Debates of Feb. 21st, 2003

Iraq

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the process Canada is engaged in has two objectives. First, to indicate to Saddam Hussein that this cannot go on indefinitely and that he absolutely must comply with his obligations under resolution 1441. Second, to encourage all other members of the international community to remain within the UN system, which acts in the interests of security and in the interests of the international community. That is our process, that is our message. It has never changed, and we will continue our work in that area.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, setting a deadline is tantamount to setting a date for war. With its ambiguous choice, Canada, far from helping the inspection process, is helping justify a logic of war, instead of a logic of peace.

How can the Minister of Foreign Affairs reconcile this approach, which would lead to war, with the march during which thousands of people urged Canada to make a firm commitment to peace?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member and all the members of this House fully understand that there is a high risk of a war if Saddam Hussein feels that he does not have to comply with resolution 1441.

The process to which Canada is committed is twofold. First, we want to tell Saddam Hussein that he absolutely must comply with his international obligations. Second, we want to give the inspectors a chance to complete their mission, so as to avoid a war. The only way to avoid a war is to take these two aspects into consideration.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Foreign Affairs realize that, by trying to get the two sides closer by suggesting a deadline, Canada is actually actively promoting war?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we are actively promoting the inspection process. I think that Mr. Blix will soon report, in March, on the timeframe that he needs to complete his mission.

This is a way to deliver a clear message that may avoid a war for the international community. We are continuing our work to support the process being implemented by Mr. Blix.

Infrastructure

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister keeps telling us how much he has done for municipalities, but he knows very well he has failed to do his job. The $1 billion over 10 years for new municipal infrastructure falls short of what is needed.

The minister also knows very well this downloading will mean increased residential property taxes, the privatization of vital public services like the delivery of drinking water and more user fees for Canadians.

Can he tell us why he thinks Canadians ought to pay higher property taxes, pay for-profit operators for drinking water and pay increased user fees on public services?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, first of all before the New Democratic Party even discovered the national infrastructure program, it was this government in 1993 that brought it in. It lay dormant under the fifth party, under the Tories, for 10 years.

As far as the government is concerned, the Minister of Finance has indicated a 10 year program which is what municipalities have been asking for. He said that this is a down payment. I understand the down payment first and foremost is to work with our partners, the provinces and the cities. That is what we are doing.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was that type of complacency that created situations like Walkerton.

The Prime Minister's task force on urban issues concluded its report by asking the government to have courage and vision to work on our cities. What happened? Can the parliamentary secretary explain why the chair, the member for York West, is questioning the decisions and the shortchanging? Who is right?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, first of all as far as Walkerton is concerned, that was because of the privatization and the cutbacks by the province of Ontario's ministry of the environment. If members are going to raise that issue, they should at least get the facts straight over there.

Second, as far as supporting cities are concerned, the government needs to take no lessons from any of the opposition parties. None of them supported infrastructure. None of them supported supporting cities. Now it is fashionable. Now they are getting on board. The train has left the station and we are well ahead.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that municipalities are very disappointed with the federal government's infrastructure water torture, a drip here, a drip there. The $3 billion was announced but only $100 million in this budget year and $150 million in the next.

Unlike the federal Department of Finance, municipalities like to plan ahead. Will the finance minister please tell the House how the remaining $2.75 billion will be allocated?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there was a drought and that drought was the Conservative Party when it was in office as far as cities were concerned. We are working in partnership with the provinces, territories and cities in terms of supporting infrastructure in this country.

I am amazed, as a former member of the FCM board over there, that the member would say that when he knows the great struggles we had in the 1990s and it came to fruition when this government came to power.

Badger Flood

[Rex Barnes, Progressive Conservative, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, residents of Badger are facing an economic crisis. This economic crisis is caused by the closing of family businesses. Also there are large and small businesses that are in dire need.

Will the Government of Canada implement a special financial relief plan? Will the minister, if he can find time, visit Badger to see firsthand the impact upon the community?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely conscious of the very difficult situation in Badger. Just this morning I received a letter from the minister and I responded to that letter within two hours. The process is now underway to provide financial assistance under the law.

