Stephen Harper

[The Environment, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to put the question again. Did the Prime Minister use the visit of the U.S. Secretary of State to inform her, finally, of our government's opposition to environmentally dangerous traffic through Head Harbour, New Brunswick?

[The Environment, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister does not have his package ready after a dispute that has gone on for five years, he should not lecture anyone on not understanding the file.

Let me ask about another related issue on Canada-U.S. relations. For thirty years, governments of all partisan stripes have, for environmental reasons, opposed LNG tanker traffic through internal Canadian waters at Head Harbour, New Brunswick. The government has waffled.

Did the Prime Minister, and he should not look around, use the visit of the Secretary of State to inform her of the--

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the Secretary of State must have left because he is talking tough again. The Prime Minister should tell his own ministers.

The Prime Minister backed off his line on no negotiations. He has backed away from retaliation, and the government is not helping the industry either.

We have proposed to assist our industry through loan guarantees against illegal duties. Will the Prime Minister at least agree to assist our industry through this battle?

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen more mixed messages from the Prime Minister on the softwood lumber file. After saying that we would not negotiate after we had won, yesterday the Prime Minister started to say that we would negotiate but only if we got the duties back.

However, today we have learned from a senior government source that there are no preconditions, that the Prime Minister is willing to enter into negotiations with the United States whether there is any guarantee of getting the duties back or not.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Is not his approach really to talk tough with the Americans to Canadians in public, but privately to be soft as putty?

[Softwood Lumber, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the minister can say he is keeping his answers simple for himself, but they are getting increasingly convoluted.

The government has proclaimed to Canadians that there will be no negotiations after we win. Now the minister is getting up and laying down what a negotiated settlement would look like. The secretary of state of the United States is here today. Is the position to be no negotiations or we are looking for a negotiated settlement? Which is it?

[Softwood Lumber, October 24th, 2005]

Except, Mr. Speaker, that as a Liberal he has taken the same position we have on the health care issue.

I am trying to discern the government's position on the softwood lumber dispute. Up until today, its position was that there would be no negotiations. I listened to the minister's answers to the Bloc. He said he was seeking a good deal for Canada, a negotiated settlement. Which is it? No negotiations or a negotiated settlement?

[Softwood Lumber, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's position until today was that we would not negotiate after we had won. This is the same position we have taken. Now he saying that he is looking for some kind of a sign from the United States.

Does the minister have any idea what this sign will be? Is it a nudge? Is it a wink? Precisely what kind of sign is the government looking for?

[Softwood Lumber, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has admitted that, even in cabinet discussions, the government does not respect provincial jurisdictions.

I would like to bring up another matter. Since NAFTA's extraordinary challenge ruling, the government has continued to provide no direction to the industry. First, the trade minister wanted to negotiate away our victory, then he changed his mind. Now we are hearing more mixed messages from the Prime Minister, softening his previous position on no negotiations.

Does the Prime Minister understand that mixed messages only encourage American aggressiveness and weaken the Canadian position?

[Intergovernmental Affairs, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Transport labelled Mr. Pelletier a Parti Québécois sympathizer for defending Quebec's jurisdiction. Today, we hear that the Minister of Foreign Affairs says he too is bothered by the federal cabinet's interference in areas that fall under provincial jurisdiction.

Can the Prime Minister tell us which one of these two ministers is speaking on behalf of his government?

[David Dingwall, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the Prime Minister just sits there. David Dingwall is knocking on his door. He holds Canadians' chequebook in his hand. He says David Dingwall quit voluntarily. In fact, he begged David Dingwall to stay and not quit.

Why does he not just say no and say he will not give him any more taxpayers' money?