Darrel Stinson

[Privilege, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your time and indulgence in this matter.

As the member across the way has stated, this issue is being dealt with in committee. I would think that is where it should be dealt with first. Then if necessary, it should come before the House.

I believe the members who were mentioned in the member's question of privilege should have the opportunity to be heard by the Speaker before the decision is made.

[Petitions, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is overwhelming evidence that many seniors are not able to meet the cost of living, housing, heating and nutrition on the basic old age pension security guaranteed income supplement presently being provided by the Government of Canada.

I am pleased to present a petition from hundreds of my constituents calling on parliament to review the old age security guaranteed income supplement program by instituting relief of at least 25% in basic premiums.

[Species at Risk Act, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will not forget the Speaker. I only wish the Speaker had been in on some of the committees. Maybe then we would have legislation put forward here that made some sense.

The government members do not care about the concerns of the people. They do not care about the concerns of the property owners. They do not care at all about anybody other than themselves.

The minister himself says that he does not know what the cost will be to implement the legislation. He says it will cost at least $45 million. I heard this once before on Bill C-68. It is now up to well over $700 million and there is still nothing happening on Bill C-68. We are going down the same route again.

I am afraid that government members have become so arrogant in their attitude to the people of this country. They do not care how much it costs. They do not care how much it hurts. They do not care what the effect will be on the family lives and employment in this country. They really do not care about anything outside of making sure their own paycheques are signed so they can cash them at the bank. That is all they care about.

They have done very little consultation on this bill. They are again stepping on provincial jurisdiction in many areas.

I want to assure members opposite that everybody has concerns with regard to endangered species. The government should consult. It should look at it reasonably and act with the people upon whom it will impact for a change. Please, at least do that with this piece of legislation.

[Species at Risk Act, February 26th, 2002]

Not one--

[Species at Risk Act, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on Bill C-5 with a number of concerns. I do not think there is anyone in the House let alone in Canada who does not have concerns in regard to a species that becomes endangered and how to help rectify that if it is possible. Bill C-5 goes far beyond that. If we are to look at this issue in a reasonable way, surely we have to look at the socioeconomic impact.

I am not that old. I am only 56. I was brought up to believe that there was such a thing as private property rights in Canada. A person could go out and spend their hard-earned money, their life savings, or maybe an inheritance that had been left to them by their mother, father, or grandparents, on a piece of property where they could raise their family or perhaps start a small woodlot. That property was theirs. As the old saying goes, that person was a king in his home. As long as the person did not infringe on his neighbour's well-being, everything seemed to be fine.

Then something like Bill C-5 comes forward which does not seem to take into account at all what the social impact will be. This piece of legislation will allow the government to deem a species on a person's property to be endangered and therefore the landowner will be held responsible for the upkeep and well-being of that species for the rest of his existence on that piece of property. Right away would a landowner in a free society that believes there is such a thing as private property rights not think that the government would help offset the cost or look after it itself? Naturally he would. However not in Canada. Not under this legislation. We have to look at the absolute stupidity of this whole philosophy.

I am very proud to be from British Columbia. Forestry is a major industry not only in British Columbia but right across Canada. Let us say we have a large section of forest in British Columbia, 90 square miles. In that industry in that one section perhaps 3,000 people as a rough average are employed. All of a sudden someone comes along and says that there is a little bug that lives in the forest and the whole forest has to be shut down. All of those people will be out of work which will impact on all their families and there will be no compensation.

Let us take that one step further. If a company had invested in that forest, had made its bid, paid its penalties and fees to the government and then was shut down, what would happen? There is no compensation from the government. It could go bankrupt, whether it was a big company or a small company. There are a lot of small companies in the forest industry. Under this legislation, the way it is written, that is exactly what could happen.

Even when the committee looked at it and put forward well over 140 amendments to the government to address some of these concerns, the government turned a deaf ear. What is happening?

It does not matter where people live. It will impact upon them, even if they live in the city. If there is an endangered species in the city, it will impact upon people in the city too. They will be held responsible. If people have a summer home or cottage on one of the lakes in Ontario, this bill could impact upon them. Their neighbour or somebody could decide that a species should be looked at because it could be endangered and the landowner could be held responsible for it.

