Author:
STACEY GRAY perjfh
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12:40:01 03/22/03 Sat
Author Host/IP: d150-99-156.home.cgocable.net/24.150.99.156
QUESTION PERIOD FOR WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2003
SO 31
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon-Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, while we may not yet know the full economic impact of a U.S.-Iraq war, one thing is certain. The U.S. will tighten its borders and everything that flows through crossing points will undergo higher scrutiny.
We know that agricultural products, consumer goods and softwood lumber, before the trade minister bungled that portfolio, are among the key components of a $1.5 billion a day trade relationship. As of noon today, border delays are well over three hours long. The Deputy Prime Minister had better hope that the U.S. does not clamp down even more once hostilities begin tonight.
Yesterday in response to my question the Deputy Prime Minister said he had spoken to Tom Ridge. Well, did he speak to his answering machine? Today we see that nothing has been done to ensure Canadians will have continued access to the U.S. and its markets. We have seen that nothing has been done to ensure that the U.S.-Canadian border does not become a casualty of war in Iraq.
QUESTION 1 & 2
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, in the 1995 referendum campaign in Quebec, the Prime Minister said, do not worry, do not prepare, wait, and then he nearly lost the country.
Yesterday with a war hours away this head-in-the-sand Prime Minister said, before working on reconstruction wait for the war to start. Other countries are not waiting. The Canadian Red Cross is not waiting.
How many bombs must fall? How many Iraqis must die before Canada uses our undoubted influence to put the United Nations in a position to lead any reconstruction efforts?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on these programs Canada is always one of the first to move. Already at the United Nations the Canadian delegation is talking with the authorities to make sure that we will be participating in the program when the need comes.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, that is some progress from yesterday. On Monday afternoon the Prime Minister finally announced a policy on Iraq. Monday night the foreign minister said, that is Canada's policy at this time.
Yesterday the minister said, “Our position has to reflect the reality on the ground at any one time”. That can only mean that the government is prepared to change its policy again.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House if there are circumstances in which Canada would change the position the Prime Minister stated on Monday, and if not then why is the foreign minister saying this is a policy only for this moment, this time?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for me we have a policy. We had a policy so clear on that, that we were the first ones in the spring last year to say that we will not participate in a war in Iraq without the approbation of the Security Council.
We have been very clear from the beginning. It is always the leader of the fifth party who is always confused.
QUESTION 3 & 4
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Last February, David Lutz, a Hampton, New Brunswick lawyer, told all his staff to become members of the Liberal Party to protect his firm's lucrative contract with the federal Department of Justice. In a memo to staff, of which I have a copy, Mr. Lutz wrote:
**Our number one client here is the federal Department of Justice. We keep this business as long as John and I maintain high profiles in party activities.
I ask the Prime Minister: Is this his policy, for the government to award contracts based on party involvement, not on who has the ability to do the job?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we all know, Justice Canada has outside counsel, not only in that part of the country but across the country. We have a policy which has been established: We look at the quality of the services, the expertise of the law firm and of the lawyers involved in the case as well, and then we proceed to give out those mandates.
* * *
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday and today in the House, the Prime Minister made it very clear that changing regimes in different countries is not a policy that is desirable at any time. However, at the same time, media reports that the Canadian government is spearheading a plan for a regime change of President Aristide, in Haiti, and even set the deadline of January 1, 2004.
If the government supports regime change in Haiti, how can the Prime Minister say the government does not support regime change?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was a newspaper report concerning a meeting that took place. Our embassy in Haiti issued a clarification and made it very clear we are not engaged in any way in trying to change regime in Haiti.
However, we are engaged in what we always have been in Haiti: working for democracy, working for human rights, working for the betterment of the Haitian citizens, working for a way in which we can restore a semblance of order in the Caribbean for the benefit of Caribbeans and for the benefit of Canadians and we will continue those efforts.
QUESTION 5
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs just said that a correction was issued to the very clear accusation that Canada was leading an effort to overthrow President Aristide. What did the correction say and will he table the minutes of the meeting that was held?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since that matter was a matter that was presided over by the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa, I think it would be more proper for the member to address his question to him as to what took place at the meeting, but I would be quite happy to table in the House the statement issued by our embassy in Haiti.
QUESTION PERIOD FOR THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2003
SO31
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, as we speak an American coalition has begun the business of forcibly disarming Saddam Hussein.
