Debates of Feb. 1st, 2002

Foreign Affairs

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me make it perfectly clear that the Canadian military is doing a fantastic job, in spite of the defence minister, not because of him.

The Deputy Prime Minister really does not know when the Clerk of the Privy Council was told about this military incident. Will he find out if the Clerk of the Privy Council knew before Tuesday morning that prisoners had been captured and report back to the House?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, once we establish when the clerk knew, I suppose we will work our way down the chain of command in national defence. The Minister of National Defence has given a good account of his knowledge and what he has done. The Prime Minister has explained when he knew of these events.

We know that our troops did not misconduct themselves in Afghanistan. In fact, they have performed courageously and properly. They did what they were expected to do. They turned the prisoners over to the United States, as they were expected to do. There was no wrongdoing in the conduct of the troops. Nothing different would have happened on the ground in Afghanistan no matter who had known that the prisoners were taken or when.

National Security

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that police services around the world have been focused on the investigation into the events of September 11 and the task of rooting out terrorists. We are proud of the work that Canadian police services have done in this regard.

However Canadians might concerned that other priorities are being ignored with this renewed focus. What assurances can the solicitor general give us that other criminal activities in Canada are still a priority?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Hamilton Mountain for her concern. Of course the investigation into September 11 has been a top priority for police and security forces in Canada and around the world. However I can assure the House and all Canadians that other priorities certainly are at the forefront.

In fact, on Wednesday one of the largest raids against indoor marijuana growing took place. Yesterday the police announced the takedown of a major credit card fraud operation with the co-operation of police forces in Canada and the United States.

Police forces in Canada and the United States are working together to make sure that we live in a safe society.

Public Works and Government Services Canada

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that Alfonso made the best cappuccino on the Hill, but that is not a good enough reason to ignore the overwhelming evidence that he played fast and loose with taxpayer money.

Why not have an inquiry and put the issue to rest? Did Alfonso use his position to hand out taxpayer money inappropriately? If not, why have so many public servants claimed that he did?

The public has a right to know and I want to know. Why will the government not order an inquiry if its committee lapdogs will not?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what appears to be at play here is some dispute about facts or information. The former minister was very clear on the record. He is no longer a minister of the crown. The matter lays at rest.

Foreign Affairs

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Earlier, he answered my question by saying that the clerk had not passed on the information to the Prime Minister and himself before Tuesday morning.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether or not the Clerk of the Privy Council had the information to the effect that we had captured soldiers in Afghanistan before Tuesday morning, the time at which he himself says he was informed? Did the clerk have the information, yes or no? That is what we wish to know.

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the question. We are not going to launch into a discussion about every official in the Government of Canada.

We explained when the minister received the information and what he did, and when the Prime Minister received the information and what he did.

In fact, regardless of who received the information and when, it would change nothing on the ground in Afghanistan.

Minister of National Defence

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to the Canadians that the government is stonewalling. It may think it is doing damage control to protect the Minister of National Defence, but it is becoming clearer that the very essence of honesty and integrity of government is now in question.

The Minister of National Defence failed in his duty; that is very clear. The question remains: Why did other procedures to safeguard the system, for example through the PCO, also fail? Why is the Deputy Prime Minister refusing to answer that question?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, I have not refused to answer the question. The appropriate question is: When did the relevant minister know? That information has been conveyed. The responsibility lies with ministers. Ministers are accountable to this House.

Rather than conducting some kind of misguided witch hunt, my suggestion to the hon. member is that she focus on the role of the Canadian armed forces.

Is she suggesting that had the Prime Minister received the information sooner he would have somehow or other intervened with the conduct of the forces? Is she suggesting that they did not conduct themselves properly? Is she suggesting that they should have done something differently which the Prime Minister would have affected had he had the information?

Points of Order

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, my friend the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration mentioned during an answer today that he would be making a statement in Montreal this afternoon with regard to government policy. As you know, Mr. Speaker, you have had concerns about policy statements outside the House before members were notified.

Will the minister agree to make a ministerial statement before he leaves so members of parliament will know what the policy change will be?

