Debates of Feb. 25th, 2005

The Budget

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Budget 2005 contains good news for Manitoba.

The Liberal government has decided to share the gasoline tax revenues with municipalities, an amount equal to about $167.3 million over five years.

The Department of Western Economic Diversification will allocate $186 million in funding over the next five years for new economic development initiatives.

Furthermore, the department will receive $74 million in new funding over five years to work with communitiesvulnerable to economic adjustment pressures and with Western cities on their specific economic issues.

Under the 10 year plan to strengthen health care, Manitoba will receive $1.5 billion in new health care funding. I also want to mention that Manitoba will reap huge benefits from its investments in wind and hydroelectric power, agriculture, early childhood, seniors and immigration.

National Defence

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister declared in December that he had received no proposal from the United States on the topic of the missile defence shield. And yet the Prime Minister's spokesman Scott Reid, said yesterday that he had received a written proposal. Canadians have the right to know what the Prime Minister said no to.

Why is the Prime Minister hiding this important information from Canadians and how does he explain this contradiction?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that the Minister of National Defence made our position crystal clear yesterday. Yesterday, cabinet made a decision on BMD; second, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that decision in the House; and finally, the Prime Minister announced that decision publicly. I hope that clarifies the whole chain of command on this for the member opposite.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what a lot of dithering mud.

According to Scott Reid, the Prime Minister's communications director, the government received a memorandum of understanding on missile defence from the Americans. After dogged dithering by the Prime Minister, he finally pulled the pin on missile defence.

True to form, he broke his promise of a full debate in the House and a vote, hiding this important information from Canadians and making decisions in the backroom of the PMO.

Why did the Prime Minister bypass Parliament and Canadians on such an important decision affecting the lives of Canadians?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made it very clear that he would bring to this House an agreement before it was going to be signed onto. We do not have an agreement to sign onto. What we have done is exert our sovereignty. The PM made a decision yesterday.

We have put $13 billion into our defence forces to engage in a wide array of sovereignty issues, including the protection of our north, including making our borders safer, and including working with the Americans on an array of common security threats. I think that is a responsible decision and we are going to continue to work toward that goal for the benefit of Canadians.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Prime Minister made a decision on important information not shared with Canadians.

The Minister of National Defence, as recently as Tuesday, said any decision about ballistic missile defence would be discussed with members of the House. While the marginalized Minister of National Defence was assuring us of this, the foreign affairs minister was telling his counterpart, Condoleezza Rice, that we would not participate. That is dazzling duplicity on the part of the Liberals.

These latest contradictions make a mockery of the Prime Minister's promise to make Parliament the centre of national debate and slay the democratic deficit. Why was Parliament, the Canadian public and the Prime Minister's own cabinet so out of the loop on this important decision?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will go back to a quote provided by the Leader of the Opposition in question period on February 22. He said:

All parties in the House agreed that there would be a vote before we became part of missile defence.

We are not part of missile defence.

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

Mr. Speaker, top U.S. defence experts issued a scathing condemnation of the Prime Minister, calling him a failure of leadership, saying that he had a lack of guts, and that he had created a setback for Canada-U.S. relations.

The Prime Minister expects the U.S. to consult him on any incoming missiles entering Canadian airspace. This is delusional. There are only minutes available for a decision.

How can the Prime Minister realistically believe the Americans will consult him before firing their interceptor missiles?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we have been working with the Americans on continental defence for 30 years. We have been a part of Norad for 30 years. We will continue to be a part of Norad. Our government exercises sovereignty not to be a part of BMD. However, we have exercised our sovereignty with a $13 billion investment into defence for our border security, port security, and Arctic sovereignty.

We will continue to work with the Americans on issues such as terrorism in Afghanistan and other areas. We are continuing to work with the Americans on a number of issues that are important for both of us, and we will continue to do just that.

