Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2005

National Defence

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is the government is absolutely pitiful when it comes to this important issue. It does not dare face reality. It does not want to tell the public that it is having its arm twisted and that we have joined the missile defence plan. That is what Frank McKenna said in simple terms during a committee session.

I have the following question for the minister. The Prime Minister said he would require guarantees in writing before joining the plan. So, where are those guarantees?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I believe confusion reigns in the House on this matter through no fault of hon. members on this side. We have always been clear. We have contributed to the Norad amendment in order to work with our American friends on assessing threats to North America. We will take a decision on deploying a missile defence shield once we have all had a chance to discuss it with our colleagues in this House. That way all Canadians will understand the nature of our solution.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Speaker]

It is obvious that all hon. members are glad to see the member for Toronto--Danforth back and we welcome him, but he has the floor for a question. The hon. member for Toronto--Danforth.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members for their kind wishes over the past week. It was very much appreciated.

My question too is for the Minister of National Defence. We are very happy that he had a nice lunch with the ambassador, but what we want to know is who was out to lunch on this whole question.

This morning we heard the ambassador to the United States designate say that Canada was already a part of missile defence. Yet we have the Prime minister, apparently speaking on behalf of Canadians, saying that we are not yet there and that we have not made a decision. They cannot both be right.

The question for the Minister of National Defence is this. Which one of them is wrong and will we get a retraction?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to welcome the hon. member back. He may have lost his appendix, but he has not lost any of his usual verve for life, so it is great to see him here in the House.

However, I want to assure him that it is possible to work with our American friends, and tell them we are helping them in terms of a threat assessment to North America. I know the member has some problems about dealing with the United States. I know his party basically does not want to go there. However, on this side of the House we want to work with our American friends because we believe the defence of North America can only be done by two of us working together.

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

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians would be concerned about is we have an ambassador talking to the American leadership saying, with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge, that we are already really a part of it. Meanwhile we have the Prime Minister saying that we have not made a decision. The House of Commons is supposed to make the decision on this.

Will the Minister of National Defence communicate to the Prime Minister the necessity of demanding a retraction now, today, from the ambassador designate so we clear this up once and for all?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I would not comment on what diplomats do in terms of winking or nudging or anything else.

However, I think it is very clear to all members of the House that we as a government are making the policy for this country, and this policy will be made in the House and it will be made by our Prime Minister. We work with the Americans on threat assessment, and we will determine in our own time in accordance with our own schedule and our own priorities whether we participate in ballistic missile defence for the good of Canada and Canada's interests alone.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is like the gang who could not shoot straight. Who is in charge of missile defence? The Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada's ambassador to the United States or the Prime Minister.

We have been told in the House on a number of occasions that amending the Norad agreement would not commit us to ballistic missile defence. Today the ambassador to the United States said that Canada was now part of the ballistic missile system.

Have we been misled? Who are we to believe? Is Canada now effectively part of the ballistic missile defence system?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that recently in the House members in the party opposite were saying that Mr. Bush was here, asked us to join the ballistic missile defence and what were we waiting for? Obviously the hon. member is confused or perhaps he has not been listening to his previous rhetoric.

I will repeat for his benefit and that of members of the House that we are participating with our American allies in understanding what goes on in the space above us. That is what Norad does, and the ambassador was right to say that this is how we are helping our American friends.

This is not the same as sending a missile up to intercept another missile. That decision will be taken in due time by the Prime Minister in the best interests of Canada.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Mr. Speaker, deals are being made by the government without involving the House. Yesterday in response to my question the minister told the House that a decision had not been taken on missile defence. This was contradicted today by the ambassador to the United States. Both seem to be talking for the government, yet they are saying diametrically opposed things. Canadians need clarity.

Would the minister confirm which one is providing the facts and which one is providing the fiction?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member, who I know is a very decent guy, will help get clarity for Canadians and the House if he would just stop asking the same question over and again when a very simple answer has been given.

I gave the answer. We did the Norad amendment. It was a good idea. We are working with our American friends. We want to work with them in understanding the threats to North America because our security is involved.

Whether we involve ourselves in a system of anti-ballistic missiles is another discussion. It involves a different stage of what we are talking about here. We will do that in our own time. The Prime Minister will make his decision in the interests of Canada and the security of Canadians.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have consistently maintained that Canada's friends and enemies should know where we stand on critical issues. The confidence of Canadians and of our allies has again been shaken this week. There is the ongoing fiasco in the Prime Minister's Office, and this time it is on something as critical as the defence of our country and the defence of our continent.

