Dan McTeague

[Gasoline Prices, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should recognize today's question concerning gasoline. He asked it last September. The then opposition leader told the House that Canadian businesses and consumers were enduring record high gas prices and government inaction. Today consumers face unprecedented gas prices and the right hon. member's flip-flop is now clearly on the other foot.

Does the Prime Minister actually believe that Canadians should just get used to it, or will he in fact stand by his previous statement and follow his own advice and cut taxes on gasoline now?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member who has just spoken on his recent election. Perhaps he is going to share his speaking time with another member, but it is really up to him to make that statement and you to allow it.

I want to congratulate the member on his third election to the House. I know these things tend to come fast and furiously. Three elections in five years presses most of us to be more vigilant in terms of what we are doing at home and to ensure that our efforts here are not lost.

The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam talked about the five areas which his government is going to, as it were, hang its hat and I have concerns with two or three of those areas, particularly the accountability act.

The hon. member is an extremely gifted member of Parliament. He should be acting in a capacity as minister. Yet, one of the first acts which defied this much vaunted chest thumping on the issue of accountability was the appointment of an unelected individual from the Montreal region, Michael Fortier, who happens to be the person he responds to and reports to. When it comes to the clearest form of accountability in the House of Commons, the minister is simply not here.

Indeed, that member does not have Privy Councillor status to be able to even look at cabinet documents without the advice of the hon. member who he represents, who is in the other chamber. Clearly, on that basis, with this particular member being the litmus test, the accountability question fails and it fails miserably.

The second area that he touched on which I thought was very interesting was the area of the long arm registry. He also used comments with respect to the Prime Minister's speech at the CPPA last week. I note for the record that the CPPA does in fact support the long arm registry. I would ask the hon. member in his answer if he could clarify how he is going to find money for front line officers, which I think we all agree should be done at some point, especially through the provinces, where funding will not be obtainable as a result of the fact that the long arm registry must be maintained in accordance with CPPA?

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member as I take his comments to heart, and I would like to say to him that on this side of the House we share his views on this issue.

First, the major challenge for us and for the member is to convince the world that this is not a mission of aggression, but rather a peacekeeping mission. Next, we must assure ourselves and our constituents that the reasons for this mission are different than those for the Iraq mission. These two situations are very different. Finally, of course, there is the underlying issue of multilateralism.

This is the question I would like to ask the member: what is he doing? I am not talking about this evening and the debate underway. But rather, what is he telling his constituents to reassure them and convince them that he feels very strongly about the two issues which I spoke of earlier?

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the minister for his very spirited comments. I would not agree that misstatements by previous politicians are something that one should underscore. He will only too well remember that the Great Lakes flow in a certain direction, and I will not go down that road for him.

He raised a number of very interesting points and one that Canadians listening to this debate will want to hear from us. There have been allegations suggested today by experts that the role of our Canadian troops could be exposed to potential responses in the international courts as it relates to the taking of prisoners against international convention.

Given the hon. member's portfolio, I would like to get his take on whether there is accuracy in what is being suggested. If not, then how would he handle the questions that have been coming forward to his government to the effect that, notwithstanding the good that our troops are doing, there are many who are questioning whether it is in fact legal.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I was impressed by the remarks made by the member for West Nova. He shed light on a number of points essential to establishing the context for us. We need to know what Canadians and the Government of Canada must do next to support our troops in Afghanistan.

The political solutions and tools still must be found. We are here to find the tools to help this people. A decision has to be made to find a permanent political solution. Does the hon. member have any answers?

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I know how important this issue is to the member, his party, our party and all Canadians. Indeed, if I am not mistaken, he may have several of his own constituents, as do I, who are serving right now with our forces in Afghanistan.

I want to ask the member a very simple question. While we talk a great deal about what needs to be done and the purposes for which we are there, ultimately there has to be a solution and, one would presume, a political solution. Is the hon. member of the view that the total government approach, which been the standing policy of both governments--I presume nothing has changed under his government--will see or conclude Canada's maturation in terms of its involvement in Afghanistan at any time in the not too distant future?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am very delighted to hear the hon. member speaking but I think there is a time honoured tradition in the House that we do not refer to members by their names, as was the case by the hon. member. Perhaps the Speaker might want to be more attentive to these concerns.

[Canadian Armed Forces Encouragement Day, April 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize Auriele Diotte, a grade 8 student at Holy Redeemer Catholic School in Pickering, Ontario, for her thoughtful and heartfelt idea to create Canadian Armed Forces Encouragement Day, or as it is known by its acronym, C.A.F.É. Day.

