Peter MacKay

[National Defence, February 22nd, 2005]

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?

[National Defence, February 22nd, 2005]

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?

[National Defence, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in last year's budget there was a promise of $300 million to purchase new search and rescue aircraft within 12 to 18 months. It did not happen. Now we know the project is stalled because of an overly complicated and convoluted procurement process.

In the meantime our search and rescue planes are only available about half of the time. Like the Sea Kings, the Buffalo and the Hercules are over 40 years old. It took 12 years of dithering by the government to finally make a decision to replace the Sea Kings. Too many lives depend on these aircraft.

How much more dithering can we expect from the government before we actually get new search and rescue helicopters?

[National Defence, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has systematically dismantled the Canadian Forces over the last 12 years.

In fact, Colonel Stogran has also said that we cannot continue to dismantle our army to the lowest common denominator because of fiscal problems. Both Stogran and Hillier feel that the foundation of the army is cracking and we need new equipment, training and spare parts. Symbolically, last week we heard that the army is going barefoot in the barracks because of Liberal cuts.

The promises to repair the military are hollow. They are repeated year after year. I ask again, will the budget continue the Liberal trend of dismantling, dithering and delaying, or will we actually see a firm commitment--

[National Defence, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the new chief of the defence staff has publicly complained about the lack of resources for our military. Now Colonel Pat Stogran, Canada's first commander in Afghanistan, has said that the government is watering down its infantry for lack of cash.

Canada's active military has been cut to the bone and we are not fulfilling our international obligations. The Prime Minister himself acknowledged that we do not have the troops.

The government's promise to increase the military by 5,000 is a drop in the bucket. The money that will be needed for training and equipment is not there.

The Prime Minister's dithering is hurting our forces. Will there be a plan and the necessary funds to significantly increase our military capability in the budget?

[Points of Order, February 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, throughout question period today the Minister of the Environment repeatedly referred to the government's plan on Kyoto in responding to questions from the opposition. I would ask respectfully that he table that plan for the House of Commons.

[The Environment, February 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, The Economist magazine has joined the parade of people who refer to our Prime Minister as Mr. Dithers. It says that the federal government has been slow and hesitant.

By continuing to be timid and indecisive, the Prime Minister is hurting Canada's international reputation. From federal appointments to international commitments, the Prime Minister just cannot make up his mind. We have had the mad as hell tour, the what the hell tour and now Mr. Dithers goes global.

While the Prime Minister and his gaseous emissions minister continue to dither, emissions are rising. When will the dithering stop and some decisiveness begin? What's the plan, Stéphane?

[The Environment, February 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in English we say that the minister is full of it.

The Liberal government has spent $4 billion on Kyoto measures and emissions have actually gone up 30%. Next week the government will announce that it will recycle $6 billion, dump the term Kyoto and recycle the term sustainable development.

What does it all mean? There is still no plan and the details are sketchy on Kyoto. Media reports say that the real program is aimed at attracting voters in British Columbia and Quebec.

Why is the government once again trying to buy Canadians with their own money, and when will it come up with a specific plan?

[The Environment, February 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, once upon a time the Prime Minister promised he would provide Canadians with a step by step plan to achieve the international commitments of Kyoto, and yet the Minister of the Environment has said, quite clearly, that there is no firm plan to meet the targets.

It has been eight years since Kyoto was signed and two years since it was ratified. While Mr. Dithers and Dithers junior dawdle on decisions to decrease emissions, greenhouse gases continue to rise.

Will the Prime Minister stop his pathological dithering and lay out a specific made in Canada plan to give Canadians clean air, clean water and clean land?

[Hydroelectric Dams, February 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, over two years ago there was a blackout that left much of Ontario and all of the PMO in the dark. Apparently the Deputy Prime Minister is still in the dark.

What I asked her yesterday about the protection of a dam in Quebec, she did not have a clue. Last night Radio-Canada revealed how easy it would be for a terrorist to cripple the energy supply.

RDI reporters were able to walk directly into two centrally controlled major dams that are power supports for all of North America. It has been four years since 9/11 and we do not have a critical infrastructure plan nor do we have an updated Emergency Preparedness Act.

Why has the government not acted to protect--