Mike Scott

[Justice, April 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago a young woman from my riding named Tammy Fee was brutally assaulted, raped and threatened with death in her own home after being stalked for weeks.

The man who perpetrated this vicious attack, Rick White, was immediately apprehended, charged and convicted. Now, after only two years of incarceration, he is scheduled for parole on May 23.

Tammy Fee is so afraid that this man is going to come after her that she is seriously planning to change her name and identity and relocate somewhere else in Canada so that Rick White cannot find her. In other words, she fears for her life so much that she is going underground to hide.

Surely this is appalling testimony to the lack of concern the criminal justice system and this Parliament have shown for the rights of victims in this country.

Tammy Fee is not just a victim of violence, she is now also a victim of this justice minister's policies.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment which in effect restores a right taken away by previous legislation for an automatic written victim impact statement. In speaking to this motion I would like to talk a little bit about a very serious story that unfolded in my riding of Skeena.

About two months ago a young lady named Tammy Fee came to see me. She lives in the community of Terrace in my riding. She asked for my assistance and told me her story. Several years ago she had a boyfriend and recognized early on that it was a destructive relationship, not one that she wanted to be in. She told her boyfriend that she was going to end the relationship. At this point the fellow became unglued. He did not want to accept that.

He was a very controlling individual and could not accept the fact that Tammy Fee was no longer going to be his girlfriend or have anything to do with him. He harassed and stalked her for some period of time after she broke off with him.

The day before he attacked her he chartered a helicopter and flew over her house so that he could plan how he was going to gain access to her dwelling. He came into her house in the middle of the night. He obviously knew what he was going to do because he had masking tape fixed on to his vest or shirt so he could gag her immediately on entry. He came in through a window at two o'clock in the morning. He cut the screen. Tammy was asleep on the couch

when he came into the house. The very first words she heard this man utter were "you're dead". You can imagine the terror.

I have never been in a position where I have been assaulted in this kind of manner. I have never been put in fear of my life. I can only imagine what that would feel like because I have never experienced it. "You're dead".

Over the next several hours this individual assaulted Tammy sexually and otherwise. He indicated he was going to take her life. She realized the only way she was going to survive was to play along so she did.

The very minute she had the opportunity, when he relaxed his guard, she ran out of the house to the neighbours and phoned 911. I have heard transcripts of the 911 call. They are hair raising, they are frightening.

The RCMP arrested this fellow, took him the the local lock-up and took Tammy in at the same time to make a statement. Tammy told me that she was so afraid, so traumatized by this event that she did not even want to be in the same police station with this fellow even though there were all kinds of RCMP officers around and even though on an intellectual level she knew she was quite safe there.

The RCMP arresting officer told her: "Do not worry, Tammy. This guy is gone for 10 years at least. For 10 years this guy is going to be not only out of your hair but out of society. He is going to be incarcerated". This was the gut reaction of the arresting RCMP officer to this attack.

Members can imagine how I felt as Tammy's elected representative when she came to me and said: "This assault took place two years ago. The individual who assaulted and raped me and threatened my life is to be released on May 23 of this year". She said: "I am so afraid that this man is going to come back to Terrace to seek retribution for my turning him in. He is going to want to finish the job". She said: "Mr. Scott, I am so afraid that I have made arrangements to change my identity, my social insurance number and relocate somewhere else in Canada so that this fellow cannot track me down and do any more damage to me than he has already done. I am afraid for my life. I am afraid that this fellow is going to come back and take my life".

How can we as a just society, as a caring society, let this happen? How can we stand by and watch a young woman who has already been traumatized, already been through hell, be traumatized again by a justice system that refuses to take the responsibility for the safety of its citizens as its first priority? I am absolutely appalled that I have to deal with a constituent on this level on this matter. I have no answers for her. What am I supposed to tell this young woman? "Take your chances. I do not think he will come back".

That is not what the police have said and it is not what an independent psychological evaluation has suggested. As a matter of fact parts of that psychological interview were put in the Sun newspaper shortly after this fellow's trial where the psychologist said that it was highly likely this individual will offend again. If it is not Tammy Fee, there will be some woman, somewhere in the country, probably in British Columbia who will pay a price for his release. Somewhere somebody is going to pay a terrible price for the release of this fellow back into society.