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

Mr. Speaker, quick decisions are not a forte of this Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister's spokesman said yesterday that the Prime Minister had not rejected a memorandum of understanding that committed Canada to an open-ended ballistic missile system. As the one who did all the groundwork for missile defence, would the Minister of National Defence advise if he has seen this document, and if so, why is he hiding it from Parliament?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as we have said before in question period, we would bring to the House an agreement before that agreement was going to be signed. There was no agreement signed.

The Environment

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the intentions of the Minister of the Environment became much clearer yesterday, when he told the industry, “Bring me your tons of greenhouse gas emissions and we will give you funding”.

Did the Minister of the Environment not confirm in his own words yesterday that, in addition to continuing to subsidize major polluters, he will be giving them another gift by adopting the polluter-paid principle?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. In fact, not only has the member misread it, but I think if the member were to hold her fire there she would see a new and improved plan for the 2002 action plan on climate change. At that time, I would expect some very constructive comments and support of our plan.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some, like Quebec and its manufacturing sector for example, have made an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and others, like the auto industry in Ontario, refuse to do their part.

Is the minister aware that his choice amounts to rewarding those who do nothing and doubling the cost to those who do make an effort?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased that all sectors of the economy are in fact working collaboratively to deal with greenhouse gas issues. Again, it is misrepresentation on the part of the member to suggest somehow that one industry is not doing its job. Everyone is expected to do their job and they are coming to the plate.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

The Minister of the Environment want to reduce gasoline consumption in cars by 25% and he thinks he can now count on a voluntary approach. It is clear that without mandatory measures this target will not be met, and all the more so because negotiations with the auto industry broke down yesterday.

Is the Minister of the Environment going to face the fact that the Kyoto targets will not be met until the day there are mandatory measures?

[R. John Efford, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could not be any more wrong in his assumptions in the statement he just made. He is absolutely wrong.

We have 14 previous voluntary agreements with the auto industry. We are now close to signing another voluntary agreement where we will reduce by more than 25% over the target.

What the hon. member should do is work with the people in Canada and not be critical of the target. We are moving the file forward.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are two options available to the minister: the voluntary approach, which is obviously ineffective, and the mandatory approach, the only one that can work.

If the minister wants to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle motors, why is he not imposing stricter, mandatory standards on the auto industry?

[R. John Efford, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member that he eliminate the word if. There is no if. We are going to reduce the auto industry targets by 5.2 megatonnes. We have 14 previous agreements. The auto industry is bringing forward new technology all the time.

Eliminate the word if. There is no doubt in our mind that the reductions will be made in the right way and not according to the member's way.

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

He says that he did not mislead people about the missile defence shield, because Condoleezza Rice was merely informed of the cabinet's intentions. This raises two questions. What kind of democratic cabinet do we have, when decisions are made in advance?

Why did Condoleezza Rice know cabinet's intentions before cabinet members did themselves?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the opposition, the NDP, does not understand how the government operates.

Clearly, all decisions of such importance are reached in cabinet. The decision was in fact reached there, but that did not prevent the Minister of Foreign Affairs from speaking with his U.S. counterpart and indicating that this discussion would be taking place within cabinet.

The decision was therefore reached in the appropriate manner in cabinet and then made public after the Minister of Foreign Affairs had announced it in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, talk about dithering through the jaws of victory. The fact is that we have seen here a complete mishandling of our relationships with the United States. So much for dealing with our relations with the U.S. professionally.

Not only that, but the Prime Minister broke his promise to Parliament when he said that there would be a vote. What we see here clearly is a democratic deficit. We have Frank McKenna out of the loop. We have the cabinet out of the loop. We have Canadians out of the loop. In fact, we have Condi knowing before Canadians.

Who is going to resign over this fiasco?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I want--

[The Speaker]

Order. I would remind hon. members it is Friday, not Wednesday. We could have a little order in the House. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor and members want to hear his answer, particularly the member for Toronto—Danforth.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the leader of the NDP must think of another adjective one day.

In any event, he should understand that this government drives its foreign and defence policies through Ottawa, not Washington. Let us make this clear. The decision not to enter into BMD was made yesterday in cabinet. Yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister announced that decision in the House and to the public.