David Emerson

[Technology Partnerships Canada, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think I have said many times before the truth is that Bioniche did pay a lobbyist a contingency fee. We have recovered every cent of that money through our relationship with Bioniche. Bioniche is the body with which we have a legal relationship. If it wants to recover that fee from its lobbyist, it has the ability to do so.

[Mining Industry, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the Inco and Falconbridge transaction is subject to regulatory reviews and shareholder approval. I do want to say in general, that while l would not want to comment specifically on this transaction, it is very important for us to have Canadian champion companies. It is important for them to come together in a friendly way to build deep roots right here in Canada. We need the corporate leadership in Canada. We need the high quality employment opportunities in Canada and we need their social contributions.

[Softwood Lumber, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder where the hon. member has been for the last five years because there are no subsidies in Canada and there is no dumping. We have legally won that case and yet we still see case after case of anti-Canadian protectionist acts taking place.

Whether it is legal or not, we can still expect an American protectionist response.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are looking at options for how we will support the softwood lumber industry going forward. Loan guarantees is one option. There are other options. We will pick the best option for our softwood lumber industry.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if there is a source of weakness in the Canadian position, it is the members opposite trying to divide Canada, trying to divide Canadians, and trying to divide one region from another instead of standing unified with the Prime Minister who has brought Canada to a better position on softwood lumber than we have been in our history.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we understand that it is a complex issue. I am not sure that everybody in the business of protectionism, particularly on the U.S. side, would agree that loan guarantees are not countervailable. There are many issues, allegations of subsidies, allegations of dumping, that should not have a duty applied to them, but they do. We have to move forward with great care. We will pick the best option for our Canadian softwood lumber industry.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, despite the rhetoric from the other side of the House, Canada is in a better position today to finally resolve this decades long dispute than we have ever been in our history. In terms of helping the softwood lumber industry, loan guarantees are one option, but there are other options. We are looking at our options. We will pick the best option in terms of the softwood lumber industry in Canada.

[Lobbyists, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member knows that the Registrar of Lobbyists does look into these matters. It is completely within his domain of jurisdiction. I do not interfere. Those decisions were made on Canadian Satellite Radio on good, solid public policy grounds, full stop.

[Softwood Lumber, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the battle on softwood lumber does continue. We are working with the industry. We are looking at the recommendations that they are giving to us.

We will ensure that the Canadian softwood lumber industry is enabled to carry on the fight because we are going to win it. We are going to win it against the United States protectionists.

[Softwood Lumber, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister and the government has been tackling the softwood lumber industry issue with the U.S. with more vigour and more aggression than ever before in the history of this dispute.

We will work with the industry. We are developing a forest sector approach for Canadian companies. We will be assisting where appropriate, going forward.