House of Commons Hansard #171 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was children.
John Manley LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations
Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. In fact, our commitment continues to be exactly what the Prime Minister said it was this week.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
“One day”, as the other gentleman would say, Mr. Speaker.
We recently learned that TransAlta, a coal producer, made a donation of $25,000 to the leadership campaign of the Minister of Finance, which led this former environment critic to say on Tuesday that the Kyoto protocol should be ratified only if it could be shown that it would help solve the problem of climate change. Honestly.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not find this quite a coincidence: political donations are made, ministers start putting on the pressure, and then the government backtracks on the Kyoto protocol?
John Manley LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations
Not at all, Mr. Speaker. This is not necessarily the conclusion at all. Naturally, political donations should be transparent and above board. But there are certainly completely different points of view among the people and groups making donations.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, this tendency to flip-flop is not limited to the Minister of Finance alone. Now we have the former Minister of Health doing a mammoth flip-flop and expressing serious reservations on the appropriateness of ratifying Kyoto, when not long ago he was claiming to be extremely concerned about the health of the population.
Are we to conclude that the Minister of Industry has also been influenced by the oil lobby, since he too is a candidate for the Liberal leadership and thus vulnerable to pressure from those who are opposed to the ratification of Kyoto?
John Manley LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations
Mr. Speaker, the government has a policy and the government will reach a decision, and that decision will be a government decision.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, is the Deputy Prime Minister going to realize that the only solution available to him to limit what is beginning to look more and more like a major shift, is to state right now, with no ifs, ands or buts, that Canada will be ratifying the Kyoto protocol in 2002?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the position of the Canadian government is very clear. The Prime Minister of Canada told the House on April 16, “We plan on doing everything we can to ratify the Kyoto protocol”, but “We will not make any decision without taking into consideration the views of the provinces and the private sector”.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, the heart of every Canadian goes out today to the loved ones of our soldiers who were killed and injured in Kandahar.
It is 50 years since Canadian soldiers died in an offensive military mission. According to the Pentagon, 2% of American soldiers were casualties in World War II, the Korean war and Vietnam as a result of so-called friendly fire. By the time of the gulf war, this had increased to 24%.
Can the minister help explain to Canadians what this phenomenon results from? What specific measures does the Canadian government take to ensure that our soldiers in harm's way at the hands of their enemies do not find themselves in harm's way at the hands of our allies?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, we take every precaution possible to reduce the risk levels. We know that going into a high risk area is inherent in the military operations that they engage in, but we do everything possible to reduce that risk. It goes into their training. It goes into the rules of engagement. We expect that our allies do the same thing as well.
Unfortunately, there are these accidents that do occur. In this particular case, we will have a board of inquiry, a full investigation to determine what caused it and what needs to be done to prevent it from happening again.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, I think every Canadian family really is in mourning for those who have been killed, for their families and for those who have been injured. My question to the minister arises around his confirmation of a board of inquiry, and those families will take part I am sure from the announcement that such an inquiry will be held, as it should be. However, I am sure the minister is aware that such inquiries can very often be dragged out. They can go on for a very long time and operate in a very secretive way.
Could the minister, recognizing the fear that exists in the hearts of military families, particularly as a result of what has happened in the last 24 hours, give some assurances that he will use every--
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, we want to get to the bottom of this just as quickly as we possibly can. I can assure the hon. member we want to know what happened. We want to take further measures to reduce the risk to any of our troops, and I know the families do too. We owe it to the families and to the Canadian people to find out what happened.
Yesterday I had a call from Secretary Rumsfeld. He indicated that he wanted to join with us and co-operate to the fullest extent possible in getting to the bottom of this matter so that corrective action can be taken and so people will understand what really happened.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the United States announced the creation of a new continental defence system, which will take effect in five months. The regions included are the United States, Canada, Mexico and part of the Caribbean.
Would the government have us believe that the United States was acting entirely on its own? When is the Prime Minister going to tell us what deal he made with the Americans regarding continental defence?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, no deal has been made except an agreement that we would consult and have discussions. We started those last fall, long before the hon. member indicated his concern about this matter because we wanted to ensure that the status of Norad remained at a high level, a binational command. We wanted to ensure we would have an opportunity to look at an enhanced defence and security relationship with our neighbour, the United States, and that is what we will do.
They have announced the position but the fleshing out of it is yet to happen. The discussions with the United States and Canada are still ongoing.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, when this minister was in Mexico last January, he forgot being briefed about Canadian troops taking prisoners in Afghanistan. Can he remember if he discussed with Mexican authorities a U.S.-led integrated command for North America? If so, did those discussions involve extending some aspect of Norad to include Mexico?
The minister admits there are discussions. Will he spell out to parliament within the next couple of weeks or now how the new integrated North American command will affect Canada and Canadian control and command of the Canadian armed forces?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I never forgot anything. Let me make it quite clear that Canadian troops will continue to be, as always, now and in future, commanded by Canadians in the interests of the sovereignty of our country and in the interests of the policies of this government.
Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that the sovereignty and defence of Canada will be assured by the Canadian government, yet the chair of the government's own defence committee said that to preserve our sovereignty in light of the proposed northern command Canada must dramatically boost its military spending.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister this. How does his government propose to defend Canada and its sovereignty when it continues to underfund our military?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, talk about forgetting. The hon. member seems to have forgotton that we have increased spending by some 20% over the last four years, that we have committed another $5 billion over the next five years, that we have bought new armoured personnel carriers, new search and rescue helicopters, new submarines and that we have state-of-the-art equipment for the navy and our frigates. There are so many areas in which we have increased the quality of life for our troops and the training of our troops, and we will continue to provide what our military needs to do the job effectively.
Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB
Mr. Speaker, the truth is the government spends less on our military than it did when it took power. That is the truth.
The Prime Minister also said yesterday that the northern command is their business not ours. We are talking about an American defence perimeter that covers all of Canada and we are not even involved. Sovereignty means that Canada has some control over our own defence.
Why will this government not get serious about sovereignty by making investments in our military a priority so that the defence of Canada is not left solely to the Americans?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, it is not left solely to the Americans. We have a partnership between the two countries in terms of defence of the continent and we will continue to have that.
The hon. member seems to have got quite confused about this northern command. He told the press yesterday that he thought Russia was a member of the northern command. That is not the case at all. There is no other country that is a part of the northern command other than the United States.
We are talking with them to see how we can enhance the security and defence of our continent and our respective sovereign countries.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, as part of the sustainable development strategy for 2001-2003, the Minister of Transport undertook to examine locomotive engine emission standards in order to reduce atmospheric emissions for 2002.
This is exactly what the Bloc Quebecois is asking the minister to do: introduce standards to protect the environment and, at the same time, save the 650 jobs in danger of disappearing at GEC Alstom in Montreal. Will the minister live up to his commitment soon, yes or no?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Transport and I are trying as hard as we can to find ways of reducing greenhouse gases.
The hon. member's suggestion will be looked at closely. Railway equipment must be periodically renewed.
We will examine all the circumstances before taking any decision.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, GEC Alstom is the only company in Canada with the technology and the expertise to manufacture and modify diesel engines so as to reduce polluting emissions. The government tells us it wants to reduce these emissions and ratify the Kyoto protocol. Here is its chance to prove it and, at the same time, help a company in Montreal, where 650 jobs are at stake.
Yes or no, does the minister want to help save 650 jobs and protect the environment by making a formal commitment to issue standards soon?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, there are many ways to help the economy to grow and reduce greenhouse gases at the same time.
We on this side have often said that it is very important to realize that reducing greenhouse gases does not always have a negative impact on the economy.
Gerry Ritz Canadian Alliance Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, in 1992 the present Minister of Public Works and Government Services demanded to know “Why does this tired old government think that the rules are made to be broken?”
Ten years ago the minister knew that a sole source contract, signed in the dead of night behind closed doors, was wrong. We can appreciate that the Challengers may one day need replacement, just like the government, but we see no reason to ignore the rules to do it.
This contract is too big to be sole sourced, does not represent any emergency, can be fulfilled by more than one firm and it is definitely not in the public interest at this time. Who ordered this minister to break his own rules?