[The Speaker]

With great respect to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, his point of order sounds like another question to me.

I do not know whether the minister is inclined to make any statement. He does not need to, of course, but if he wishes to answer the question he may do so. However this is really a question and not a point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot make a statement right now because I have not finished all the verification. That is the reason I am going to Dorval airport to meet the agent. Then I will be able to make a statement.

Order in Council Appointments

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments made recently by the government.

Government Response to Petitions

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.

Nisga'a Final Agreement Annual Report

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification) (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Nisga'a Final Agreement 2001 Annual Report.

Committees of the House

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 45th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and I should like to move concurrence at this time.

(Motion agreed to)

Petitions

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to table in the House a petition signed by people in my riding who, though they are deeply saddened by the events of September 11, are concerned by the turn taken by events since that tragedy. They ask that the government be much more dispassionate and wiser in its actions.

The petitioners ask that the Canadian government act according to a logic of peace including a reflection on the causes of violence and taking into consideration the measures necessary to guarantee peace throughout the world, based on its traditional policy of aid to countries that need support.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 97 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 97—

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

In regard to the Tulsequah Chief Mine project: ( a ) which of the seventy stream crossings, sixty-four culverts and seven bridges to be undertaken in association with the proposed project pose the highest risks to the spawning or rearing habitats of the chinook, sockeye, coho, pink, chum salmon, and to the water quality in the area; ( b ) which of the proposed undertakings pose the greatest risk to other fish species in the area such as Dolly Varden char and whitefish, and cutthroat, bull and steelhead trout; ( c ) what are the estimated costs to pump back and treat the metals tailing seepage entering the Shazah wetland as a result of the project operations; ( d ) what are the concerns of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans related to post-closure issues and road issues including fish passage at crossings, sediment release from the road, the status of roads post-closure, habitat displacement at causeways, and the geotechnical stability of the road; ( e ) does the government acknowledge and support requests from the community, fishermen associations, NGOs, and the State of Alaska for the project to be referred to the Pacific Salmon Commission for study and recommendations, and if not, why not; ( f ) will government approval for the project constitute a breach of the “safe passage” provision in the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and if not, why not; ( g ) what is the government's methodology for the calculation of reclamation bonding to limit taxpayer liability given the mine's remote location and acid mine drainage risks to critical fish habitat; and ( h ) why has the site never been reclaimed and acid drainage from the mine, identified by Environment Canada in 1995 as acutely toxic to fish, been allowed to continue to flow into the Tulsequah River?

Return tabled.

Starred Questions

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 86. I ask that the question and the answer to Question No. 86 be printed in Hansard as if read.

*Question No. 86—

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

With respect to the Challilo Dam project on the Macal River in Belize, will the Minister for International Cooperation indicate to the House: ( a ) the findings of CIDA's environmental assessment report; ( b ) all costs incurred by CIDA concerning the dam; ( c ) CIDA's involvement in approving or encouraging the construction of the dam; ( d ) any financial ties between CIDA and Fortis Inc.; and ( e ) any financial ties between CIDA and AMEC E&C Services Ltd.?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), there was no environmental assessment report prepared by CIDA. CIDA contributed funding to an environmental impact assessment report prepared by AMEC E&C Services Ltd. CIDA sent its preliminary feedback on this report to AMEC and is waiting for more information from AMEC to continue its analysis.

In response to (b), CIDA has not incurred any costs for this dam. CIDA contributed funding to the environmental impact assessment mentioned above, in accordance with the terms and conditions of a contribution agreement signed between CIDA and AMEC.

In response to (c), CIDA did not play any role in this regard.

In response to (d), no financial relationship exists between CIDA and Fortis Inc.

In response to (e), CIDA has eight active contribution agreements with this firm, including the agreement mentioned above relating to the enviromental impact assessment in Belize. All of these contribution agreements are for engineering studies involving AMEC E&C Services Ltd. for power generation infrastructures in Sri Lanka, Jordan, Bolivia, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Turkey, except one supporting an industrial project in Jordan.