Debates of Oct. 2nd, 2002

Finance

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, this spending problem is so grave that our spending as a percentage of GDP is at the level it was in the early 1950s. Our spending problem is so grave that we are the only G-7 country that is running a surplus this year and next year.

Our spending problem is such an addiction that we are the only G-7 country to be posting a 3.5% growth rate this year and probably next year. If the member is in the dark I do not know what I can do about it.

Kyoto Protocol

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

Mr. Speaker, if there is to be fair and effective implementation of the Kyoto protocol, there must be unity of thought and of action. Yet the Minister of Health has come out against it and the Minister of Industry gives it only lip service support.

Does the Prime Minister feel that his cabinet is putting forth the unity that is necessary for ratification and implementation of the Kyoto protocol?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

Yet, Mr. Speaker, the ministers of health and natural resources oppose it, the industry minister is ambivalent, and the presumed successor to the Prime Minister is keeping mum.

Does the Prime Minister realize that his leadership problem is putting a damper on his intention to ratify Kyoto? In other words, does the Prime Minister agree that, in actual fact, it is the member for LaSalle—Émard who is pulling the strings, and his position on this is not known?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, my party caucus is very much in favour of Kyoto. I have received petitions from MPs, and they have spoken to me about this for some years. I have listened to the caucus. They have been raising this for years, and we are now moving on it.

Government Expenditures

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Public Works said that the purchases of Challenger jets and maritime helicopters are “quite different transactions”. I guess they are, because one is done and the other one is not.

However today we have learned his officials briefed the minister weeks in advance of the Challengers being ordered, that in fact the two purchases were definitely linked; linked in such a way that could result in more legal action against the questionable purchasing methods of his government.

Will the minister now admit that he has no idea about proper procurement practices or was he simply misleading the House yesterday?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition has certainly tried to draw a linkage between the two transactions, but in fact they are quite different.

In one case it is a purchase of two aircraft; in the other case it is a purchase of 28 aircraft that would increase the fleet by a full two-thirds. In one case the contract value is $100 million or perhaps less; in the other case it is well over some billions of dollars.

In one case it is for a fairly simple task in terms of executive travel; in the other case it is a very complex task associated with the defence of the country. They are entirely different.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, to the minister it is a numbers game but to taxpayers it is about priorities; which one do we actually need? Let me quote from Deputy Minister Cochrane's memo:

If the federal government cannot afford more for funding health care, how can it afford new planes while the old ones are still operational?

How could the minister possibly justify the extravagant purchase of new jets to the growing number of Canadians on waiting lists for health care?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, any government at any moment in time has a whole range of priorities that have to be addressed.

In the case of health care, in the year 2000 the Prime Minister reached an historic accord with all of the premiers. The Government of Canada invested $23 billion in the short term. The Romanow commission was appointed to look at the long term. Romanow will report in November. The Prime Minister will hold a first ministers conference at the beginning of next year and the appropriate funding provisions will be provided in the next budget.

Supply Management

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Yesterday, the minister said that he was firmly committed to supporting the supply management system.

However, a memo, which involves three departments and which was submitted to cabinet by very senior officials, proposed, as a strategy, that the supply management system be used as a bargaining chip in future WTO negotiations.

Can the Minister for International Trade assure us that this strategy has been totally ruled out and that making any kind of compromise in this area is out of the question?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we never considered making any kind of compromise regarding our supply management system. We did not develop a negotiating strategy that would jeopardize supply management in Canada, because we believe in this system.

We built it ourselves, and that includes this government and the previous governments. We have contributed to it more than some hon. members, who are trying to scare people who earn a good living on their farms, across the country. We will continue to promote the supply management system in Canada.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister's commitment is as firm and sincere as he claims, why does he not fully implement the measures provided under the existing agreement regarding border controls, by stopping imports that contain milk derivatives and by enforcing more strictly the 13% rule, for example in the case of chicken?

There is a great difference right now between what the minister says and does.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, luckily, farmers have learned to work closely with us in recent years. These people were able to put their trust in us when it mattered.

