Philip Mayfield

[Mountain Pine Beetle, April 30th, 2002]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate measures to stop the infestation of British Columbia forests by the Mountain Pine Beetle by: (a) initiating eradication measures on all affected lands over which the government has control or influence; and (b) cooperating fully with the Government of British Columbia to ensure that it has the ability to control the Mountain Pine Beetle in all areas under its jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Edmonton Centre-East for seconding the motion.

I rise on behalf of the people of Cariboo--Chilcotin and everyone in my province of British Columbia who will be affected by the infestation of the mountain pine beetle that is currently destroying and threatening further widespread destruction of the forests in our province.

Motion No. 435 is very simple. I am asking the House to support having the federal government join the province of B.C. in the fight against the mountain pine beetle epidemic.

This infestation may be the largest epidemic of its kind in Canadian history. It is certainly the largest in B.C.'s history. The pine beetle has infested 5.7 million hectares of working forest, which is about twice the size of Vancouver Island.

This year industry will spend more than $79 million on this fight. The provincial ministry of forestry will spend a further $17.5 million. Another $2.1 million for efforts in parks and protected areas will be spent by the provincial government. Forest Resources BC will spend another $6 million. This is the effort already been undertaken to prevent losses and to slow the progress of this epidemic.

Licensees on the frontlines are redirecting up to 100% of annual allowable cut to beetle management. Thirty four hundred workers are battling the beetle. Eight million cubic metres of harvesting have been redirected to stands already beetle infested. Fourteen million hectares of forest is being mapped and monitored by air. A hundred and thirty thousand hectares of forest are being monitored by ground assessment. Single tree treatment has reached 62,000 trees. Five hundred and fifty-six kilometres of additional roads are being built and twenty-two hundred and seventy kilometres of access road are being maintained to battle the beetle.

The British Columbia government needs about $60 million a year over 10 years to fight this enormous problem of the pine beetle infestation. That is how big this problem is. Already it has created a state of emergency in working forests in west central British Columbia.

The beetle attacks the lodgepole pine which accounts for more than 50% of growing stock in B.C.'s interior. The lodgepole pine is the predominant species of commercial wood. Conservative estimates say that 40 million to 70 million cubic metres of timber are infested. This amounts to at least $3.4 billion in wood value. This is more than two years worth of allowable annual cut for the nine forest districts. The total value of timber currently at risk in the Cariboo, Prince George and Prince Rupert forest regions is $12.5 billion.

By now I have heard every argument in the book from the Liberal government denying its responsibility in the fight against the bugs that are eating away B.C.'s forests.

I have been working on this issue of bug infested trees for many years. Over the years I have been told that there are special agreements in place that relieve the federal government of its responsibility. The government has said that it is working on that. These are just forestalling efforts and being put off by the government.

There was a real lack of effort by the federal government years ago when the fir bark beetle was pouring out of the west Chilcotin military reserve at Riske Creek. Pine beetles now continue to spill out from the same military reserve into the surrounding forests.

In December 2001 the Minister of Natural Resources told me during question period that the department was waiting for a formal request from the B.C. government. This is balderdash. I raised this issue only after discussing it with the former minister responsible for forests in British Columbia and I did it at his request. Has the federal government position changed since December?

The new senior minister for B.C. has called this problem a serious threat. He says that he is looking for ways to help. I want to take him seriously and trust that he will see to it that the federal government delivers on its responsibility for federal lands that are infested under the serious threat of devastation by the beetle. However it is very difficult to have faith in the government in view of its track record and its legacy of not protecting or even caring about the forests that are being infested.

The federal government's lack of effort is both causing and adding to the seriousness of the infestation of B.C.'s forests. The cause is the stressing of the trees by previous military activities on these military lands. The federal government is adding to the problem by not allowing the removal of infected trees from these same lands. What the B.C. government wants is co-operation from the federal government to fight the mountain pine beetle epidemic by dealing with the problem on its own land and assisting the province in dealing with this weather related problem throughout the northern part of the province of British Columbia.

