Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2005

Foreign Affairs

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, let me ask about another part of the Prime Minister's trip because not only did he let down the people of China, Tibet and Taiwan, let us take a look at Canada's own business community.

Before the Prime Minister left on his trip there was a CSIS report that said Communist China is actively engaged in economic espionage in this country targeting our aerospace, mining and nuclear industries.

Did the Prime Minister raise this issue specifically with the Communist Chinese leadership when he met with them?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, again the document refers to the fact that parties will not engage in internal interference. We are essentially saying that this country will pass its laws and other countries will understand them.

Unfortunately, we have a document that in fact refutes every single point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. What I would suggest is he fire his research staff and get somebody who can read in English.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the Prime Minister did not raise the issue of industrial espionage with the Chinese leadership, even though last year CSIS reported to this Parliament that:

...Canada's scientific and technological developments, critical economic and information infrastructure, military and other classified information, putting at risk Canada's national security.

It said that it was being sourced out by foreign spies, and a source said “particularly Chinese spies”.

Did the Prime Minister raise with the Chinese leadership the active presence of Chinese spies stealing Canadian industrial secrets, yes or no?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the opposition could not care less about the bilateral relations between Canada and China. It has demonstrated absolutely no interest in understanding better a country that is emerging on the international scene as a very important power for all of us. We have been engaging China. We intend to continue to work with it. We raise the question of human rights every time we have the opportunity of doing that.

However I honestly believe that for Canadians it is quite important to engage in a bilateral relationship with China.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, respectful engagement is built on a relationship of trust and the People's Republic of China, according to our intelligence service, is engaging a network of spies to steal Canadian strategic and economic information.

Clearly, from these non-answers, the government did not raise this matter in the People's Republic of China. The first responsibility of a government is to protect our sovereignty and national security.

Why did the Prime Minister fail to do so by raising the active presence of Chinese spies in Canada?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a lot of temerity coming from the Calgary Southeast member, who participated in the trip, who was there for every photo op with the press and the journalists and who had a lot of courage when he was with the Canadian reporters, but who lost every opportunity to raise it with the Chinese people when he was on that trip.

National Defence

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before Christmas, the Prime Minister was categorical: without a written commitment from George Bush ruling out any possibility of militarization of space, Canada would not participate in the missile defence shield project. The problem is that today he is being contradicted by his Minister of National Defence, who said, “We do not need any guarantee. The current missile defence shield system will not lead to the militarization of space”.

Since this position is not at all reassuring for the future, the public has a right to know. Will the Prime Minister insist on a written guarantee from George Bush, or will he sign a blank cheque for the militarization of space?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, there is no need to insist on a written guarantee from Mr. Bush. The Prime Minister said that we would not be part of an agreement in which the militarization of space would be sought by either party. Therefore, it is out of the question for us to be a party to such an agreement. The Americans know that this is where we stand. The whole House knows that this is our position. To suggest otherwise is merely to try to distort the issue in an attempt to confuse things.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, be that as it may, the Minister of National Defence still does not know that his Prime Minister talked about a written guarantee. It may be that the Prime Minister himself does not remember. It would not be the first that he does not remember what he said.

I recall that, just before agreeing to making changes to Norad, the Prime Minister phoned me and said that the issue had nothing to do with the missile defence shield. However, we know now that, in fact, this has something to do with the missile defence shield, contrary to what the Prime Minister told me on the phone, just before agreeing to these changes and signing the agreement.

Today, I would like to know if his intention then was not try to slip past us Canada's participation in the missile—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of National Defence.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the government's position is clear: a debate will take place in the House on all the conditions relating to whether or not to participate in the defence shield program. Hon. members will have the opportunity to debate this issue, as they already have on a number of occasions. But the Prime Minister has always been very clear. Canada will never take part in any plan involving the militarization of space.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. I put my question to the Prime Minister, not to the Minister of National Defence, who is contradicting his leader.

When he phoned me on the eve of responding to Norad and the United States, he told me this had nothing to do with Canada's participation in the missile shield program, that the Norad agreement was in no way connected to the missile shield. We can see that it is the opposite now.

I know the Prime Minister likes to spend lots of time hesitating, but will he answer and confirm that this is indeed what he told me and that, in fact, the opposite is happening?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc is a little confused, I must say. The main issue is the defence of Canada.

For the defence of Canada, Norad is essential and very important. The decision we made in July unquestionably empowered Norad to provide information on the missiles. We wanted to maintain the protection not only of Norad, but also of our airspace. That was a very important decision for Canada.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I said and maintain from my place was that he told me this had nothing to do with the missile shield. The fact is that we know today that the head of Norad and the person at the helm of the missile defence system are one and the same. He does not seem to be schizophrenic; he knows perfectly well what he is doing.

