Debates of May 6th, 2003

Foreign Affairs

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we have more spectacles of the government flipping and flopping around on international issues. This time it is on continental missile defence.

The former finance minister hints ever so carefully that he might be for it, but the foreign affairs minister said just last December that the system was immoral and illegal. He said, “We have been concerned about terrorist attacks, which everybody recognizes are not likely to be people that get their hands on ballistic missiles”.

If the government does not and has not believed missiles are a threat, how can it now be entertaining supporting the intercontinental missile system?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I will explain to the hon. Leader of the Opposition today, as I did yesterday, that it is an ongoing debate. There were changes when the Americans and the Russians decided to debate it and the abrogation of the ABM treaty by the Americans was a prelude to that possibility.

We were discussing that in the government ministries in February. We decided to postpone the cabinet decision to this time of the year. We had a first discussion this morning and there will be others.

The government faces every problem that it is obliged to face. This one concerns the defence of this country.

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, there is the problem. Canada should be leading and making its own decisions, not just following the crowd.

Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister cited possible support for this system from Russia and China, just as the Prime Minister cited support on his Iraq position from France.

Why is he allowing countries like Russia and China to dictate Canada's national policy?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, concerning Iraq, we were the first ones to say a year ago that the precondition was an agreement with the Security Council.

We have debated the possibility of the deployment of armaments around the globe and in the air. It is not the same thing as protecting the continent from missiles that could come from abroad.

It is a different concept from the star wars of President Reagan. It is why we are looking at a Canadian position when the time comes for us to look into that.

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, Canada does not have a seat at the Security Council and we did not need the position of Russia and China to join NATO and Norad.

This is about protecting Canadian airspace. It is about protecting Canadian sovereignty, about our role in Norad, and about having a voice at the table with the United States.

Why does the government not realize that these kinds of decisions, like continental missile defence, should be taken because they are in Canada's national interest?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that we never have a question from the opposition until we discuss the problem ourselves. We have been debating this matter for a long time.

The opposition is supposed to be very preoccupied about defence. Members opposite have to realize that there was debate within the Liberal Party in order for the government to make the right decision.

Fisheries

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we will wait for the quotes from the Prime Minister tomorrow.

The federal Liberal government has mismanaged the fishery for years. It is so bad that crab fishermen in New Brunswick are now talking about boycotting the season and the Liberal premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is saying he will try to protect anyone who defies the cod moratorium from legal action.

My question is for the fisheries minister. Since those involved in the industry have obviously lost confidence in his abilities, why does he not start devolving greater powers for the fishery to the provinces?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member to go to the Gulf of St. Lawrence and meet with the ministers of fisheries of the five provinces that are involved in the crab fishery and other fisheries there. I challenge him to come up with a solution that is agreeable to all.

We manage the fishery in the best interests of the stocks, which is in the interests of the communities in the long run.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we would be happy to take over the government and have a fishery policy that everybody could support.

Our resource management system is fundamentally flawed. The fisheries cannot be properly managed from Kent Street in Ottawa. The fishers of Shippagan, the Magdalen Islands and Placentia Bay must be able to speak up when it comes to their means of livelihood. They certainly could not do any worse than the federal Liberals.

Why is the minister doing nothing positive for the fisheries and why does he not delegate more control over resources to the provinces?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that the provinces are always consulted, as is the industry. Before announcing the crab fishing plan for the Gulf, we consulted with the industry, the six associations that represent the offshore fishers, the seven or eight organizations that represent inshore fishers, and the five provinces involved, and made a decision that was in the best interest of long-term industry stability and resource protection.

First Nations

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that he initiates the government's policies, yet his successor says he will not be implementing them. Because of the leadership race, we are getting mixed signals from the Liberal camp.