Auriele hopes that by the first day of spring each year, grade 8 students across Canada will have assembled photos and words of encouragement inside a special scrapbook to send to members of the Canadian armed forces who are serving our country overseas.

In Auriele's own words, C.A.F.É. Day will enable younger generations of Canadians to come together to appreciate and thank our service men and women who regularly make tremendous sacrifices each and every day while placing their own lives at risk.

Auriele has received considerable support for her initiative. I know members of this House will agree that her efforts are to be encouraged as they show once again the gratitude, respect and appreciation that all Canadians, including our youth, have for the dedication and work of our soldiers both here and abroad.

Congratulations, Auriele. Best wishes for a very successful C.A.F.É. Day 2006.

[Trade Compensation Act, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the time to acknowledge the ruling that you have just made. For that reason, of course, the position of the government is upheld, and indeed, this is a matter that would require an expenditure issue, a money bill. Therefore, the bill will not go beyond this one hour of debate.

At the same time I want to recognize my colleague, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, who is also the member of Parliament for Sydney—Victoria. I have been with him for some time here and I know that he has been extremely able in terms of opening new markets and opportunities for Canadian business. His work, often done in other fields and jurisdictions, has indeed borne much fruit for labourers, individuals and small companies right across this country. I think Parliament owes him a very strong vote of thanks for the work he has done.

I am pleased to take part in today's debate on Bill C-364, which is, as you have stated, an act to provide compensation to Canadian industry associations and exporters who incur financial losses as a result of unjustified restrictive trade actions by foreign governments which are signatories to trade agreements involving Canadian products.

I would also like to use my time to respond to some of the statements already made by certain opposition members during the first hour of debate on the bill. As we know, the bill would provide compensation to Canadian industry associations and exporters that incur financial losses as a result of unjustified restrictive trade actions by foreign governments which are signatories to trade agreements with Canada.

On that point, I am obviously very pleased with the initiative by the government, the Minister of Trade and the Prime Minister on the question of softwood lumber. It would appear that our plotting has certainly been very successful and will continue to be so.

Mr. Speaker, I speak with some certainty in saying that you understand this industry perhaps better than most in Parliament.

It is for those reasons that this is indeed good news for that sector and for trade.

As we know, there are two components of the bill. The first would require the federal government to defray legal expenses incurred by the private sector in instances where a foreign state restricts Canadian exports in a manner that is found to contravene any bilateral or multilateral agreement. The second component proposes that the government provide loan guarantees to cover deposits, sureties or bonds that may be required of Canadian exporters by the foreign state, pending the final determination of a tribunal.

As I have mentioned, my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, stated during the first hour of debate on October 19 that the federal government appreciates the concerns relating to legal costs associated with the defence of Canadian interests in these trade disputes. The Government of Canada understands that costs associated with the defence of trade cases, particularly legal expenses, are often significant.

The complexities of issues entrenched in trade disputes, along with the number of parties involved in such cases, are all factors that can contribute inexorably to increased legal costs. There should be no doubt that this government is unequivocally committed to representing and actively defending Canadian interests in all and any international trade fora. We do so every day.

We devote considerable financial and human resources to fostering a domestic environment conducive to the development and maintenance of consultative domestic networks. These networks allow stakeholders a voice in the determination of the Canadian response to unjustifiable trade restrictions by foreign governments and we cannot and should not underestimate the valuable work and role of Canadian representatives abroad in the defence of our national Canadian trade interests.

I can assure members that Canadian trade officials in our embassies and missions abroad work very hard to represent trade interests. Targeted advocacy campaigns and meeting with foreign decision makers, the business community and local media are just some of the daily tasks executed by our representatives abroad. Their objective is clear: to advocate and foster positions favourable to Canada.

I would like now to respond to some of the statements made by my hon. colleagues across the floor when this issue was debated in October. I was somewhat surprised when the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca stated that it was about time that the federal government “spent some attention on softwood lumber and other issues of trade dispute”. As was mentioned earlier, this issue is now well on its way to being resolved as a result of what the government has done.

By our actions, we have made it crystal clear that the softwood lumber dispute is a top priority for the government. The Government of Canada is exploring every possible option with a view to resolving the dispute, including litigation, high level political intervention and advocacy.

As the hon. member knows, the Prime Minister has raised the issue with President Bush at every opportunity, including most recently on November 18 during the meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group, APEC, in Busan, Korea.

We certainly understand and are very sympathetic to the adverse impact of U.S. duties on Canadian companies, workers and communities. This is why the Government of Canada is committed to continue working with our industry and the provinces to press the United States to live up to its trade obligations.

