House of Commons Hansard #106 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was refugees.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the chair of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission is worried about the attitude of the Canadians who allegedly transferred children to the Afghan intelligence service.
I would like a clear answer from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The question could not be more clear. Did Canada transfer Afghan children to the Afghan intelligence service, yes or no?
Lawrence Cannon ConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the answer is very clear. I would tell my hon. colleague that when cases of abuse are alleged, the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan conduct the appropriate inquiries, depending on the circumstances.
Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has given a whole new reason for the impasse in the negotiations between Quebec City and Ottawa about harmonized sales tax. The problem for his government is that there is not just one tax.
My question is simple: which tax is one too many, the GST or the QST? In its controlling and centralist mindset, which of the two taxes takes precedence over the other, the GST or the QST?
Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, we will continue discussions with the Government of Quebec. We are having good discussions. There needs to be true harmonization of the two sales taxes.
Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is obviously confused about the collection agreement versus a tax policy.
The Government of Quebec has been collecting the GST and QST for 18 years on behalf of the two governments, and this system works very well.
Can the Minister of Finance assure us that the National Assembly's fiscal autonomy will be respected and that Quebec will continue to collect the sales taxes, which are already harmonized?
Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues with respect to this subject. Regardless of whether it is the Government of Quebec or some other provincial government in Canada that has negotiated, four or five fundamentals need to be addressed. These include what the base is, the harmonization of the base, what the exceptions may or may not be, of course collection, and the harmonization of legislation.
These are all matters that we have been discussing with the Government of Quebec. I spoke recently with my colleague in Quebec on this subject. Some progress has been made, but we need to make more progress.
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Mr. Speaker, when the question of Taseko Mines' stock was raised, the minister oddly pointed to an environmental assessment as the reason for the dramatic price fluctuation. The minister's answer makes no sense.
Why is it that the company's stock held its price when the assessment was made public in July and only fluctuated in October, when the Conservative cabinet made the decision to block the project? Why?
John Baird ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite wants me to speculate on how markets operate. That would be quite interesting.
If the member opposite has any information with respect to the charge she makes, I suggest we call upon her and her party once again to place that information before the House of Commons.
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Mr. Speaker, the House leader's other defence, that the House was not sitting the week of October 14, does not make sense either. The member expects us to believe that no decisions are made by cabinet while the House is recessed.
The minister cannot deny the fact that around the time cabinet made its decision on the Taseko project, stocks traded at ten times their normal volume. How could that be the result of anything but a leak?
John Baird ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite obviously has already come to certain conclusions. If she has additional information that would corroborate what she said, I would encourage her to place it in front of the House for us all to see.
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tried to defend himself by saying that the leak took place when the members were not in Ottawa. All the better: there are fewer suspects.
My questions are straightforward. First, when did the cabinet meet in the two weeks prior to October 14? Second, when was the internal decision regarding Taseko made? Third, who was informed of the decision prior to the official announcement?
John Baird ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite before asking those questions made a number of statements that are absolutely false.
Members of the opposition are free to speculate and make innuendo, but if they have any evidence to suggest anything untoward, they should place it before the House for everyone to see.
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, if it is true, individuals illegally made millions on the backs of Taseko shareholders thanks to their contacts in the Conservative government.
Since we learned that Conservative ministers argue, at a cost of $300 million in the case of Camp Mirage, we know that cabinet leaks are a common occurrence.
Can the Prime Minister tell us which ministers have been contacted by the RCMP in this affair and what steps he has taken to prevent insider trading in future?
John Baird ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, an environmental assessment was done on this project. The project would have had terrible consequences for the environment and done irreparable harm. That is why the government did the right thing and did not approve the project. We did the right thing for the environment.
If the member has any facts or any basis for the speculation in which he engages, I encourage him to place them before the House.
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, Liberals are at it again. Last session Liberal senators gutted our legislation that cracks down on producing and trafficking drugs. Now they have introduced yet another unnecessary amendment to Bill S-10.
Last week coalition members forced unnecessary amendments to our bill to repeal the faint hope clause. That bill ensures that murderers spend the serious time they deserve behind bars and cannot re-victimize Canadians.
Would the Minister of Justice please update the House on these important plans?
Rob Nicholson ConservativeMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, our government has been introducing legislation that would crack down on violent crime. The Liberals have taken a different approach. They want to crack down on the short titles of bills.
At the same time that we are moving to put serious drug dealers and producers behind bars, the Liberal solution to the drug problem in this country is to decriminalize marijuana. As their colleagues did at committee a couple of weeks ago, they voted to ensure that people who sell drugs around schools will not be facing mandatory jail time.
I have a question for you, Mr. Speaker, because I know you are a smart guy. When it comes to fighting crime, why do the Liberals always get it wrong?
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
The minister is an experienced member. He knows that speakers cannot answer questions.
The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, correspondence between Canada's diplomats and trade lawyers reveals a three-year campaign to collude with oil companies to kill U.S. global warming laws and policies to keep oil sands product flowing from Alberta into the U.S. marketplace.
These same diplomats called their environment officials “simply nutty” when they advocated cleaner oil sands technology.
Could the minister clarify whether Canadians who wish to discuss our national climate policy should call the American Petroleum Institute or BP and ExxonMobil directly?
David Anderson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, why is the member working against her own province? Why does she so consistently stand and try to destroy the industry and the things that are so important to the province of Alberta?
The oil sands are crucial to the health of all Canada's economy. There are 120,000 jobs connected to this. We are aware of the environmental challenges. That is why we are working with the industry and government to deal with them.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am actually onside with the former minister of the environment. The government is in Cancun with little concrete action to report on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In October 2009 the environment minister said the following:
At the outset, let me emphasize the need to harmonize our regulatory regime with the regime that is evolving south of the border. Harmonize. Not follow.
This year he said, “we need to proceed even further in aligning our regulations”.
U.S. regulations take effect in January. Can the minister explain why Canada's rules for major emitters remain in limbo?
John Baird ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, we are coming out in January with our guidelines on the establishment of rules that will be recommended to states if they wish to participate.
We support strong harmonization on tough regulations. We have done that on the auto sector. We have done that on light trucks. We are going to move forward in other transportation areas.
When we can move forward with the United States on equivalency with respect to large polluters, not just new polluters but also existing polluters, we believe that is where equivalency will be the best bang for our buck and will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, while Quebec and several provinces reject the federal government's plan for a Canada-wide securities commission, British Columbia is trying to make money off its support for such a commission by demanding exclusive responsibility for regulating venture capital for all of Canada. It seems that the minister will stop at nothing to shove his plan down the provinces' throats.
Can the minister tell us whether he will go as far as buying the consent of the dissenting provinces, one by one, by promising them certain benefits at Quebec's expense?
Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, it is a purely voluntary initiative for all of the provinces. That is clear.
It is strictly a voluntary initiative. If a province does not want to join, it does not have to join. That is what voluntary means in English and what volontaire means in French.
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, let me clarify my question a little more.
While British Columbia is taking advantage of the federal plan for a national securities commission to try to gain control of all regulation of venture capital, we are left with the impression that Canada is already in the process of divvying up Quebec's powers when it comes to controlling financial markets.
Does this not clearly demonstrate that the plan for a Canada-wide securities commission will have a negative impact on Quebec and its financial autonomy?
Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that 10 Canadian provinces and territories have been working and participating with the transition office federally to design the future Canadian securities regulator. It is a highly decentralized recommendation.
The plan they are working on, which is available to the hon. member to read if he is so inclined to learn about what they are planning, is for a highly decentralized regional system. We have areas of expertise across the country in various aspects of securities regulation, and we are going to make use of those opportunities.