Debates of June 13th, 2012

The Environment

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are Conservative MPs who have actually read Bill C-38 and understand its implications. The hon. members for Wellington—Halton Hills and Dufferin—Caledon have demanded full environmental assessments for the Dufferin County megaquarry. They say that their constituents deserve no less than full environmental assessments.

We agree. In fact, we say that all Canadians have the right to full environmental assessments for these projects, all of them. However, these Conservative MPs will be forced tonight to vote for a bill that guts assessments.

Why are they increasing environmental risks? Why are they being so irresponsible to Canadians?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the project my colleague referred to is undergoing an environmental assessment under the responsible authority of the Government of Ontario.

At this point my officials have advised me that none of the triggers required to spark a federal intervention have been, or are likely to be, tripped.

Ethics

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives do not take anything seriously, not even the Elections Canada investigation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister's election return.

Yesterday, my colleague from Nepean—Carleton kept handing us the same insipid line about how all of the documents were turned over and how everything else was made up.

Yesterday evening, we learned that the individual in question, the member for Peterborough, was still turning over new information. It seems that not everything has been revealed after all.

We are simply asking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to do the right thing while this matter is under investigation. When will he step down?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, if the member keeps asking the same questions, she will keep getting the same answers.

The hon. member turned all of the documents over to Elections Canada nearly four years ago. He has won another election since then. Elections Canada has not asked him for any more information.

The New Democrats should be more open and transparent about telling Canadians how much union money they have accepted illegally and how much of that money they have paid back.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I love the political musings of the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton. I really do. I think he would make a great Republican blogger.

Unfortunately, he makes a pretty lousy defence attorney because he needs to get his story straight with his client. Yesterday and today he said that all of the documents have been provided. Yesterday the hon. member for Peterborough came forward and said that the $21,000 bill from Holinshed was not a real bill, just an invoice.

We are dealing with serious allegations. Will the hon. member stand up, fire his defence attorney and tell this House that he has been compromised? He needs to step down until this investigation is complete.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, not only has the hon. member given all the information required of a filing over to Elections Canada, not only have those filings been audited and verified by Elections Canada, not only has another election passed since that time, but he has also not even been contacted by Elections Canada in search of additional information.

By contrast, he has taken the stance that the NDP should come clean on the illegal union donations for which it was caught and for which it had to plead guilty. Now all that we ask is for the leader of the NDP to rise, explain how much illegal money his party took, and how much it gave back.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, I have to keep Band-Aids on my ankles from the partisan ankle biter trying to change the channel. What we have here—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I do not think referring to each other in that manner is helpful to the debate. I will ask the member to get to his question without using that type of characteristic.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday you thought it was okay, but I will accept your judgment on this.

What we are dealing with is a $21,000 bill that the Conservatives claim is a non-bill. Around this bill, we have personal cheques, cancelled cheques and refunded cheques. We have an investigation, lawsuits and court files. These are serious issues.

I ask the member for Peterborough to do the right thing and stand up and say that he will step down while this investigation is under way. That is what he needs to do.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, all I ask is for that hon. member to stop gnawing on his own ankles and join with me in an effort to raise the level of discourse around here.

We on this side of the House are focused on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, no matter how hard the opposition members try to distract from that economic agenda. Tonight, they have a chance to join with us and do what Canadians actually care about, and that is to keep taxes and debt low, to keep the economy strong and to build on the 750,000 net new jobs we have already created.

The Environment

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians care about the environment too. Albertans are grappling with up to a half a million litres of crude oil spilled from a ruptured pipeline, which experts say may never be cleaned up.

Gord and Bonnie Johnston watched their waterfront property become a lake of oil. They are now living in a hotel wondering what to do next. Fifty years ago, when this pipeline was built, there was no effective environmental assessment in place, and now we see the consequences.

Will the Prime Minister explain personally to Mr. and Mrs. Johnston just why he is using Bill C-38 to unravel decades of work to improve environmental safeguards and results?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the spill referred to by my colleague, the lead agency is the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board. Environment Canada officials are standing by to provide advice, but to this point we have not.

However, to my colleagues point, through economic action plan 2012, which we will vote on tonight, our government will increase funding for pipeline safety by over $13 million. We also provide, through responsible resource development, more frequent pipeline inspections.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if we really want to improve our assessment process, we need more scientists at the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Instead, the government decimated the agency and transferred its responsibilities to the National Energy Board, but this kind of work is not in the board's bailiwick. Then the government cut the board off at the knees so that pipelines could be built without appropriate assessments meant to protect the natural resources that communities depend on.