Will a young person growing up in Canada invest in this great country when there is this type of hammer over his or her head? I could spend $500,000 on a piece of property and two days later somebody could decide there is an endangered species on my property. It would drop the value of my property from $500,000 down to where nobody would want to touch it because they would be responsible for the endangered species.

It becomes a major question with regard to what is going on. We cannot, point blank, pass a piece of legislation like this without looking at the consequences. What will the government do to our farmers, the people who supply our food? What will the government do if it decides there is a species of plant life that has to be saved at all costs? Will it shut down all the farms with no compensation?

I have heard that the government in some countries totally controls everything and no one is allowed to make a living unless the government says they may do so. Is this where we are going? Is this really where the government wants to take us?

Government members can shake their heads all they want. You never addressed one of the amendments put forward by all parties in the House. Not one have you tried to address.

[Veterans Affairs, December 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, part of the holiday season is sharing it with family and friends, including remembering those who have gone before us.

The Government of Canada bears special responsibility to remember Canada's veterans, including providing wreaths on behalf of Canada to be laid at cenotaphs across the country during ceremonies each November 11, but we have a problem. The Government of Canada only provides wreaths for communities which have an operating Canadian legion building.

My riding includes two small communities which conduct November 11 ceremonies at their local cenotaph but have no legion branch so the Government of Canada provides no wreath.

Partly due to the age of Canadian veterans, this year in B.C. alone it is expected that six to eight legion branches will close and the Government of Canada will provide fewer wreaths on November 11.

I urge the government instead to provide one wreath on behalf of Canada to every community which remembers veterans at its local cenotaph each November 11. Lest we forget.

[Nuclear Waste Act, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not see a tie on the hon. member.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 29th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned what happens in committees. Opposition parties put forward amendments and the government does not seem to listen. I sat on a number of committees and I have almost come to the conclusion that decisions are made before we ever get to committee.

I believe a number of the committees are an absolute total waste of time because government members obviously know before we start in on some of these studies how they are supposed to vote. They are told how to vote and they stand by that. Would the hon. member comment on that?

The hon. member mentioned the Hughes report that was studied by a committee. Did the government pay for the Hughes report? Does the member have any knowledge of the cost?

It is like other reports. We hear the government profess to the public that it is doing a certain study. A study is brought before a committee and we hear no more about it, or we hear it will be addressed in a timely fashion. I am sick and tired of that. I am concerned about the waste of the work committee members do.

The hon. member mentioned people in government such as RCMP officers or people in other areas of government coming forward with some concerns and getting slapped or put down. This is also a real concern. People are coming forward with legitimate concerns. They follow every step by bringing concerns to their superiors. They get slapped, punished, banished and their careers are put on hold. They get fired and have no place to go.

In this day and age, in a country that is supposed to be democratic and free, why is it that we do not have whistleblower protection legislation to protect people when they have legitimate concerns? Nobody in government will listen to them until somebody's butt gets burned, especially officials high up the ladder who are gagged. Does the hon. member not believe it is time we had whistleblower protection?

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in what is more of a discussion than a debate. I am not what we would call a happy camper. As the hon. member for Prince George--Bulkley Valley stated in his speech, as did other members in the House, the government was warned for a long time that this crisis was about to happen.

I would like everyone in the House and those who are listening to be assured that not all the Americans are on board with what a small band of special interest people is doing down there, not by a long stretch. As a matter of fact, the majority of American people are against exactly what is taking place here. Not only is it creating havoc in this country, it is creating havoc in the United States.

When the softwood agreement expired, the government acted as if it was a revelation that this would hamper our industry and create problems. Let me take members back. This dispute has been going on since 1962. Time and time again the Americans have challenged us and time and time again we have beaten them at the WTO in regard to these duties. It is not as if the government members could stand here tonight, and I have heard them, and say in all innocence that they should not have any concerns on this. They should have. History repeats itself until we do something right.

We went into the softwood lumber agreement with basically a five year understanding to get this worked out. When we stood up in the House and stated the concerns we had in regard to softwood lumber, I remember the minister saying it would give us five years of stability in the industry. That is what the minister said. The minister said that it would give us time to work on it.

There was no work done and now there is no work for our loggers or for those who depend on the logging industry, because the government refused to do absolutely anything. It treated it as a non-issue.

