Belinda Stronach

[Canada Elections Act, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague, the hon. member for Ajax--Pickering, for taking the initiative and recognizing what young people can contribute to the public process. I will be fully supporting this initiative.

The hon. member mentioned a poll that was conducted among 1,000 young people between the ages of 14 and 17 at the end of November by Professor André Turcotte from Mass Communication at Carleton University. When 1,000 young people were asked, three out of four said they would exercise their right to vote.

The hon. member has had a chance to speak to many students at universities and high schools. I wonder if he could tell us what the response has been. Is it similar to the poll or has he experienced otherwise?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister suggested surprise when President Bush pursued missile defence. Either the Prime Minister was playing a little coy or he was ill-prepared for this visit.

After waiting four years, the government was not ready to deliver the goods on issues that matter to Canadians. There was nothing on softwood, nothing on BSE and we remain as vulnerable as ever on our border.

Will the Prime Minister now make this a priority and send his ministers to build those relationships in Congress to get the border open?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, December 2nd, 2004]

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

We are glad that the U.S. President finally came to Canada, but diplomacy by photo op will not get the job done, nor can our talented diplomats alone.

By my recollection, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has only been on one bilateral visit to the United States, last summer. The Minister of International Trade has not even been to Washington, nor has the Minister of Agriculture to deal specifically with the BSE crisis.

Will the Prime Minister finally make up for 10 lost years and order a strategic plan to make the relationship with the United States a political priority?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the self-congratulatory tone from the government is deafening, but hollow. There is nothing to show Canadians but promises to have bureaucrats look at issues and report. There is no movement on the issues that matter to Canadian business and workers. There is nothing on softwood and more easy words about looking at the Windsor-Detroit border crossing. That is because the government still puts no strategic political priority on the relationship with the United States. It failed to deliver the goods where it counts.

Why was the government so ill-prepared for this critical visit?

[Agriculture, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Before the President's visit, the minister teased Canadian farmers and their families with the promise of a fixed date for the border to reopen. Two days ago I asked the minister in this House whether he would apologize to Canadians if there was no such surprise. It did not happen. This devastated industry remains locked in a bureaucratic process that could take longer than six months and cost this industry another $2 billion.

In the face of this great failure, will the minister now apologize to Canadians for misleading them about what to expect?

[Softwood Lumber, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. President is making his first official visit to Canada only after four years in office. This is nothing for the government to crow about.

On the Byrd amendment, consulting Canadian business will not help to repeal it. Had the Liberal government implemented a high level political strategy for the U.S. a long time ago, we might not even be facing Byrd.

The European Union and six other countries are in the same boat with us on Byrd. Could the Minister of International Trade tell Canadian softwood producers why he is not taking the lead in organizing ministers from these other like-minded countries to push as a group for the repeal of Byrd?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade. Yesterday at the standing committee the Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested that he did not need face time in Washington to build that critical relationship. He actually suggested that some dinners at international meetings, some telephone calls and BlackBerry messages would suffice.

The BSE border closure has cost Canadian industries $5 billion, and almost $4 billion in softwood money lies threatened by the Byrd amendment. Obviously BlackBerry messages are not good enough. Beyond the President's visit today, what are the minister's plans to build a more productive political relationship with the U.S.?

[Agriculture, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. We will hear many fancy words tomorrow from the Prime Minister and his ministers, but the reality is that the U.S. President is making his first visit to Canada, its largest trading partner, at the end of his term. There is no better proof of Liberal failure to build this critical relationship.

Will the Prime Minister apologize to Canadian livestock producers, dairy farmers, their families and communities for taking 18 months of their suffering to get the President's attention to BSE?

[Agriculture, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs promised Canadians on national television to expect a happy surprise tomorrow when the President of the United States will announce a fixed date for reopening the border to Canadian cattle. Yet at the same time, officials from his own government were downplaying expectations. Canadian ranchers, feedlot operators, dairy producers, truckers and their families will not appreciate game playing from this government.

If there is no announcement of a fixed date for the opening of the border, will the minister himself apologize to Canadians for irresponsible management of the Canada-U.S. relations file?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday marked the 18 month anniversary of the BSE border closure, a direct result of this Liberal government's mismanagement of the critical trading relationship with the United States.

To mark that anniversary, the Prime Minister predicted that the border could remain closed for months to come despite the assurance from the U.S. president that the White House will begin to consider the process of reopening our border.

This is finally a piece of welcome news to the thousands of Canadians for whom the BSE crisis has been a nightmare, but it took 18 months to get the president to agree to a specific action because of the poor relationships of both the Prime Minister and his predecessor.

Where is the comprehensive and strategic action plan for a sophisticated political relationship with our largest trading partner, on which Canada's prosperity rests so heavily? Why has the government not been working for the past 10 years to develop the next generation of institutions and wide-reaching political relationships across the United States that would help inoculate against these kinds of border crises?

Canada's national interests demand and deserve better.