Why will the government not split up the indigestible mishmash that is Bill C-38 so that these environmental reforms can receive the parliamentary consideration they deserve?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the responsible resource development plan and our legislation to support it will enhance, in a very significant way, environmental protection. There are $160 million going into environmental protection to enhance maritime safety and pipeline safety, as the hon. member knows very well.

The Budget

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is rubbing his hands as he advances his “fend for yourself” destruction plan. However, for seasonal workers, seniors and working families, the PM's smile is far more menacing than comforting. His plan would rip moneys from the hands of seniors and would attack the EI benefits of seasonal workers, while funnelling money into jets and expensive orange juice for high-rolling ministers.

Why is it that the economic distraction plan 2012 can only be successful if the poor and vulnerable are thrown under the Conservative campaign bus?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, our government's top priority is the economy, long-term prosperity and ensuring that Canadians have a job. We have created 760,000 net new jobs since the economic recession began.

At the same time, we do recognize that there are Canadians who have difficulty finding work. That is why we are better connecting Canadians through these substantive changes that we are making to the employment insurance program as well as others so we can ensure Canadians are connected to jobs in their local areas with their qualifications. They can therefore have a successful future.

Public Safety

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety usually loves scoring political points at the expense of victims of crime, but yesterday, we learned that, to him, not all victims are equal. Imagine. He tried to change the wording of the RCMP's apology to victims of serial killer Robert Pickton in order to ensure that someone other than the RCMP can be blamed for the botched investigation.

Why is the minister acting so shamefully regarding one of the most horrific cases in Canada's legal history?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I do not need to take any lessons from NDP members who have consistently voted against victims' rights in the House.

I am the minister in the House responsible for the RCMP and to all Canadians. We work with the RCMP to ensure that its communications are appropriate in all circumstances. I have no reason to question the RCMP's conclusion that an apology was appropriate.

For our part, our government is taking action to stand up for victims and to give police officers the tools they need to do their jobs. I wish the NDP would do it just once.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's actions are shameful. It is right and important that the government apologize to the victims of this tragedy and their families for the botched investigation and dismissal they experienced.

For too long these women were ignored, shut out and silenced. It is a fact that the RCMP could have done more. The RCMP has acknowledged that.

Will the minister acknowledge his political interference was callous and demeaning? Will he now apologize?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite amazing that the NDP is constantly asking me to take responsibility for the RCMP and to ensure that I do my job. That is exactly what I have done.

As I have indicated, I have no reason to question the RCMP's conclusion that an apology was appropriate. The apology was clear. It was sent out by the RCMP.

I want to get back to that member's failure to stand up for victims. She has been in the House for over a decade and has done nothing for victims.

National Defence

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the case of Corporal Stuart Langridge at the Military Police Complaints Commission is a litany of failure by the Department of National Defence.

The family was not told about the existence of his suicide note for 14 months. Corporal Langridge put himself in to psychiatric care, but was not allowed to remain there even when he said he was considering suicide. He was put onto menial cleanup duty when he should have been on suicide watch.

Why has the minister chosen to intervene to stop documents from going to the commission?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

It is untrue, Mr. Speaker. As always, the member once again is trying to insert himself and politicize a serious investigation and process that is under way. The Military Police Complaints Commission has received nothing but co-operation and compensation from this government with respect to this matter to get to the bottom of what really is a tragedy.

It is for that reason that I met with Corporal Langridge's mother and that we have been supportive of this process throughout. This process is now well under way. It is going to come to a conclusion. It will be instructive for the military as we go forward.

I wish the hon. member would simply let that process work and stop trying to politicize a very tragic case.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why the minister would avoid acknowledging he is stopping documents from going to the commission and other documents are heavily censored. The commission counsel knows it. The Fynes family knows it. The minister's own lawyers know it. Has the Fynes family not suffered enough?

A board of inquiry done by DND and presented to the family blamed the death of Corporal Langridge on his own mother. Why is the minister holding documents back from the commission? Is he afraid of more facts coming to light?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, that is completely false and vexatious evidence now being presented by the member in the House of Commons on an ongoing process that has been funded, now well over $3 million, to ensure the process is fair.

Why is information not being given? It is something called the Supreme Court of Canada, which has ruled repeatedly on the issue of solicitor-client privilege, which the member knows full well. Yet he chooses to be mendacious, to stand in the House of Commons and give false information in an ongoing process.