I would like to quote something from a gentleman whom I kind of agree with. David Emerson, the president of Vancouver based Canfor Corp., said:

If this was the auto industry or if this was Bombardier or the aerospace business or if it was split-run magazines, we'd have had high-level emissaries flying back and forth daily and it probably would have been resolved by now.

He is right. We have seen that happen in the House.

I will step away from probably the party and everything else because I really have a problem with free trade. The problem is that when we went into NAFTA and we talked about free trade it was sold to the people in Canada as free trade. To me free trade means free. We know it is not happening. We know it never did happen. Maybe we should be looking at fair trade. We should start looking at that issue and get rid of this concept of free trade because it is not free. It is costly.

For those who think that this has impacts only on those working in the forests, I have news for them. Everyone who is laid off in the forest industry, whether it be in the mills or in the bush, has impacts on the communities they live in, right down to the teachers, because if there are no jobs, people move to find jobs. It has impacts on the classrooms, the stores and the hospitals. It impacts everything. The government does not seem to understand that. This impacts not only small communities in our rural areas, it impacts right across Canada. Every time people have to go on unemployment or assistance of some sort, it has impacts on the social safety net. The government has to understand this. I am sure that if this was the textile industry or it was taking place somewhere close to home here in Ottawa that the government would understand exactly what we are talking about.

I find this situation highly degrading for a number of people, particularly those in British Columbia because they are who was referred to when the parliamentary secretary stood in the House and called them nervous nellies. They are losing their homes. They are losing their trucks. I find it quite exceptional that someone could even conceive of standing in the House to say “quit acting like nervous nellies”.

We have to come to some kind of agreement. We cannot stay on this route with the Americans. In my own opinion, and only my own opinion, it is time the government got tough. It is time the government got tough on these issues. The Americans depend upon us and we depend upon them. It is that simple. There is nothing wrong with bargaining hard, the same as they have been doing with us. We can do it. All we need to have is the will from the government. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with using linkage, if that is what it takes to resolve the issue.

I heard a member from the other side of the House say, and quite rightly so, that since September 11 nobody wants to take a hard line with the United States. I do. I will say that right now on this issue. The Americans are wrong. It is a small interest group that has driven this agenda to where it is now. The Americans are right in some respects. Their foremost interest right now is the security of their nation. That is one way in which they are right, for those on the other side of the House who wanted me to name one. Their primary interest is the security of their nation and rightly so.

If somehow we could loosen up those concerns, and they have come to us on a number of these issues, we would then be able to free up some of the senators who we know are sympathetic to the issue we have here regarding softwood lumber and we would be able to have them pay more attention to what is going on in this industry, because we do have support on the issue in their senate and their congress. We have consumer support in the States. There is overriding support from consumers to get rid of these countervailing duties on our lumber. They should not be there.

A lot of people do not even understand what softwood is and where it comes from. We need time to better educate the people. It is pine and spruce. They like to throw in cedar and fir. It has impacts across all aspects of the building industry in the United States.

I find it very strange that the government has had all this time and yet has done absolutely nothing in this regard except during the last five or six months. The Americans have lost their challenges in regard to this issue with Canada, yet they keep coming back. Now is the time to get a final agreement on this and really force the issue. We have to. Our people out there are depending upon us, not only in B.C., Quebec and Ontario but all across Canada.

All I can do is implore the government on behalf of the working people in Canada, those who depend on this industry, to please finally do something and do it fast. This is a crisis. If the government cannot do anything on the governmental side to fix the crisis with regard to the trade dispute, it should at least look at some way of offsetting the costs of the layoffs. This is a crisis as big as any the government has seen, bigger than the ice storm crisis. The government has to be responsible because it is a trade dispute and it is out of the hands of the workers. It is a trade dispute and the government is responsible for trade.

[Softwood Lumber, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am too nervous. I am one of the people from British Columbia who they have absolutely treated with disdain in the House.

A few weeks ago the U.S. settled a long running dispute over plywood by securing Indonesia's co-operation in the war against terrorism. Why is the government, and I would hate to say hiding its head in the sand because its head is somewhere else, not realizing that in order to save softwood lumber jobs here at home, we need to take action on a North American security perimeter and other homeland defence measures in order to gain the co-operation of our American counterparts?