This is a non-partisan issue. The science has been agreed upon. There is a plan in place but the government of British Columbia needs the co-operation of the federal government to win the war being waged against the pine beetle, a war which in part the federal government is responsible for causing.

The federal government owns crown lands with forests on them that are infected by the beetle. The federal government has a constitutional responsibility for the land it owns in British Columbia. The beetle infects some of that land and the federal government will be confronted with this beetle epidemic and forced to deal with it at some point in the future regardless of what it does now. It is only rational and logical that the federal government work with the province in this battle now.

This is similar to a forest fire. The longer it is left, the faster it grows, increasing the rate of destruction and loss. That is what I am asking for in this motion. Will the federal government please co-operate with the province of British Columbia in dealing with the problem that is costing enormous cash loss, to say nothing of the environmental devastation? People who have seen a devastated forest, have seen fallen, windblown trees crossing over each other. It is a desolation that no creature can use.

I am only asking the House to commit the federal government to work with the provincial government in the fight against the mountain pine beetle. The federal government is the only other major landowner in my province. Later in the debate I will request that the House give unanimous consent to call a vote on this motion. I will do it because during this debate I hope to convince all hon. members to vote in support of our federal government working with the province of British Columbia to control this epidemic that is threatening our forests.

Confidence is high for our success in winning the war against these beetles when all parties are committed to taking part. Our success will come at an even swifter pace if we can co-operate in the effort to control the spread of these beetles.

The biggest opportunity for success that we have is our ability to attack this problem before it gets completely out of hand. There was no warning when the ice storm hit central Canada. There was no warning when the floods hit Quebec. There was no warning when Manitoba was unexpectedly flooded beyond previous levels a few years ago. We have all the warning we need about the devastating impact of the mountain pine beetle but we can do something about this weather related problem. It is weather related because the warm winters that we have had in past years have not been sufficiently cold to keep this insect under control.

The federal government became immediately involved in the ice storm and rightly so. The federal government swooped in and hit the ground running during the Quebec floods. In Manitoba the Prime Minister himself helped build sandbags to fight that flood. That is what happens when there is a weather related emergency in Canada. Our federal government co-operates with the provinces and regions to help them deal with the tragedy. The weather related problem of the pine beetle tragedy is different only because it is not stopped by seasonal change. It has to be stopped by cutting the wood that it infects.

The federal government has lands and forests in British Columbia that are infected. On these federal lands the British Columbia government cannot deal with the problem. Until now, the federal government will not deal with it.

I am concerned that the federal government will not support the fight against the devastation in B.C. forests that is, at least in part, its own fight.

Motion No. 435 states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate measures to stop the infestation of British Columbia forests by the Mountain Pine Beetle by: (a) initiating eradication measures on all affected lands over which the government has control or influence; and (b) cooperating fully with the Government of British Columbia to ensure that is has the ability to control the Mountain Pine Beetle in all areas under its jurisdiction.

I do not want to think that this delay or foot dragging in committing the federal government to help B.C. deal with the infestation smacks of a double standard being applied when we compare this weather related epidemic to the swift aid Quebec received after floods and the aid central Canada received after the 1998 ice storm.

Last month the government's senior B.C. minister, the Minister of Natural Resources, announced in a speech to business representatives of my province that among other things he would meet again with B.C. officials and with Premier Gordon Campbell to discuss ways to deal with the mountain pine beetle epidemic. The minister called the problem a serious threat. I congratulate him for recognizing this.

We would think the minister would want to debate this issue and tell the House about how much his government will do about the pine beetle epidemic, and I would like to hear from him today.

I also want to include some comments of support from the Canadian Alliance member for Skeena. He says that, with the mountain pine beetle epidemic moving into the eastern areas of Skeena riding, some 70 million cubic metres of timber are already infected. This is equivalent to almost the total annual allowable cut for the entire province of British Columbia. This catastrophic event must be recognized as such by the federal government.