How can we let this happen? I heard the justice minister over the last three year talk about the fact that we are a caring society. I do not have a problem with that and I do not think most members in the House have a problem with being a caring society. The question is, who do we care about? Do we care about the fellow who attacked, raped and threatened this girl's life? Or do we care about the girl?

The problem with the present criminal justice system and with the weak-kneed efforts the justice minister has made to date, is that we continually place more importance in the rights of the criminal than on the rights of Tammy Fee and others like her.

My colleagues have spoken over and over again in the House about incidents very similar to this and yet nothing happens. I appreciate what the justice minister said today in question period. He said that Reformers did not have a lock on caring, that we did not have the sole domain on caring about victims in Canada. I would hope not. I would hope that everybody in the House and every right thinking Canadian would be concerned about that.

Why has the justice minister not done anything about it? I do not believe the justice minister would purposely like to see Tammy Fee reassaulted, but I do not think he has done anything to ensure that it does not happen. As justice minister in Canada he has the absolute power to change it and the government has the power to change it.

The government has sat here and listened for 3.5 years to very serious suggestions from this party and has failed to act. Half the time I hear members of the government across the way snickering and laughing when Reform brings these matters forward. Then on the eve of an election-talk about cynical-the justice minister tries to paint himself as a person who is legitimately concerned with the rights of victims. He will not accept Reform's victims rights bill but he is legitimately concerned about the rights of victims. I do not think so and I do not think Canadians think so.

This issue is so important that it should cut across political lines. It should not be a matter of Reform, Liberal, Bloc and NDP. It

should be a matter of decent Canadians caring about their fellow Canadians, the personal safety of their fellow Canadians, and doing something about it. To the great discredit of Parliament that has not happened.

As a result of that failure to act there will be many more victims out there and will continue to be victims out there until such time as we have a government and a justice minister who are willing to take tough measures to keep our citizens safe.

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I was a little amused to hear the questions and comments of my friend across the way.

First, the reduction in the deficit achieved by the government has been achieved largely on the backs of taxpayers by increasing revenues and furthermore by downloading on the provinces and municipalities across the country. That is how these people across the way balance their books. They do not cut their own spending.

Let me give an example. These people over there are totally enraptured by this vision of big government. If Bombardier wanted my money it could come and knock on my door. It could send me a solicitation in the mail. It could say: "Please, Mr. Scott, send a cheque, give us a donation, lend us some money because we want to expand our production facilities in Canada". The House probably has a pretty good idea what I would tell Bombardier if it asked me for money.

The hon. member may think it is funny, but these people do not need to ask me. They come to Ottawa and they get permission to steal my money. That is exactly what is going on. This is taxpayers' money that should be held in trust for the benefit of the taxpayers of Canada. It is siphoned off and given to the cronies, the friends and the insiders of this government. That is what is wrong with the

vision of the anointed. It leads to cronyism. It leads to insider manipulation of the system. It leads to abuse.

The Reform Party of Canada stands four square against this kind of action. It stands four square in favour of smaller government, a government focused in the areas where it can be effective, and of getting out of areas like trying to open up a new rail service to compete against private enterprise in British Columbia.

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster.

In listening to the interventions thus far today, I am struck by the fact that we have a very clear example of the political debate that is taking place in Canada today. I think it is the debate that the upcoming election should largely be fought on, which is the competing visions of the political parties in Canada for what government should be in Canadians' daily lives.

One of the best descriptions I have seen of this, although it involves an American writer and a description of the American political system, is by P. J. O'Rourke. He observed once in trying to encapsulate the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, that the Democrats were the party that said government can make you straighter, smarter and taller and take the chickweed out of your lawn, and the Republicans were the party that argued that government does not work and they keep on getting elected and they keep on proving it.

The argument is: How big should government be? What can government do and what can people do for themselves?

It strikes me that the Liberals are captivated by a vision, a vision which American writer Thomas Sowell describes as the vision of the anointed. Convinced of their own moral superiority, they insulate themselves from the lessons of history. They insulate themselves from reality and they go on with program after program, expenditure initiative after expenditure initiative. They never seek to determine the results of these expenditures. They never seek to determine the results of the policies that they have put in place.

The result is we now have a $600 billion debt in this country. We are in jeopardy of being able to deliver the social services that Canadians want and need the most, those being health and education primarily, and old age security. We are in jeopardy of being able to deliver these services because the federal government has been following this vast array of public spending programs over the last few years.

The vision the Liberals have is based primarily on the premise that government is good, that big government is better and if only well intentioned, well meaning and intelligent people could get their hands on the levers of power-of course they mean themselves when they say this-that everything would be just fine. They can devise a program and a government policy to solve all the problems Canadians have. They are the anointed, they are the ones that have the vision of how this can be done and if only they could get into power and stay in power they could solve all of Canada's problems for Canadians.

I think it was "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" that reminded all of us over the Christmas break there was no session here for 51 days and guess what? The country just went running right along as usual.

The Tories and the NDP, while they are different political parties, represent substantially the same vision. They share largely the same ideas although in a different form as the Liberals do. Of course the Liberals more than being anointed with this vision have also come to believe-I guess history is on their side to some extent-that they are the natural governing party of Canada. The Liberals believe that they have every right and indeed a responsibility to be here for Canadians and to keep on governing the country.

The problem they have with the Pearson airport deal is not that there may be a $600 million expenditure coming out of the wallets of taxpayers. The fact is that the Liberals have objected strenuously to the deal because they did not negotiate the deal with their friends.

If the hon. member for Hamilton West who earlier talked about the $600 million expenditure was so concerned about political parties rewarding their friends and insiders, why does he not stand on his feet and object to the $1.2 billion, or twice the amount of money he is talking about, the government has given to Bombardier over the last 15 years? How can he talk about what the Conservative Party has done without recognizing what his party has done?

I invite the member to read "Above the Law", a book about Rod Stamler. I invite the member to acquaint himself with the history of dredging contracts on the St. Lawrence seaway when his party was in power. I invite him to look at the history of how concession contracts were handed out at airports across Canada. I invite him to look at his own party and at the way contracts were handed out for the last 35 or 40 years when the Liberals were in power.

This is hypocrisy. He cannot be against what the Conservatives did without looking at what his party has done.

Do we agree that what the Conservatives did was right? No. I cannot agree that the dying days of a Parliament, the dying days of an administration, is an appropriate time for a government to enter into negotiations of the magnitude of the Pearson airport deal.

There is a longstanding tradition in the country that successive governments honour the agreements put in place by preceding governments. If they choose because they believe it is in the public interest to abrogate the agreements, they ought never to pass legislation preventing those who either were or believed they were harmed as a result of the action from going to court to seek proper retribution through the court system. That is exactly what the government tried to do. That is exactly what was on its mind.

If someone does something which is harmful one has every right as a Canadian citizen to seek redress through the courts. It is arrogance in the extreme for any government to attempt to pass legislation which would prevent people from going to court to seek a judicial solution to the problems they face.

It is not for politicians to determine the harm suffered as a result of the abrogation of that contract. It is for the courts to decide. If the government has acted appropriately I am sure the courts will take that into consideration.

VIA Rail is another example of the Liberal government's vision of the anointed, its vision that VIA Rail should be the one to run passenger rail service in Canada. This is an example of a private company which actually bought the assets from the federal government going into business, running a railway and doing very well at it. The federal government is now saying: "Maybe we are missing something. Maybe we should get back into this business". The government wants to use taxpayers' money to compete with the people who are successfully running a business.

This business is paying taxes because it is successful. All the people employed by the business are paying taxes. Their tax dollars will be used to subsidize the federal government getting into competition with them. I ask Canadians if that is fair. Is that reasonable? Is that just? I think not. It is a manifestation of the vision of the anointed.

The Prince Rupert grain terminals are important to the people of Prince Rupert in my riding. It is very much a transportation issue precipitated by the actions of this and other governments.