When certain issues, such as cheese sticks imports, are brought to our attention, we settle the matter through discussions with the Americans. It is our government that solved issues which had not been settled in the years before it took office.

We will continue to work closely with farmers, even if this makes some people complain and even if it makes some waves in the regions.

Kyoto Protocol

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's cavalier approach to the ratification of Kyoto seems to totally ignore many Canadians, among them those on fixed incomes who will suffer under this plan. How will the Prime Minister answer to these people when they pay a lot more for power, heat and transportation?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, as was said in the House--

[The Speaker]

Order. It is very difficult for the Chair to hear.

It is almost impossible for the Chair to hear the answer because of the noise at the other end of the House. I am urging hon. members to be a little more quiet, so that we can hear the questions and the answers. The hon. Minister of the Environment.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as was said in the House yesterday on a number of occasions, we are attempting to work with the provinces and territories to put in place a plan whereby impact on Canadians, if any, is minimized.

In addition to the people the hon. member has mentioned, who of course are very important, he should also think of future generations and the impact of unfettered climate change on them and their future.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we do care about future generations and the environment, but this Kyoto accord is just not going to do it and the minister knows that.

The Prime Minister talks about ratification. A number of companies have cut their future investments. They call this an investment chill and we are going to see a lot more of that. The minister knows that as well.

Why is the Prime Minister so intent on chasing his Kyoto legacy at the risk of an investment freeze?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, some 18 months ago the President of the United States said that the United States would not ratify Kyoto. Some 15 months ago the Prime Minister of Canada indicated that his intention was to ratify.

The figures that the hon. member should look at are the economic figures for the first eight months of this year, where American jobs have declined by 48,000. But in Canada these jobs are the direct result of investment and in Canada the increase has been 384,000 jobs, that many.

Iraq

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the foreign affairs caucus I, with many of my colleagues, have a great interest in assuring that Canada does as much as possible through diplomatic channels to find a resolution to the situation in Iraq.

Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs please tell the House what methods he has taken to date to defuse the crisis?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and the work that his committee does, in the tradition of Canadians, to work through diplomatic channels to try to find peaceful solutions to conflicts in the world.

What we have done is that I have worked closely with the Prime Minister, who has contacted world leaders to ensure that we continue to work through diplomatic channels to find a peaceful solution to this potential conflict.

When I was in New York I met with foreign ministers, I met with the Arab league and I met with the G-8. In all cases we stayed with and worked with our game plan, which is to keep this within the world community way of solving this problem, which is in the tradition of the Canadian way--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Windsor West.

Softwood Lumber

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government has had since 1996 to deal with the softwood lumber issue.

Yesterday in the House the Minister for International Trade said “everyone knows, good progress continues to be made”. This morning we learned that Tembec, Canada's second largest lumber producer, is laying workers off and curtailing operations as a result of U.S. trade actions.

It would appear that the government considers the destruction of the Canadian softwood lumber industry and the resulting job losses as “good progress”.

Will the Minister of Industry commit today to implementing a plan of action to protect this industry and the jobs it provides until the Minister for International Trade finally manages to get this trade dispute resolved?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I have been working very closely with my colleague, the Minister of Industry, who absolutely cares about and believes, like me, in the future of the softwood lumber industry. As well, we have been working with our colleagues, the ministers of natural resources and human resources.

We do understand that the going is getting rough on that territory, in the regions, in the communities. We find that extremely painful, but we do believe that it is important to clear the air in terms of our discussions with the United States. Yes, indeed, we will stand by our workers and our communities through the programs that we do have to help them cope with the present difficult times.

Foreign Affairs

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Last July, Omar Khadr, a 15-year-old Canadian citizen, was arrested by the U.S. army in Afghanistan. To date, the U.S. has allowed the Red Cross access but has refused all Canadian consular access, in blatant violation of international law.

I want to ask the minister this. What action is the government taking to ensure that this teenager will not be held at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely, tried before a secret military tribunal and possibly sentenced to death? What is Canada doing to defend the rights of this young Canadian citizen from this abuse of U.S. power?