Debates of Feb. 8th, 2002

National Defence

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in his latest tirade the Prime Minister now feels that it is unpatriotic to demand better equipment for the soldiers fighting for freedom in far off Afghanistan. Meanwhile he is the one who asked them to fly in helicopters built in 1963. He is the one who tells our troops to go into harm's way but he will not give them camouflage gear or stoves to cook their food.

Some of our brave soldiers are even buying their own boots and they are rubbing paint and sand on themselves because their uniforms do not blend into the desert background.

Certainly our troops will perform admirably, but would it not be better to give them the tools to help them finish the job?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, they have the tools they need to do the job. Perhaps the commander of the army had the hon. member in mind when he said:

Ill-informed and alarmist rhetoric surrounding the decision to send our soldiers to Afghanistan in the new green CADPAT...uniforms does little to inform the public and is corrosive to the morale of soldiers deploying on this important operation.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, probably not as corrosive as having to beg food from the Americans.

The Prime Minister said that the Canadian troops were better equipped than any other troops in the world, but that is simply untrue. Certainly our troops are among the best trained, the hardest working and, heaven knows, they are having to prove to be the most innovative.

The Prime Minister should crawl down off his high horse and simply get on with properly equipping our soldiers. The government has cut military spending and troop levels to the bone. Even the auditor general said that our equipment was in danger of rusting out.

Our troops are certainly showing their patriotism by carrying Canadian values into the theatre of war. Why does the government not show some of that same patriotism and start funding our military properly?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, over the next five years, we are putting more than $5 billion into defence spending. I do not know of any other department or any other program, outside of health care, that will be getting more money over that period of time.

In terms of the uniforms, they have the uniforms they need to do the job. They show innovation in camouflage. That is a normal thing to do. They are intelligent. They do have their own initiative in doing these kinds of things. That is normal for the military to do.

The dramatics from the hon. member are absolutely hollow.

Health

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Romanow did not say much in his interim report but he did say that the principles of the Canada Health Act were routinely ignored. He said that it was as obvious as a slap in the face and that it needed overhauling, and yet the federal government has done nothing for eight long years.

What is the federal answer? It is to wait even longer.

When will the government get on board with the provinces and help fix what is broken?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday in the House, we have been on board with the provinces, working collaboratively with them for many years.

The accord signed by the Prime Minister and the premiers in September of 2000 speaks to a shared commitment in relation to the renewal of the health care system. Not only did we enter into an accord but the federal government put another $21 billion on the table in relation to the CHST that will be paid out over the next five years.

The federal government has been on board, it has shown leadership and it will continue to work in partnership with the provinces.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when it suited the federal government politically, it was happy to slash transfer payments to health care by $6 billion a year.

The Liberals used fear about health care to help them win an election. Now they are stalling for time again because they are looking for political advantage.

Why is the government more concerned about political positioning than the health of Canadians?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that what we are concerned about is the renewal of the health care system.

Let me remind the official opposition that it was, I believe, a member of its party who endorsed the concept of two tier health care, a concept that we are strongly opposed to.

We are committed, as are all the provincial and territorial premiers, to the five principles of the Canada Health Act within a publicly financed system. We will renew the health care system within that context.

Infrastructure

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as regards infrastructures, there is a consensus in Quebec on how things ought to be done. All the stakeholders in Quebec, including the Mayor of Longueuil and the Conseil du patronat, recognize that Quebec is already in control of this program.

I would like to know why the federal government is now challenging the operating rules of the infrastructure program, on which all the Quebec stakeholders agree.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not see the problem, because there are no changes to the existing programs. We are creating a program for strategic infrastructure with a new fund and if there are consensuses, it will be a lot easier to work together.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the last budget brought down by Pauline Marois, the Quebec government invested an additional $750 million for highways and infrastructure work in Quebec. That money will allow Quebec to provide work for thousands of workers.

Why does the minister not follow Quebec's example by making money from the fund available immediately, while respecting each others' jurisdictions?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of working together. The hon. member seems to be suggesting that it is only up to the provincial government to tell the federal government how to spend its money.

