House of Commons Hansard #61 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was religious.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the minister, to make sure that I understand him correctly. We want to know what Canada's position is. Can the minister assure us today, here in this House, that there are no Canadian soldiers currently deployed with American troops in Iraq? Are there some, or are there none?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, this is such a ridiculous question. Everyone knows the answer. Indeed, over the past two years, we have had exchanges with British and American troops. We respect our international commitments.
As I also said, we honour our commitment to the UN, NATO and other international institutions. We are pursuing our policy. This is not the same as saying we will be sending troops directly to Iraq. The Prime Minister said we would not do that, and we will not.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the environment minister.
Tomorrow, Parliament will vote on the NDP motion on mandatory fuel efficiency standards for cars, but tomorrow the minister will join with the Conservatives and vote against mandatory fuel standards for cars, even though during the election the Prime Minister said that he was very favourable to NDP policies on the environment.
Our motion will make the air cleaner. Therefore why is he joining with the Conservatives to block this very good motion?
Stéphane Dion LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, we share the same goals. The point is the means. The view of the Government of Canada is that a voluntary agreement, if it is well done, will give very good results. It is working in Europe, so why not in Canada? We will try to have a voluntary agreement with the auto industry and we will consider regulations only if this first step fails. However up until now there has been no reason to think that we will not have an agreement with the auto industry.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, voluntary measures have already been shown to fail. In fact the government has a real problem delivering on the principles it claims to stand on. It throws money at health care with no plan to stop privatization. It throws money at child care with no plan for not for profit delivery. Now it has no plan on Kyoto.
Why is the government prepared to send money to Russia to buy credits instead of working at home to make our air cleaner by delivering on mandatory standards for fuel emissions? Why will he not do that?
Stéphane Dion LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I heard recently that the NDP thinks I did not consult them. I met daily with my NDP colleagues. I tried to meet the leader last week but he was unable to do so for unfortunate reasons.
I read their plan very carefully. In their plan it is written that it is good to have international trading because it maximizes Canadian benefits by promoting Canadian development technologies. I have read more of that document than they have.
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Speaker, it appears that Mr. Dithers has now passed on his flaws in the form of a dithering virus to the Minister of National Defence. The minister shows all the symptoms of dithering with respect to his rewriting of a defence policy review and seems content to operate the military from a 1994 white paper.
Will the minister admit that this dithering has left the forces lacking direction and shortchanged in the upcoming budget?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, certainly not. What I will tell the House is that I am very proud of the defence review that we have prepared and that we will be releasing shortly.
We guarantee the hon. member and those of his party opposite that with a new Chief of the Defence Staff, with commitments in this budget and a way in which we see ourselves going forward, I hope I get the support of the Conservative Party to make the Canadian Forces the best forces in the world, to do good around this world.
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Speaker, our military has made it very clear that they are in dire need of a new airlift, new ships and new vehicles. The government, over the last 11 years, has watched our military disintegrate before its very eyes. The Chief of the Defence Staff has made it known that the forces cannot wait any longer and must begin the replacement of their aging equipment immediately.
Could the minister assure the House that he agrees that the Canadian Forces require far more than the $750 million in new funding in the upcoming budget?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, one thing I can be astonished by is obviously the clairvoyance of the hon. member who knows more about what is in the upcoming budget than either myself or maybe even the Minister of Finance at this particular moment.
I can assure the hon. member that whatever the number is in the budget, it will be a commitment of this government to transform, rebuild and make our forces the best and most capable forces to defend Canada, participate in the defence of North America and go out into the world to make it a safer world for Canadians and all peoples.
Belinda Stronach Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Why did the Prime Minister suddenly lose his love of consultation when it came to breaking apart the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade?
With all due respect to the Prime Minister, a little dithering here would have been most appreciated. Who did the Prime Minister consult with and when? What happened?
Jim Peterson LiberalMinister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, I am so glad to have this question. It gives me a chance to say before this House what I would have had the chance to say before the committee at second reading, when I and the Minister of Foreign Affairs could have spoken and all the witnesses could have come forward to talk about the virtue and the value of having the focus on international trade and investment that a stand alone department could bring. I wish the opposition had given us that opportunity.
