Debates of May 14th, 2001

National Defence

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to delay a formal decision on the concept of national missile defence. The United States has been seeking a concept from Canada as to whether or not this was supportable.

Of course this is a decision that corresponds with the best interests of Canada. Is the government prepared to support the concept of national missile defence?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Americans themselves have not put forward the details of what they have in mind. I do not see how we can be responsible in this serious matter until we have been informed of the details and until we have considered them. This is what we are doing in the interests of Canada.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the concept of defence is something that I think most Canadians would support.

NORAD is vital for the security and sovereignty of Canada. One of NORAD's prominent individuals has said that failing to support national missile defence would mean the beginning of the end of NORAD. On this basis what possible grounds can there be for not supporting this important concept?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be premature and irresponsible to take a definite position on something the Americans themselves have not spelled out in detail. I do not know why the hon. member wants us to be irresponsible and premature on such an important matter.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose having to mention the concept again would be something that went over the Deputy Prime Minister's head.

If I might, several weeks ago the president of the United States phoned our Prime Minister. The subject of national missile defence was discussed. Did the president ask for Canada's political support of the concept of national missile defence? Yes or no.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the president may well have given some briefing to our Prime Minister, but I do not think it would either be responsible or sensible to talk about a concept rather than the solid details of an absolute and definite plan.

This may be the way the Alliance Party runs its own internal affairs. It deals with the concept of leadership rather than the reality of its disintegration. That is not the way we want to run Canada on behalf of all Canadians.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, time is running out for a decision on a national missile defence system that will protect Canada's interests.

A few weeks ago the director general of policy and planning in the Department of National Defence was quoted as saying:

The value of our political support will...depreciate as we approach decision time. Once the U.S. has made its decision, that value could be reduced to nothing.

When will the government get off the fence, act in Canada's national interest and publicly endorse a national missile defence system?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that President Bush has outlined a major reworking of the global strategic framework from the American point of view, but we do not yet have full details of what he is proposing.

If we are interested in the best interests of Canada we have to deal with details and we have to deal with facts rather than the immature and premature speculation of the Alliance Party.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Americans have long been interested in our position.

Our deputy commander of NORAD and other senior officials warn us that the future of NORAD itself is at stake, if we do not support this defence system.

Why does this government want to play political games with Canada's national interests?

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the Americans have yet to decide on the details of the future system. Therefore speculation and the implication for NORAD are very premature. When a decision is made Canada will be consulted, as has been promised.

Single Currency

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

Mr. Speaker, first it was the Governor of the Bank of Canada talking about a ten year time frame for adopting a single currency. Now it is William Ruben of the U.S. federal reserve talking about the possibility of a North American monetary union.

When will the federal government listen to Canadian and U.S. central banks and assume its responsibilities by setting Canadian symbolism aside and contemplating the possibility of adopting a single currency in North America in the middle term?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois would do well to read the text of the member for Markham's speech, which was released on the weekend, to get a clear picture of both sides of the issue and why it is so important for Canada to keep the Canadian dollar.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have read the speech and we see it differently.

I urge the Minister of Finance to read the other speeches as well, to engage in real debate, rather than mouthing patriotic phrases, rather than taking an opposing stand as he did in the free trade debate. We saw how they came to their senses too late.

Rather than getting caught at the last minute, should the government not be responsible and examine this issue in the context of the integration of North American economies?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, what is at issue here is that the Bloc Quebecois really wants to let Washington set our monetary policy. What other federal powers does it want to hand over to Washington in order to advance the cause of Quebec sovereignty?

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government opposes the creation of a single currency in North America by arguing that it would be difficult to switch overnight from a Canadian to a North American dollar. In spite of that possibility, the government adopts a do nothing approach.

Is it not irresponsible on the part of the government to not prepare Canada for a possible transition from a Canadian to a North American dollar, considering that central banks in Canada and in the United States have already begun looking at this possibility?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, what is responsible is to set up in our country a structure that will allow us to keep our own powers, including fiscal and monetary powers.

This is why we have a low inflation rate. This is why we are creating jobs at a much faster pace than the Americans. This is why Canadians' disposable income is rising. This is what we should be doing and this is what we are doing.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance alludes to Canadian sovereignty. I invite him to talk to his colleague, the Minister for International Trade, who wrote in his book entitled Pour une politique de la confiance that “The state has lost the ability to direct its monetary policy”. This is from the Minister of Finance's own colleague.

Why does the government prefer to stick with the Canadian dollar, which has constantly been depreciating over the past 30 years, instead of considering North America's economic integration, which could lead to monetary integration?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should simply look at the facts, in other words, at the difference between the Canadian and American economies.

If we and the Americans had had the same currency during the Asian crisis, Canada's economy would probably have suffered a major downturn, instead of performing the way it did.

The hon. member should realize that he is advocating a solution that would have a huge negative impact on Canadian families.

Bulk Water Exports

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and has to do with remarks that the Prime Minister made in Atlanta, Georgia, with respect to the export of bulk water. The Prime Minister is reported to have not entirely ruled out Premier Roger Grimes' proposal to harvest 13 billion gallons of water from Gisborne Lake.

Given the fact that the Minister of the Environment has spoken so critically of this proposal in the past, could he explain what the Prime Minister was up to? Is the government still opposed to the particular project, or is the Prime Minister indicating an openness to the project that was not there before?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. The government's position remains clear. We oppose bulk water removals. This is an environmentally sound strategy. It respects provincial jurisdiction and is trade consistent.

There is concern across the country but, as the Prime Minister correctly pointed out, there are constitutional complications and we do need provincial support to make this the most effective ban possible.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps some day the minister could explain to the House what he means by trade consistent.

Could the Minister of the Environment arrange a briefing for the premier of Newfoundland on ecosystems so that he and others could stop suggesting that freshwater which flows into the ocean is somehow being wasted. Does it not seem to the Minister of the Environment that is how the oceans are created in the first place and that is how they maintain their health?

Could he arrange for this to be explained to Mr. Grimes and others who make this specious argument.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would always hesitate to enter into discussion with a minister of religion on the creation of oceans or any other part of the biosphere.

Nevertheless, I will take his suggestion of a briefing with provincial premiers and provincial ministers of the environment as notice.

Business Development Bank Of Canada

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Globe and Mail reports another outbreak of forgeries at the Business Development Bank. Is this epidemic of forgeries occurring only on the Auberge Grand-Mère file or is there a general problem in the bank?

The bank now claims that its chronology of events in the Grand-Mère file is “not in conformity with the Globe and Mail version”. Will the government table the Business Development Bank's version of the chronology in the Auberge Grand-Mère file?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Business Development Bank has turned over to the RCMP the documents in question. The matter is now up to the RCMP. I am sure it will do its duty.

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, again my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In preparing for his secret briefing with American experts, the Prime Minister would have received basic information about the proposed missile defence shield.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the estimated cost of this project would be a minimum of $60 billion U.S. and could rise to hundreds of billions of dollars?

If those are not the figures the government has been given, what figure has the Government of Canada been given and what does the Deputy Prime Minister estimate the cost would be to Canada, were we to participate? Would it be in the billions of dollars?