Debates of Dec. 6th, 2004

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, documents released at the Arar inquiry reveal a widening credibility gap within the government. During testimony in committee, RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli has stated that resource allocations within the RCMP are adequate, mirroring repeated claims by the government. Yet, a highly sensitive and censored internal report contradicts the assertion. It states:

If the human resource issue is not addressed we run the risk of jeopardizing the safety of Canada--

It speaks of chronic resource allocation shortages. Given this risk, when will the Prime Minister take action and put the necessary resources into this department to protect Canadians?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has received a significant infusion of funds since 1999-2000. In fact, its annual spending authority has increased to more than $2.8 billion. Budget 2000 announced another $584 million over three years to help the RCMP's capacity to address public safety threats. I have a long list of additional investments.

Indeed, since September 11, we all understand the importance of our national police force and its ability to work not only within this country, but across borders and--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Central Nova.

Air Transportation Security

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it appears the lessons of 9/11 have been sadly lost on the government. The disappearance of over 1,000 Canadian air transport security uniforms is proof of that.

In last April's Auditor General's report it was noted that the RCMP identified 16 businesses operating at airports that were linked to criminal activities, facilitating identity fraud, and selling stolen passes. These problems were identified over seven months ago. These items, in the hands of terrorists, represent a real threat to Canada and her allies.

Why was the government so unaware and so ineffective? When will the RCMP be called in to investigate this breach?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I had asked for a report and it was given to me this morning. First, it does not talk about 1,127 uniforms, but parts of uniforms ranging from belts to pants and shirts. Strictly speaking, 226 items have the CATSA logo on them including 91 badges, 78 shirts, 32 windbreakers and 25 sweaters. Nothing had been reported stolen. There are 4,000 employees and each has 20 items of equipment. So employees across the country have at total of 75,000 items of equipment in their homes—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's agriculture minister received assurances from the Minister of Transport that the federal government will assume 60% of the $16 million compensation that is required to set a floor price for cull cows. However, according to the federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Ottawa has not even completed its study of the agreement.

Can the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for Quebec, tell us if, indeed, he gave his word to Quebec's agriculture minister and intends to fully respect it?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, my conversation with the agriculture minister lasted exactly one minute and a half. She told me that she had her own program, that she was in the middle of negotiations, and she asked me whether we might be considering the 60-40 agreement that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food had told her about, for a shorter period of time. However, no formal commitment was made.

What we have is the will to look together at this agreement, which has yet to be finalized. While there is some goodwill, there is definitely no cheque written yet. People have to talk to each other and, of course, this is what the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his provincial counterpart will do.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in other words, what the minister is telling us is that he never gave these assurances to Quebec's agriculture minister, that she made it up when she spoke publicly on Thursday, spoke to the media and told UPA officials that she had assurances from the federal government, because she had talked to the minister responsible for Quebec.

If I hear the minister correctly, he is saying that she made up the whole thing and that there is nothing true in what she said.

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Not at all, Mr. Speaker. What I told the agriculture minister is that we are prepared to cooperate with them. Indeed, talks will take place in the coming weeks. Of course, the agreement is not even finalized. Obviously, we did not have time, in a minute and a half of conversation, to discuss or negotiate a matter involving an amount of $18 million. We are much more responsible than that.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Transport may be responsible, but after Ms. Gauthier's remarks on Thursday to the effect that he had made, on behalf of the Government of Canada, a commitment to assume 60% of the compensation, would the responsible course of action not be to stand up and denounce the statement he says was inaccurate?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

You know, Mr. Speaker, that, where federal-provincial relations are concerned, a new tone was adopted in this place, and denouncement is the Bloc Québécois's thing, not ours.

What I did was that, anytime I was asked, I told the journalists that we were very open to a request and that we would consider it. I never said anything, however, about giving assurances about a cheque in this amount. Everyone knows that is plain common sense. Obviously, nothing was negotiated in a minute and a half conversation. Besides, the minister herself does not have the entire agreement. We were talking about possible future negotiations, naturally.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport should be serious for a minute. Quebec's agriculture minister made a statement saying that Ottawa had made a commitment and that she had the transport minister's word.

Calling himself responsible, the Minister of Transport is not saying anything. Is that responsible? Should the Minister of Transport not have told the public and the minister immediately that it was inaccurate, that his remarks should not have been interpreted that way, instead of letting this go?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that the interpretation to be given to my remarks is that the federal government is prepared to do everything to improve the situation for all in the mad cow issue.

