Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2005

National Defence

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Frank McKenna has said that Canada was already involved in the missile defence program. According to media reports, the Prime Minister has at last backed down and is preparing to announce that Canada will not be part of the American missile defence project.

Can we find out the government's true intentions once and for all? Will Canada be officially involved in the missile defence program or not? Or are things already all settled with Norad?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Canada will make its announcement in due course. That has always been our position, when it is in Canada's best interest to do so.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be a good idea to make the announcement in the House, in Canada's best interest, rather than in the press, in the Liberal Party's best interest.

Whether Canada takes part officially or not would appear to be secondary, since Canada has, by amending the Norad agreement, already done what needed to be done, according to Frank McKenna. It would appear that the Prime Minister reached that decision without consulting the House.

Will the Prime Minister be announcing before his party convention that Canada will not be officially participating in the missile defence program, because it is in fact already participating backhandedly?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I will, if I may, reread the communiqué issued ages ago, on August 5. It states: “The amendment authorizes Norad to make its missile warning function—a role it has been performing for the last 30 years—available to the U.S. commands conducting ballistic missile defence.” It goes on: “This amendment safeguards and sustains Norad regardless of what decision the Government of Canada eventually takes on ballistic missile defence.”

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised that any decision on the missile defence shield would be debated and voted on here in the House. But that has not happened, and the Prime Minister is about to announce—according to all the media—that Canada will not take part in the missile defence shield project.

Will the Prime Minister explain why he expressed his decision on the missile defence shield through a spokesperson, without the decision being debated in this House, as he promised?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said, when the government is ready to make an announcement, it will do so in an appropriate and timely manner.

Also, as the hon. member has asked the question, should the government have an agreement to bring forward, we will respect our commitment, hold that debate and have that vote.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister admit that his recent flip-flop—which he is trying to camouflage today in the House although it is all over the media—can be explained by the fact that public opinion and his own supporters are against the missile defence shield, which leads him to make decisions, as he often does, at the last minute?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not seem satisfied that our government is working on a matter as important as the missile defence shield, taking into account Canadian public opinion and the opinions expressed in this House. The decision will be made in the best interests of Canadians and as quickly as possible.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a point at which dithering morphs into deception and duplicity.

First, we have not been asked. Then the president asks us. Then we have not made a decision. Then Frank McKenna says we are part of it. Now the Prime Minister seems to be announcing that we are not part of it. The government's position has not changed. It is still trying to have it both ways.

I ask the Prime Minister, when is he going to put himself out of his misery, announce what he is going to do about this and show some respect for Parliament and the Canadian people?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly make the requisite announcement when it is in Canada's interest to do so.

Drugs and Pharmaceuticals

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that Canadians hear from their Prime Minister. The Liberals have a rogue ambassador and it is the Prime Minister's duty to pull him back in.

My question is for the Minister of Health. It deals with the drug Vioxx which has been pulled from Canadian markets because it is not safe. The minister and the department knew about this and they did nothing to stop Canadians who are suffering from the effects of this medication from taking it. This drug is creating lab rats out of Canadians.

Will the minister pull it off the market and make sure it stays off the market? Will he make sure that we put safety first instead of drug pushers first?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is about a week late.

I announced last week that we are going to have the most open and transparent method of approving drugs, and then the most open and transparent method of surveillance of drugs after they have been approved for market. It is important that we do that. It is important for the health of each and every Canadian who takes those drugs.

National Defence

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it appears the Minister of National Defence's case of the dithers is spreading rapidly. He has moved from dithering on releasing the defence policy review to now dithering on telling Canadians the truth about ballistic missile defence.

Last fall the minister assured Canadians that we had a choice whether or not to participate with a vote in Parliament. Now we know Canada has been participating all along.

Why does the minister insist on treating Canada's position on missile defence like a political football that can be tossed to the public or withheld at will?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we spent a great deal of time in the House yesterday on this issue.

The Prime Minister has been extraordinarily clear. The foreign affairs minister and I have been clear. Canadian policy has been clear. We entered into a Norad agreement for the defence of North America in collaboration with our great ally the United States of America. We share information with it in many ways in terms of the threats that are coming to North America. We have done that.

As the Prime Minister has said, we will make a decision in respect of participating in any ballistic missile defence when it is appropriate for Canada and in Canada's interest to do so.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last fall the minister promised an open, vigorous debate on missile defence. Apparently the minister's version of an open debate is telling Canadians one thing while cabinet does another. This is like a déjà vu of the submarine barter deal; one day it is on and the next day it is off.

Will the minister take responsibility for misleading Canadians and the House and do the honourable thing and offer his resignation?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, when the government is ready to make an announcement, it will do so in an appropriate and timely manner. Should the government have an agreement to bring forward, we will respect our commitment, hold a debate and a vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago a Liberal Prime Minister promised the United States that Canada would never let an enemy attack the United States through our airspace or coastal waters. This promise has been kept for 60 years.

Why is this Prime Minister trying to change this promise 60 years later? Why?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we value the Americans tremendously. They are our friends, neighbours, and partners on this continent. We signed the Norad amendment precisely for this reason, in order to express our solidarity in defending North America.

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

Mr. Speaker, our ambassador to the United States must be able to stand in Washington knowing he has the confidence and the support of his Prime Minister. Now that is in doubt, especially in the minds of the Americans. The ambassador to be has been undercut by the Prime Minister's statements. This makes us understand why John Manley maybe did not want the job.

Is the Prime Minister now considering a replacement for this capable man whom he has thoroughly discredited?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what Mr. McKenna said yesterday in committee was that the issue of ballistic missile defence would be decided by the Government of Canada. That is what the potential ambassador said. He has my total confidence and the total confidence of the government.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Frank McKenna was not mistaken yesterday in saying that Canada did not have to take any further action for the missile defence shield since the amendments were made to Norad.

Does the government intend to provide us with information on these amendments to Norad and tell us exactly what this means for Canada? We need this interpretation. Once we have this information, perhaps everyone will be able to understand what Frank McKenna said. We need the government's interpretation of the Norad amendment.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister read the press release we issued on August 5. This release was extremely clear on what the Norad amendment allowed in terms of sharing information. In that same release, we very clearly established that, regardless of this sharing of information, which was the reason for the amendment to Norad, Canada would one day make its decision on the missile defence shield.

That is exactly what we said quite openly, totally transparently, in the government's August 5 press release.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, totally transparently, the Canadian ambassador to the United States said the exact opposite of what the minister is now telling us.

If, against all expectations, Canada's involvement in the missile defence shield is limited to Norad, will the Prime Minister commit to tabling in the House all information about the true nature of amendments made to Norad, once and for all?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have here the press release of November 5, and, with the House's leave, I would be pleased to table it. May I have the leave of the House to table this document?

[The Speaker]

The Right Hon. Prime Minister does not require unanimous consent to table a document. He can do so whenever he pleases. The document is therefore tabled.

The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.