Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2005

Canadian Tire Foundation for Families

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to highlight last Sunday's successful national launch of the Canadian Tire Foundation for Families jumpstart program here in the capital region.

Less than one-third of Canadian children from low income families participate in organized sports and recreation. Jumpstart is a community-based charitable program from the Canadian Tire Foundation for Families that helps kids in need participate in organized sports and recreational activities like hockey, soccer and swimming. It is delivered by a nationwide network of local chapters that are made up of leaders from our local communities, including volunteer agencies, sports and recreation associations, as well as Canadian Tire dealers and petroleum agents. It aims to help 20,000 children in its first year alone.

I offer my congratulations to Martha Billes, chair of the Canadian Tire Foundation for Families; Wayne Sales, president of Canadian Tire; and the many partner organizations that are helping Canada's disadvantaged kids get physically active.

Employment Insurance

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the federal budget, the rumour mill has been running non stop about changes to the employment insurance program. We are not about to forget the Liberal Party's election promises, or the $46 billion surplus in the EI fund.

While the workers are asking for major changes to the program, to allow them to qualify and to eliminate the gap, the government turns around and cuts premiums by 3¢, as a favour to the Conservatives.

Yet, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities made the point in its latest report, with 20 recommendations stressing that the need for changes to be made to EI by the government.

It was recommended that benefits be calculated on the basis of the best 12 weeks of employment over the past 12 months and that the qualification requirement for new entrants be set at 360 hours.

The Liberal members who were defeated in the last election know that employment insurance is a major issue. It is therefore important that tomorrow's budget reflect these needs, in order to respond to our country's seasonal economy.

The Prime Minister

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last week the highly respected international magazine The Economist gave the Prime Minister the title Mr. Dithers. Now the whole world knows what British Columbia residents have always known.

The Prime Minister breezed through B.C. during the last election throwing around promises and assuring voters he would end western alienation, but what has he done? Dither.

He is dithering over the pine beetle infestations ripping through B.C. forests. He continues to dither as the U.S. still holds $4 billion in Canadian softwood lumber duties, half of which belong to B.C. companies. Vancouver has become even more vulnerable to organized crime as he continues to dither over possible decriminalization of marijuana. The Fraser River salmon fishery has been mismanaged to a point where we have lost one-quarter of the salmon in the river.

The Prime Minister's dithering has dragged on for years. West of the Rockies, British Columbians are telling the Prime Minister to stop dithering, keep his promises and start putting his government to work for British Columbia.

Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Châteauguay

[Denise Poirier-Rivard, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate and thank the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Châteauguay for the contribution it has been making for the past 25 years to the social and economic development of our community.

This group of merchants and business people from Châteauguay not only contributes to the vitality of the city, but it also has a strong influence on regional social and economic issues.

The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Châteauguay brings together more than 400 members, who, over the years, have invested time and energy in promoting our city and our region. For each of them, their involvement has been, is and will be a proud moment that they will never forget.

The Bloc Québécois wishes long life to this organization and thanks its many members for their 25 years of economic and community action.

Arts and Culture

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to read a quotation from the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

They are becoming more multicultural themselves and now they're getting really proud of who they are. They want to get rid of the image of cowboys drowned in oil.

She was talking about my home province of Alberta. I suppose we as Albertans should be glad that she has finally discovered us and that she is amazed to discover that in Alberta the only culture is not agriculture, and art is not the guy who runs the local grain elevator.

In my riding of Edmonton--Strathcona we have one of the liveliest cultural scenes in the entire country. For the past 23 years, one of the largest theatre events in the world, the Fringe Festival, has been held every summer in Old Strathcona, and the Edmonton Heritage Festival is a one of a kind showcase of the multicultural diversity of my city and my province.

If the minister would care to join me on a tour this summer of Edmonton--Strathcona, I am sure we could expand her cultural horizons. She would continue to be amazed that there is in fact culture in places other than in her own mind.

