Ralph Goodale

[Agriculture, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. When I negotiated for Canada in the GATT in 1993, I reported to Prime Minister Chrétien in response to his question whether I could guarantee him that supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board would exist for a full decade at least after those negotiations. I looked him right in the eye and said “yes”, and I was right.

I ask the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food today, can he show the same conviction and offer the same guarantee to Canadian farmers?

[Member for Nepean--Carleton, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the government House leader to check the verbatim quotation from my colleague compared to what the translation delivered and he will find a great difference between the two.

[Member for Nepean--Carleton, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is a growing file on the immature and unacceptable behaviour of the member for Nepean—Carleton. Last night he performed his pixie dance in the House, directly mocking the Speaker. Just before that he joined the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in a vulgar gesture to farmers, and a few days ago on Bill C-2 he used obscene language in reference to other Canadians. This guy simply has to go.

Will the Prime Minister remove the member for Nepean—Carleton from his job as a parliamentary secretary?

[Points of Order, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, you have dealt with the matter dealing with the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, but I do not believe we have yet seen a conclusive ruling and apology with respect to the member for Nepean—Carleton who was guilty of exactly the same offence.

That was the burden of the intervention of my colleague, to point out that not only had the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière made the offensive gesture, but the member for Nepean—Carleton had made the same offensive gesture. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, while you were just rendering your comments from the chair, that same member for Nepean—Carleton was mocking you, Sir, from the back row of the government. That is unacceptable in the House of Commons. You are the Speaker and you deserve the respect of every member of the House.

[Softwood Lumber, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, giving away half the store is no way to succeed.

This softwood deal provides open access only if market conditions of two months ago continue to prevail, but already those conditions have changed. The threat of new duties and export quotas is looming. Some deal: its shelf life lasted about seven weeks and its best before date is now at hand.

Is the unseemly rush to finish the deal and get softwood legislation done in June not just a clear admission that the government will impose export taxes as early as this summer to satisfy its Republican idols?

[Softwood Lumber, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government clearly believes that any deal is better than no deal. At every turn, the Conservatives want to please their Republican idols. They want us to live our lives just like them, but that is not what Canadians want. Canadians want to stand up for Canada.

The Prime Minister once said that he would not agree to anything short of a 100% rebate of the softwood duties taken from Canadians illegally. What changed his mind and why did he give up?

[Softwood Lumber, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada-U.S. relations, Canadians want their government to show the skill and the will to stand up for Canada. We want to be good neighbours, but not sycophants.

The softwood lumber deal now being rammed down our throats is a classic case of the Conservatives trying to appease their Republican idols and getting a bad deal in return. Why did the Prime Minister let the U.S. off the hook on its NAFTA obligations and why did he settle for what in real terms is just more than 50% of the illegal American duties?

[Petitions, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege today to present a petition signed by a number of people from the province of Saskatchewan. The petitioners draw attention to a recent television mini-series called Prairie Giant, which was referred to earlier today in the House. The petitioners note their concern about the program, which in their opinion, and I share that opinion, seriously compromised the distinguished reputation of a very well-known Canadian, the Right Honourable James G. Gardiner.

The petitioners call upon the CBC to take a number of steps to correct the record with respect to Mr. Gardiner. The petitioners urge the House to be diligent in ensuring that the CBC does take the appropriate action, not treading upon artistic freedom, but making it abundantly clear that this was a work of fiction and not a documentary.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2006]

Oh, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted he asked that question.

The fact of the matter is that members of this House are assigned to various committees and they work very hard on those committees.

I would be interested to know, in dealing with the NDP, how come those members said last November that they were in favour of $5.1 billion for aboriginal Canadians in the Kelowna accord and then conducted themselves in such a way as to trigger an election, which has resulted in the evisceration of the Kelowna accord?

How come the NDP members said they were for student aid and for workplace training and in fact have conducted themselves in such a way that they have caused the cancellation of $2.7 billion in student aid and $3.5 billion for workplace training?

Those members say they are for the environment, but because of their conduct last fall in triggering an election, they cost environmental programs $2 billion, cancelled by the government, and they did nothing to defend those programs.

That is the record of the NDP. I would be happy to stack up the record of any Liberal in working for the best interests of Canadians against any New Democrat any time.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out that members of the Liberal Party have been very diligent in attending the legislative committee on Bill C-2, in dealing with all of the work before that committee in a very serious manner, in asking questions that are appropriate to the subject matter, and in advancing a number of critical amendments to try to improve that legislation.

I am told that in the course of the committee's work a series of questions has been asked about items that appear in the first number of clauses in the bill and that could have serious implications for issues that might arise when one proceeds clause by clause to the later clauses of the bill. It is important to have in mind all of those consequences to make sure that we get a piece of coherent legislation that is not internally conflicting or potentially unconstitutional.

I can assure the House that the work being done by Liberal members with respect to Bill C-2 is very conscientious work. It is focused on the issues. It is not dilatory. To answer the hon. gentleman's question, if there is a fault to be laid, it is not with the official opposition.