The Government of Canada has decided that we will not participate in this particular conflict, and I have no doubt that it meets with the approval of most Canadians. However, that being said, now is the time for Canadians in positions of responsibility, including members of the House, to refrain from making gratuitous negative comments about our American neighbours and their leadership. Our economies are tightly intertwined and we are, and have been, allies on many fronts.
We will not always agree with the Americans in international affairs but we do share a continent with them. It is in Canada's best interest to strive for good relations with the U.S. whenever possible.
Let us hope and pray for a mercifully swift war and a peace that brings a better tomorrow for all of us on this planet.
QUESTION 1 & 2
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has decided that Canada would not commit troops to the war on Iraq, but he remains silent on the legitimacy of the military intervention.
Is it the position of the Government of Canada that the military action taken by the United States, the United Kingdom and others is legitimate under international law?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not here to debate the legality or illegality of a situation.
The Americans have decided that they have the right to do what they are doing, and we decided that we would not participate. This is the legality for us. We are not participating because we said at the beginning, a year ago, that we would participate if we were to have the support of the Security Council. It was not achieved so we are not participating and our position is very legal.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, so the Prime Minister has taken a position on principle, he just does not know what the principle is.
Yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs told reporters that Canada was working with the U.S. State Department to determine what would be required to rebuild Iraq. My question for the Prime Minister is this. In those discussions, is Canada insisting that the United Nations and not the Pentagon lead the reconstruction effort?
Could the Prime Minister tell the House what Canada is doing to vest the United Nations with the power to lead the reconstruction effort? I am talking here not just of humanitarian aid but of reconstruction which requires a new mandate.
¸ (1430)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope that every country in the world that can do it will participate. I am very surprised that the leader of the Conservative Party is objecting to the Americans repairing Iraq. Of course they will be part of the program and we will be part of it. We will do it in collaboration with them and under the umbrella of the UN.
QUESTION 3 & 4
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, now that our ships tasked to Operation Apollo are in fact operating in a theatre of war, our forces are at risk and deserve the chance to protect themselves from being the target of hostiles.
Will the minister of defence advise whether these troops have been given permission to take pre-emptive action against any and all threats within their sphere of operations?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr.Speaker, I share entirely the hon. member's concern for the safety and security of our troops in the gulf. We are defending our allies against terrorist attacks. The risk of terrorist attacks has gone up in recent days so we are definitely very concerned about their safety and security. Without getting into operational details, I can inform the hon. member that they do have robust rules which will allow them to defend themselves against a number of conceivable attacks.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, it has now been confirmed that Iraq has missiles and possibly drone aircraft that would be capable of carrying biological and chemical warheads.
Will the minister of defence confirm whether or not there are sufficient chemical suits on board the Canadian ships that would protect each and every crew member in the event such weapons were used?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is appropriate given security concerns to enter into every conceivable threat that might fall upon our ships. I can ensure the hon. member as I said before that I share her deep concern that every possible measure be taken to enhance the safety and security of our soldiers and sailors and airmen. These measures have in fact been taken.
QUESTION 5
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the Minister of National Defence which requires a yes or no answer.
Do all Canadian troops on ships in the gulf have gas masks and chemical suits to protect them against potential chemical or biological attacks? Yes or no.
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I already answered that question to the colleague of the right hon. member.
I do not think it is appropriate for me to deal with such issues in public. Given the right hon. member's past as a prime minister and his long service to Canada, I would certainly be happy to have a private conversation with him and say more to him then than I can say in public.
QUESTION PERIOD FOR FRIDAY, MARCH 21, 2003
SO 31
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, government giveth and government taketh away. In the budget the government bragged about all the money it was giving out for the various departments.
While this was unfolding it was asking departments to cut a billion dollars from existing programs.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been asked to find between $15 million and $20 million. This means significant cuts to small craft and harbours, the science branch and the Coast Guard, all divisions currently in dire need of funding.
This is inconceivable. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans at present cannot afford to deliver existing programs and further cuts will be devastating.
Putting money into one's pocket with one hand is always popular but taking it out with the other is only an action the government would take. Government giveth and government taketh away at its own risk.
