House of Commons Hansard #144 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was federal.
John Reynolds Canadian AllianceLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, that sounds like a hypothetical answer.
I want to quote what the Prime Minister said about Iraq dictator, Saddam Hussein, in the House in 1998. He said:
We can conclude from his past actions...that if we do not intervene, if we do not stand up to him, our inaction will encourage him to commit other atrocities....
In 1998 Canada was one of only a few countries supporting American and British strikes against Iraq. Why is this not the government's view today?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear from the comments of the Prime Minister and from this side of the House that is exactly what we are doing.
We are operating, within the international system, in a responsible way to make sure Saddam Hussein is not able to acquire weapons of mass destruction and threaten the peace of the world, and this is what we will continue to do.
John Reynolds Canadian AllianceLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that it was hypothetical, which I think is his new word when he does not know the answer.
There was no broad international consensus in support of strikes against Saddam Hussein in 1998 but Canada stood with its allies regardless of the hue and cry from the left. It is not doing that today.
Again, to quote what the Prime Minister said in 1998:
Make no mistake, Saddam’s behaviour to date indicates that he will not honour diplomatic solutions so long as they are not accompanied by a threat of intervention...Canada cannot stand on the sidelines in such a moment.
Will Canada today be counted with our American allies and go side by side with whatever they do in Iraq?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister has made very clear, and what all members of the House are familiar with, is that he and the government will act in the interests of this country when called upon to do so in any situation.
We continue to take a strong stand against Saddam Hussein and will continue to do so, but any future action will be determined in the interests of Canada and what Canadians should do.
Rahim Jaffer Canadian Alliance Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear about what the Prime Minister said in 1998. He said:
Saddam's determination to develop and use weapons of mass destruction, chemical warfare in particular, is well documented. Anyone doubting the serious character of the threat this man represents has only to recall how he turned these weapons against his own people.
If that was the government's view in 1998 when Canada supported American and British strikes against Iraq, why is it not the view of the government today?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
As I said, Mr. Speaker, the view of the government today is that we have been working through the international mechanisms to constrain Iraq. This is something that has constantly been going on, not only with our American allies but with all our allies who are equally concerned with the situation in Iraq and who do not wish to see the Middle East or all of the world peace destabilized by this man or by any action that might be taken against him either.
Rahim Jaffer Canadian Alliance Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister is more concerned with the fight in his own cabinet than the fight against terrorism.
A few days ago Canadians were once again treated to the spectacle of the Prime Minister shooting from the lip on the world stage. On that occasion the Prime Minister decided to choose Moscow as a forum to announce his opposition to U.S. foreign policy on Iraq.
What did the Prime Minister hope to accomplish with those antics? How does he expect to be listened to in Washington on any issue when he continuously goes out of his way to criticize American foreign policy?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the discussions we have in our cabinet about this issue. A free and democratic society likes to have an open debate about issues and we rejoice in it.
I want to say as well that we have the respect of our American allies precisely because we are a free and democratic society. We discuss these matters with them as equals and will continue to do so.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Kyoto protocol provides that the countries which produce the largest emissions of greenhouse gases must make the biggest efforts. It is the polluter pay principle, a principle which the federal government refuses to apply in Canada.
Indeed, yesterday the Minister of the Environment said that the burden imposed by the Kyoto protocol must be shared equally by the regions of Canada.
Is the minister saying that Quebec, which has already done its share by investing alone in clean energy, will have to pay again for the negligence of those Canadian provinces which are polluting the most?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question does not deal with the real issue.
We must consult with the provinces, including Quebec, before making a decision regarding ratification. We are not a party, we are not a government that, given the uncertainty and the concerns of the provinces, will act without consulting them.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, when the federal government imposed the social union, it did not consult Quebec. Consultations have been going on for ten years. Let me quickly remind the minister of the past.
While they developed Quebec's hydroelectric network alone, Quebecers paid for Alberta's oil, for Ontario's nuclear energy and for Newfoundland's Hibernia project.
Is the Minister of the Environment now asking Quebecers to pay for the mess made by others, even though we have already contributed?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I am in frequent contact with the provincial minister of the Quebec government on environment, Mr. Boisclair. We frequently discuss this. We had two meetings last fall. We will have a meeting later this week. We will have another meeting in May. There will be consultations no doubt in between.
