House of Commons Hansard #64 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was children.
Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, from the moment that Canada starts promoting a shorter deadline for the disarmament of Iraq, the government must tell us that it has espoused the logic of war, because that is the truth.
The minister cannot deny that the proposal to set a deadline for a final result, which must be to the satisfaction of the Americans I might add, is basically tantamount to setting a date for going to war.
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. I think it is very important that the House, the hon. members and the Canadian public know that our contribution here is to avert war by clarifying the situation. If we remain in the dark, war could break out against the wishes of the international community.
With clarification, we have a chance of finding a way out. That is what Canada wants; that is what it is promoting. I am proud of the contribution we have been able to make in this respect.
Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, something is not right here. The minister must know that the proposal Canada announced yesterday is what the U.S. is proposing. It has been widely reported by the international press. So far, however, each new report by the inspectors has indicated progress. The process is taking time, but it is yielding results.
Does the minister not realize that, instead of speeding up the inspection process, his proposed deadline will in fact block this process and prevent peaceful disarmament? I am convinced this is not what he wants.
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, we must recognize that there are two aspects to this crisis: the Iraqi one and the American one.
We must therefore consider both aspects. Iraq has to realize that it has obligations and that these obligations must be fulfilled within a reasonable timeframe.
Canada has not set a date. Canada has not required anything from anyone. We have simply made an observation that is logical to everyone. There is a need to know the terms and by when these must be met. That is what we have said—
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Canada may not have suggested a particular date but it has certainly suggested there be a date. While the Minister of Foreign Affairs talks a good talk about the United Nations process, it seems to us that the government is open to the charge of doing the work of the United States when it comes to the Security Council.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs commit that if Canada is interested in a timeframe, it will be a timeframe established with the weapons inspectors and not necessarily with the United States?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that our position has always been to work within the United Nations system.
One thing we can all take a great deal of comfort and pride in is that the weapons inspectors, mandated by the Security Council, have done serious work and have created credibility around the UN system. Canada totally supports the weapons inspectors. In fact Mr. Heinbecker saw Dr. Blix this morning. We are in continual contact with Dr. Blix. I have spoken to him on a regular basis.
I want to assure the House and all members that we work with the weapons inspectors to ensure that the inspection system works.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is important that the credibility the minister just spoke of be preserved and not compromised by an artificial deadline.
The minister has said that the position is clear, but many Canadians remain unclear about what the position of the Canadian government is if the UN process breaks down.
Could we at least have a commitment from the Minister of Foreign Affairs that if the UN process breaks down, Canada will not automatically become part of a process set by the U.S.?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister was in Chicago last week. He received a standing ovation from the Americans in the audience when he told them that we were their ally because we came to them with our independent appreciation of this. He said clearly that we wanted them and the world to work through the United Nations system. I can certainly give the assurance to the hon. member that we are not accepting what the United States proposes on a timeline or anything else.
What we are seeking to do is create the conditions which would allow peace to prevail and we will continue to do that under all circumstances.
Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, the conflict of interest code that covers ministers of the Crown is conducted in secret. The Prime Minister admitted that he did not know when his former finance minister was using a loophole to meet with managers of his vast holdings. The ethics counsellor says that privacy considerations prevent him from discussing whether other ministers have used the loophole.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How do Canadians know that ministers are not participating in cabinet decisions that directly or indirectly affect their private holdings?
John Manley LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, there is no loophole. There are provisions that have been established as a result of the Parker Commission that deal with the situation where a minister has private holdings which enable him to deal with those in a framework as established by the ethics counsellor.
I am sure the hon. member would agree that to have private holdings ought not to be an obstacle to public service.
Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL
Mr. Speaker, in this week's budget the finance minister announced that he would split the CHST into a health transfer and a social transfer on April 1, 2004. We agree. However by that time the member for LaSalle—Émard, who set up the CHST, could be the new prime minister.
My question is for the finance minister. What guarantees has he sought from the member for LaSalle—Émard that he will actually go ahead with the promise of splitting the CHST?
