Debates of Nov. 19th, 2001

National Defence

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the responses of the Prime Minister today continue weeks of vacillating by the government on our commitment to the coalition against terrorism abroad. It is embarrassing to Canadians and to our Canadian troops. Again today a demoralizing media report says that the government is planning to disband the very Princess Pats that it is sending into action.

After weeks of mixed messages, I want the minister to give us a clear message today for a change and clearly state that no such plan exists.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition is distorting a lot of this situation as usual. If our troops go to Afghanistan, they go as part of a stabilization force. They go to help open corridors for relief and humanitarian assistance. If they are fired upon, they will defend themselves. However they are not going over there for frontline activity in an offensive manner. If they suddenly face that kind of situation without the proper equipment and preparation, it would only be appropriate to pull them back.

It is the mission they are going over for that they will do, and they will do it well.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

It continues, Mr. Speaker. The Princess Pats are supposed to be transported to Afghanistan by Hercules transport aircraft. Canada owns 32 such aircraft, but we have learned from a military source that of these only 11 currently are operational.

Could the minister explain how in the war against terrorism the Princess Pats can stand for Canada while they are standing on the tarmac in Edmonton?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, first, there is absolutely no intention to disband the Princess Pats. They are a proud regiment of the country. They will continue to make us proud in Afghanistan and in the future.

Second, we will get them over there as we have always done before in all of our missions. We will get the transport they need when they are called upon.

International Aid

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

Mr. Speaker, the G-20 meeting held in Ottawa this weekend concluded in failure because the rich countries could not agree on the need to increase aid to developing countries now.

I am not the source of the negative report on the G-20 meeting, it comes from the head of the World Bank, who said, “There is no consensus on the matter”.

Will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that the G-20 meeting he chaired in Ottawa was content to express good intentions on the subject of international aid, when now is the time to act on the poverty that fosters terrorism?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the leader of the Bloc Quebecois that the meeting of the G-20, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank on the weekend was a huge success in everyone's estimation.

Since it was considered a success by commentators around the world and by all the participants, I think the leader of the Bloc Quebecois could for once congratulate his fellow Canadians on their success.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about fellow Canadians, we are talking about the Minister of Finance, who chaired it and who is revelling in grand ideas, of no use.

The G-20 did not adopt a clear plan, identify a mandate or set deadlines.

How can the Minister of Finance, who has come away empty handed in terms of international aid from the G-20, talk of success when the need to act is vital, but there is no consensus on how and with what to act?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, not only was there a consensus on the need for increased aid, but there were specific measures.

I need only mention that, in the case of the write off of the debts of the poorest countries, a very clear agreement was reached to the effect that all countries that reach the starting point will receive other aid following the events of September 11. Those countries having difficulty reaching that point will have additional aid. This is just an example.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance may express all kinds of good intentions on the subject of international assistance, but the fact remains that since this government came to power in 1993, assistance for poor countries has dropped considerably, from 0.45% of the GDP to 0.25%.

How can the Minister of Finance express good intentions with his G-20 colleagues on the need to increase international assistance, when his government has almost halved Canada's aid since it came to power?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we increased foreign aid in the last budget. In the budget before that, we increased foreign aid; and in the budget prior to that one, we increased foreign aid.

Incidentally, we are one of the few countries among the G-7, which, despite seeing its debt go up year after year, has still played a leadership role by extending the moratorium on debt repayment by the poorest countries. It is Canada that has played a leadership role.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us be serious for a moment.

How can Canada's Minister of Finance expect to be taken seriously by the people listening when financial assistance has dropped, during his mandate, from 0.45% to 0.25%? Since when is going from 45 to 25 considered an increase, other than in the Minister of Finance's head?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, at the meeting of the World Bank in Prague a year and a half ago, it was Canada that took a leadership role on the issue of the moratorium on debt repayment for poor countries.

This past weekend, here in Ottawa, once again it was Canada that took a leadership role at the G-20, the IMF and the World Bank on the issue of reducing the debt for the poorest countries. This was accepted by the other countries and we will continue to fight for it.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Nelson Mandela and Graca Machel have been honoured for their human rights struggles and their humanitarian achievements. This weekend Graca Machel called Canada “a deadbeat parent to the world's starving children”.

Will Canada do more than embrace these revered human rights champions? Will the government hear and heed the pleas of Nelson Mandela and Graca Machel and restore the funding for international development aid to a minimum of .75% of GNP?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance said, in the last two years we have started to reinvest money in foreign aid. We had an increase of 7% in the budget of this year.

I have said, and the Minister of Finance has said the same thing, that we intend to continue to increase from year to year. Of course there were years when we were faced with a bankrupt situation and all programs were cut. We were sorry to have to cut them, but now we are restoring the money. Not long ago on the debt side we were always at the forefront, and we have let go a lot of debt to the Pakistanis, for example, because of the conflict--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Halifax.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the government has damaged Canada's international reputation by reducing international development aid to one-third of what the government promised.

On the occasion of welcoming Nelson Mandela into the Canadian family, will we honour him more concretely? Will we honour him by contributing more generously to the global struggle against poverty?

Will the Prime Minister specifically commit today to raise Canada's foreign aid to .75% of the GNP in the upcoming budget?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in three weeks there will be a budget. The member will see that the government is committed to increasing more money to development around the world. It is a commitment we have made, but we cannot go to .75% in one budget. It is completely unrealistic.

National Defence

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, military experts say that Canada's Sea Kings in Afghanistan have lost the safety features which protected them in the gulf war.

I have three precise questions for the Minister of National Defence. Do the Sea Kings in Afghanistan have systems to detect enemy radar? Do they have systems to detect enemy laser scanning? Can they dispense interference to decoy incoming missiles?

If not, how does the minister justify sending into battle Sea Kings that are less safe now than they were 10 years ago?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, that is simply not the case. They are equipped to do the job they have been assigned to do. They are not going directly into battle. They certainly are in an area where they will extend the surveillance of the frigates that they serve with. They have the kind of equipment they need to do the job.

Certainly as their own members have said, they are well equipped, they are well trained and prepared to serve Canada.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister will not fly in those Sea Kings. His policy is, send them off and pray that nothing happens.

In August 2000, the minister said the first Sea King replacements would be available in 2005. Internal documents from public works state that those replacements will not be available until 2007 because of the government's political decision to split the contract.

When precisely will Canada receive new, safe helicopters that we do not have to pray about?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the helicopters we have now are safe, or as one of the captains who flies one said, “I have no concerns. I have all the confidence in the world in the aircraft. I have no concerns whatsoever with regard to maintainability and operation ability of the Sea King. It is quite a robust aircraft. It is...good” and it does the job.

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been three years since the defence minister stood in the House and assured our troops that our rickety old Sea King helicopters were being fitted with newer communication systems, but he let our troops down again. He led them to believe that as he spoke the systems were being installed.

Three years later, they still are not here. He said he would deliver and he did not. Why did he claim something that was not true?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the first words of that particular member of the House would be to apologize to Nelson Mandela.

As I have just quoted from one of our pilots, they are safe to fly and they will operate--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary West.

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the first words out of the minister's mouth should have been an apology to our troops.

Despite the contrary analysis of nearly every expert in the field, the defence minister likes to persist in his fiction that our forces are better equipped today than they were 10 years ago.

Ten years ago, our Sea Kings had a host of anti-missile systems in the Persian Gulf. Today they are being sent to war, stripped back to only one of those defences.

Let us end this charade now. Are our Sea King helicopters better equipped--