I am asking if the Prime Minister would please dust off that international policy statement that is gathering dust on his desk. It is fossilizing there. Would he please blow the dust off of it, bring it out and let our friends and allies know where we stand on missile defence?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that in this House and in this time, this country will do what is right at the time of our choosing. We also will make sure that when it comes to the ever evolving, changing world out there, of which the hon. member is obviously not aware, we will do what is right in time because there are a number of considerations.

We will not simply do it because the member demands that we get an IPS immediately. We will do it at a time and choosing that is right. We will get the policy options correct in order that all Canadians, including Parliament, will have an idea as to how to achieve an objective response to a darn good paper.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Choose the 21st century, Mr. Speaker, so we could know.

The Prime Minister's inability to decide on anything continues to demonstrate the confusion in our foreign policy. Today the Minister of Foreign Affairs is saying there were more important interests than the national interests of Canada. This strange statement is alarming.

Will the Prime Minister tell us what interests he thinks are more important than Canadian interests and explain why he allows the Minister of Foreign Affairs to behave this way?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, this government will take the necessary time to ensure that the threats weighing on the world and Canada and the issues important to all Canadians are examined properly. All the facts will be considered in detail to ensure a clear understanding of today's world, especially in the context of globalization.

Taxation

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec repeated, “the fiscal imbalance has not been resolved—the federal government continues to swim in surpluses while Quebec can barely balance its budget”, in education, for example. Another perverse effect, according to Mr. Charest, is that the fiscal imbalance encourages Ottawa to intrude in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

As the Quebec premier and all of Quebec are asking, will the federal government use tomorrow's budget to recognize the fiscal imbalance and take concrete measures to correct what is “obvious to everyone but itself”.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, there is no fiscal imbalance and there never can be a fiscal imbalance. The Government of Quebec, like every other government, has access to the same revenues as does the federal government. Indeed, the hon. member is conducting an inquiry as we speak. The finance minister from Nova Scotia has said the same thing.

There is no fiscal imbalance between the provinces and the federal government. There may be some fiscal imbalances among the provinces.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to encouraging interference by the federal government, the fiscal imbalance has slowed Quebec's development. The Quebec minister of intergovernmental affairs is categorical that, “fiscal attrition” threatens to compromise Quebec's distinct nature.

Instead of choking Quebec until it becomes a province like the others, will the federal government, which has the ample means to do so, attack the fiscal imbalance in tomorrow's budget, by taking specific measures?

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has over the past number of years addressed a number of the issues raised by the hon. member.

One must bear in mind that taxpayers in Canada send their taxes to the Government of Canada for priorities of the Government of Canada. Provinces can tax and seek their revenues for their particular constituents. Therefore, there is and can never be any concept such as fiscal imbalance.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last year the Minister of Finance predicted a $1.9 billion surplus, and the final figure was $9.1 billion, that is a margin of error of 450% for the year 2003-04 alone. Experts are predicting a surplus of between $25 billion and $33 billion for the next three years, while the Bloc's forecasted figure for the same period is $29 billion.

Will the Minister of Finance admit that all serious predictions give him the manoeuvring room necessary to solve fiscal imbalance once and for all?

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we just completed a very useful two hour meeting with three fiscal forecasters. It was an interesting and instructive exercise. One said that we would have revenues going from about $196 billion up to $214 billion. Another said that they would go from $198 billion up to $210 billion, another $12 billion. Another said that they would go from $195 billion up to $209 billion, somewhere around $13 billion.

One can appreciate, given the range of information and the difficulties that are necessary in projecting forward those numbers of years, that honest people will disagree as to what the forecast should be.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the same economic model is re-used, the same errors are repeated. Over the past eight years, the department has been off by $87 billion in its forecasts of the surplus. Come on now.

Does the Minister of Finance intend to open his eyes and use the next budget to settle fiscal imbalance once and for all and to use his enormous surplus to at least meet the urgent needs of the population?

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that members of the House would be interested in knowing that a 1% error is essentially a $4 billion swing in revenues. Bear in mind that the forecasts that are being put forward as of tomorrow are to project forward for the fiscal year starting April 1, 2005 through the fiscal year 2006. It will only be six months after that when we know whether the numbers were right in February.

This is a very difficult exercise. As I say, very small swings in numbers make very significant--