The Environment

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Conservatives have finally stopped attacking the true laws of nature, such as the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry, by refusing to recognize the scientific principles of global warming.

In fact, just a few months ago, we heard the empty rhetoric of the Conservatives and their leader that the man-made effects of climate change were nothing more than a scientific hypothesis and that carbon dioxide had never been considered a health risk.

We hope that the Conservative Party has finally realized what we on this side of the House have already known for quite some time. Climate change is real, and attacking this problem can only benefit this country's economy and environment, as well as the health of Canadians.

We hope too that the Conservative Party has finally seen the folly of advancing pseudo-scientific principles. We hope that now the Conservatives will stop making these erroneous statements.

Natural Resources

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans seems to be poised to grant approval to reopen the Tulsequah Chief mine in northwestern British Columbia.

Previously, the DFO was on record with concerns about how this project would affect the salmon bearing streams and caribou herds of the Taku region. After a closed door meeting with lobbyists for the mining company and the province of British Columbia, the DFO inexplicably changed its position and is now pushing the project forward.

This project is tearing the local community apart. The elected leaders of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation are very concerned about the potential impact on the resource role planned for this project. The Supreme Court ruled last year that we need a land use management plan prior to the project's existence.

It is time for leadership from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on this file. It is time for him to step up to the plate and to halt the approval of this project until the environmental sustainability issues surrounding the project are adequately addressed.

National Defence

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, in a frank revelation today the new Canadian ambassador to the United States said that the government is already part of the missile defence program. He said this in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister has been telling the House and Canadians for months that there has been no agreement and no decision taken.

How could the Prime Minister secretly make this decision, so clearly breaking every commitment he has made to the House and to Canadians?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, every member of the House knows exactly what has happened here. Everybody knows exactly what our ambassador said this morning.

We agreed to a Norad amendment which would allow our American partners, for the security of North America, to obtain the threat assessments and the information they need to make decisions to deploy missiles or other forms of defence. We did that in order to help them.

We have yet to make any decisions in terms of ballistic missile defence. That decision will be made in accordance with Canadian needs and a Canadian appreciation of our strategic interests in support of the defence of North America. That is all there is to it.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, that just does not accord with the government's statements.

All parties in the House agreed that there would be a vote before we became part of missile defence. Now Frank McKenna is saying the decision has been made. He is saying we are part of it.

Is the minister saying that the government's new star ambassador to the United States is a liar?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, this is an extraordinary turnaround in the House. Before the election that gentleman was standing up here saying: “Why aren't we in BMD?”, “ Why aren't we in Iraq?”, and “Why aren't we doing this with the United States?” Now, it is “We don't want to know about this” and “We want to keep our distance”.

The government has been clear. We will make a decision about ballistic missile defence in the interest of Canada and in the interest of Canadians.

What the ambassador said today was that we are helping with Norad, which is what we have always done and which every member of the House knows. The Prime Minister has been clear. All of us have been very clear on it.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberal Party, this party will never agree to a proposal we have never even seen.

Yesterday, in the House, the Liberal government, through this minister, reaffirmed that it would not participate in the missile defence shield. However, today, Ambassador Frank McKenna is saying the exact opposite.

Why did the government break its promise to make the details of this project public and hold a vote here in Parliament, before taking part in it?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, all the ambassador said was that we signed the amendment to Norad. If this comes as a surprise to the leader of the opposition, it certainly comes as no surprise to us.

We have talked about this in the House on numerous occasions and we will talk about it again. The decision as to whether we will take part in the missile defence shield is a separate discussion. The question is whether or not we will take part in delivering these missiles. That is in the future. I assure the House that no such decision has been made.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Minister of National Defence said:

We will enter into an agreement with the United States if it is in the interest of Canada--

This clearly indicated that we are not part of the program now.

Newly appointed Ambassador Frank McKenna said clearly today that Canada is already part of the missile defence program now. Surely Ambassador McKenna has been briefed on this important file. Surely Mr. McKenna would not misspeak on such an important issue before a parliamentary committee.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Who is being factual, the ambassador or the minister?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I just had lunch with the ambassador. I want to assure all hon. members that there is no problem between the ambassador, myself, the Deputy Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister.