The BudgetOral Question Period
The Speaker
I am afraid the hon. member's question does not relate to the administrative responsibility of the government at this time. The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
Diane Ablonczy Canadian Alliance Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, the government has turned a deaf ear to pleas that Ernst Zundel be kept out of Canada. On February 11, the B'nai Brith publicly requested that the immigration minister respect the fact that Canada's courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court, found Zundel poses, “a danger to the security of Canada”.
Why do we find today that this security threat has been admitted to Canada and is apparently applying for refugee status?
Denis Coderre LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important and serious issue. There are some individuals who are using one of the most generous refugee systems in the world for those who are in need. I understand there are some individuals who feel cheated because some people abuse the system. I will not let this go.
Diane Ablonczy Canadian Alliance Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, it does not need to be that way. Refugee laws say that someone found to be inadmissible to Canada on grounds of security is ineligible to make a refugee claim. That is exactly what CSIS and our courts have found Zundel to be, a threat to Canadian security. This is grounds to simply dismiss any refugee claim he might make and deport him, or the minister can leave the door wide open for Zundel to make a refugee claim and launch more litigation, all at Canada's expense.
Will the minister tell Canadians just how long he intends to let Zundel stay in Canada?
Denis Coderre LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on this specific issue. The member is a lawyer and she knows exactly how the system works. We have to be very careful if we want to be efficient. I can say one thing. I will not let the system be trampled on.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, the latest budget proves once again that the federal government cannot resist interfering in areas of jurisdiction belonging to Quebec and the provinces. The latest example is the Canadian Learning Institute, with its $100 million budget.
This will interfere in a big way with Quebec's ability to make its own choices in education and occupational training.
Can the Minister of Finance tell us if the federal government intends to use this institute to evaluate how Quebec has done in terms of learning, professional development and occupational training?
John Manley LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this institute is important in establishing an information base for all provinces that will help in identifying the best practices in each. It is possible that Quebec's practices might prove very beneficial to the other provinces.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Finance, in declaring that the fathers of the Constitution made a mistake in giving the provinces jurisdiction over post-secondary education and by creating this new institute and the new Canada Graduate Scholarships, not trying to do indirectly what he cannot do directly, which is to create a federal department of education?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would be unable to find any reference in the Constitution indicating that a country cannot collect statistics in order to see what is happening in a particular area.
We created a health institute, without interfering in health care. He should reread the Clair commission's report. It invites the Government of Quebec to cooperate on health with this institute.
That is what we intend to do in education. We will not be interfering in the classroom. We are going to respond to the OECD's requests for statistics on education. That is what the federal government is going to do, in full cooperation with the provinces.
Deborah Grey Canadian Alliance Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has now announced a new high tech project to modernize our military, which is just great. After budget day he will have to modernize his math instead.
His new ISTAR computer surveillance program will cost $700 million, which is a mighty big bite out of the $800 million total he was given for this entire year.
The minister talks about brains over brawn. I would be pleasantly surprised if he engaged in the former when he answers this question. With only $100 million remaining for everything, how does the minister intend to cover all his bases?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I regret my colleague is unable to be here today. The new technology that has been alluded to in the press is something that will put Canada on the cutting edge in terms of defence. That has only been assisted by the money that was received in the budget, the $800 million extra a year that will help the Canadian armed forces.
Deborah Grey Canadian Alliance Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, that technology is just great. It is on the cutting edge but everything else in the military is on the cutting floor.
On Tuesday the government promised $800 million annually for defence, a sum that does not even come close to addressing the shortfall in the Canadian Forces.
It is great for the minister to talk about that but it does not leave any money for rebuilding our troops, providing them with decent housing or replacing aging equipment which is getting so old so fast. In the face of security threats at home and abroad we simply cannot afford to shortchange our military this way.
The minister either does not recognize the problem he has or he has no brawn at the cabinet table. Which is it?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence certainly recognizes the challenges of the armed forces. That is why he publicly called for an increase in the budget and received moneys in the budget. He knows the needs and those needs will be met with the increased funding.