In addition, the armoury nearby is providing assistance to the Red Cross and to other first responders. We have taken these two actions and we are closely monitoring the situation.

Iraq

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this week our ambassador to the United Nations said that any Iraqi cooperation with weapons inspectors has come about “only in response to the deliberate and useful buildup of U.S. and U.K. military forces in the region”. He also called, as we know, for another deadline for Iraqi compliance with resolution 1441.

Given that Canada has done nothing to contribute to this useful buildup of forces, when will the foreign affairs minister get off of the fence and spell out exactly what consequences Canada will support if Iraq blows past this latest deadline without complying?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we have always strongly supported the objectives set out in resolution 1441. We have strongly supported that and the United States knows that and often has expressed gratitude for Canada's position.

Canada's position has also been that we believe strongly in working through this process through strengthening the UN process because in the long run, that will be for the benefit of the United States. It will be for the benefit of Canadians and it will be for the benefit of the world.

That is the process we are engaged in. We will continue in that role as that is the most constructive role that Canada can play.

National Defence

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the term “best value” in government procurement has always meant that taxpayers receive the best value over the full life cycle of the project. Great concept.

The Liberal government has threatened to go ahead with lowest cost tendering on our maritime helicopter replacement. To cover up a political mistake committed by the Prime Minister in 1993, the Liberals will continue to risk future value by chasing this cheap alternative. The Liberals finally admitted their mistake of trying to split the maritime helicopter contract. Will they now tender on best value, not just cheapest initial price?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we have taken a very useful step with respect to the maritime helicopters. Some weeks ago I made the decision to re-bundle the contracts, which means that instead of having two contracts we now will have a single contract for the helicopter. There is an industry consensus and virtual unanimity that this is positive in the sense that we will get the helicopters faster. Not only that, but it clearly lowers the risk and is likely to reduce the costs. We are on track to get the right helicopter at the best price as fast as possible.

Kyoto Protocol

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of the Environment said he is open to a bilateral agreement between Quebec and the federal government on implementation of the Kyoto protocol.

Can the Minister of the Environment deliver on the rhetoric today by announcing the appointment of a federal negotiator, as the Quebec government requested yesterday?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is true that we are in favour of an agreement with the provinces. I quote the Prime Minister who said in the House on November 27, “as regards Kyoto, we are prepared to sign bilateral agreements with each of the provinces if they want to”.

I can add that, earlier this week on February 17, the deputy ministers of the federal departments of the Environment and Natural Resources began to meet with their provincial counterparts.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on several occasions, the Minister of the Environment has said and I quote, “we hope to have a bilateral agreement between the Province of Quebec and the federal government”.

Will the minister admit that the first step to agreement with Quebec is to appoint its negotiator today, without further delay?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. speaker, I can assure the hon. member that my deputy minister and the deputy minister of Natural Resources are the two federal negotiators on all such matters with the provinces.

Trade

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, $1.9 billion a day in commercial trade with the United States will soon be subject to a requirement for 24 hours advance notice before crossing the border. This is going to harm time dependent industries such as the auto industry, which is the heart of my province's economy. The auto sector says quite reasonably that this will be a huge problem and is seeking an exemption, but we do not seem to see any interest in searching for exemptions by the government.

When can we expect to see an exemption for the auto sector?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, this issue has been raised a number of times in the House. The member opposite simply does not seem to understand that this is a proposal.

Most of the auto sector, I would tell him, is part of the free and secure trade procedures which have been established under a 30 point process. It is designed to give secure and rapid access both to Canada and the United States because that is in the interests of both countries.

We are working at the present time to increase our cooperation with the Americans, but the proposal he has mentioned has not in fact been--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, south of the border there is a sense that Canada is a fair-weather friend. The Liberal government is doing serious damage to Canada-U.S. trade when the Prime Minister goes down to Chicago and lectures the Americans on their foreign policy. The end result is Canadians will pay the price on issues like 24 hour advance notice. The unguarded border becomes more and more guarded every day.

Why did the Prime Minister not give any thought to the 24 hour advance notice when he gave his little lecture in Chicago?