Philip Mayfield

[Softwood Lumber, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia's forest firms and workers are victims of the government's failure to negotiate a softwood lumber deal with the United States.

The Liberals had more than five years to secure free trade in softwood lumber with the Americans. They failed to do this work and now our softwood lumber industry and B.C.'s economy is suffering terribly. It has been months and the devastation has wreaked havoc on families and local communities. They need some transitional help to get through a restructuring of this industry.

It was unfair for the natural resources minister to create expectations last May that federal help was only weeks away. These relief measures are still on hold. There was nothing in the Speech from the Throne for the $10 billion softwood lumber industry in crisis. Nothing. The Liberal government has bailed out its favourite industries in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada in the past and even the auto sector during periods of downtime.

Canadians want the federal government to stop ignoring B.C. and give more attention to returning B.C. from its have not province status. This is urgent. There is a 15% unemployment rate that needs to go down now.

[Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills, October 4th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the member had to say. What concerns me about the reinstatement, speaking generally and not about any particular bill, is the process used by the government. It brings in legislation and more frequently than any other government uses time allocation. It whips its members to vote for the legislation and it gets through one stage at a time of course.

As a result of prorogation we are faced with the prospect of the same whip whipping the Liberal members to vote for the legislation. It seems to me that there is a juggernaut process that denies the democratic process.

I find it objectionable that bills, whether we agree with them or not, are put through in such a fashion that limits debate and limits representation from constituents. In the end it is not a democratic process that puts legislation through but the will of whoever is leading the government. I would like to have the hon. member's comments on that to see if I am on the right track.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the promotion of marijuana here today. Medical people are saying tobacco smoke is so harmful, that perhaps the nicotine will not kill us but the carrier of the nicotine in the smoke is what damages us, so it really amazes me that at the same time more smoking that will result in all of the side effects that smoking tobacco causes is being advocated. I am really amazed that people on the government side are advocating what would be a habit that debilitates people's health.

I understand there are people such as cancer victims who use it for special purposes to relieve discomfort. I do not have an argument with people looking for comfort, but to encourage people by saying that smoking marijuana is harmless really is irresponsible in my mind.

I would like to hear the member's comments about how he can advocate smoking marijuana when the smoke itself is so harmful. It is a pollutant. It is a contaminant. We take it into our bodies and our bodies do not like it.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister for participating in the debate today. It is always a pleasure.

My question for the minister relates to his concern for children. I have heard no response to the report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. When might the House expect to hear a response from the government on that report? It was extremely anguishing to listen to parents and the legal profession talk about this issue.

I would very much like to hear the government's response. Would the minister tell us when it is coming?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the comments of my colleague. I was interested in his comments about disincentives, and he used the example of Newfoundland. We understand that matters of this nature perhaps follow the course of least resistance and when it is easier to get money from programs of the government than to actually go out and get a job that is likely what happens. However I want to ask the member about the circumstances in British Columbia.

Rather than following the course of least resistance, the water running down the hill there has already reached the bottom and is in the puddle. With the softwood trade agreement falling apart, we have thousands of loggers and mill workers who do not have work and yet we cannot get the government to offer any support after the failure of the government to reach a satisfactory agreement with our trading partners.

Would the member comment on this aspect of perhaps that same question?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it concerns me when I see in the Speech from the Throne the list of items that we will be spending large amounts of money on when other programs are being sacrificed. For example, the hon. member mentioned fisheries.

It concerns me that at this time the coast guard does not have the resources to respond to environmental spills. Recently it was reported to me that in the Fraser River there were some 2,000 litres of ethylene glycol, antifreeze, dumped or poured into the Fraser River. The coast guard did not have the resources to even respond to investigate. The person who did that should have the book thrown at them because that is destroying not only fish habitat, but killing fish during the spawning season.

Second, I would like the member to comment about the pine beetle. The federal government has money for these programs, but no money to clean up the damage caused by these beetles on federal government lands. I would like the member to comment on that also.

[Government Contracts, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are gushing with gratitude for the looming summer recess. In summers past their eagerness to depart was due to their natural inclination to do as little as possible and still pretend to represent the interests of Canadians.

Today the situation is different. Their eagerness to depart is fueled by embarrassment and shame and by a desire to run for cover. While the Liberals are on vacation the official opposition will continue to do its work of exposing the government's list of scandals and corrupt practices, a long list that is still growing day by day. Not all members will be holidaying at the cottage or by the pool.

The public accounts committee will continue to meet throughout the summer. We have the serious work of holding hearings into the Groupaction scandal to find out if there was political interference in the awarding of these bogus contracts. We will be questioning public servants in charge of these files that “broke every rule in the book” according to the auditor general.

As the Liberals watch the lobsters boiling in the pot or barbecue steaks this summer, we hope they will ponder the heat that awaits them when they return to the House this fall. Canadians deserve better, much better.

[Government of Canada, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government cannot be trusted. Its incompetence and corruption is causing collateral damage. The publisher of the Ottawa Citizen is only the most recent casualty.

It may be too risky for the CanWest empire's Southam newspapers to run articles critical of the Prime Minister because the empire's television licences might be threatened. Suspension of freedom of the press in Canada has turned into journalistic persecution.

The Liberal government is feared in many circles because it is known to be reckless enough to waste millions if not billions of taxpayer dollars on lost reports, use untraceable verbal contracts, cause auditors to find empty files and use Liberal Party contributions as tickets to untendered government contracts.

The iron fist of the Prime Minister, desperate to keep his job, could come down on anyone, any time, anyplace, in his attempts to fend off corruption charges. How else can we explain a Canadian university honouring the Ottawa Citizen publisher one day for his contribution to journalism and the next day seeing him fired for criticizing the shah of Shawinigan.

[Financial Information Strategy, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has been dragging its feet on using industry standard accounting procedures. Do the ministers not want to know how to spend taxpayers' money wisely?

The financial information strategy was launched in 1995 but the auditor general says that the government is not only late on delivering but is not following through. Its commitment is weak and the progress is slow. After seven years government departments still do not speak the same accounting language linking cost to performance.

Government managers cannot make the needed changes to improve their stewardship of tax dollars without political leadership. With millions if not billions of dollars spent on lost reports, verbal contracts, auditors finding empty files and Liberal Party donors linked to untendered contracts, it is no wonder the government does not want to improve record keeping and provide all the federal departments and agencies with the most modern accounting tools available.

Canadians deserve better. We must kick-start the financial information strategy. It is our money so let us do it.

[National Defence, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, since 1994 the Liberal government has denied Canada's military the helicopters it needs to carry out dangerous missions. The Canadian Press has obtained a defence department report detailing the effects of this political foot dragging.

Our pilots asked for warning equipment that would alert them when enemy radar locked onto their Sea Kings. They were denied. Our pilots asked for flares and chaff that would throw missiles off their Sea Kings. They were denied. They asked for a device that would alert pilots if their Sea Kings were targeted by enemy lasers. They were denied.

Instead of buying our troops this defensive equipment to protect them in battle the government bought $100 million in luxury jets for the Prime Minister and his cabinet, not because they were needed but because they were nicer.

It is no wonder 69% of Canadians think this government is incompetent. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet should be ashamed. Canadians deserve better, a lot better.