This way of doing things does not work well. We have to co-operate and we support co-operation.

Canada-U.S. Relations

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, an open and secure border is the number one priority of Canadian industry but the Americans are dragging their feet on allowing preclearance of low risk cargo due to their heightened security concerns.

The finance minister is meeting with his U.S. counterpart today. Could the government assure Canadians that U.S. concerns will be addressed on this issue in order to secure timely access to U.S. markets for Canadian exports?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are making very good progress on the 30 point action plan that former Governor Ridge and I signed on December 12 with respect to an intelligent border.

Some issues, as the hon. member is no doubt aware, were apparently raised in an article in the New York Times quoting Mr. Bonner of the U.S. customs service.

I have asked our finance minister to raise those issues with the secretary of the treasury who is responsible for customs on the U.S. side.

I am happy to note as well that Mr. Bonner himself has distanced himself from the quotations that were attributed to him. He too is in favour--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Peace River.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has not shown up in access at our borders with the United States. Congestion was a problem even before September 11.

Just like the softwood lumber issue, the Liberal government is not delivering on its promise. There is a slowdown at the border.

We know a lot of good proposals have been put forward for streamlining the border access but the Americans will not consider them until we address their security concerns.

Months ago the industry committee recommended a high level bilateral summit on these issues. Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how this is advancing? It does not seem to be translating into access for our product.

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been high level bilateral meetings. I met with Mr. Ridge last Saturday and that has been in a series of meetings.

We have carved out a very ambitious program between us in terms of making progress. I am very happy to report that in our meetings the confidence that the United States is showing in the security measures we have taken is very high.

I am happy as well to report to the hon. member that Mr. Ridge reported to me that secretary of the treasury, Mr. O'Neill, has said that if other countries had done as much about terrorism financing as Canada he would be very happy.

Infrastructure

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

Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday, the Deputy Prime MInister indicated to this House that the complexity of the infrastructure projects made government-to-government discussions necessary. Yesterday, he maintained that he could go over the heads of the governments to deal directly with the municipalities.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister quit making these flip-flops and indicate to us, once and for all, what the mechanisms for application of this program will be?

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

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member wait until the bill is passed by parliament before we describe the program.

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

Mr. Speaker, why does the minister feel the need to review everything when all the structures are already in place and the only thing holding us back is the money?

What answer does he have for the Mayor of Longueuil, Jacques Olivier, who, in speaking of highway 30, commented that the Government of Quebec's position on this was far clearer than the federal government's?

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member does not understand that what we are doing is creating a new program with new money, $2 billion, that will be made available for strategic infrastructure.

The objectives of the program are contained in the bill. We are going to try to work with all those concerned in order to discuss which projects are really strategic for the 21st century here in Canada.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government's Enron like accounting malpractice has caused the government of Manitoba to postpone its provincial budget.

The roads, health care and schools of Manitobans will suffer because the government has yet to clear the air about the $3.3 billion of taxpayer dollars it lost through bad accounting.

The finance minister of Manitoba said that it was the federal government's mistake and that the federal government should pay. Why will the government not own up to its own mistake?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House before, right now the government is seeking information because these payments go back to 1972, and it takes some time to do that. The auditor general is involved. When the information is developed the government will have discussions with the provinces and then make a decision.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this delay and inaction is causing the provincial governments serious difficulty.

One reason that Manitoba cannot bring down its budget is because it has no way of telling how much less it may receive in health and other transfers from this government because of this huge accounting fiasco. Soon this cloud will pass over other provinces and other Canadians.

Is the government prepared to see every provincial government and the vital services they deliver to Canadians come to a standstill while we wait for the government to come up with a plan on how to recover this $3.3 billion in missing taxpayer dollars? When will this plan come forward?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that this has occurred. I think the hon. member is exaggerating the disruptions by an order of magnitude.

As I said before, the government is working as quickly as possible to obtain the information, at which point we will have discussions with the provinces and then come to a decision.