Bill Casey

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development assured the House that any attempt to relocate the regional office of Indian affairs from Amherst would only be considered on the condition that native chiefs approved it. The chiefs then voted on the proposal to relocate the regional office and the vote of the chiefs was respected. They voted no and it was not moved.

Now the bureaucrats are at it again. Is it the minister's intention to still respect the vote of the first nations and not relocate the Atlantic regional office?

[Softwood Lumber, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today British Columbia's forestry minister joined the chorus of softwood stakeholders calling for a united Canadian stand against the American attack on our softwood lumber industry. For months politicians, foresters and manufacturers have called for the Minister for International Trade to bring all of the stakeholders together to establish a single united position.

Although the U.S. is well organized and well prepared, we have never established our own Canadian bargaining stance. Instead each region has established its own direction. Never did the phrase united we stand, divided we fall apply so aptly. It is hard to imagine how an outcome that will be satisfactory to all regions can be concluded if all the stakeholders have not been brought together by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Even though there are only a few days left, I urge the minister to gather together all stakeholders to develop that one specific Canadian position for our bargaining stance.

[Petitions, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to present a petition signed by almost 300 residents of a community called Valley, Nova Scotia. This is a growing area which has been denied proper postal service. They call on the government to provide the appropriate postal service for their community. It is an area of high traffic and high growth and they require a much better service than they have now.

It is my pleasure to present this petition on their behalf.

[Softwood Lumber, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade broke one of the basic rules of negotiating and that is, united we stand, divided we fall.

The last meeting of all softwood lumber stakeholders was on May 20 last year. Despite repeated requests by the opposition and the stakeholders, the minister has refused to arrange a meeting for almost a year. Meanwhile our case, our jobs and our industry are all going down the drain.

When will the minister finally call a meeting of all the stakeholders and establish a truly united Canadian position?

[Pesticides, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the new Minister of Health to address a problem in her department which has created a barrier for innovation in the agricultural and horticultural industries in Canada. The problem is the pest control registration process. Last year in Canada only 22 minor use registrations were approved. Last year in the United States 1,200 similar products were approved.

Canada's regulatory system must be adapted to ensure access to new products and safeguard the sector's ability to compete. The regulatory process must not be a drag on innovation. Organizations across Canada like the Wild Blueberry Producers Association of Nova Scotia are demanding that the cumbersome system be changed to encourage innovation, not stifle it.

The minister last week moved quickly to correct another problem with respect to pesticide regulation. I hope that she can now act quickly to again address the unnecessary hurdle that prevents these Canadian industries from competing with countries that promote innovation.

[National Horse of Canada Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was not casting down on the officials who did this as the interpreter said. I was asking a simple question. The minister said in the House there were two versions of what happened. I asked what they were and which was the correct version.

We are not arguing there was a crisis or anything. We understand there was a crisis and the minister had to react. However, will the Minister of Health break the law in the future if there is a crisis? There are other alternatives but the easy way is to break the law. That is what happened in this case.

[National Horse of Canada Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to speak to an issue I raised in October with respect to the drug Cipro. It reflected a lack of respect for the law when the then Minister of Health totally disregarded Canada's patent laws and purchased drugs which were not approved for use in Canada because a patent was already held by another company. The then Minister of Health is a former justice minister and now ironically the minister in charge of patent law in Canada.

The patent law is like the approach the Liberals have taken to GST and free trade. They campaigned against them but changed their minds as soon as they were elected. It means nothing to the Liberals to campaign against issues or policies and then change their minds.

Returning to the question I asked in October, the minister said twice in the House that there were two different versions to the Cipro story. I asked if he would indicate what the two versions were and what the correct answer was. I hope I can get an answer to the question tonight.

The question again is: What were the two versions and what is the correct answer?

[Request for Emergency Debate, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52 I request an emergency debate on the softwood lumber crisis which affects every member of parliament in the House of Commons. Every one of us is affected by it and the whole issue is being driven by a small group in the U.S.

The government has tried a whole lot of different approaches and several different remedies. They have all failed. Each time it comes up with a new proposal it fails. It has happened over and over again.

The government has prevented the industry and parliament from being involved in the debate. We in my party believe if parliament is involved in the issue it can appeal to the congress of the United States which has an impact on every member of congress. If we members of parliament can make a connection with members of congress in the United States we can come up with a solution to the problem.

There are only about four weeks left to resolve the issue before we lose our opportunity to debate it. It is an incredible situation. We have already lost 25,000 jobs in Canada. Softwood lumber is our fifth largest export. Every effort by the department has failed. We must try a new approach and it should be debated in the House of Commons.

I am asking for a special debate so we the parliamentarians can become involved and help find a solution where the department has failed over and over again.

[Softwood Lumber, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, for the past few weeks it has been embarrassing to hear the Canadian Minister for International Trade publicly begging and pleading with the United States for a counter offer on the softwood lumber issue. The U.S. has totally rejected our offer and slammed the door in our face. The minister's approach has totally failed.

What is the strategy between now and the deadline of March 21, or has the minister just given up?

[Trade, January 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of International Trade has created a great deal of confusion with the sudden interest in negotiating a free trade deal with Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein. If this deal is completed the Atlantic Canadian shipbuilding industry and the offshore gas and oil industry will face unfair competition from Norway which already has excess capacity in ships and shipbuilding facilities.

Although the deal came out of nowhere and caught the industry completely by surprise, we now know that 15 MPs from Norway are coming to Ottawa next week and that the king of Norway will make a state visit to Canada in May.

I hope that this flurry of trade talks is not just an effort to provide the Prime Minister with a photo-op signing a trade deal with the king. This photo-op will cost hundreds of valuable jobs in Atlantic Canada in the very industry that the Government of Canada said would be for the benefit of Atlantic Canada.

This deal should be shelved and the Prime Minister should go find another photo-op with the king.