It is clear what the ambassador is seeking to do. He is telling our American partners that we are active with them in defence of North America and in appreciation of the threats that come to North America. That is why we did the Norad amendment. In many ways he was quite correct in saying that this is all that Canada needs to do to help our American allies in this situation. It was a perfectly obvious thing for him to say. It does not change the Government of Canada's policy whatsoever.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I hope they communicated more clearly over lunch.

Last summer, Canada agreed to Norad's monitoring of incoming missiles. Last August, this minister said:

This decision does not affect or in any way determine the ultimate decision as to whether Canada will participate in missile defence.

Mr. McKenna's statements today clearly contradict that position. This government is either operating in the dark or dithering again.

When will the Parliament of Canada have a full debate, with all the facts, on missile defence? Or is Canada's position already a done deal?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member and other hon. members of the House that Canada's position is not a done deal.

We will decide about whether we are going to participate in the aspect of ballistic missile defence, which involves its determination of how it works and ultimate deployment in the interest of Canada, in the appropriate way and we will discuss it with members of the House. The Prime Minister is anxious to do that. We will make that move when it is appropriate.

The fact that we signed the Norad agreement is of no surprise to anybody in the House. It was a natural thing to do in order to help our American friends in understanding threats to North America and we will always participate with them on that.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Frank McKenna, the new Canadian ambassador to Washington, has stated categorically that Canada was already part of the missile defence system.

How can the Prime Minister say that he wants to ensure there will be no weaponization of space, when his ambassador is instead confirming that Canada is already involved in the missile defence program?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I should begin by pointing out that the Bloc leader has mixed a number of things. The first point to be made is that the weaponization of space is not part of the missile defence shield program.

The second point is that, as I have just told the hon. members, we have amended the Norad agreement, which is totally logical as far as threats to North America are concerned. The hon. member is well aware of this because the PM phoned him directly to inform him of it.

We continue to work with our American friends, but as far as their missile defence program is concerned, we will make the decision when the time comes, when it is the right time for Canada.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here we have one more mixed up Liberal. After the Prime Minister's gaff about Lebanon last week, when he told us that he had not said what everybody had heard him say, now we are being told that Frank McKenna was not clear. But he was very clear. He said “We're part of it”. What the Prime Minister told me is that the decision to participate in Norad had no connection at all to missile defence.

Will the minister admit that the Prime Minister has misled the public by stating that the Norad amendment did not mean de facto Canadian participation in the missile defence shield, as Frank McKenna has just stated very clearly? He did not seem to be mixed up like the minister.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it is a fairly clear matter of logic. Even the Bloc can understand, I believe, that there is a difference between assessing a threat that may be dangerous, exchanging information, cooperating with a friend, understanding this information, and making the decision to launch a missile. That is a different thing, a different stage. That is what we are looking at. The Prime Minister said that we will never get to that stage without first consulting the House and making a decision in Canada's best interest.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has clearly told us, here in this House, and the minister has just repeated it, that participation in the Norad agreement has nothing to do with the missile defence shield. His main spokesman in the United States, in Washington, says “We are in Norad and when you are in Norad, you are part of the missile defence shield.” It is perfectly clear. He even asked, “What more do the Americans want?”

How can the minister maintain such confusion? Perhaps it is because his government wants to do things by the back door—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of National Defence.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, what I do not understand at all in this House full of intelligent people is that we agreed to the Norad amendment with the knowledge of everyone here a few months ago, in August.

Mr. Bush, the President of the United States, was here last month. He asked us to be part of the missile defence shield. The Bloc now claims to be surprised that we are already there. It seems Mr. Bush was also led astray. Mr. Bush does not know that we are not part of it.

These are ridiculous arguments. We are not part of the missile defence shield. We will make that decision according to our—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean.