moved:
That this House support the government's will in its efforts to restore free trade agreement rules for lumber and inform the United States that it rejects any obstacle to that free trade process.
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 33% of the vote.
Supply March 15th, 2001
moved:
That this House support the government's will in its efforts to restore free trade agreement rules for lumber and inform the United States that it rejects any obstacle to that free trade process.
Lumber March 14th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, more specifically, can the Prime Minister assure us that, since the United States are wrong on the lumber issue, the Canadian position remains and will remain a return to free trade in that area, as provided under NAFTA, and that no other issue should be tied to the lumber issue?
Lumber March 14th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, after the contradictory statements made in recent weeks by the Minister for International Trade, who suggested that Canada's position on the lumber issue might change, we are now learning that the Prime Minister met with the U.S. vice-president to discuss the lumber issue and a possible North American energy pact.
Could the Prime Minister guarantee that he never attempted to link the energy pact to the lumber issue in his discussions with the Americans?
Lumber March 12th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, April 1 will see either a transition to free trade or free trade. The government must tell us what its intentions are.
What is very worrisome is that just today, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade issued a communiqué saying that the government is still evaluating a broad range of solutions and ideas in connection with the softwood lumber dispute.
With just three weeks to go until the agreement terminates, how does the government propose to avoid a trade war with the Americans over softwood lumber?
Lumber March 12th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has just told us that everyone in Canada wanted to see a return to free trade in the softwood lumber industry, which is true.
How does this square with his statement in the House a few weeks ago to the effect that he was contemplating transitional measures before the application of free trade, before the end of the agreement on March 31?
How does this square with the parliamentary secretary's statement about a long term objective in connection with free trade? Are all these muddled statements not just a way of getting Canadians ready for the idea of throwing in the towel?
Free Trade Area Of The Americas March 1st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, all the premiers, including Quebec's, have demanded a formal agreement from the government on the role of the provinces in the negotiations.
Even the current Minister of Industry, while he was the Premier of Newfoundland, shared this opinion.
Is it not true that all the provinces are demanding they be truly involved and not just be given short briefing sessions as is currently the case?
Free Trade Area Of The Americas March 1st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the fact that we used one system for the free trade agreement with the United States or Mexico does not mean that the system was a good one.
Discussions prior to negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas have got underway very badly, because the Government of Quebec, among others, is strongly critical of the fact that the consultations are nothing more than briefings, too short to be effective.
How can the government claim to be speaking on behalf of us all? How can it intimate that the agreement to be negotiated will be implemented by the provinces, since a number of its clauses will inevitably refer to exclusive jurisdictions of the provinces in which the federal government has absolutely no business?
Free Trade Area Of The Americas February 28th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the world is evolving but the Canadian federation has a very hard time doing the same, as the parliamentary secretary reminded us.
In addition to debating and reviewing treaties signed by their governments, British and Australian parliaments have the power to approve or reject these treaties, which is far from being the case in Canada. The government underlined that by rejecting the motion by the Bloc Quebecois.
Why is what is good for other parliamentary democracies not good for Canada? Is the Prime Minister afraid of transparency and democracy to the point of behaving in such a way?
Free Trade Area Of The Americas February 28th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to transparency and consultation of parliamentarians regarding international treaties, Canada comes pretty close to dead last. Briefings will not correct the situation.
In the United Kingdom and Australia, governments are required to table treaties before their parliaments, where they are debated before being ratified.
How can the Prime Minister justify that, contrary to their counterparts from other countries, parliamentarians in this House are not entitled to this minimum of respect? How can the government claim to be transparent when its actions have nothing to do with transparency?
Standing Orders February 27th, 2001
It will not be difficult.