QUESTION 1 & 2
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, before last night the government was able to argue that Canada would not participate in Iraq at this time. Canada was as flexible as France. The Prime Minister and his government last night voted in favour of a much more categoric resolution that absolutely shuts the door on any subsequent United Nations action. Either that vote means nothing or Canada is not now free to respond to Saddam's use of weapons of mass destruction. Which is it?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not our view that the vote last night, which clearly was the opinion of the House, was that we should not be sending troops to be part of this intervention. It would determine all future possibilities for all future time and no Parliament seeks to bind its government in such a way. The government will take responsibility and take the actions that are necessary for the protection of the Canadian people and the establishment of international peace and order as it has always done in the past and will continue to do in the future.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, the minister sucks and blows at the same time. That means that in his view the vote he cast last night means absolutely nothing at all.
I am pleased to hear that he is finally talking about reconstruction after ignoring that for the first several days of this debate. He knows that the United Nations has authority to deal with humanitarian actions, but that it needs a new resolution to deal with reconstruction. Is Canada acting actively to have a new resolution drafted and, more importantly, to build the kind of consensus that would ensure such a resolution would be adopted by the Security Council?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to be fair I appreciate the hon. member's interest in the issue of reconstruction, but it is not correct to say we have taken no interest in this up until now. We have been extremely aware of it. The question is, how does one act reasonably and does one act in a way that is going to make a positive contribution to this issue?
The Prime Minister made it clear that before the intervention took place talk of reconstruction might have caused other political issues to arise. That is now there. We will do our part. We are acting at the United Nations. We agree with the members of the House that this would be best managed through a United Nations process and we will actively pursue that agenda.
QUESTION 3 & 4
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, while an all-party committee from Newfoundland and Labrador was developing a plan to make sure the cod fishery in the region was maintained and enhanced, the federal government was planning also.
Instead of assisting the province, the federal government, without the involvement of DFO, was having HRDC and ACOA make plans to address the fallout of another fishery closure through EI extensions and make work programs.
Why did the government go behind everybody's back and pull the rug out from under its own fisheries minister and the all-party committee in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speakers, perhaps the member should go back and talk to the government of his province. It would indicate to him that in discussions with the provincial government it was agreed that we would get together federally and provincially to see what the impact of potential closures would be and to see what kind of measures we could take at the federal level and at the provincial level to assist those communities in the event of such an action.
* * *
[Français]
L'économie
M. Peter MacKay (Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough, PC): Monsieur le Président, selon les récentes données de Statistique Canada, les régions périphériques du pays seraient en décroissance majeure aux plans démographique et économique. J'ai constaté moi-même ces problèmes lors de mes récents déplacements à travers le Canada, au Québec et ailleurs.
En novembre dernier, les jeunes d'Abitibi-Baie-James-Nunavik réclamaient la présence du premier ministre. Va-t-il se rendre en Abitibi-Témiscamingue afin de constater les problèmes économiques qui touchent cette région?
L'hon. Allan Rock (ministre de l'Industrie, Lib.): Monsieur le Président, nous sommes très fiers de notre programme de développement économique régional, pas seulement au Québec, mais ailleurs au Canada. Nous travaillons fortement avec les membres du caucus et avec les gouvernements provinciaux pour faire en sorte que les opportunités économiques soient distribuées au Canada d'une façon égale et juste.
QUESTION 5
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr. Speaker, international events have overshadowed some deadly events in Canada, and I am speaking of the deadly pneumonia strain SARS. The transmission of this unknown pathogen has many Canadians concerned.
What is the minister doing? Has she met with her provincial counterparts in terms of a strategy? Specifically, what is her department doing to reassure Canadians that everything will be okay?
[Français]
M. Jeannot Castonguay (secrétaire parlementaire de la ministre de la Santé, Lib.): Monsieur le Président, je remercie ce cher collègue de sa question. Vous savez qu'à l'heure actuelle, personne ne sait vraiment quel est le virus. On suspecte, en fait, que c'est un virus-qu'on appelle un polymixovirus-, qui serait de cette grande famille dans laquelle il aurait des cousins tels que les virus de la rougeole et les virus du parainfluenza.
Maintenant, que fait-on présentement? Au Canada, on sait que ce n'est pas une menace comme telle, parce que c'est un virus qui, selon l'information qu'on a aujourd'hui, viendrait de Hong Kong. Il y aurait quelques cas qui nous arrivent de là.
Il faut donc s'assurer que, lorsque des gens nous arrivent de Hong Kong, on les surveille de très près. C'est ce qu'on fait présentement et à l'aéroport Pearson et à l'aéroport de Vancouver.
Évidemment, c'est très intéressant...
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 