I would like the Prime Minister to tell me why, on the eve of announcing a change, he assured me that this had nothing to do with the missile shield and why, today, he is skirting the question? He could at least acknowledge noticing that both are run by the same person and that there is a connection with the missile shield.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc's position is totally preposterous. Back in July, it was clear what the decision should be, as well as why we were making this decision. We made that decision because we wanted to ensure the role of Norad in the future. It was all open and transparent. The leader of the Bloc may be the only person in the world who did not know.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, I can say exactly what the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has said, because I had the same conversation.

As long as we are talking about broken promises, let us talk about when the Prime Minister was in the opposition and said that Brian Mulroney was not doing enough to reduce pollution. Again, he has not taken action and pollution is increasing daily.

Mandatory reduction of fuel consumption in vehicles would allow us to achieve 10% of our objectives. Will he announce such a program today?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of the question of the leader of the New Democratic Party, the reason we took this decision was made public, as were Norad's intentions in all this. Everyone knew it. If the leader of the NDP did not, then that makes two people in the world who were out of the loop.

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is the truth versus a series of insults. I think the Canadian people can judge what is really going on.

My next question is for the Prime Minister. I would like to ask about an issue of fairness, fairness for the people of Saskatchewan when it comes to natural resources. The people of Saskatchewan have worked hard to get their economy in order. They have made real progress.

Fairness for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador has allowed them to improve. Fairness could do the same in Saskatchewan.

Will we see fairness for the people of Saskatchewan from this Prime Minister?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, fairness for Saskatchewan was recognizing a $120 million error in the structure of the equalization program and fixing that error by sending that money to Saskatchewan.

Fairness for Saskatchewan was putting a floor under the equalization system last year which has resulted in an incremental $590 million for Saskatchewan in this year alone.

Fairness for Saskatchewan is assisting that province to graduate from equalization all together. People in Saskatchewan want fairness from the Government of Canada. They want to see the government engaged in their province doing good and constructive things, but they want--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Central Nova.

Sponsorship Program

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday documents tabled at the Gomery inquiry showed that a cheque written under the sponsorship program went directly into Liberal Party coffers. This is an alarming new piece of evidence that shows that sponsorship money went directly to the Liberal Party of Canada.

However, with an election looming, these documents were withheld from the public accounts committee doing its work and the Canadian public last spring.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why were these documents withheld from Parliament and the Canadian public and who is responsible for this latest cover-up in the sponsorship scandal?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member is commenting on day to day testimony, testimony than can be contradicted by other days' testimony. It is not appropriate. We should not be surprised at this because earlier this week the hon. member and his leader were asking the Prime Minister to tell Mr. Chrétien how to conduct himself before the inquiry.

Let us be clear what they were asking the Prime Minister to do. They were asking the Prime Minister to engage in witness tampering.

It is little wonder that the Vancouver Province today in reference to the member for Central Nova said that he had forgotten basic legal training.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Well, Mr. Speaker, more stonewalling and obstruction from a recent convert.

Two years ago, before the Auditor General's revelation about every rule in the book being broken, there was also concern from senior officials calling on experts to determine if the law had also been broken.

In 2000, senior officials expressed concerns about breaches of contracting rules and the Criminal Code. Specific concerns were raised by the deputy minister of Public Works, including contributions to the Liberal Party by Liberal ad firms that were receiving money from the sponsorship program.

After the 2002 audit, the Auditor General called in the RCMP and charges followed. Why were the police not called in by the government five years ago when this information was known?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we have a public inquiry that was set up by the Prime Minister and the government to get to the bottom of the issue. The inquiry is in fact working very well and that is why Canadians across the country support Justice Gomery in his work. I would urge the hon. member to do exactly what Canadians want all of us to do, support Justice Gomery, not comment on day to day testimony.

I understand the hon. member recently received a couple of speeding tickets. He is obviously driving a little faster than he is thinking.

Transportation Safety Board

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Jim Walsh, a member of the Transportation Safety Board, attended the Liberal Christmas party and even sat at the Prime Minister's table, which was after his boss said he should not even go to the party.

Howard Wilson, the old ethics lapdog, said it was inappropriate for patronage appointees like Jim Walsh to attend partisan political events.

The Prime Minister has many times said, “I will have the highest ethical standards”. My question is for the Prime Minister. Does Jim Walsh sitting with the Prime Minister at a partisan event meet his high ethical standards or is he going to tell the House that he does not have any ethical standards?