The port of Prince Rupert has a very modern grain terminal, one of the most modern and efficient grain terminals in the world. If a ship comes in to pick up grain in Vancouver it may have to be berthed two, three or even four times to take on its full load. If it comes into Prince Rupert it has to be berthed only once. There is a cost associated with berthing, every time a ship has to be moved in a harbour.

Prince Rupert is about 400 miles closer to most Pacific rim markets than to the port of Vancouver. It therefore represents an efficiency in terms of getting grain to market. Prince Rupert has one of the fastest turnaround times for grain cars of any grain terminal in Canada.

Because of the way the movement of grain is structured in the country and because of government intervention over a long period of time, the port of Prince Rupert cannot take advantage of the efficiencies it offers to shippers.

The Canadian Wheat Board, for example, does not sell grain f.o.b. the country where it is to be delivered. It sells grain f.o.b. port. There is no incentive for shippers to turn grain cars around quickly because there is no financial penalty or incentive attached to the use of grain cars.

This is an example of how government intervention at this point is preventing the port of Prince Rupert from realizing its potential.

I will close by saying that I really hope the next election is fought on the issues. I really hope we as politicians can take our competing visions before the Canadian people and let them make a decision. Should it be big government or small government? Is it better for them to make decisions on how their money is spent, or is it better to have the money sent to Ottawa to allow Ottawa to determine how the money is best spent?

[Excise Tax Act, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, unlike my colleague from across the way, I am running for something. I am running for Reform. I am not running away from accountability like those people are.

He talked about the EH-101 helicopter deal and he talked about the Pearson airport deal. Those were contracts that were in place when this government came to power. There is a longstanding tradition in this country that succeeding governments honour the contracts and the agreements that are in place. This government has broken those longstanding traditions. It has abrogated these deals. It has cost the Canadian taxpayers a billion dollars.

We do not have effective helicopters that can fly. And Pearson airport in Toronto will be 10 years behind in getting modernized so it can accommodate the passengers going through it. That is the reality of this government: put political expediency ahead of the best interests of the taxpayers, ahead of the best interests of the people who want to fly to and from Pearson airport, ahead of the best interests of the people who have to fly those helicopters for search and rescue and the other activities they are used for. The government puts their safety on the back burner in the hope that it will gain some political advantage by doing it. Frankly, it stinks.

[Excise Tax Act, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, just before I get into the text of my remarks, I have to respond to what the hon. member from across the way was saying.

The Liberal Party, if anything, is extremely acrobatic. It is interesting to watch the flip-flops, pirouettes and the changes of course and direction that this party takes whenever it considers it politically expedient to do so.

I was in the construction business during the 1970s and I was faced with the increasing FST remunerations that we had to make. These were hidden taxes at the time. The finance ministers in those days, Mr. MacEachen I remember and Mr. Chrétien who was a finance minister back in the 1970s, loved this tax because it was a way for them to increase their revenues without getting Canadians upset. It was an invisible tax for most Canadians but it was certainly visible to me, as I was in the construction industry and had to pay federal sales tax on many of the goods that we were purchasing and incorporating into our work when we were building construction projects.

Now we hear that the Liberal Party supports the idea that taxes should be visible. Frankly, I find that unacceptable. I just do not believe that these people are serious when they talk about being straight with Canadians.

That gets me into the text of my remarks which has to do with broken promises and the broken promise we are debating today. The Liberal government did not promise to harmonize the GST. It did not promise to incorporate it with another tax. It said it was going to kill, scrap and abolish the GST.

After the Liberals made that promise and were elected, they said that they did not promise to kill, scrap and abolish the GST. They held that line for a long period of time. They have finally come around, after the Prime Minister's disastrous town hall meeting last fall, and said: "We are apologizing but not for breaking a promise. We are apologizing because Canadians are confused about what we have said and if we have contributed to that confusion we are sorry". That is typical of this government.

It is typical of this government to engage in obfuscation, mirage and sleight of hand. It is typical of this government to say: "Now you see it and now you don't". That is what has happened since the election campaign in 1993 and the reality of the spring of 1997.

Let us just go through a few examples. The Liberals like to manufacture facts about the health care system and their spending on it. They paint themselves as defenders of the Canadian health care system. They wrap themselves in the red cross every time they can and say: "We are concerned about health care for Canadians and we want to make sure that universal health care of a high standard is delivered to every Canadian from coast to coast".

In reality the government has cut $3 billion a year out of health care spending. It has cut $7 billion in health care spending since being elected. It does not want to be held accountable for that so it points fingers at everybody else. It says: "these are the bad guys over here, they're going to cut your health care, they're going to cut

your social programs and so on". This government has done far more cutting than any of the other political parties in this country even suggested.

This is not a Reform promise. It is not a promise that the Reform Party would make. The Liberals promised they were going to maintain stable funding for the CBC. Once elected they gutted the CBC's budget. They ignore the best interests of taxpayers in favour of political expediency every time. Let me give a few examples.

The EH-101 helicopter was cancelled. A decision had been made to purchase helicopters. A contract was entered into before this government was elected. But this government in its infinite wisdom said: "This is not a good deal for Canada and we are going to scrap it". It cancelled the agreement to buy helicopters.

First of all, what was the cost of cancellation? It is not known for sure but the figures seem to be coming in at around $500 million. Not a single helicopter has been bought but the Canadian taxpayers are out $500 million. We do not have one helicopter to show for it.

The Sea King helicopters are falling out of the skies. They are unsafe to fly. There is not enough of them to do the job. I do not have search and rescue capacity in my riding of Skeena because there are not enough helicopters that fly to go around. That is the reality of this government.

Now the government admits it has to do something so it is looking at some kind of a replacement for the Sea King helicopters. It is now talking about providing a helicopter that is substantially smaller than the EH-101. There is conjecture that whatever helicopter is picked it is not going to be able to do the job. That is the reality of this government.

The Pearson airport cancellation, whether one agreed with the deal or not, whether it was thought to be a good deal or not, was a deal that was done and above board. I do not think any of the inquiries that have been set up to look into this deal has ever shown any impropriety on the part of the government or the people who were contracting to do the deal. It was a political decision and the Liberal Party was unhappy with the political decision, probably because they did not make it and it was not their friends who substantially benefited from it. It was a political deal but it was above board.

The Liberals were elected and they said no they were going to cancel this deal. Arbitrarily they are going to abrogate a signed agreement. Can you imagine the arrogance of this government? Can you imagine the arrogance of the people who made that decision? On top of that, to protect themselves and insulate themselves from any political repercussions, they tried to pass legislation through the House that stated they could not be sued for their actions. Can you imagine the arrogance of that?

If they really felt that they have made a good decision on behalf of the Canadian taxpayers you would think they would be more than willing to go to court to defend themselves, that the people who felt they were wronged in this action had a cause of action and wanted to sue the government. They knew immediately when they cancelled the deal they were going to get sued. They knew they were wrong. They knew they had violated a contract. What do they do? They tried to pass legislation. Thankfully that legislation was not passed and now they are going to have to face the music. Unfortunately the Canadian taxpayers are going to end up footing the bill. It is one more example of "now you see it, now you don't". It is one more example of no political accountability for the decisions that are made. It is one more example of putting politics ahead of the best interests of the Canadian people.

Let me give another example, the Somalia inquiry. This government has done its level best, along with senior officials in the military, to pin the rap of the Somalia disaster on the lower echelons in the army. They have done their level best to evade and avoid any responsibility for either the events that occurred in Somalia or for the mishandling and covering up of the events that happened subsequent to it.

Now the Minister of National Defence has given the inquiry its marching orders. He has told the commission to cut the inquiry short and to report to the House in time for an election. When did we start looking at proper public policy in the best interests of this country based on the timing of the next election? Frankly, I find that unacceptable. It is appalling.

The government promised jobs, jobs, jobs. The Prime Minister partly delivered. Every Liberal of note from coast to coast got a job in the last three and a half years. However, what about the 1.5 million Canadians who are unemployed? What about the people who are out there pounding the streets, looking for work? What will happen to the people who have given up, who do not believe they will be able to find work? The Prime Minister just brushes them off and says: "Tough luck. Some people win and some people lose".

Canadians are counting the days until they can hold this government accountable for all of this and much more.