This requires recognition from the federal government in the form of a commitment to the province as well as continuing research programs at the Victoria based research centre. Accelerated logging programs in affected areas, possible underwater storage and working very closely with affected companies and timber licence holders are some of the potential solutions. The very future of some of north central British Columbia communities depends upon an effective approach to this huge problem.

Last week the Prime Minister bought two jets for about $100 million. For the price of those jets, the government could have financed the battle against the pine beetle for two years. With the revenues generated by the timber salvage from the jaws of these beetles, the Prime Minister could have bought a lot more jets.

This week the federal government contributed $76 million to the Toronto Transit Commission. If these funds had instead been directed to the battle against the mountain pine beetle the salvaged timber could have financed this assistance and even more to the Toronto bus and subway system.

The mountain pine beetle is a threat that can only be effectively controlled in partnership with the federal government. In addition, the federal government is a major beneficiary of B.C. forests through the tax revenues it collects from the harvesting of this wood.

It is in the interest of all Canadians that there be full co-operation by the federal government to deal with this problem.

[Softwood Lumber, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we understand that the government is sending some of its ministers to British Columbia today to attend the softwood summit organized by the B.C. government.

We are glad to see that the foreign trade minister is at least attending this event. This is an international trade issue as well as one that is extremely important to British Columbia.

This minister waited for a province to organize a summit and has waited for the industry to launch an ad campaign in the United States. Why is it the minister not taking the lead on this vital issue?

[Excise Act, 2001, April 26th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the people of Cariboo--Chilcotin as we address Bill C-47, a bill amending the Excise Tax Act.

The Canadian Alliance is dedicated to reducing the size and scope of the federal government in order to deliver meaningful tax relief to hardworking Canadians.

Canadians face many difficulties inherent in complying with regulations and remittance schedules, often without keeping in mind the peace, order and prosperity of our citizens. Yet millions of Canadian small and medium size businesses prosper in spite of the federal government's insatiable appetite for tax revenues. We are severely overtaxed so I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate today.

The official opposition supports the legislation. It has been endorsed by industry stakeholders. It modernizes the framework of excise taxation in wine, spirits and beer. This support is rare for the Canadian Alliance as we are opposed to the government's intervention into Canadians' freedom of choice by enforcing such a heavy burden of taxation. However, these proposals aim to replace existing old and antiquated administrative and enforcement structures governing alcohol and tobacco products with a modern regime reflecting current practice.

The bill does not address tax rate and base matters other than to ensure equitable treatment between domestic and imported products.

We have been talking about the various benefits of wine, beer and spirits. I appreciate what the hon. member had to say about the benefit of a glass of wine and perhaps the same can be said for beer.

I remember reading an article not too long ago in a magazine or a newspaper, I am not sure which, in which it stated that moderate drinkers have a higher income than abstainers or non-drinkers and immoderate drinkers have even higher incomes than moderate drinkers. I am not sure if that was an indication that people are not drinking enough. However, I do have to say that I worked on the streets of east Vancouver in my younger days and I saw some very heavy drinkers who were extremely poor. Therefore I am not sure of the benefits of alcohol consumption except as perhaps a doctor would prescribe.

The proposed act shifts compliance and point of taxation from sales levy to production levy for the production of wine, and this is already the case for distillers.

The changes introduced for spirits and wine are regulatory in nature and tax neutral. The prime purpose of these changes is to modernize how these products are taxed in order to allow distillers and vintners the greatest flexibility in their production practices and to ensure an internationally competitive tax regime .

From an industry perspective, the proposed legislation also provides for an appeal and assessment process. Previously industry had no recourse against government impositions if they felt unjustly treated.

The motion also contains significant enforcement tools to crack down on contraband products. This is a major feature of the proposed legislation and is welcomed by the industry.

Changes in the act make it easier to enforce existing laws and provide stiffer penalties for conviction. For example, under the proposed legislation the maximum fine for producing contraband alcohol would be fines up to $1 million and up to five years in jail for indictable offences. These are industry led changes and it is proposed there would be no losers because of the legislation, with the exception of those who produce contraband products.

