Stephen Harper

[National Defence, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have long expressed the desire to hold a vote on military commitments. It is unfortunate that such a vote was not held long ago. All the parties in this House were in agreement yesterday with the vote and the procedure. Now they are starting to complain. There is no leadership over there.

[Government Accountability, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, actions do have consequences. The vote yesterday to reject Canada's most outstanding CEO who was willing to provide his services to the Government of Canada for $1 a year is an action that has consequences.

I can understand why the party opposite would not want to clean up the appointments process given the kind of scandals it ran when it was in office.

This party will go ahead and do the job itself.

[The Environment, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government's position has been clear for quite some time: we intend to respect our election promises.

It is unfortunate that the former government accepted targets but refused to take action to meet them. It is easy for the opposition parties to vote for sentiments. However, a government must have plans and take action. And we intend to take real action.

[Canadian Forces, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. He is correct. Today we suffered a combat casualty in Afghanistan. I have the name of a female officer who was killed in combat action against Taliban forces. I am not at liberty to release the name. The next of kin, a husband, is being notified.

These are always terrible tragedies. I do not know if this is a first female combat death. It is certainly not a first that we ever want to celebrate, but it does underscore the tremendous courage that our young men and women show in our theatre. I believe they have the right at all times to know that those of us who send them into combat stand behind their mission.

[National Defence, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliament of Canada, unfortunately, has never actually taken a position through a vote on this issue. It is appropriate that it do so at some time. Members of the House and the parties of the House have had five years to decide what their position is on this mission. We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward.

Yes, it is a large and important commitment. What we are doing there is not just protecting our national interest. We are providing international leadership and some real advancement to the standard of living and to the human rights of the Afghan people. These are important things for which Canada should stand.

[National Defence, May 16th, 2006]

First, Mr. Speaker, the government did not make the decision to send the troops that are there today. That was made by the former government, although we support that decision and support our troops in the field.

We understand that a commitment of this magnitude creates some real constraints on our ability elsewhere. At the moment, however, including the situation in Sudan, we do not expect the need for large scale commitments of Canadian troops elsewhere. That is why we will ask the House tomorrow to back our decision to continue to send a significant Canadian contingent to Afghanistan and to accomplish the work of the international community there.

[The Environment, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois motion is not an action plan, but this government intends to create an action plan.

The hon. member and leader of the Bloc Québécois talks about the international community and Kyoto. The reality is that India, China, the United States, Australia and Mexico have no targets and will not reach the Kyoto targets. That is why we are working with the international community: to get real results.

[The Environment, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the international community knows that not only Canada, but the international community in general will not reach the Kyoto targets. That is why we are taking part in talks to achieve better results in future. It was the former government that decided to accept targets that it was unable to reach and did not try to reach. In future, this government will take action instead.

[The Environment, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same in French. The official opposition party did nothing for climate change when it was in power.

I have full confidence in the Minister of the Environment. I gave her this government's biggest task, namely, to create a real plan after the Liberal government's miserable failure.

[The Environment, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, the party opposite did absolutely nothing on this issue when it was in government, other than spend several billion dollars to absolutely no effect whatsoever. So bad was its record, let me read this quote:

This is a government that could not organize a two car funeral, let alone implement a Kyoto agreement in terms of domestic engagement within Canada.

That statement was made by his own environment critic about his own government.