[Excise Tax Act, February 11th, 1997]

No, Mr. Speaker. I am going to be splitting the 20 minutes with my colleague from Kootenay East.

[Government Policies, February 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, like most other MPs, I spent Christmas break travelling around my riding of Skeena listening to the concerns of my constituents.

The majority of those concerns, as members may guess, deal with their unjust treatment at the hands of this Liberal government.

News of the day issues like silencing of the Somalia inquiry, the mishandling of the Airbus affair, the blood scandal, the broken GST promise and the bungling of the Pearson airport deal are all at the top of their minds.

There are also a litany of concerns specific to my constituents. Coast guard cutbacks, de-staffed light stations and DFO mismanaged fisheries top the list in Prince Rupert. People living in Terrace, Kitimat, Stewart and the Bulkley Valley seem incensed with the government's cramming gun control, native land claims and increasingly punitive taxes down their throats.

However, the most frequently asked question in Skeena is: "When is the Prime Minister going to call an election?" They and Canadians right across the country want to start counting the days until they can hold this government accountable for its broken promises.

[Softwood Lumber, December 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election Liberals made a campaign promise that they would abrogate the North American free trade agreement unless it worked for Canadians.

What is Canada's biggest net export to the United States? Is it designer jeans? Is it electric shavers? Is it toasters? No, it is softwood lumber, by a wide margin.

How are the Liberals handling the single most important trade issue on Canada's behalf? The Prime Minister went on a golfing holiday with President Clinton while Canadian trade officials rolled over and meekly accepted a quota on softwood lumber. This was after Canada won three separate arbitrations on softwood lumber disputes.

While the minister brags about keeping promises and spends millions on trade junkets to Asia, sawmills in my riding, in Terrace, Smithers, Hazelton and Prince Rupert, are cutting back and laying off people.

It reminds me of another Liberal promise about jobs, jobs, jobs.

[Excise Tax Act, December 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, before I start I would like to congratulate my colleague for his most excellent speech. We can always tell when a Reformer is speaking from the cacophony of bleating babble which comes from the other side.

We are talking today about another Liberal broken promise. There is a whole bunch of them. We have referred to them over and over again in our interventions on this bill and other bills.

First of all, we are talking about the promise to scrap, abolish and get rid of the GST. We are also talking about the Liberal promise to introduce democracy into this House. The people on the other side of this House yelled, screamed and ridiculed the Tory government for doing exactly what they are doing today.

I would like to respond to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls. I have respect for this member and I am aware that on many occasions he has had the courage to stand up and challenge his own government, to challenge his own leader when there was an issue that was going to affect his constituents. He knew and realized that the government was wrong and he challenged it. I congratulate him for that. If more backbenchers in the Liberal government did that then possibly we would get better government. Unfortunately most do not have that courage.

During the intervention of the member for Gander-Grand Falls he was trying to paint this wonderful rosy picture of how great a job this government has been doing for the last three years. He referred to statistics with regard to the deficit and other industrialized nations. For the life of me I cannot understand why this member, who has been very lukewarm to his own government for the last

three years, is all of a sudden on side with it. I imagine he has his own reasons for that.

In a valiant but vain attempt he painted his government in the best light that he possibly could. He said the government's record is good. We know what the government's record is on the GST. We know what the government's record is on invoking closure. Let us talk about a couple of other issues, issues that are not only near and dear to me but near and dear to many people in my constituency.

Let us talk about the broken promise of the North American Free Trade Agreement for a few minutes. When this government campaigned in 1993 it said it would abrogate the North American Free Trade Agreement unless it worked for Canadians. It had some concerns about the agreement and it wanted to make sure it could go back and renegotiate it and make sure it worked for Canadians.

Let us examine the government's record on the North American Free Trade Agreement. What is the single most important trade issue between Canada and the United States? What is the single biggest net export to the United States that means the most jobs in Canada? It is Canadian softwood lumber. Canadian softwood lumber is the single biggest net export to the United States.

What has this government done in renegotiating NAFTA and standing up for Canada's interest in the North American Free Trade Agreement? When Mickey Kantor talked to the Prime Minister or his office or the minister of trade and said he wanted to do a deal that is going to limit Canadian imports into the United States, the minister said "how high do you want us to jump and when can we come back down again?" The government rolled right over on it.

