Debates of May 13th, 2003

Foreign Affairs

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been around long enough to have respect for Parliament and know that laws should be introduced here first and not elsewhere. Even though the Prime Minister has been here longer than me, he never has to worry about being charged with possession of respect for Parliament, even in small amounts.

The Prime Minister said that the decision with respect to star wars has been put off. Who will he consult? It is not enough to just consult Liberals. They are not the entire political universe. There is a thing called Parliament. How will he consult Parliament and the Canadian people?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Parliament has been consulted. A committee of the House of Commons has been studying this problem for months and months. What is he complaining about?

We are now preparing the legislation and it will be tabled. That is very simple. When he has it, he will vote on it. If he wants to vote on the day that the bill is tabled because he seems to be in favour of changing the sentencing on marijuana, that is fine. We will vote in the House as quickly as possible. He should ask his people not to speak too much.

Auberge Grand-Mère

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

France Bergeron was manager of the Business Development Bank branch that served the Prime Minister's riding at the time of the Auberge Grand-Mère case. Court records indicate that she told the RCMP that “without the intervention of the federal MP, the project would never have been accepted”. The MP who made the $615,000 intervention was the Prime Minister.

Does the government agree with Ms. Bergeron's professional analysis and sworn testimony?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it was in a letter addressed to that member that the ethics counsellor expressed his opinion on all of these matters, including the facts referred to just now in the question. The ethics counsellor said clearly that there was no violation of any principle involved.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the professional mouthpiece.

The cross-examination by the National Post has revealed new evidence in the Shawinigate matter. It talks about pages of files that have been lost and about electronic records that have disappeared. The RCMP search warrant application for leaked documents omitted France Bergeron's signed testimony that the only reason the loan was granted was because the Prime Minister intervened.

The Solicitor General does not need a mouthpiece. He can answer for the RCMP himself. Will he tell the House why the RCMP kept the most relevant part of Ms. Bergeron's statement out of the warrant application?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that I find the Canadian Alliance and the leader of the Conservative Party in bed on this particular issue.

They are both trying to dig up old news and malign agencies and organizations, and the RCMP. They are continuing to malign the Prime Minister. That seems to be their whole tact on this issue. There is really nothing new here. I said earlier that the RCMP did an investigation on this matter and that is appropriate.

National Defence

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a long list of senior military and government officials have criticized Liberal bungling and interference in the Sea King replacement project. Yesterday they were joined by former deputy minister of public works, Raymond Hession, a man the justice minister has said is well respected.

Since the government has so much respect for Mr. Hession's ability to fix failed government programs, will it act on his observation that the government's process for replacing the Sea Kings is “plain stupid”?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, many people are offering many different opinions about helicopters. Mr. Hession has his view, but then so does the chief of defence staff who has indicated that the 1999 statement of requirements had the full support of military leadership. He said that all of the helicopters in the competition were very fine candidates.

We are trying to be very precise in our requirements and in the process to ensure that both the military and the taxpayer can be properly satisfied.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the list. Three former deputy ministers, two former Sea King squadron commanders, and a former director of the helicopter project have said it has been corrupted by political interference.

On the one hand the government is trying desperately to cover its tracks on the Sea King replacement program, and on the other hand a growing group of highly respected inside experts have said that the program has been corrupted.

Who does the government really expect Canadians to believe?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in the House before, since last year, both the Minister of National Defence and I have been working very hard to ensure that this procurement proceeds in the proper manner. The first step was taken last December by the Minister of National Defence in the re-bundling process.

I would point out that the chief of defence staff also said that it was in fact “just the way to go” in regard to the re-bundling. I think the advice of the chief of defence staff is good advice to follow.

Softwood Lumber

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister for International Trade assured this House that he was working closely with the softwood lumber industry in the discussions with Washington to settle the softwood lumber dispute.

How can the minister justify the industry being informed only today that the negotiations with the Americans had resumed, basically being presented with a fait accompli?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I would be very surprised if the industry had been informed today that the negotiations were to resume this week, because they will not be resuming this week.

