Stephen Harper

[Foreign Affairs, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, typically these guys have no policies, just communications strategies. A few months ago it was to be anti-American. Now apparently they want to have a little bit of a different strategy.

What is the government's assessment of Canada's actual national interest? In recent months, both the Deputy Prime Minister and the foreign affairs minister have suggested that missile defence is not really necessary. Does the government now believe that Canada faces a potential threat of missile attack?

[Foreign Affairs, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister seemed surprised to be answering questions from the Alliance on missile defence. I would remind the Prime Minister that we have been asking questions on missile defence for years now, but more importantly, this proposal with missile defence actually began seven years ago under the guidance of President Clinton.

My question is, after seven years and yet another cabinet and caucus meeting today, does the government have plans to even have a discussion with the United States on this issue?

[Foreign Affairs, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canada does not have a seat at the Security Council and we did not need the position of Russia and China to join NATO and Norad.

This is about protecting Canadian airspace. It is about protecting Canadian sovereignty, about our role in Norad, and about having a voice at the table with the United States.

Why does the government not realize that these kinds of decisions, like continental missile defence, should be taken because they are in Canada's national interest?

[Foreign Affairs, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there is the problem. Canada should be leading and making its own decisions, not just following the crowd.

Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister cited possible support for this system from Russia and China, just as the Prime Minister cited support on his Iraq position from France.

Why is he allowing countries like Russia and China to dictate Canada's national policy?

[Foreign Affairs, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have more spectacles of the government flipping and flopping around on international issues. This time it is on continental missile defence.

The former finance minister hints ever so carefully that he might be for it, but the foreign affairs minister said just last December that the system was immoral and illegal. He said, “We have been concerned about terrorist attacks, which everybody recognizes are not likely to be people that get their hands on ballistic missiles”.

If the government does not and has not believed missiles are a threat, how can it now be entertaining supporting the intercontinental missile system?

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the only way we will save costs on this program is to scrap this registry and put the money into public safety.

The minister should be ashamed of himself for coming here with a whole bunch of costs and not being able to answer my questions on what this will cost and when it will be finished, but this is typical of the government. I am hardly surprised because this reflects its entire criminal justice agenda. It has nothing to do with public safety. Instead, it is just wasting money and being soft on crime.

We have Bill C-23 which frankly should be renamed the sex offender protection act because the only people in the country it protects are sex offenders. We have Bill C-20 that has loopholes for child pornography. I could go on and on. Under its watch the government has allowed convicts the right to vote.

Can the government explain why it is so soft on criminals and is never prepared to take real action on crime?

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have yet another Liberal closure motion but it does give me an opportunity to question the government a little bit indepth about the firearms registry, boondoggle.

The House will recall that we were sold this bill of goods that it would cost $2 million. This party warned that it would cost much more. The member for Yorkton—Melville did heroic work for years providing evidence that this would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The government denied this systematically and covered it up, but it has now been revealed that we are up to about $1 billion in expenditures on this with absolutely no end in sight.

We have been putting a series of questions to the government for months. I would appreciate if, after all these months with this new bill, it could finally answer these questions today. How much will it cost to complete this firearm registry, when will it be completed, and how much will it cost to maintain?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think the answer there was that he has not spoken to the president, and I will tell the Prime Minister there is always time for the Prime Minister of Canada to do that.

The President's cancelled visit is one more example of how bad relations harm Canada's negotiating power on important issues such as softwood lumber in Quebec and B.C., the tariffs on wheat and steel, border hold-ups and so on.

Can the Prime Minister explain to us how the deplorable state of his relationship with the United State can be good for Canadians?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think behind that joke was the answer that the president has in fact not rescheduled the visit.

It has been almost a month, April 9, since I asked the Prime Minister here in the House if he was prepared to pick up the phone and call the president about reconstruction in Iraq. He said at the time he was not prepared to do that. He was waiting for the president to call him. So my question now is, has the president called the Prime Minister and if he has, could the Prime Minister let us in on those in-depth discussions?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, today is the day that many Canadians were expecting to have a visit and a speech here in the House from the President of the United States. The president was apparently unable to attend, although he has been able to host Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

My question to the Prime Minister is simple. Has the visit from President Bush been rescheduled, and if so, what is the date of this event?