What the government will not do is accept the hon. member's principle that decisions taken in past decades should somehow eliminate any reduction of carbon in the atmosphere now. We have to recognize the problem is now and decisions taken in the past, many decades ago, are not adequate to secure what we need.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, between 1990 and 1997, Quebec reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 3% per capita, making it a front runner in this category.
The Minister of the Environment wants to have the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions shared by all the provinces. Will he tell us why those who, like Quebec, have already taken a step in this direction should now have to pay for those who have as yet done nothing?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that, here in the House the Bloc Quebecois is not the government of the province of Quebec.
It is my duty as a federal minister to negotiate with all the provinces, including the province of Quebec. I will do so during the planned consultations, not just with the province of Quebec but with the nine other provinces and the three territories as well.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the province of Alberta, which is the largest producer of greenhouse gases, is rich because of its oil. It has the lowest rate of taxation in Canada and the government was able to establish a heritage fund from oil revenues.
Why does the Minister of the Environment feel that Quebec should share the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions with Alberta, which finds itself facing a large bill precisely because of its use of oil? If Alberta is reaping tremendous benefits from oil development, why would it not also shoulder the consequences that go with it?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I did not know that the Bloc Quebecois thought that all cars in the province of Quebec ran on electricity and not gas.
We have the same problem in all the provinces of Canada. Oil and gas use is producing greenhouse gases. The problem is the same in the province of Quebec as in all other provinces of Canada.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The Prime Minister's position on U.S. sabre-rattling toward Iraq shifts depending on what late night call his office gets from the Bush administration. George Bush seems determined, come hell or high water, to proceed with a military intervention in Iraq.
Could the Minister of National Defence tell us whether discussions have been held between Canadian and American military officials about a joint operation in Iraq? Are there discussions underway about a military incursion in Iraq?
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, the minister's eggnog will not wash down so smoothly this time. The last time the government ducked questions about a so-called hypothetical situation, the prisoners of war fiasco, the defence minister got caught in his own web of deception. No wonder Canadians are suspicious.
Again I want to give the minister the opportunity to tell the truth. Could he confirm that Canadian military officials have not been involved in any discussions with U.S. military regarding a military operation in Iraq?
John Manley LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations
Mr. Speaker, the minister has already been very clear in answering that question. What is peculiar is that we have a party over there that wants us to be opposed to the United States even when it is right. We also have a party that wants us to agree with the United States even when it is wrong. Our job is to represent the interests of Canadians and that is what we will do.
Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals replaced the old DIPP with the new Technology Partnerships Canada in 1996, they promised to better manage and target industrial investment. However the record is: $140 million in funding announced before approvals were made; a repayment rate of 2.5% on almost $1 billion in outstanding loans; and 26 projects worth almost $400 million that were awarded secretly. That is hardly a record to be proud of.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify this program, which was supposed to end mismanagement, when in fact it has only made things worse?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. No investments were made through Technology Partnerships Canada without the agreement and approval of cabinet in advance. All amounts expended in technology partnerships are in the public accounts and available for all to see. My department will see to it that annual reports are filed and all investments are announced at the earliest possible opportunity.
Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, it would be nice if there was an annual report. We have been waiting now for three years.
The Liberals say they want to target investment, but I never realized to what lengths they would go. Of the 107 companies that received technology partnerships loans, 55% found a way to donate to the federal Liberals. In the transitional jobs fund, only 5.4% actually donated to the Liberal Party and we know what a boondoggle that was. The technology partnerships program is 10 times worse.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, is the technology partnerships program the equivalent of a platinum card where Liberal membership has its privileges?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, the technology partnerships program has been an important spur to investment innovation. It has made a real difference in companies and in communities across Canada since its inception. With less than a 1% failure rate, it provides capital to ensure that small and large businesses with good innovative ideas can bring them to market, creating jobs and prosperity. We are proud of the program and it will continue.
Dave Chatters Canadian Alliance Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, the environment minister has publicly estimated the cost of ratifying the Kyoto accord to the Canadian economy at $500 million per year. Industry estimates the same cost to be $4.5 billion per year.
Industry has produced its studies. Will the environment minister provide the House and Canadians with factual verifiable information to support his version of the Kyoto costs?