On Thursday, the coordinators for this matter will be visiting the U.S. Department of Commerce, as they have been doing on a regular basis for two and a half years. These are regular meetings that do not qualify as negotiations.

The point I am making is that the negotiations will not be resuming this week. A meeting is scheduled between the coordinator—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they do not even care to listen to the answer. All they want to do is chat.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the minister told us the matter was settled. The reality is that not only was the softwood lumber industry not informed until today of the negotiations and their content, but also a representative of the industry in Quebec has confirmed that the positions being discussed probably stem from ongoing discussions between the American softwood lumber industry and American officials.

Is this not further evidence that more and more, on major issues such as the space shield, marijuana and softwood lumber, this government is taking its lead from the American government and that the real decisions are being made in Washington, and not in Ottawa?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, that is a conspiracy theory put forward by suspicious and slighty paranoid individuals.

On the softwood lumber issue, if there is a government that has stood up for producers, it is ours.

The fact that we are making progress in Washington seems to bother certain members of the Bloc Quebecois who are not concerned about the real interests of lumber producers in Quebec, but would like to make political mileage on a sensitive issue. We have been working with all the provinces and industries across the country for the past two and a half years, and they will continue to be consulted as closely as they have been in the past.

National Defence

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Sea King project is not the only procurement debacle that the Liberals have authored. The replacements for Canada's CF-18 fighter jets are not going well and their upgrades are merely a Liberal band-aid solution.

When will the Liberal government fast track our involvement in the joint strike fighter project to avoid a repeat of the Sea King debacle?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of transforming the military as is the case for militaries around the world. Militaries around the world face a radically different environment with the end of the cold war and the beginning of the anti-terrorist phase, as well as a hugely rapid change in technology.

We have already made a number of announcements and are proceeding along that track. Members can be sure that the government will advance sound plans to transform the Canadian Forces in years to come.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have already seen some of the government's plans: Sea King projects that go nowhere; Hercules planes with their wings cracking on the edges; and troops going into combat environments with the wrong camouflage, having to bum cigarettes, ammunition, and porta-potties from our allies. The government is certainly transforming our armed forces but not in a way that is anywhere near helpful.

I want to know specifically from the minister, will the government fast track our involvement in the joint strike fighter project, yes or no?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance never sees a piece of military kit that it does not want to buy yesterday. For example, it wants to spend $5 billion on strategic airlift which would cost so much we would have no money left over to buy things to put in those airplanes. Now it has chosen the next most expensive kit on the global market.

We have responsibilities on this side of the House. We have a limited budget. We must spend our money strategically and wisely. So I will not answer that question off the top of my head.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the antimissile shield, the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirmed to the committee that Canada was opposed to the militarization of space. The discussions with Washington on this subject will soon resume, which shows that the Canadian position is changing.

How does the Minister of Foreign Affairs reconcile his position in committee with the government's decision to begin negotiations with the Americans on this subject?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the government has not yet made a decision to negotiate with the Americans. The premise of the question is somewhat shaky.

If the government were to begin discussions with our American counterparts, it would always be on the basis of the Canadian values and interests we put forth. We have clearly indicated to our American colleagues that the militarization of space is not a priority of the Canadian government, and we are fiercely opposed to such a measure.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just as in the case of marijuana and softwood lumber, is the behaviour of the Government of Canada on the antimissile shield issue not proof that the positions of ministers and committees count for nothing when it comes to pleasing the Americans, and that, from now on, it is the head office in Washington that will be making the decisions on all these issues?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, our policy clearly indicates that we consult Canadians and our hon. colleagues in Parliament through the committee system. That is exactly what this government is doing. We have not made any decision, specifically because the Prime Minister indicated that we were going to hold very broad consultations before making a decision, and that the decision, once taken, would take into account the interests of Canada and Canadians.

Correctional Service of Canada

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, hepatitis strikes one in four federally incarcerated inmates and 1,500 inmates with hepatitis C were released into their communities in 2001. This is a low estimate, given that Correctional Service Canada believes that hepatitis and HIV are even more widespread than the statistics may indicate.

Given that prevention is key in this age of communicable diseases, why will the Solicitor General not impose mandatory infectious disease testing on all federal inmates?