Debates of Nov. 19th, 2010

National Defence

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government.

When the official opposition questioned the cost and consequences of the closure of Camp Mirage and the incompetence of the government in how it handled the negotiations, the Prime Minister referred to those questions and issues as “anti-Canadian”. That was the statement he made.

I would like to ask the government House leader this. If the official opposition is anti-Canadian for questioning the costs and consequences of that incompetence, why does the same test not apply to the Minister of National Defence?

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we had negotiations with the United Arab Emirates. The offer that was on the table was not in the best interests of Canada. It would have cost Canada literally tens of thousands of jobs and was not in Canadian interests. That is why we said no.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are always going to be competing accounts of whatever was said or not said at a negotiating table. The fact remains that it is the minister's own recklessness that has in fact put us in this position.

At the time the government apparently made its decision, it is not entirely clear whether the government was aware that in fact it was going to need the base not simply until 2011 but until 2014.

We know that the original estimate of the cost of this disastrous decision by the government was $300 million. Can the government now tell us how much it will cost us in addition to have lost the base in Dubai until 2014?

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian industry has supported the decision we made. Representatives of working men and women and national unions in Canada have supported the decision the government made.

The government did this because it was in the best interests of Canada. To do otherwise would have cost Canada literally tens of thousands of jobs in the years to come. Simply put, that is unacceptable.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has made yet another reckless allegation. That is a truly preposterous statement. It is the government that walked away from the negotiation. No one else walked away from the negotiation.

Why will the government not admit that it made a disastrous choice, that it was reckless in its behaviour?

Why will the government not come clean with the actual cost? It is well over $300 million. What is it, $500 million, $600 million? Tell us what the cost really is.

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite wants to talk about reckless allegations, that is incredibly so.

This is the reality. We were negotiating on behalf of Canada. We were negotiating on behalf of Canadian industry and Canadian workers. The deal on the table was not in the best interests of Canada.

Canada is a sovereign country. We are always going to stand up and do what is best for Canada.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister must certainly regret the major diplomatic and political incident he provoked a few months ago.

Not only is it going to cost Canadian taxpayers $300 million to relocate Camp Mirage, but he is also putting Canadian soldiers at risk and embarrassing them. Our troops are embarrassed by what happened.

Why does the Prime Minister prefer to protect the ego of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons instead of his part-time Minister of National Defence and, more importantly, the Canadian Forces?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)]

Mr. Speaker, we will say once again that the government always chooses arrangements that are in the best interests of Canada and of the best value for Canadians. As we have said all along, what the United Arab Emirates was offering was not in the best interests of Canada and would have cost thousands of Canadian jobs.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government can strut around and boast all it likes, but the reality is that the Prime Minister's arrogant attitude is going to be very costly, because in his mind, the mission was ending in 2011, and so it would cost $300 million. The new reality is that we have a mission for another three years, in other words, until 2014.

Does this mean that the $300 million will turn into three or four times that amount, so it will really cost several hundred million dollars, perhaps even close to $1 billion?

Does the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons not realize that because of his ego problem and his spat with the part-time Minister of National Defence—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Minister of State of Foreign Affairs for the Americas.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)]

Mr. Speaker, I will say again that what the United Arab Emirates was offering was simply not in the best interests of Canada. It would have cost jobs. It was a principled decision on behalf of Canadians.

Hydroelectricity

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the undersea cable between Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, Quebec's natural resources minister, Nathalie Normandeau, has confirmed that she has had assurances from her federal counterpart that the federal government will not provide any funding to Newfoundland and Labrador for the construction of these electrical transmission lines.

Based on the answers given by the Minister of Natural Resources this week, are we to understand that he has broken his promise?

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware that my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources spoke with his Quebec counterpart. He said that his department has no programs to support the file in question. That is truly the case. therefore, the Minister of Natural Resources does not have a problem supporting this project.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, hiding behind PPP Canada and its pseudo-independence—and that is what the House leader is doing and what the Minister of Natural Resources has done all week—is a sign of bad faith: the federal government appoints the board members; the federal government provides the funding; the federal government establishes the mandate.

Can the government confirm that it will not, directly or indirectly, finance an underwater cable that would amount to unfair competition for Hydro-Québec, which has never received a cent to help develop its facilities? Fairness, please.

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the crown corporation will review this request from the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. I am well aware that this is an important project for them but I want to be very clear about the fact that Quebec must receive its share. The federal government has provided many programs and, if Quebec wants to submit a request to the same crown corporation, it is welcome to do so.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government provided more than $66 billion for fossil fuels and $6 billion to support nuclear energy, mainly in Ontario, while Quebec managed on its own. Hydro-Québec has developed without the help of the federal government. Now it seems that the federal government is willing to fund a power line that is especially designed to bypass Quebec and that will create competition for Quebec on the American market. This is utterly unfair.

Can the government tell us that it does not intend to fund this network either directly or indirectly?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, that question was answered yesterday and it has been answered again today by our House leader.

The government created Public-Private Partnerships Canada to ensure Canada's infrastructure needs are met while also protecting taxpayers' money. It is a crown corporation that operates at arm's-length from the federal government. Any province is able and capable of making submissions under the PPP proposal.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government cannot hide behind PPP Canada. PPP Canada is a creature of the Conservative government but 25% of its funding comes from taxes paid by Quebeckers. The federal government should not be using money that comes, in part, from Quebeckers to pay for a cable that will create competition for Hydro-Québec.

Does it not stand to reason that, if Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia want a hydroelectric network, they should have to pay for it themselves like Quebec did?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc has no interest in building Canada or building positive construction in Canada.

PPP was put in place at arm's-length from the government in order to encourage provinces to come forward with projects. The government is going to consider those projects. Quebec has the same opportunity as every other province to bring forward projects to PPP, and we welcome it because we want to work with the provinces as we have done in the past and will continue to do in the future.

Afghanistan

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians just cannot understand why the Prime Minister is breaking his promise to bring our troops back from Afghanistan.

We know that the Liberal leader opened the door to an extension of the military mission in June. We know that the foreign affairs minister then started to negotiate with the Liberals.

Will the government now come clean on its negotiations? How many phone calls took place? How many meetings occurred? What else is in this Conservative-Liberal deal that keeps our troops in harm's way for three more years?

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes the fact that we are a minority government, and we regularly work with opposition members from all three parties. We think that is an important responsibility. I have regularly worked with members of the New Democratic Party. I have worked with that one, that one and that one.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister sits down in Lisbon to get his marching orders from NATO, Canadians have come to realize that they cannot trust him.

The Prime Minister promised time and time again that our troops would be back in 2011. The Conservatives have broken that promise. They made a deal with the Liberals to keep our troops in this war zone for three more dangerous years, and we cannot even trust that. They have extended it twice already.

After all their broken promises, how can the Conservatives expect Canadians to believe them this time?

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear with Canadians and we have been very clear with our allies that the combat mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011. We will honour that promise.

However, what we do want to do is to transition out of that combat mission and continue to provide aid and focus on development in Afghanistan.

As the Prime Minister said, a non-combat training role would ensure that the progress made by the Canadian Forces to date survives.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has done more than its share in Afghanistan. The government went too far when it extended the military mission without a vote in Parliament. Canada will have more soldiers in Afghanistan than 35 countries, including Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, and so on.

Why do the Conservatives still want to do more for a war that is going nowhere?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is committed to helping the Afghan people build a country that is more secure, stable and self-sufficient and is no longer a haven for terrorists.

As we have said, the combat mission will end in 2011. The facts indicate the Afghan security forces need more training. We do not want to risk the gains for which Canadian soldiers have fought so bravely and sacrificed.