House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was world.

Last in Parliament March 2008, as Liberal MP for Toronto Centre (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2006, with 52% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Access to Information May 1st, 2006

Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot from the Prime Minister when he was in opposition about the importance of access to information. The Conservative election platform sung the praises of the information commissioner and promised to implement his proposals. That was then. Now the information commissioner tells us that the government's proposals will not strengthen the accountability of government but weaken it.

Will the Prime Minister now admit that his proposals are designed to accomplish the opposite of what he has promised and commit today to implementing meaningful access to information by the government?

Softwood Lumber April 27th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, when we came into the House before the Prime Minister spoke, members will recall that from the NDP benches there was a great attack on the reputation and on the activities of the previous Liberal government. That attack was warmly received by our colleagues opposite in the Conservative Party for reasons we in this party and the Canadian public understand. The Canadian public understands that it was the NDP's betrayal of the possibility of getting so many things done in November that resulted in the Conservative government being elected.

When the leader of the NDP rises in his place in the House today he will no doubt be congratulating the Prime Minister for what he has done because he and his party are responsible for where we are today on this and on other files.

Today we are called upon to rise in our place in this House and comment on the Prime Minister's speech in respect of the deal that he has just achieved. We have not seen the agreement. The Prime Minister is an intelligent and knowledgeable observer of international trade. He will know that these, as in all agreements, the devil is in the details. I have a strong suspicion that there will be a lot more devils in those details than the Prime Minister revealed to this House in his speech today.

It is very hard for us to believe the Prime Minister's words when he says that there is a real improvement as a result of the agreement that he is boasting about in the House today. After all, I watched this deal on television this afternoon and most industry representatives condemned it completely and without reserve.

The Prime Minister told the House today that he received stable and open market access. What we got, what industry got and what Canadians got were several things. We got stable limited access. This is not free and open trade. This is capped and managed trade.

Hidden in his statement, the Prime Minister made it clear that the market access that is guaranteed under the agreement is market access that is guaranteed under present day economic conditions and present day conditions of trade. We know that when we see the details of the agreement we will see draconian measures in the agreement that will punish our industry the minute the conditions in the United States go down and the American industry, which has been sold out through this agreement, will shut Canadian lumber out now because it is not in its interest. That is what we will find out when we get the details of the agreement.

The Prime Minister spoke to us today about the $4 billion of illegal duties that the agreement provides for. Where is the elusive $1 billion that the Prime Minister spoke about in his election campaign? I would like to remind the government of what the Conservative platform provided for. On page 19 of its platform it reads:

A Conservative government will:

Demand that the U.S. government play by the rules on softwood lumber. The U.S. must abide by the NAFTA ruling on softwood lumber, repeal the Byrd Amendment, and return the more than $5 billion in illegal softwood lumber tariffs to Canadian producers.

Today the $5 billion, by the magic of the Prime Minister's words and no doubt with a little help from his finance minister, has become $4 billion. What will happen to the $1 billion? We know very well what will happen to the $1 billion that have been left on the table. We know that under the Byrd amendment that $1 billion will go into the coffers of the American lumber industry which will use that money to continue to harass the Canadian lumber industry the way it has been doing for the last 12 years, with hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees and constant attacks.

Does anybody believe this will put a stop to the aggressive American lumber industry's attacks on the Canadian lumber industry the minute their market share is threatened? I suggest to the House that is a complete pipe dream. The Prime Minister has betrayed what he said when he told the Canadian people, “If the rules are simply ignored, then the very basis of a rules based trading system threatens to come unravelled and the future of all Canadian-American trade relations could probably be affected”.

Obviously illegally collected duties must be returned to the Canadian softwood industry. That is what our treaty and laws demand but that is what the government failed to demand when it entered into this agreement under the pressure of President Bush and the American lumber barons. I think it is most unfortunate.

We have heard that this is a seven year deal capable of being extended. I am not surprised the Americans would be delighted to extend this deal. This is a deal they would be delighted to extend forever and forever, but will our Canadian industry want to see the deal?

