Debates of Dec. 1st, 2004

Agriculture

[Belinda Stronach, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Before the President's visit, the minister teased Canadian farmers and their families with the promise of a fixed date for the border to reopen. Two days ago I asked the minister in this House whether he would apologize to Canadians if there was no such surprise. It did not happen. This devastated industry remains locked in a bureaucratic process that could take longer than six months and cost this industry another $2 billion.

In the face of this great failure, will the minister now apologize to Canadians for misleading them about what to expect?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the only apology that should be taking place in the House is from hon. members opposite who want to take this situation and score cheap political points as opposed to trying to achieve real progress. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs said last week, there needs to be a timeframe put in place and that is exactly what has been put in place by referring this matter to the OMB.

Canada-U.S. Relations

[Belinda Stronach, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the self-congratulatory tone from the government is deafening, but hollow. There is nothing to show Canadians but promises to have bureaucrats look at issues and report. There is no movement on the issues that matter to Canadian business and workers. There is nothing on softwood and more easy words about looking at the Windsor-Detroit border crossing. That is because the government still puts no strategic political priority on the relationship with the United States. It failed to deliver the goods where it counts.

Why was the government so ill-prepared for this critical visit?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, far from being ill-prepared for this critical visit, this was an enormously successful visit. It was rebuilding the most critical relationship we have with our key ally and trading partner, the United States.

Yesterday the President and the Prime Minister signed off on a joint communiqué which speaks to a series of actions around our security, our shared prosperity, and our shared quality of life. The Prime Minister has asked me and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to report on Canadian progress on this agenda.

National Defence

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, President Bush stated yesterday that his discussions with the Prime Minister of Canada concerning the future of NORAD also addressed the way that organization would be used in ballistic missile defence. Contrary to what the Prime Minister has always maintained, this declaration means that the missile defence shield is an integral part of the discussions on NORAD.

Will the Prime Minister admit that President Bush's remarks confirm that discussions on the future role of NORAD are indeed the beginning of the implementation of the missile defence shield?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. What we have done in the amendment to NORAD is to enable NORAD to receive certain information on which to base its actions. In any case, the decision to take part in the missile defence shield is one that will be made here, in Canada, with the contribution of Canada's Parliament, in the best interests of Canadians.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat astonishing that it was President Bush, who gave more information on the missile defence shield to this House, its members and all Canadians, rather than the government.

Can the minister tell us Canada's reaction and the extent of its commitment when the subject of the missile defence shield came up during the discussions on the future of NORAD last summer? We would like to know exactly how far the government has gone in making a commitment in our name, without our knowledge.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the amendment to NORAD is something we decided in August last year. It was announced. The Prime Minister spoke with the opposition party leaders. It was completely transparent.

As for the missile defence shield, I repeat, the Government of Canada made no commitments at that time. We are having discussions with the Americans on a certain number of specific goals. There has been no pressure from the President of the United States as the hon. member implies. The decision will be made in Canada in the best interests of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to hide its real intentions regarding the scope and nature of its participation in the missile defence shield. It is constantly making reassuring statements to the effect that it has yet to make a decision

Now that President Bush himself said that negotiations are already well underway, will the government stop pretending that it has not adopted a position and will it tell us once and for all that, despite its claims to the contrary, it has already gone some way to participating in the defence missile shield?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate the very clear position that I just stated. Our government has not made any decision on the missile defence shield as such. It goes without saying that we are deeply committed to NORAD. We supported the NORAD amendment, as we announced in August. NORAD must undergo some changes over the next two years. NORAD is at the core of Canada's defence and it will continue to be.

As regards the missile defence shield, this is another decision that we will make at the appropriate time. We are under no pressure from the United States on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, considering that this government claims to be transparent, we can only be surprised and disappointed by the turn of events.

Does the Prime Minister not find it strange that the first major decision that he makes on Canada's participation in a defence system is communicated to us by the President of the United States? What transparency.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, there is a contradiction here. On the one hand, the Bloc Québécois is telling us that the government has not made a decision but should make one, while, on the other hand, it is claiming that the President of the United States announced a decision. I would love to know what that decision is, since we are told, on the one hand, that there is a decision and, on the other hand, that there is not. This is unusual, but, obviously, Bloc Québécois members are not very well prepared when it comes to discussing Canada's most important relationship, namely that with the United States.

The decision on our participation in the missile defence shield will be made in Canada, following a vote in the House of Commons, and in the best interests of Canadians.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday Colin Powell told me that the current version of star wars--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I sense a lot of anticipation on the part of hon. members. However, it is the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth who has the floor and we will want to hear his question.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Colin Powell told me that the weapons in space that he proposes--

[Some hon. members]

Oh. oh!

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth is entitled to put his question despite the excitement that it generates. I would hope that hon. members would show a little restraint until they have heard the whole question. Then perhaps there will be the necessary applause or cheering.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Colin Powell informed me that the weapons in space that are proposed, this time around, are different than the previous version of star wars because they are not aimed at earth. President Bush told me that the project was not being--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

Order, please. Perhaps the member for Toronto—Danforth could skip the quote and put the question because unfortunately we are running out of time even with all these interruptions. I am trying to be generous with the hon. member under the circumstances.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will take the time from those who are shouting out. They used to have a chairman of their caucus who would have never countenanced that kind of behaviour. I can tell the House that the former chairman of that caucus would never have gone along with it.

Will the Prime Minister say no to Canadian flags on--

[Some hon. members]

Oh. oh!

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I did try to get movement on this, but we are not getting far.

Perhaps the hon. member could treat his supplementary as his question and put the question to the House because I have been very generous. I have avoided counting time against him with all these interruptions, but in spite of that, it is taking forever. We need to have the question. Perhaps we can go to the supplementary and have it all in one.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister say no to Canadian flags on George Bush's missiles?