John Reynolds

[National Defence, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, joint task force 2 must be accountable to parliament, not treated as a secret army. On February 4 the minister said in the House:

There is a frequent flow of information that goes to the PCO, the PMO and foreign affairs...The one exception to be made to that is the JTF2...That just comes to me.

Today we learned that the Privy Council Office has been frequently briefed on joint task force operations in the past.

Has the Minister of National Defence changed briefing procedures on the JTF2 to exclude the PCO and other civilian agencies?

[Foreign Affairs, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that it was hypothetical, which I think is his new word when he does not know the answer.

There was no broad international consensus in support of strikes against Saddam Hussein in 1998 but Canada stood with its allies regardless of the hue and cry from the left. It is not doing that today.

Again, to quote what the Prime Minister said in 1998:

Make no mistake, Saddam’s behaviour to date indicates that he will not honour diplomatic solutions so long as they are not accompanied by a threat of intervention...Canada cannot stand on the sidelines in such a moment.

Will Canada today be counted with our American allies and go side by side with whatever they do in Iraq?

[Foreign Affairs, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that sounds like a hypothetical answer.

I want to quote what the Prime Minister said about Iraq dictator, Saddam Hussein, in the House in 1998. He said:

We can conclude from his past actions...that if we do not intervene, if we do not stand up to him, our inaction will encourage him to commit other atrocities....

In 1998 Canada was one of only a few countries supporting American and British strikes against Iraq. Why is this not the government's view today?

[Foreign Affairs, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government's position on Iraq is more confusing each day.

First the Prime Minister said that Canada would not support military action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Yesterday he said that military action against Iraq was completely hypothetical. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that he was open to all options.

What exactly is our government's position on Iraq and the war against terrorism?

[The Economy, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think either of the two answers would sell them any memberships in Ontario.

Not only have we fallen behind the United States in productivity, we are falling behind Mexico in investment. Industry Canada admits that when it comes to attracting foreign investment in NAFTA, and I quote out of the Industry Canada document, Canada is ranked third in a three horse race.

Will the Minister of Finance tell us, if the fundamentals are so sound, why are we falling behind Mexico in both our currency and in our foreign investment?

[The Economy, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, was that a yes or no?

In the Liberal leadership race the Minister of Finance may have stacked the deck. We in the official opposition want to give the Minister of Industry an equal opportunity.

Does the Minister of Industry stand by the findings of his innovation paper “that under this Minister of Finance and the two previous ministers of industry, Canada's productivity and standard of living has been falling behind the United States”?

[The Economy, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, for years the Minister of Finance has been saying that the fundamentals of the Canadian economy are sound but last week cracks began showing in cabinet solidarity and not just over Liberal membership rules.

The Minister of Industry admits “Our quality of life has been declining over the past 20 years in comparison with the United States” and that this gap is almost entirely due to our lower level of productivity.

Will the Minister of Finance finally admit that Canada's productivity has fallen behind under his watch?

[Softwood Lumber, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is time to get tough. We have been getting the same answers from him for months now. If a long term solution is not found by March 21, thousands of workers may be laid off, mills may be shut down and communities will be devastated. It does not look like the government has a serious plan. We have been getting the same answers month after month after month.

What contingency plans are in place to support our companies and laid off workers if the countervailing duties are reapplied?

[Softwood Lumber, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the same answer from the minister when Governor Racicot was appointed. Forestry workers do not have time to waste. The minister admits we cannot stop the clock. If this is not settled before March 21 then we may be facing a countervailing duty that will cripple our industry and perhaps kill it.

Does the minister have any assurances from Governor Racicot that the U.S. will table a concrete, realistic counterproposal before the March 21 deadline?

[Softwood Lumber, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that negotiations had resumed and that we were making progress on softwood lumber, but the trade minister admitted that all he got was a phone call from the U.S. with no counteroffer, no timeline, just no counteroffers at all. If that is progress I would hate to see a deadlock.

The new talks seem to be more about political face saving than actually getting a deal. What assurances could the minister give the House that the U.S. is acting in good faith and will put a genuine counteroffer on the table?