House of Commons Hansard #23 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, with this ridiculous statement about the Kyoto protocol, is the government not revealing its intention to parrot the Bush government's position by introducing a proposal that puts aside the Kyoto protocol, sets no clear targets, has no clear timetable and relies on the goodwill of major industrial polluters?
Mark Warawa ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the environment minister stated that each country differs in its development, emissions, adaptation needs and economies, but we must find ways to effectively tap all of the opportunities that exist.
The minister recognizes the diversities of circumstances and encourages countries to work together to shape the future of climate change.
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Speaker, on October 25, the Bloc Québécois had a unanimous motion passed in this House condemning the American initiative of making the use of passports at border crossings mandatory. The Government of Quebec took up the idea and is now part of a common front with Vermont, five other American states and four Canadian provinces.
Rather than blindly following the position of the American administration, what is the federal government waiting for to support the initiative put forward by Quebec and Vermont, and to ask the United States to abandon this idea, which is as costly in economic terms as it is useless in terms of security?
Stockwell Day ConservativeMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, thanks to our Prime Minister, this file is now one of our government’s priorities. At the meeting in Cancún, it was our Prime Minister who said it was very important to find a solution. At present, the provincial premiers, governors and other officials agree with us in saying that finding a solution is a priority. We find Mr. Charest’s actions and words very encouraging.
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is not the impression we have received from the Prime Minister’s messages since the meeting in Cancún.
Really, can the Prime Minister’s refusal to add his voice to those of Quebec and the New England states not be explained rather by the fact that his primary concern is much more to please President Bush than to defend the interests of Quebec?
Stockwell Day ConservativeMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that it is our Prime Minister who told the President of the United States it was important to find a solution. It was one of our Prime Minister’s priorities. He was very clear.
Because of his position, many governors, members of Parliament and provincial premiers now also share this concern. We are going to continue to work together.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, the government's made in U.S.A. softwood lumber deal leaves provinces out in the cold. If finalized, the deal means that Canadian industry will face permanent restrictions on access to the U.S. market, and the Prime Minister will reward the U.S. lumber coalition with over a half a billion Canadian dollars to continue its bullying tactics.
Now the provinces and the industry are being warned that unless they sign on to this deal, there will be no loan guarantees and no support for their industry. Why are the trade minister and the Prime Minister bullying Canadian provinces and Canadian industries to sign on to a bad deal?
David Emerson ConservativeMinister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber framework agreement is actually a very good deal for Canada, it is a very good deal for the softwood lumber industry and it is good for every region of Canada, whether it is Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the west or British Columbia.
It is a good deal and it will bring security, investment and a rejuvenation of the softwood lumber industry in Canada.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the details will prove the opposite.
The government is showing flagrant contempt for this industry in difficulty by insisting that it is this supposed agreement or nothing.
The softwood lumber agreement even gives the United States a veto over our provincial forest management practices. Imagine: our industry will determine that we have needs, and the White House will decide on the solutions.
This agreement deserves to be stamped “Made in U.S.A.”
Why is the government handing over Canadian sovereignty?
David Emerson ConservativeMinister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
Mr. Speaker, another flight of partisan rhetoric.
For the last 20 years we have been in a world where United States protectionists have been attacking provincial governments' forest management policies. The whole softwood lumber dispute has been about protectionists attacking provincial policies here in Canada.
This agreement creates a framework in which those policies are secure and where we do not have to worry about countervailing and anti-dumping duties. We have more sovereignty coming out of this agreement than we have ever had before.
Blair Wilson Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Mr. Speaker, contrary to the minister, we all know the softwood lumber agreement is not a good deal for Canada. First the Prime Minister forces Canadians to surrender more than $1 billion to the U.S., including $500 million to the powerful American lobby, and now we learn that the forest industry representatives are fearful of the so-called anti-circumvention clause that will impinge upon Canadian sovereignty.
Forty per cent of the industry says that it got shafted and the rest are being muzzled with thinly veiled threats. When will the government stand up for Canadian lumber and admit that it got swindled by this made in U.S.A. softwood deal?
David Emerson ConservativeMinister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must have been out of the country for the last 20 years because what we have seen for 20 years is U.S. protectionists' unfair trade measures aiming their guns at Canadian provincial government policy. This agreement creates a framework of certainty and stability, and our policies will be safe from any attacks of that nature going forward.
Blair Wilson Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will probably be out of his riding for the next 20 years.
Canadians' livelihoods are at stake here. They want straight and honest answers and the government's capitulation here is simply not good enough. It is not good enough for the Canadian lumber industry. It is not good enough for Canadian workers and it is sure not good enough for British Columbians.
When will the government stop working for Americans and start working for Canadians?