But we have already accomplished a lot. We will continue to cooperate with the province. Whenever I was asked, I obviously answered that Ottawa was prepared to cooperate, but I never said that an agreement had been signed. The agreement with the slaughterhouse has not even been signed. Therefore, we cannot be negotiating $18 million in compensation without even knowing what the purchase price is for the slaughter house. Seriously.

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Today we learned that the Union of Concerned Scientists along with arms experts and people who know this material inside out are ratifying and confirming what the criticisms of the arms race have been all along. Missile defence is going to increase the buildup of arms globally. It is going to lead to the weaponization of space. It is going to take away from Canada's credibility in arguing for disarmament.

When will the Prime Minister stand up and say that he has heard the evidence, and that Canada will simply say no to missile defence?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is being extremely responsible in this respect. He is negotiating and discussing this matter with our American colleagues to see precisely the issues that the hon. member mentioned.

The Prime Minister will analyze this with our colleagues here in the cabinet. We will bring advice to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will act in the interests of the security of Canadians and the protection of our sovereignty in the way in which we manage the defence of North America. I am confident that this will be done in the best interests of Canada and Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, this waffling and prevarication is really quite astounding. If we go back to the advertisements in the last election, they were very clear.

The Prime Minister tried to claim that all Canadians with progressive values should support him and his party because he would not go down the road that we saw being carved out by the Bush administration. We see precisely the opposite. The Prime Minister is pursuing that road. He is in the middle of discussions.

Can the hon. minister find one progressive Canadian to support this position?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, every progressive member of the House supports the position that we should have honest, frank and fruitful discussions with our American allies with whom we have cooperated for the last half century in the defence of North America. That is what the government will do.

We will pursue all avenues and we will make a decision at the end which is in the interests of Canada, and with respect for our allies with whom we will work. That is very progressive.

Air Transportation Security

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

It has recently come to light that there has been a security breach within CATSA, the agency responsible for security screening at our airports. Over 1,100 uniform items have been lost or stolen during the first nine months of this year, including 91 security badges.

How can such a serious breach happen under the watch of CATSA and under the watch of the minister's department? What does the minister have to say to air travellers from Canada and throughout the world who are legitimately concerned about the security of aircraft in our country?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Well, Mr. Speaker, I read the reports on the weekend. I called in the president of CATSA immediately. He sent me a report this morning. We must realize that most of the items are pants and shirts. When badges are talked about, we are not talking about badges but logos. I cannot show it here.

However, we will ensure that there is more control of the inventory in the future. We are also ensuring that access to airports is double-checked when employees arrive.

[Jim Gouk, Conservative, Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, not only is the public at risk over stolen badges, but 110,000 airside pass holders are subject to random checking only. This includes everyone from baggage handlers to window washers.

The minister claims that no pre-clearance security passes can be issued to high frequency business travellers, and yet he wants us to believe that random checking is okay for all levels of workers.

Between stolen badges and workers getting through security with only random checking, how can he claim that his billion dollar security system is working?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, security has not been breached. There are 4,000 people working for CATSA. One of them, for example, had a fire in his house. He lost some items obviously. We do not have any report that a full uniform, except the burned one, disappeared.

It happens to every police force. They do not have control over 100% of their shirts, sock, belts or pants. Obviously, CATSA reported that it did not have them anymore and it asked for more because its workers are allowed to have 20 items--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Oxford.

National Defence

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have yet another example of the Liberals jeopardizing our military personnel. Like the submarine acquisition, we set the rules so that only one bid fit the criteria for new army utility vehicles. The G Wagon is less than a year old and isi falling apart. Nearly 85% of the vehicles in service have multiple cracks in their floors.

Why do we continually purchase second rate equipment for the first rate men and women of our Canadian Forces?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the G Wagon in question is a first rate piece of equipment. It has developed some cracks in the flooring, this is absolutely true. I have looked at them. I have talked to the operational people in Afghanistan. I have been assured by the military that this has no effect whatsoever on the operational capacity of the vehicle.

We are looking at this issue. However it does not affect the safety of the operation or the ability of the vehicle to do the job it was bought to do. It will continue to do that job with our officers and our men safely in it.