Pierre Pettigrew

[Softwood Lumber, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, any potential interim agreement that we might contemplate at this time would not be at all like the one signed in 1996. If it were, we would inevitably find ourselves five years down the road not knowing where we were headed.

We have negotiated forestry policy interpretation bulletins with the Government of the United States. The Government of Quebec has made a remarkable contribution as well. I hope these bulletins will make it possible for the provinces to be able to put in place forestry programs and systems, recognized by the U.S. Trade Department, that will give them full access to free trade in the U.S. market.

[Softwood Lumber, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the opportunity afforded me by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to clarify our government's position on softwood lumber, which has always been an unconditional preference for total free trade in the U.S. market.

This, we feel, is of great importance to Canadian producers, and we absolutely want to see the same rules of free trade apply to softwood lumber that apply to the rest of the Canadian economy.

[Agriculture, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the official opposition for the very pertinent question. We have already been working very closely on this issue with the Canadian industry.

I understand that we actually import from three countries at this time: Uruguay, Argentina and New Zealand. They are special products and we are in close touch with the industry to ensure that we do what is in the best interests of our industry at this time.

[Question No. 180, May 16th, 2003]

For a breakdown of Canada-Iraq trade for the last five years, the information is as follows:

In the previous five years there have been approximately 24 Canadian companies/organizations that have exported products to Iraq. Due to privacy laws the government is not in a position to release the names of these companies without their signed permission. The breakdown of companies is as follows:

18 oil and gas companies/equipment suppliers

4 trading houses

1 medical equipment supplier

1 wheat exporter

The following company has provided the government with written permission to release its name:

Group Marketing Co-Ordinates (1994) Ltd.

Source of Data: Statistics Canada as cited in World Trade Atlas

Source of Data: Statistics Canada as cited in World Trade Atlas

[Agriculture, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me to be very clear about what Canada is seeking. It is not what the hon. member has said. What Canada wants is very clear, and that is for the European Union to enforce its own laws on authorization of GMOs; we want the European mechanisms to allow approval or rejection of applications based on scientific evaluation establishing the safety of the products for humans, animals and the environment. We simply want them to enforce their own laws.

[Softwood Lumber, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague and I can say that we have absolutely no intention of going in the direction of what the American producers have proposed in the last few days. It is a no go as far as we are concerned. It is absolutely not the sort of solution that we are seeking with the Americans and that will benefit our Canadian softwood lumber producers.

[Genetically Modified Organisms, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this could not be further from the truth. What we want is for science to be respected. Europe was responsible for bringing humankind into the modern age, some 350 years ago. With the modern age comes belief in progress, and progress is based on science. That is precisely the view of Canada. The French Academy and the UK Royal Society have taken exactly the same approach as the Canadian government.

[Genetically Modified Organisms, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, what we want to see happen in asking the European Union to lift its moratorium is for it to enforce its own laws. We want Canadian products to be let in. Europe can take whatever measures it wants, but it must comply with its own legislation. That is the aim of our consultations.

As far as scientific issues are concerned, the UK Royal Society and the French Academy of Sciences have reached conclusions diametrically opposed to what the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie has just stated in this House.

[Softwood Lumber, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, two and a half years ago we adopted a two-part strategy that, in my opinion, has served our country well. For the first time, we have not grovelled before the Americans and there is hope that this issue will be settled in the long term.

I would point out to our hon. friends in the Bloc that even at the time, their head office—which got 33% of the vote in the recent election—supported us in this strategy. I understand that they feel a bit freer now, since the head office is disappearing from the map. But their own party approved the strategy of taking a two—

[Softwood Lumber, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should ask the members of the Bloc Quebecois to answer their own questions. They seem more interested in their own rhetoric, whereas we on this side of the House are truly interested in settling the softwood lumber dispute.