House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2019, with 50% of the vote.
Motions for Papers May 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-33 in the name of the hon. member for Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore.
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documentation, including reports, minutes of meetings, notes, e-mail, memos and correspondence since 1994 within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans pertaining to the Tulsequah Chief Mine.
Questions on the Order Paper May 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Government Response to Petitions May 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
Order in Council Appointments May 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made recently by the government.
Committees of the House May 7th, 2002
Madam Speaker, following discussions among the parties, I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That the Special Committee on non-medical use of drugs be authorized to travel to and hold hearings in Edmonton, Alberta and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan from Tuesday, May 21 to Friday, May 24 and, that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.
Supply May 7th, 2002
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. He talked about the idea of loans. He said that if the U.S. can break the rules of international, trade then why can we not break them?
If we were talking about a situation where the balance of trade or the trade surplus was very much in the American's favour or if we were talking about American goods coming into Canada, then we might have some options. However we are talking about softwood lumber going into the U.S. Therefore what we have to be concerned about is what measures the U.S. will take in response to whatever we do.
If we provide a form of subsidy, as he is suggesting through loans to industries to pay for this, we may even see a doubling of the countervail duty. Is that what he wants? I do not think it is.
I like his suggestion of research and development work in the industry and it is important to pursue that kind of thing. However let us not have simplistic approaches and simplistic, irresponsible answers to this important problem.
Supply May 7th, 2002
Madam Speaker, I would say that I hear the question but I do not hear any answer. It is important that the member put forward some proposals in that regard. We have heard a suggestion today, for example, from my colleague from Thunder Bay, but I do not hear any from this member. I hope we will hear some.
Supply May 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggested this is a short term problem but if we in fact reflect we have had this dispute going on for the past 20 years. It is not really a short term problem in that sense. It is an ongoing problem. We are hopeful that the current dispute and tariffs will be a short term or at least medium term problem; the shorter the better obviously.
The member talks about the impact on lumber producers and on mills in his riding and elsewhere. I remind him that we can expect that those mills and producers will be receiving the return of their cash deposits, and that should provide some assistance, at least in the immediate term. Meanwhile the government is looking at other measures and I am sure it will be taking those concerns seriously. However, the primary effort is to negotiate with the Americans and take those strong efforts I mentioned in litigating at the WTO and under NAFTA.
Supply May 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for making a constructive suggestion. We have had some of those today but not as many as we would have liked. All of us in the House recognize that we need to bring a responsible approach to this issue. We need to talk about it seriously to find constructive ways, not irresponsible ways, to overcome these problems.
The suggestion of a new dispute resolution mechanism is a good one. The existing mechanism does not work as it should in this case. It requires a will on both sides to have a mechanism that works. The one already existing in NAFTA is not satisfactory. I hope we and the American government can find the will to work out a new mechanism, one that works for both sides and one that carries into practice what the American administration and congress tend to advocate, which is free trade. Let us have free trade. If we are for free trade, we cannot be for it in some things and not in others. Let us have it in lumber and agricultural products. The member has a very good suggestion and I look forward to others.
Supply May 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the government has been following this issue over the past five years. It has been a preoccupation and a concern of the government throughout that period.
We have an employment insurance system available to people who are out of work. I am anxious to see that it works quickly and effectively. At the same time the government is looking at the situation and looking at what other alternatives or other programs are needed in this case.
The government has followed the agreement with the support of the provinces and industry. Our strategy has been one of a unified approach across the country on two fronts: negotiating with the Americans and trying to find a solution.
On one front there was some hope a solution would be found, but it appears now that the Americans were not interested in negotiating and were not interested in hearing our discussions. On the other front was litigation. The government is defending the interest of Canadians and Canadian industry in many ways.