House of Commons Hansard #100 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was tax.

Topics

Softwood Lumber
Oral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis
Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew Minister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, the objective of our government is precisely that: to obtain resolution, but a lasting resolution. We are very much aware that winning our case before the courts is extremely advantageous to us, which is why we are before the courts. This strengthens our negotiating position with the United States.

However, what we have obtained with the interpretation bulletins to be released shortly by the American Department of Commerce is precisely to have an advance indication of which forestry practices are problematic to them, so that we can see the problem coming and not suddenly meet it head on, as we do every time.

Softwood Lumber
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the federal government has been very passive in the face of the problems being experienced by the softwood lumber workers and the industry itself.

What justification can there be for its neglecting to put in place a true support program for the softwood lumber program, which would have had the effect of making things easier as we await the WTO and NAFTA decisions, instead of having to live through the present disaster?

Softwood Lumber
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Vancouver South—Burnaby
B.C.

Liberal

Herb Dhaliwal Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong when he says we have been passive. In fact we have not been passive. The leader of the Bloc says we have not done anything. There is $356 million, a comprehensive plan to deal with finding new markets, to doing research and development, to do community adjustment, to make sure we help in terms of employment training. That is what we have been doing, and we will continue to monitor the situation. The hon. member is wrong when he says we have been passive. We have been active. We have been out there supporting workers and supporting the industry.

The Economy
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

While the Liberals have no problem helping inns in Shawinigan, a truck plant in Chatham is set to close and move to Mexico. Thousands of jobs are at stake. The union and the company have reached an agreement to save these jobs, but they need the minister to wake up and take action.

What specifics can he offer to this community today to save these jobs, or should we just add Navistar to the long list of the minister's failures? What action will he take and will he make a commitment to those workers to save these jobs?

The Economy
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Etobicoke Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, we know about this situation, not by any efforts of the NDP, but because the member for Chatham--Kent Essex has been working on it for the last two years. It is because of his hard work that progress is being made.

As always, the Government of Canada stands by ready to make a constructive contribution. We are all making an effort to keep jobs in Canada, and more particularly in Chatham. I might add that this is a process to which the NDP has made no constructive contributions.

The Economy
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, bringing the member for Chatham--Kent Essex to the front row for one day is not good enough. What we need is action. There are two months to go to take action. Within the last year we have seen the company and the union come together after a traumatic strike.

What we want to know is whether the minister will get off his ass and do something this time?

The Economy
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

The Economy
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

The Speaker

I could not hear. The hon. Minister of Industry.

The Economy
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Etobicoke Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, apparently it is the policy of the NDP to use volume and rudeness to try to get somewhere with a complex situation. Neither of those tactics will help.

What will help is the kind of devotion and attention that the member for Chatham--Kent Essex has put into this issue over the last two years. We are working with him and the community as we always do. We will continue to work to produce positive results and not just noise and rudeness.

Auberge Grand-Mère
Oral Question Period

May 12th, 2003 / 2:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

In a letter dated March 26, 2001, the Prime Minister's trustee, Deborah Weinstein, said the Prime Minister's private company received $40,000 in 1997 as partial payment for his golf club shares. An RCMP investigator examined the books and records of the Prime Minister's private company, J&AC Consultants. The investigator testified that he saw no record of that payment. He testified that “there was no outside revenue to the company”.

Where did the $40,000 go? If it was paid to the Prime Minister's private company, why is it not on its books?

Auberge Grand-Mère
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Etobicoke Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, I would have thought for someone as close to retirement as this member is that he would have saved his fishing for some other day.

All the facts of this case have been talked about and have been exposed. These issues have been looked into time and again. There is nothing new raised here. I urge the member to look at the record. The record is clear. The Prime Minister's conduct has been cleared. Responses have been furnished every time questions have been asked.

Auberge Grand-Mère
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP search warrant application for leaked documents included a sworn affidavit by Corporal Roland Gallant that BDC manager France Bergeron said the loan application went through normal stages. The RCMP affidavit did not add Ms. Bergeron's statement that without the Prime Minister's intervention, the loan would never have been approved.

Can the Solicitor General advise whether someone in the RCMP more senior to Corporal Gallant signed off on the search warrant application? How does he explain that highly relevant testimony was omitted from an official RCMP statement to the court?

Auberge Grand-Mère
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Etobicoke Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, the member continues to fish.

The member will recall that in a letter addressed to him in November 2000 the ethics counsellor dealt with the Prime Minister's intervention and made it clear that the Prime Minister's conduct did not violate any rule that pertained. The member is raising issues that have been looked into long since. Facts and questions have been examined in the past. I urge him to consult the record for the answers he seeks.

Fisheries
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

Mr. Speaker, the east coast fishery is only the latest example of how the government's arrogance and indifferent mismanagement has driven provincial governments to demand greater control over their resources. Last week the intergovernmental affairs minister flippantly dismissed Newfoundland and Labrador's concerns with a hurtful and sarcastic comment.

Will the Prime Minister agree to open negotiations with first ministers on joint management of programs that directly affect their resources?

Fisheries
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Saint-Maurice
Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult for the government to have to cut the quota of fishermen because we know they are making their living out of that industry. We have to do that to protect the future of the fisheries. Nobody likes to do that sort of thing, but I think that the federal jurisdiction is well established in the Constitution.

In the past there was some discussion about changing the Constitution on these matters. There was no agreement among the maritime provinces. Members will know that fish swim from one province to another and it would be very difficult to cut the fish in half.