What I heard our colleagues from Quebec saying is that they are already afraid that the industry in Quebec will be completely wiped out by this agreement. Everyone who speaks for the workers, the people who work in the plants and the people who depend on this industry, are very concerned about what this agreement means.

When we have a chance, we will study the details. Let us rely on what the people in the industry, who know what is good for them, are saying. Let us not rely on the words of politicians who wanted to put an end to this matter at any cost. That is what has happened today. Canadian industry has been sold out, to put an end to something that was embarrassing the government. That is clear and plain.

The Prime Minister said that today was a good day. He believes so. If I were standing in the United States Congress, if I were standing in the United States trade office and if I were standing in a United States industry meeting I would be saying that , this is not a good day; this is a great day. Unfortunately, it is a great day for American industry, for American politics in trade and it is a disaster for Canada, for free trade and the Canadian industry.

Softwood Lumber April 27th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, it has been said by some that free trade ranks somewhere between going to church and jogging as a virtue that is much talked about but little practised. It is now clear that the Prime Minister has no intention of practising the virtues he talked about.

In September of last year the Prime Minister told us that all duties had to be returned to Canada if the Canada-U.S. trade relationship was to remain fair.

When the Prime Minister does deign to come to this House, will he commit today to ensuring that none of the money collected illegally from Canadian producers winds up in the pockets of American lumber companies?

Softwood Lumber April 27th, 2006

Very well, Mr. Speaker, it will be later. However, only two weeks ago, the Minister of Industry spread concern through the softwood industry by weakening the Canadian position. Now, the Prime Minister is negotiating an agreement that divides the industry, an agreement whose objective seems to be to follow the agenda of President Bush and not the Canadian agenda.

As a result of his minister’s gaffe, does the Prime Minister now have any other choice than to accept the little that the Americans are offering us?

Softwood Lumber April 27th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's celebrated relationship with President Bush so far has given us a collapse in Cancun on the passport issue and now a sellout on softwood.

The provinces and the softwood lumber industry tell us that the Prime Minister is trying to stampede them into a bad deal, a deal at any cost, with a gun to the head of our producers. This is nothing less than abandoning free trade and turning our back on every legal victory Canada has won in this dispute.

Why has the Prime Minister now decided to cut and run on our softwood lumber industry?

National Defence April 26th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I also had the sad honour, privilege and duty to attend at those ceremonies. This is a military ceremony. We have heard from the families of our honoured dead telling us how proud they were to know their country was receiving their sons home. We have heard pleas from family members of our fallen heroes who want to see the ceremony on television. We have heard from military families, Canadians at large and even members of the hon. minister's own caucus telling the Prime Minister that the decision is wrong.

Will the Prime Minister now do the right thing and reverse this highly misguided decision?

National Defence April 26th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House feels deep regret any time one of our soldiers dies in Afghanistan. Yesterday, a ceremony took place in Trenton to mark the return of the remains of our soldiers. With his customary obstinacy, the Prime Minister decided to keep the media off the tarmac, a decision that overshadowed the solemn ceremony.

The Minister of National Defence now tells us that he did not even consult the families. There is still time for the Prime Minister to make the right decision regarding these ceremonies, a decision that will show respect for our soldiers and the Canadian people.

Mr. Prime Minister, are you prepared to change—

National Defence April 25th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, we are speaking here of a military ceremony and the presence of the press to report on the repatriation of our soldiers. This permits the nation as a whole to pay its respect and to mourn its loss. At these events, the press have always respected the grief of the family.

This is an invention on the part of the government. I respectfully ask the Prime Minister to reverse this unfortunate decision, so that all Canadians can participate and pay their respects to our soldiers in a military ceremony.

National Defence April 25th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, we all wish to respect the wishes of the families. We are speaking here--

National Defence April 25th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, today the media are barred from the military ceremonies in Trenton. The presence of the media has never bothered the families.

However, the Prime Minister and many members here in the House believe that the government has ulterior motives and that the true intent is to try to minimize the impact of these events on the public.

There is nothing to hide. Canadians are proud of their soldiers and would like to be able to pay their respects. They would like their government to do so as well.

Does the Prime Minister have the courage to change his mind and to allow all citizens to participate in paying tribute to our fallen soldiers?