Taking the example of the aboriginal issue, will the Prime Minister admit that the federal government is to all intents and purposes paralyzed by the threat of veto by the member for LaSalle—Émard, since the latter, who will very likely be the PM's successor, says he will not be implementing the Governance Act once he is elected?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that a change of government enables Parliament to change all of the legislation the previous Parliament has enacted.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has submitted a bill to the House of Commons. It has gone to the committee after first reading, which gives everyone the opportunity to make suggestions before the bill comes back for second reading. This is an unusual process, and one that allows everyone more input.

It is quite possible that future governments may change the legislation that is in place today, as we have done with that of previous governments.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit more complex than that, because the member for LaSalle—Émard has said he would vote in favour in order to avoid an election, but would not implement it once he was elected.

What is more, 60% of the present PM's cabinet support the member for LaSalle—Émard and are putting their personal ambitions ahead of their ministerial duties, since they are prepared to support someone who is saying, “What you are doing at the present time I will not be implementing, and if you want to be a minister, you had better follow me in this”. Does he think this is right?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there is a bill before the House, and all members will be voting on it. Having been the Minister of Indian Affairs myself, I am convinced that the time has come to review the act, which has remained virtually unchanged for generations. It is a very difficult undertaking.

I find the Minister of Indian Affairs very courageous to assume his responsibilities and try to provide the best possible government for the first nations people of Canada.

Canadian Television Fund

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is one more example of victims of the government's leadership problems: the people who work in television production. At present, they are hostages in the struggle between the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is making promises to them, and the Minister of Finance, who refuses to listen to them.

Does the Prime Minister intend to let these people in the television industry remain hostages much longer in the cockfight between the two leadership hopefuls?

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Canadian television fund has been remarkably successful since it was created in 1996.

The moneys allocated to the fund have never been permanent and people who work in this field know full well that budgets will vary from year to year.

Never rush a good thing. I think we will find a solution soon and everybody will be happy.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that the Minister of Canadian Heritage was speaking in the name of the government when she promised to top up the financing of television productions, and that her words thus committed the government?

Can the Prime Minister—who says he is the one in charge and the one who settles disputes—tell us whether or not the government intends to restore television production funding to its previous level?

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, never rush a good thing.

This government speaks with a single voice. Decisions will be made in due course.

National Defence

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

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

Last year, the Prime Minister said he could not make a decision about star wars because the technology was not ready. The last test had failed. All of the subsequent tests were cancelled.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to tarnish Canada's reputation in order to join a military program that does not work and that is making the world a more dangerous place? Why the flip-flop?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I explained yesterday that the situation has changed and that this is no longer the star wars program envisioned by former President Reagan. This is a project that is limited to American territory to defend against missile attacks. The United States has already given assurances to Russia and China that the old star wars program is not what is being considered right now. It is a different project having to do with the protection of North America. It is geographically necessary that we take part in discussions, at least, because the—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister now seems to admit that there is a debate going on, at least in cabinet this morning where the pros and cons were allegedly put before the cabinet.

I ask him, when are the pros and cons going to be put before Parliament? When are we going to see what the government is considering? When is Parliament going to consider this?

Last week the Prime Minister said to me that there is only “a possibility of a discussion and we have not started discussions”. It seems that the discussion has already started. When will the discussion and debate happen here in Parliament so we can have a real decision process?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are having a discussion at this very moment. He is asking me a question about it. It is amazing that it is supposed to be a big problem for them and they start to talk about it only when we, the Liberals as usual, are debating the things that are very important for the nation.

I said it is not star wars; it is something different. It is covering the territory of America. We are part of America. It is against missiles. We have not started any discussion with the Americans, but I am happy that we are having a discussion in the House. He can take an opposition day if he wants to have more debate about it.

Fisheries

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the debate over the New Brunswick crab quota is being fueled by the minister of fisheries' inconsistency. First he said the quota was reduced based on science. Next he said there might be another 4,000 tonnes of additional quota available. Which is it: science or political manipulation?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the member should know, as the industry certainly does, that we have said from the very beginning and in the last months as we negotiated over a six month period that, should we get a co-management agreement with a good white crab protocol, we could safely increase the quota. We have not changed our opinion. If we can get a co-management agreement, we can have access to additional allocations.