Peter MacKay

[Canada-U.S. Border, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this has absolutely nothing to do with American concerns. This has to do with Canadian passport decision making.

We are undertaking a comprehensive review of how we will deal with passports, given the current situation because of the western hemisphere travel initiative. We will be making some decisions and announcements on this in the near future.

[Canada--U.S. Border, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the federal government, along with the provinces and industry in Canada, is very concerned about this issue. We have taken every opportunity to raise it with the Americans. We are in a position now where we are receiving great cooperation and a free flow of information on this file. We will take every opportunity to raise the concerns as we have in the past.

I assure the hon. member this is under close scrutiny by the Prime Minister, by myself and by other members of the government.

[Canada-U.S. Border, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask him to please just recognize the reality. He was part of the government that had 13 years and it degraded the relationship with the United States of America.

We are involved in ongoing discussions on this issue. We have taken steps already to alleviate much of the problem at the border. It has been announced that we are now arming our border guards. This is an important part of the overall security picture of which the Americans were concerned. We continue to have good working relations on this file and we will be there when the solutions arrive.

[Canada-U.S. Border, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, quite to the contrary, the Minister of Public Safety, the Prime Minister and I took the occasion to raise this issue when we were in the United States speaking with our counterparts. This is obviously a situation that is going to continue to evolve. There is legislation in place in the United States of America. That is the reality that the opposition appears to be overlooking.

The opposition had an opportunity to do something and it did absolutely nothing as it did on so many files. We are going to be in the loop. Our relations with the United States are now at a point where we are being provided information at a pace that we can absolutely deal with this situation. We continue to be amazed at the opposition's questions on this file.

[Francophonie, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

I repeat that the secretary general is in Canada to take part in the Francophonie's ministerial conference conflict prevention and human security. I will be travelling to that conference today, and I hope to have the opportunity to speak with him about this.

I repeat again that this incident is highly regrettable.

[Francophonie, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is currently in Manitoba. She has met the secretary general, who is in Canada to attend the ministerial conference of la Francophonie on conflict prevention and human security. I will take that opportunity to speak directly to Mr. Diouf and let him know that Canada feels this is very unfortunate. I repeat, this is very unfortunate.

[Francophonie, May 12th, 2006]

Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that transportation safety is always very important. I have been informed of this incident at the airport in Toronto, which was due to a misunderstanding. It was an unfortunate incident.

My colleague, the Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages, and myself will be taking part in that conference in Saint-Boniface, Manitoba.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for LaSalle—Émard for his attendance and participation in debate.

It is with some amusement that I listen to him now heckling anyone in the House about partisanship. It seems that anyone who takes a position contrary to the member and his former government somehow is off base or intellectually dishonest as opposed to the realization that his own record is somewhat spotted on so many issues.

He started by talking about how an incoming government has an inherent right to do nothing other than follow the predecessor. Yet we know his government, upon coming to office, cancelled the helicopter program. It cancelled the Pearson airport program among many other things. It promised to get rid of GST and free trade, which they did not do. We know as well, while he tries to take credit for having slain the deficit, that it was free trade and the GST. He dined out for many years as finance minister on the previous government's policies.

However, let us talk about child care. Under that member's watch, while it was promised in the 1993 red book, his government did not create a single child care space in 13 years. Child poverty rose substantially under his watch.

Why does the member think that somehow the one-size-fits-all approach of his government will recognize the realities, which he should know as the former prime minister, that exist in rural Canada where they do not have child care spaces available?

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the participation by the hon. member in this debate and I am almost overwhelmed as to where to start with the misinformation that she placed before the House in her remarks.

First, how can there be a secret treaty which has been laid upon the table of the House of Commons? How can there be a secret debate, which is being broadcast nationally, to have a full and inclusive discussion so that Canadians can understand the importance of the Norad agreement for Canada? How can there possibly be a suggestion, where there is a specific reference within the context of this debate, that it is not toward ballistic missile defence?

This simply gives Canada the ability to be at the table and to receive information that affects its national security. What greater threat could there be to sovereignty than to be absent from the debate around the defence of North America, which includes Canada? We do not live in some splendid isolation when it comes to North American threats, whether they be in the air or in the water.

I suggest that nobody believes it would be in Canada's interest to withdraw from Norad nor, I would suggest, which was her last suggestion, that we simply defer this to a parliamentary committee knowing full well, because of the references tonight, that this important agreement will expire on May 12.

I am left to wonder who actually believes this information that has been placed before the House. I can tell the House that they do not believe in Sasquatch or UFOs either.

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. member to comment on the openness and the transparency of this process. The entire agreement has been laid on the table of the House and, in fact, it was his party and part of the legacy of the Liberal Party that there was participation in the original debate in 1958. Prime Minister John Diefenbaker consulted with then leader of the opposition, Lester B. Pearson, who was to become external affairs minister. Paul Martin Sr. also took part in that historic debate in 1958. There was a discussion then as there is tonight of the importance of the protection of both countries within this continent.

Is this debate tonight not very much in keeping with the spirit of openness and discussion about the Norad agreement, and a continuation of a legacy that allows Canadians, allows parliamentarians on behalf of their constituents, to have input and discussion into this important matter?