David Emerson ConservativeMinister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should get out of West Vancouver for awhile and get up into the communities that depend on the softwood lumber industry. He should go to Fort St. James, Fort St. John, Prince George and Cranbrook and find out what kind of a future those people feel they will have if we do not solve this softwood lumber dispute. We have now solved it and those communities will return to stability and economic prosperity.
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Speaker, Canadian families have waited for too long to have their foreign born adopted children receive citizenship. Immigration lawyer, Warren Creates, said, “Why the Liberals never got to this is beyond me. They never put it as a priority. It is great to see that the Conservative government is making changes like this that are going to help people's lives”.
Could the immigration minister tell us when the government will act to extend Canadian citizenship to foreign born children adopted by Canadians?
Monte Solberg ConservativeMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, last year, the old government said that extending citizenship to foreign born children would lead to abuse and then it had a deathbed conversion on the eve of an election and changed its mind.
We are not going to talk about this. We are acting on this. I am proud to announce that I will be introducing legislation this afternoon to right this wrong and we will extend citizenship to foreign born children.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are learning more about the bad deal the government signed with the U.S. in its softwood surrender. Now we find out that each time a provincial government wants to make a change in its forestry policies, it will have to ask Washington for a permission slip. No wonder it had to bully the industry into accepting this bad deal.
The softwood sellout has given George Bush $1 billion for illegal trade practices and surrendered Canadian sovereignty.
Could the minister explain why he sold out Canadians in his softwood surrender?
David Emerson ConservativeMinister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
Mr. Speaker, more partisan rhetoric and more class war. Let us just have a good go at it here. Let us ignore the real needs of the softwood lumber industry. Let us forget about the fact that this agreement will create stability and certainty and it will create a basis on which the industry can grow and jobs can be created going forward. We will have a more competitive Canadian and North American industry going forward. That is good for Canada.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, the fact is the minister has not been seen in his riding in three months. He knows nothing about the needs of B.C. softwood communities. We know the minister has a history of confusion about his loyalties, but he is supposed to be representing softwood communities in B.C. and across Canada.
I cannot imagine why, after NAFTA ruled in our favour, the government still found it necessary to surrender Canadian control.
Could the minister explain why he sold out Canadian sovereignty by forcing Canadian forestry practices to be made in the U.S.A.?
David Emerson ConservativeMinister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
Mr. Speaker, provincial stumpage and forest management policies are protected under this agreement. They are protected by that very anti-circumvention clause which prevents American protectionists from launching new, aggressive and spurious anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases.
This agreement creates a logical orderly framework in which we can all build the industry going forward. It protects our policies. It does not destroy them.
Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has a keen desire to cozy up to American pollsters and strategists. The Prime Minister seems to forget that he needs to stand up for Canadians.
Governors and premiers are urging the U.S. Congress to delay implementation of any policy that would require people crossing the border to have a passport. The Prime Minister has, instead, muzzled his ministers and succumbed to a made-in-the-U.S.A. policy.
Will the government make a commitment to find a real solution instead of surrendering to the U.S.A. and help Canadian business and the Canadian tourism industry?
Stockwell Day ConservativeMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, at the meeting in Cancun that took place some time ago, it was our Prime Minister who made this issue a priority. He said that it was not acceptable that there could be a policy coming out of the United States which could have a negative effect on Canada and on Canadian business.
Since then, there have been agreements for officials to come together to see what kind of alternative documents would be acceptable. Other premiers are now engaged, as are cross-border chambers of commerce. Members of our caucus are also engaged with members of the Congress.
If the member wants to talk about surrender, she should know that her party did nothing about this for two years. Our Prime Minister has made it a priority.
Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON
Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to believe that it is a priority because the Conservatives cannot count past five. Those are empty words and empty promises because they have no plan. If they had a plan they would have had action on this important issue.
Even the Quebec premier has taken action. The governor of Rhode Island has said that we should not be thickening the border. The governor of Vermont has said that new regulations would make daily life much more difficult.
Why are the premiers and the American leaders standing up for their citizens while the Conservative government continues to sleep on the job?
Stockwell Day ConservativeMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons, and perhaps the main reason, that people are catching on to what has been happening here is the fact the U.S. Congress, over two years ago, brought out a law that could have a negative effect on Canadians going across the border into the United States. This Prime Minister has made it a priority. We have put our working plans on the table.
If the member opposite would care to watch and see, she would see that plans are in place to change this for the betterment of Canada.
Again, it was the Prime Minister who did this. We asked for action for two years from the Liberals and we got nothing. Now we have action.
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Speaker, the people in the border regions, such as those in my riding, know that the free circulation of goods and persons between Canada and the United States is essential.
At the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers, the premiers of New Brunswick, Quebec and other provinces, as well as the governors of the six New England states, unanimously asked Congress to delay the coming into force of the legislation that would compel all citizens of both countries to present a passport at the border.
Why is this government then so determined to kneel before the American administration?