Pat O'Brien

[Adverse Drug Reactions, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, at this time Canadians are very much united in grief with the United States and are determined to help bring the criminals of the recent terrible atrocity to justice. In the midst of that kind of outpouring of unity with our American friends, neighbours and relatives, we do realistically find ourselves with some bilateral problems that have to be addressed.

My hon. colleague, the member for Cumberland--Colchester, has been very determined in highlighting these questions and raising these concerns.

Canada is acting on several fronts to try and resolve this unfortunate dispute. As he noted, it rears its ugly head every five years and Canada has to reprove its case. As you know, Mr. Speaker, since you represent a riding with tremendous lumber interests, we reprove the fact that we do not subsidize our softwood lumber, that in fact everything on our side is being done above board.

We call upon our American friends and neighbours to respect the desire for free trade in softwood lumber.

We are acting on several fronts, at the WTO, at NAFTA. As my colleague has mentioned, discussions are going on in Toronto today and over the next couple of days between Canadian and American officials to try and find the root causes of this problem, to find a solution outside litigation. We hope that will be the case.

As my colleague knows, the Prime Minister has personally raised this issue with President Bush. Just before the atrocity in Washington, the Minister for International Trade was there to speak personally with Mr. Zoellick and Mr. Evans. We will continue to move in every possible way to try and resolve this issue as amicably and as quickly as we can.

[International Trade, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in a response to a question, there seems to be a desire on the part of opposition parties to grossly exaggerate the situation.

Canada's cheese industry is much stronger than they would have us believe on the basis of these alarmist comments. The minister said yesterday that if imports are occasionally allowed in excess of the quotas it is because there are specific consumers who need a specific product. That is the reason it has been allowed, and no other.

[Lumber Industry, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if necessary, I can reassure my hon. colleague that the Minister for International Trade obviously speaks for the government on trade matters. As my hon. colleague knows, the minister has championed repeatedly for months now the call for free trade in softwood lumber.

The concern has been whether the stakeholders from coast to coast to coast would continue to adhere to that position. As a result of the excellent meeting the minister was involved in on Wednesday in Ottawa, that consensus remains strong and the minister remains the champion of free trade in softwood lumber.

[Dairy Industry, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as usual the member is given to quite a bit of hyperbole in his comments.

We are talking about less than 1% of domestic cheese production. For the last 20 years there has been absolutely no change in government policy. When there is an increase in excess of the quotas, it is for specific consumers requiring a specific product.

The member has exaggerated the case. I want to tell him that the minister recently raised this issue with Mr. Zoellick in the United States.

[International Trade, May 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let me try again. Maybe, if the member's blood pressure would calm down, she could listen to exactly what I did say. There has been no change in government policy on this matter for the last 20 years. No change.

[International Trade, May 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there has been absolutely no change in government policy on the issue of cheese sticks for the last 20 years.

We are now in active negotiations and discussions. The minister has raised this matter with trade representative Zoellick. We will see further development on it, but there is absolutely no change. This is not some sudden new problem.

[Division No. 104, May 28th, 2001]

If we are, then the minister will certainly be convening that meeting.

As my colleague knows, the minister has raised this issue with U.S. trade representative Zoellick and with secretary of commerce Evans in Quebec City and the Prime Minister has raised this personally with President Bush. We are looking for the kind of exemption for Atlantic Canada that existed in years gone by.

The reality is, as my colleague knows, that it is a decision for the American government to make. We very much hope that they will take that step and that the Atlantic provinces will be very happy with that.

As the Speaker knows very well with the riding he represents, this is a national problem which requires a national Canadian solution that is good for all Canadian producers from coast to coast to coast. We ask for a united Canadian position that we can take forward because the facts very clearly support the Canadian industry.

I want to thank my colleague for his question. I hope he will continue to lend his enthusiastic support to the united Canadian position.

[Division No. 104, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first of all let us be clear that the minister and the government share the member's concern for wanting an extension or a new exemption for Atlantic Canada.

The minister is working very diligently toward that end. Of course that is part of a larger solution, which should be free trade for softwood lumber from coast to coast to coast.

I am afraid that my colleague will have to speak with the minister directly vis-à-vis the agenda for such a meeting. I can tell him that for some time now the minister has been holding open the idea of calling the stakeholders together but that there has not been a consensus among the stakeholders themselves that the time was right. If we are at that point this week—

[Canada Marine Act, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible to hear the hon. member raise those points. It boggles the mind that he could be that misinformed about what the government has done. I do not know if he believes that the government has done nothing or if he has just been in rhetorical flight. Let me remind my colleague about what the government has done on behalf of Atlantic Canadians and all Canadians.

First, this matter was raised at the highest levels by the Prime Minister of Canada on several occasions with President Bush. This matter was raised by the Minister for International Trade repeatedly with his U.S. trade counterpart, Bob Zoellick. When we were in Quebec City for the summit, the minister and I both had the opportunity to raise the issue with commerce secretary Evans.

It has been raised on a repeated basis. There have been wide consultations with the industry. The hon. member must surely know that. There have been weekly, sometimes daily, meetings with the stakeholders in Atlantic Canada in particular and throughout the country.

The minister continues to put forward the idea of an envoy, a more sensible way to try to resolve this dispute. There was very little interest apparently from the Americans until recently. Now we are at the point where Mr. Zoellick has been raising it with the Minister for International Trade. Perhaps we are finally starting to see the Americans realize that there does not have to be the unnecessary confrontation they have caused.

The fact of the matter is the government's position is very clear. I respect that the hon. member represents a riding in Atlantic Canada, but the government is charged with taking care of the interests of all stakeholders from coast to coast to coast.

This is not a matter of east versus west in Canada. It should not be that. I encourage the hon. member and all hon. members not to weaken our position by playing to that kind of argument because it is divisive and it is not constructive.

This is a matter of north-south. The United States is the one which has said it would not exempt the Atlantic provinces. We have supported the claim of the Atlantic provinces for an exemption, as we will support any province that feels it has the right to an exemption.

Let me conclude by saying there has been a clear national strategy. There has been a huge amount of work. I ask the hon. member to pull back his partisanship a bit and support the government in trying to put forward a national case.

[Catholic Central High School, May 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my congratulations to the crusaders of Catholic Central High School in London on their 50th anniversary.

As an alumnus I am proud that I attended CCH and I also had the privilege to teach and coach there for 10 years.

Alumni from across the country attended the reunion last Saturday and reminisced about past times. Catholic Central was originally London's only Roman Catholic high school and has produced many outstanding citizens in all walks of life.

Archbishop Peter Sutton, a former teacher at CCH, was the guest speaker.

I was joined by my provincial counterpart, the MPP for London—Fanshawe, Frank Mazzilli. The mayor of London, Anne Marie DeCicco represented city council. Both of these leaders are also CCH grads.

May Catholic Central enjoy a very successful second 50 years.