Belinda Stronach Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister's job to explain it, not our job to rubber stamp it.
The U.S. has reached free trade agreements with Chile, Singapore, Australia, Bahrain, Central America, Dominican Republic and Morocco, and is in hot pursuit of three more.
In the past few years the number of free trade agreements reached by Canada is none. With no international policy review we have no idea what the government's trade priorities are.
The U.S. continues to plough forward, but our Prime Minister tinkers and dithers.
Why has this government failed to keep up with the U.S. in expanding international trade?
Jim Peterson LiberalMinister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would remember what we talked about when I appeared before the committee on estimates, we did talk about a number of bilateral trade policies that we were undertaking, including with Japan, Korea, the AFTA, the CARICOM, the CA4 and Mercosur in order to restart the trade agreements of the FTAA.
We are engaged in China in terms of a foreign investment protection act. We are engaged with India.
If the member had listened when she was at committee she would realize what we are doing.
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, top commanders in the U.S. army are not discounting the possibility that the American missile defence shield could be used to destroy satellites or spacecraft, in defending American territory.
Does the Minister of National Defence not agree that this is in complete opposition to statements by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that Canada would never participate in the weaponization of space?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence
Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I have always been extremely clear: our commitment to talking with the Americans about a missile defence shield has nothing to do with the weaponization of space.
Some voices in the United States claim that, someday, perhaps, this country may want to participate in the weaponization of space. That has nothing to do with this shield. Canadians will refuse utterly to take part in it.
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has always stated that, in the absence of a written guarantee that there would be no weaponization of space, Canada would not take part in the missile defence shield.
Since the information obtained is completely contrary to the written guarantees he was seeking, should the Prime Minister not take advantage of the NATO summit to clearly state that Canada will not take part in the American missile defence shield?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that, when the Prime Minister meets with Mr. Bush, he will tell him again what he told him here in Ottawa and in Washington. I was present on both occasions. He said that Canada strongly opposed the weaponization of space. We will do everything we can, within all international institutions, to prevent a war or the weaponization of space. We believe that it is contrary to the interests of the entire world and we will never abandon this important Canadian policy.
Michel Guimond Bloc Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC
Mr. Speaker, according to the Sans-Chemise, the rumoured improvements the federal government intends to make to employment insurance will still leave us with the problem of the spring gap linked with seasonal work.
Does the government realize that piecemeal changes are doomed to failure and that what is needed to fix EI is a complete overhaul, as recommended by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities?
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development
Mr. Speaker, the government is seriously considering all three reports that it has received from committees on employment insurance. It is looking at the reform of EI in a most serious fashion and will respond to all the items in those reports at the appropriate time.
Michel Guimond Bloc Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is funny. The government has been giving us this same type of response for three years now.
Nonetheless, if the government truly wants to improve the EI system and truly include seasonal workers, will it promise to lower the eligibility threshold, extend benefits by at least five weeks, increase benefits and base the calculation of these benefits on the best 12 weeks?
Unless it does so, its reform is nothing more than a quick fix.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development
Mr. Speaker, all of the aspects of EI that my colleague has mentioned are dealt with in the reports, in particular, with the report that was received within the last 10 days or 2 weeks. The government has 150 days to respond to those reports. The Liberal members on the committee concerned worked very hard on them and the government will respond very favourably to changes in EI.
Bob Mills Conservative Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, the closer we get to the budget the more we realize that the government has been dithering for years on a plan for Kyoto. We do know, however, that the Liberals want to spend up to $6 billion on this non-plan.
How can those ditherers include any Kyoto spending when in fact they do not have any plan?
Stéphane Dion LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the member for Central Nova challenged me last Friday to table the 2002 plan. He was questioning the existence of this plan. I gave him a copy of the plan. It was released 2 years and 58 days ago. They took all this time to read the document and they want to give us lessons about a timely fashion. It is the slowest party I have ever seen.
Bob Mills Conservative Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that this plan was inadequate and lacking, and now we see this 2002 plan being held up as some kind of a plan. It is not. The Liberals have no intention of living up to the Kyoto targets. This in fact is just a job killing tax.
How can those ditherers expect to buy carbon credits somewhere else in the world and how will they monitor that when they cannot monitor the projects here at home?