John Duncan

[Points Of Order, April 22nd, 1999]

That is not the original document. That is your set of interpretations that you just entered, is it not?

[Points Of Order, April 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am requesting clarification on my point of order as to whether the original document will be tabled. You said earlier that you would review the blues.

[Points Of Order, April 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I was present during the earlier exchanges when we requested that this document be tabled. I think if we review the record of the proceedings from that time we will find that the government House leader offered to table that document, recognizing fully that it was a Liberal document. We took that assurance for what it was worth. Now we find ourselves in the position where the government House leader is suggesting that he does not want to table it, but is offering us other assurances. We would like that document to be tabled, as we were assured that it would be by the government House leader.

[Specialty Wood Products, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of letters have been sent to B.C. MPs to urge the government to strongly oppose the U.S. attempt to restrict the import of specialty wood products by reclassifying them as softwood lumber.

When lumber was freely traded, we paid duties on these very same specialty products. Now these duties are phased out because of NAFTA but lumber is no longer freely traded because of restrictions brought in by the 1996 softwood lumber quota system.

Specialty wood products are a $3 billion industry for Canada. We need the strongest political action from our government to oppose new restrictions.

So far, the Liberals are just going through the motions and responding to U.S. measures on technical grounds alone.

We need strong political representation. When can we expect to see the government giving this issue the political priority it deserves?

[Softwood Lumber, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is going through the motions. NAFTA phased out duties on value added products to create free trade. That is why U.S. special interests want to classify these products so they become subject to restrictions under the softwood lumber agreement. The softwood lumber agreement has already cost Canadian jobs and now more are threatened.

Will the minister commit to not renew the agreement when it expires?

[Softwood Lumber, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this government trumpeted the certainty and stability brought by the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement. The very opposite has happened. The newest U.S. attempt is to restrict Canadian exports of painted and manufactured wood product by reclassifying it as softwood lumber. This could cost thousands of jobs.

Why is the minister not fighting this unjust reclassification?

[Roger Giguère, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today our thoughts are with Master Corporal Roger Giguère and his wife and daughter as he recovers in hospital from second and third degree burns. His injuries were sustained when the truck he was using to transfer aviation fuel from storage tanks exploded at Canadian Forces Base Comox on Saturday. Master Corporal Giguère is in serious but stable condition. We wish him a speedy recovery.

I commend the professional fire fighters from the air base who acted with textbook precision to quickly contain the fireball in extremely scorching heat to prevent a huge fuel tank only 20 feet away from exploding.

The military police and fire fighters have already launched an investigation into the cause of the explosion. We must determine the cause to ensure that it never happens again.

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, my question really has not been addressed. The reason it has not is because I used the words “eventual ratification”. The government has proved that the way it is going to bargain is that it is going to legislate people back to work anyway. That is a given.

It does not have to all hinge on ratification of this agreement. We can talk about eventual ratification. In terms of the corrections officers, the corrections table, I think that surgical legislation is another option for the government rather than this huge, imposed settlement.

Can the minister please tell me why that is not an option?

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, we now have a tentative agreement. We have an imposed settlement, this 500-page plus document. We have had questions about what is now seeming to boil down to a concern about what happens between now and ratification in terms of the government's concern that these people will be able to strike.

If that is the issue, and that appears to be a very big part of the issue, I want to follow up on earlier questions by other members and ask the government why it does not bring forward simple legislation that just deals with keeping people on the job between now and the eventual ratification of the agreement, and forget about this imposed settlement that we have all been bogged down with in this place today.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when the member for Mississauga South was talking about the Reform opposition day motion he spoke at some length about Justice Shaw's pornography decision in British Columbia on the Sharpe case. I would like to make a few comments about that because I have some information and then I will have a question for the member for Mississauga South.

The member talked about media reports from that trial and he also talked about the fact that Mr. Sharpe was not represented by legal counsel.

There was only one member of the media at the trial, who is a radio reporter from my community. There were several UBC law students at court that day. There were other media who popped in, heard what they thought was a poorly presented case and left because they thought there was no way this individual could win. Why did the law students stay? Because they knew he was going to win. The radio reporter from my community talked to those students and therefore decided to stay.

The member for Mississauga South indicated that he is of the opinion that the case was not well argued. I beg to differ. It was not well presented, but it was well argued.

I do not believe that Justice Shaw made an error in judgment. His judgment was the culmination of a series of earlier decisions by judges because of the way in which our laws are written and earlier jurisprudence on the child pornography issue related to the Constitution.

I will make the same admission as the member for Mississauga South: I am not a lawyer, but this is my belief.

The message that I think I am hearing out of those court proceedings is that under the current legislative framework it does not matter what happens with the appeal. In the short run that may work, but in the long run the current legislative framework will be found lacking and will require a legislative solution or a notwithstanding solution.

Why is the member so quick to sign a letter to the Prime Minister and so slow to stand in the House of Commons to vote for a motion to support the very same issue?