. This is a colleague of the individual in question.

Senior Ambassador David Mulroney said:

This is where I think he went from an observation to speculation.

Mr. Chapin went on to say, “To summarize, persons were not qualified to make certain assessments. It was irresponsible to make a charge without hard evidence”.

We act on hard evidence. We act on allegations that can be proven. We made changes and improved it. We continue to do so.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government does have the right to do is to say that, under the Geneva Convention, our soldiers did not have the right to transfer prisoners if there was any chance of them being tortured.

The government still refuses to shed any light on its role in the torture of Afghan prisoners transferred by Canada. The Minister of National Defence cannot say why he waited a year and a half before taking any action. Several ministers have tried to discredit Richard Colvin, and the government still refuses to disclose relevant information.

Since we cannot count on the government to tell us the truth, when will we have a public inquiry?