House of Commons Hansard #49 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was aboriginal.

Topics

Iraq
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the acting prime minister. It is about the joint statement of the heads of government of Spain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Poland and the United Kingdom, outlining a common position on Iraq. I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister and his officials have read the statement. Would Canada have signed that statement?

Iraq
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Don Valley East
Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, who has had some experience in this House and who has been through difficult times earlier with the gulf war, should know that we have to be very prudent in what we say and in what we do.

We take this matter very seriously. We believe that the United Nations and its resolution must be respected and we want the inspectors to have time to do their job before we take any action that certainly may lead down a different path.

Iraq
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between prudence and invisibility. On issues of great international import, the government is invisible. Parliamentary rules do not allow me to characterize it otherwise.

The Prime Minister has spoken of his influence on the advice Prime Minister Blair has given to President Bush. The Prime Minister has not been invited to Camp David, where Mr. Blair is going today.

In the interest of ensuring that Canada and this Parliament have the most current information and assessments available, would the Prime Minister invite Mr. Blair to stop over in Ottawa and make himself available for a discussion on Iraq with this Parliament?

Iraq
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Don Valley East
Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, we will take that as a representation from the right hon. member and I am sure that the Prime Minister, who is not here today, will look at Hansard and think about the request that has been made.

Softwood Lumber
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Duncan Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, proposals by the U.S. Congress to double softwood tariffs have taken the Canadian government by complete surprise and the trade minister's response is timid. Canada's single largest trade dispute is submerged in Liberal government indifference and incompetence.

There is no goodwill coming from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Congress or the U.S. lumber lobby. The minister should insist that Canada withdraw from the one-sided softwood talks in Washington now. When will he do that?

Softwood Lumber
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis
Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew Minister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, there are always a lot of similar initiatives before Congress, and this is absolutely not the kind of initiative that will distract us from the very important work that is being done right now. That is being done with the executive, with the United States government. We are working very well with Don Evans and Mr. Aldonas has proposed a very good report. I am telling the member that on that basis there is a dialogue that is being re-established. We have a good case before the WTO and NAFTA and we--

Softwood Lumber
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

Softwood Lumber
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Duncan Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. The U.S. strategy in the current softwood discussions is loaded with hardball tactics, not diplomacy.

Last year the trade minister said there would be no progress with the U.S. Department of Commerce unless countervail and anti-dump tariffs were both addressed, but the talks in Washington only addressed the countervail.

Why is the minister allowing these incomplete talks to continue?

Softwood Lumber
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis
Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew Minister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, I have always made it very clear that any long term policy resolution that Canada is seeking at these talks would have to address the dumping situation as well. I reiterated that to the Secretary of Commerce, Don Evans, last week in Davos. I will do the same thing when I go to Washington next week with an all party delegation precisely to maintain this very solid support for our Canadian industry. That is our objective here.

Privacy Commissioner
Oral Question Period

January 30th, 2003 / 2:30 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Marceau Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Speaker, in his annual report, the Privacy Commissioner reaffirms that Canada is not immune to abuses by the state and points out that the security measures taken in the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001, might constitute an unprecedented attack by the Liberal government on the fundamental right to privacy.

How can the Minister of Justice remain unmoved by the alarm being raised by the Privacy Commissioner, who continues in one annual report after another to speak out against this potential abuse?

Privacy Commissioner
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Outremont
Québec

Liberal

Martin Cauchon Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I have, of course, reviewed the entire privacy commissioner report, which raises a number of points. I believe that the right to privacy is important and fundamental.

On the other hand, there is the matter of protecting Canadian society as a whole in the aftermath of September 11, and even before that date. This is a concern for all governments.

In my opinion, what is important is to seek the proper balance between protecting our society and its values, and protecting people's privacy. As a government, we have succeeded in doing just that for our Canadian society.

Privacy Commissioner
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Marceau Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Speaker, the minister's leader, the Prime Minister, is the one who was the most opposed to the Access to Information Act, and who did everything possible to conceal what he was doing from the public. He appears to also have been the one most in favour of snooping in the private lives of citizens, taking advantage of the chaos ensuing from the events of September 11, 2001.

How can the Minister of Justice justify such a contradiction?

Privacy Commissioner
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Outremont
Québec

Liberal

Martin Cauchon Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a great and democratic country. It is also a country which has established significant social values and cultural elements.

The post September 11 reaction has differed greatly from one country to another. I might add, however, that as far as international conferences are concerned, for example, we in Canada have taken great care to put in place additional measures which, while respecting these fundamental values, and respecting human rights, have at the same time enhanced public safety, and so—

Privacy Commissioner
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member for Fraser Valley.

Softwood Lumber
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Chuck Strahl Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the international trade minister woke up apparently surprised by the news that the Americans are considering doubling the existing tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber.

The minister may know in his heart that Canada-U.S. relations are important, but his inaction on this softwood lumber file and, frankly, the unwillingness of the government to work co-operatively with our American counterparts on a whole host of bilateral issues have sacrificed this industry and put it at long term peril.

Why is it that when it comes to negotiating a fair deal the Canadian government seems so completely out of touch with its important American counterparts?