House of Commons Hansard #141 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was industry.

Topics

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

The Speaker

I would urge all hon. members to listen to the pleas of the Prime Minister so we can hear the question. The Leader of the Opposition wants to ask his question and now we will hear the Leader of the Opposition and his question.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to put the question again. Did the Prime Minister use the visit of the U.S. Secretary of State to inform her, finally, of our government's opposition to environmentally dangerous traffic through Head Harbour, New Brunswick?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard
Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the government today, through the Minister of the Environment, had extensive discussions with the United States on a wide range of environmental issues, pointing out very clearly that we share a continent and that we have a responsibility to our respective populations to ensure that the environment of North America is protected and is as clean as it possibly can be.

Public Safety
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Central Nova, NS

More dithering confusion, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday during Toronto rush hour traffic, another gunfight erupted. That is the third shootout in as many days, 40 since July. The Prime Minister cynically blames the Americans and links it to guns flowing across the border, yet less than two months ago the Deputy Prime Minister said there was no evidence of increased gun smuggling and that blaming the Americans is “simplistic”.

Gun battles are erupting almost daily and the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister cannot shoot straight. Can the Prime Minister explain why he blatantly contradicts his public safety minister? Is it predictable pre-election posturing? Is it Liberal anti-Americanism? Or did he just read another poll?

Public Safety
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Edmonton Centre
Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and I last evening had the opportunity to discuss the shared challenge of illegal guns with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. In fact, we had a very constructive discussion around the fact that it is a shared challenge. We are working together, but there is more that we need to do together. On all sides we have reconfirmed our commitment to do that work together.

Softwood Lumber
Oral Questions

October 25th, 2005 / 2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier, QC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of International Trade was not very clear in his response to the Bloc Québécois' questions on Canada's softwood lumber strategy. He said there was no question of negotiating what had already been determined in the NAFTA tribunal ruling, but he also said that a long term and durable agreement had to be negotiated.

Can the Prime Minister confirm to us that the long term agreement he referred to merely means a total return to free trade for softwood lumber?

Softwood Lumber
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard
Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Minister of International Trade is absolutely correct in saying we have no intention whatsoever of negotiating what we have already won. We will keep what we have gained.

As for the negotiations on other NAFTA-related matters, we will certainly be insisting on fair and equitable free trade.

Softwood Lumber
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade was not talking about other matters, but about softwood lumber. If they want a total return to free trade, we need to point out that the federal government has been pressuring the provinces and the industry for the past two years to agree to a watered-down agreement, one that has been turned down by both the provinces and the industry.

Are we to understand that the long term agreement the Prime Minister refers to will not jeopardize the NAFTA rulings in any way?

Softwood Lumber
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard
Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the party opposite is making a fundamental mistake. We have never pressured any province whatsoever to negotiate a watered-down agreement.

Moreover, it is the Government of Canada that has insisted from the start, and continues to insist, that the Americans accept the victories we have won. We have no intention whatsoever of reaching some meaningless agreement just because someone does not accept the dispute resolution mechanisms.

Softwood Lumber
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, in connection with the unjustified duties paid by softwood lumber exporters, yesterday in the House the Deputy Prime Minister divided Canada's claim in two parts: first, $3.5 billion on which a final ruling has already been made, and another $1.5 billion on which a final ruling is apparently yet to come.

Why would the federal government divide the total amount in two when a ruling by NAFTA's highest tribunal on August 10 confirmed that the U.S. softwood lumber industry has not been adversely affected, thereby presumably freeing up the $5 billion being unfairly retained at the U.S. border?

Softwood Lumber
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard
Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, what the Deputy Prime Minister said is that we insist that the Americans accept and recognize NAFTA rules. She described them. We continue to insist that the Americans accept the NAFTA rules and deadline as negotiated 15 years ago.

Softwood Lumber
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, the question was asked in order to find out why we are now talking about $3.5 billion and not the total amount of $5 billion.

How can the federal government justify its desire to negotiate on softwood lumber with our American neighbours again—this has been said many times—when there was a ruling, I will remind you, on August 10?

Will the government admit that court rulings are not negotiated, they are implemented?

Softwood Lumber
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Willowdale
Ontario

Liberal

Jim Peterson Minister of International Trade

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and all of us have always said that NAFTA should be respected and that all the deposits should be given back to Canadians.

Softwood Lumber
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton Toronto—Danforth, ON

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

He has already spoken with President Bush and Secretary of State Rice. However, the softwood lumber issue has in no way been resolved. His empty words have not been heard, and the industry is still waiting for assistance that is not forthcoming. The Prime Minister said that we have already won. What have we won? President Bush still has the $5 billion.

It is time to set a deadline. Does the Prime Minister not agree?

Softwood Lumber
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Willowdale
Ontario

Liberal

Jim Peterson Minister of International Trade

Mr. Speaker, obviously, we have won this dispute. That is why we will do our utmost to ensure that the NAFTA provisions are enforced; we will also continue to bring this dispute before American tribunals; and we will also begin to take retaliatory measures.

We have already made representations to the President and other members of Congress. That is why we are seeking other markets for our softwood lumber.