This collaborative work is also done on behalf of other Canadian industries that are subject to unjustified restrictive trade measures. For example, when the United States initiated trade investigations against Canadian exports of wheat or some live swine, or when the United States blocked Canadian exports of beef, the government took action.

To say, then, that the government has “ignored” Canadian stakeholders involved in trade disputes would obviously be wrong. In fact, it would be the exact opposite.

I do indeed agree with the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca when he states that Canada is a trading nation. I could not agree more with him when he states that “the Canadian government has a clear duty...to take every step available in law to protect our export industries and our trade”.

We have done so and this government will continue to do so. However, the hon. member and other members of the opposition parties seem to send contradictory messages when discussing the bill. On the one hand, the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca has stated that “legal bills to date...are $350 million and are escalating by $100 million a year”. Then he stated that Bill C-364 “...likely will not cost the taxpayers any money at all, either in the short term or the long term”. Clearly with your ruling today, Mr. Speaker, I think that is certainly put to rest.

Unless I have misread Bill C-364, it is the hon. member's expectation that the bill would cover at least part of the legal costs incurred by the Canadian softwood lumber industry.

Of course, I am not trying here to downgrade the importance of the backdrop of Bill C-364, nor am I attempting to diminish the concerns associated with legal expenses in these kinds of trade disputes. The federal government also incurs legal expenses, but we believe that there are more effective and efficient ways to assist industries involved in trade disputes.

One example is the recently announced CAN-Trade initiative, in which the government reaffirmed its commitment to fostering jobs, economic growth and sustainable prosperity.

There are four major thrusts to this initiative. First is to strengthen and expand Canada's bilateral and multilateral framework and advocacy efforts. This will include promoting a successful completion of the Doha negotiations of the World Trade Organization, defending Canadian rights through NAFTA and the WTO, and developing, of course, new trade and investment policy tools and instruments.

The CAN-Trade initiative is about being aggressive and proactive with respect to targeted advocacy work in our new key and emerging markets. To this end, an additional $12 million is proposed to broaden Canada's advocacy efforts in key markets, including through activities aimed at establishing institutional linkages and joint research in support of Canada's trade and economic interests.

International trade is a priority to the government and we continue to demonstrate this by our actions.

The federal government works with all Canadian interested stakeholders, both in Canada and abroad, toward a strong and unified position.

Are there unexpected delays in trade disputes? Yes.

Would we like to see the dispute settlement process work in a more timely fashion? Of course.

This is precisely why senior officials of all three NAFTA countries are discussing ways to improve the functioning of chapter 19.

Members may recall that the Prime Minister made Canada's concerns regarding this issue clear to President Bush during the president's visit in November 2004.

Let me assure this House, members and the Canadian public that the government will continue to work diligently and responsibly in defending Canadian trade interests involved in trade disputes.

Finally, the Government of Canada will continue to cooperate with domestic stakeholders toward strong and unified positions and will continue to be an active player within NAFTA and the WTO to clarify and improve the rules governing all international trade.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have known the hon. member for some time and I know him to be a decent individual, an individual who is not easily given to slandering or defaming the character of anybody in this House, let alone, I am sure, his constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I think the member would agree with your findings that there is in fact a question of privilege that arises from the householder that was sent to many ridings across Quebec, compliments of the separatists in this House. I know the hon. member will try very hard not to see himself as aligning himself with the separatist tendencies in this country.

I also know that when the hon. member talks about truth he will also take into account what this Prime Minister has done for democracy, something that no other prime minister or leader of a country has done, and that is to expose government open, regardless of its consequences and certainly above the question of partisanship.

I also know that hon. member served as the president of the Conservative Party of Ontario during which there were such wonderful examples of where his government that he supported under Mike Harris gave us the Dudley George inquiry and the Walkerton inquiry, albeit begrudgingly.

I understand the hon. member wants to talk about the words engraved on the little stone. I just want to say that engraved at my old university are the words, “The truth will indeed set you free”. Is it possible that the member is actually saying that to arrive at his version of the truth he is prepared to defame the reputation of anybody in this House? If that is the case, let that member stand in his seat right now and say that he will go to no ends to determine what he believes is his version of the truth.

I am prepared to tell the truth about that member as long as he is prepared to continue slandering members of Parliament, abide by it or abet the slandering of members of Parliament in this House.

The hon. member was the president of the Conservative Party of Ontario during the period of former Premier Harris. We had a number of concerns and allegations about kickback schemes. We had a number of allegations that were done over various campaign managers around the previous premier making money through Ontario Hydro. These things came out in the public domain without discussing any issue.

Why did the hon. member not say anything about those activities and his Conservative government did nothing about it to begin with?