This is an issue that affects four provinces significantly and every province either directly or indirectly. There are hundreds of thousands of jobs hanging in the balance. This government and this Prime Minister who promised Canadians they were going to make the North American Free Trade Agreement work for us have turned their backs on these people and allowed American trade officials, Mickey Kantor in particular, to dictate to us how we are going to run our softwood lumber industry.

I want to talk for a minute on who benefits from this. Most of the timbered land in Canada is owned by the crown and is granted as tree farm licences. Various sawmills and pulp mills get rights to harvest in these areas but the land is owned by the crown.

In the United States it is different. Most of the timbered land in the United States is owned by private individuals and corporations. Incidentally, most of the timbered land in the United States is owned by a handful of wealthy corporations that have the money and the power to go to Washington, D.C. and lobby for their interests. They are the ones who are benefiting. They are the ones whose asset value has increased as a result of this quota system. They are the ones who are able to demand more money for their timber in the United States.

And who is losing? The first big losers are the consumers in the United States who on average pay $3,000 more now than before the quota for the construction of a new home. The American consumers have been held up by their own lobby groups and by the wealthy timber owners in the United States. And the other big losers are the Canadian producers and the people who are employed in those industries. They are the ones who are paying for this.

I cannot understand for the life of me where the leadership is from the government benches, the Prime Minister and his trade minister. They allow the North American Free Trade Agreement to be abrogated by the Americans so that it works in favour of the Americans at every step and turn when it becomes an issue that is important to them. But when it is an issue which is vitally important to Canada, there is no leadership whatsoever. They roll over and play dead. This is another example of a Liberal broken promise.

The Prime Minister takes these trade junkets all over the world and spends millions of Canadian taxpayer dollars doing it. He goes to South America, Europe and Asia, all the while telling people he is there to promote Canadian business and industry. He hands over millions of dollars in subsidies, grants and no interest loans to well heeled companies like Bombardier. However when it comes to an issue that is vital to British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, what does the Prime Minister do? He just rolls over.

A lot of potential jobs will be lost as a result of this. Sawmills in my riding, in Terrace, Smithers, Hazelton and Prince Rupert are on the verge of closing. They have announced closures and are cutting back or laying off people just before Christmas because of the lack of leadership from this government.

It reminds me of another Liberal promise. Does anyone here recall the promise about jobs, jobs, jobs? Well the jobs, jobs, jobs in my riding are going gone, gone, gone because this Prime Minister and his trade minister cannot represent the interests of Canadians when it comes to trade with the United States. That is the track record of the government.

I cannot believe it. I am ashamed as a Canadian. I am absolutely appalled and ashamed that the government is so weak-kneed and so willing to accept what Mickey Kantor and the trade department of the United States demands of us rather than standing up for our interests.

While we are talking about Liberal broken promises, the promise to scrap, abolish and kill the GST, the promise to introduce more democracy into Parliament and do away with votes on closure so that we would have the ability to debate these issues at length, there are other broken promises as well which are costing Canadians jobs

right now. Broken promises are costing my constituents their livelihood.

This is totally unacceptable. The government should demonstrate leadership. The Prime Minister should demand a meeting with the President of the United States and put this issue at the top of the agenda and work for the interests of Canada for a change instead of going on golfing holidays with his friend Mr. Clinton while Mickey Kantor beats up on our trade officials.

I am appalled and ashamed of being a Canadian today when I look at how easily American interests have rolled over us and forced us to do their will.

In closing, when the government brags about keeping its promises, when the government brags about how well Canada is doing economically, it is totally ignoring the unemployment rate in this country. It is totally ignoring the people who are concerned about losing their jobs, and there are a lot more of them now as a result of the softwood lumber issue. It is totally ignoring the cost to the people of Atlantic Canada for paying the harmonization cost of the GST. It is totally ignoring the fact that the rest of Canada is going to foot the bill for this billion dollar bribe.

The government is totally ignoring many of the most serious and important promises it made during the last election campaign. We will be reminding Canadians in the very near future of all these Liberal broken promises.