Considering tobacco, the second aspect of Bill C-47 does have problems. The bill seeks to increase federal excise taxes on tobacco products and to re-establish a uniform federal excise tax for cigarettes across the country of $6.85 per carton. The stated purpose of this tax increase is to improve the health of Canadians by discouraging tobacco consumption.

The government proposes that the federal excise taxes on cigarettes will increase $2 a carton in Quebec, $1.60 a carton in Ontario and $1.50 a carton in the rest of Canada. This would bring the total federal excise burden on cigarettes to $12.35 a carton.

Never to leave itself out whenever there is the remotest possibility of collecting further taxes, federal revenues will increase by approximately $240 million a year through the tax hike. Just a few minutes ago my colleague whipped out his calculator and averaged this out to a $657,000 per day increase in revenue for the government.

What about reducing smoking? This apparently is the reason for the tax hikes. Like everyone else, I want Canadians to live a healthier lifestyle. I want this especially for our youth who really do not know what they are doing when they get involved with smoking.

Reducing teenage smoking is a worthwhile goal. I am pleased when I see a government ad on television once in awhile encouraging young people not to smoke. Some of those ads look pretty effective to me but I am not sure they have had much influence on the decisions of young people to smoke or not to smoke.

I believe that the increase in revenues should be more dedicated to the decreasing of smoking in a way that would be more effective than simply raising the taxes. The past decade has proven that high levels of excise tax on cigarettes do not reduce consumption. What it does do is create an underground economy.

A better role for the government would be to provide information for consumers to ensure that citizens have an informed choice and to offer generous assistance to those struggling to break this cruel but legal addiction. We hope the government spreads the word about the life threatening aspects of tobacco use and does whatever a government institution can do to encourage, persuade and limit the use of tobacco products that are so harmful, not only to youth but to everyone, even to those who do not use tobacco products who are perhaps allergic to tobacco smoke, as I am, and find it not only offensive but hurtful physically.

Time and again we have seen the increases in the prices of cigarettes not working for the purpose of reducing the number of Canadians who smoke. It is interesting that while the bill is heralded by the government as trying to decrease tobacco consumption by issuing a tax grab on smokers, it does not attempt to influence alcohol consumption through tax policy.

The problem with this aspect of the bill is that the government, by increasing these tax levels, is simply increasing its revenues. This cold-hearted government will do anything to increase its revenues. Increasing taxes on alcohol and cigarettes is probably the last great vista of politically correct tax increases still at its disposal.

We know the finance minister has never encountered a tax he could not raise. Canadians know that excise taxes are not dedicated to specific spending. They are not dedicated taxes, to use the jargon.

For example, the government does not use gasoline taxes to fix our highways. Aircraft fuel taxes are no longer applied to navigation services as they were intended when first applied. Pilots now pay navigation fees to Nav Canada, but with no reduction in the Nav fuel taxes that they pay when they put the fuel in their aircraft. Neither are tax revenues on cigarettes and alcohol spent on health care, at least in the amounts that would be effective in controlling, reducing and helping those who do smoke.

The funds raised by taxes are sent to the general revenue fund and used for bigger and bigger government paid for with higher and higher taxes. These cigarette taxes are just the latest tax increase. If anyone wants to bet that this is the last tax increase, I might just take that bet even though I am not much of a gambling man.

These tax dollars buy a fountain in the Prime Minister's riding, or are given to Wal-Mart to set up a store in Ontario, or buy jets from Bombardier for the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Just last week we learned that billions of dollars are spent on foundations without the approval of the House.

There is no way to scrutinize how this money is spent. Yet while federal excise revenues have increased, transfers to the provinces for health care have decreased. They have been reduced.

The Liberal government is not telling us the plans it has for using the new revenues the bill will raise. The Liberals are using this legislation, supported by the stakeholders in the industry affected by the bill, to raise more money but for still undetermined purposes. It is no wonder the Canadian dollar is sinking out of sight with such poor management. It is no wonder even while we talk about the wonderful standard of living in Canada we are watching a standard of living that has been declining.

With Bill C-47 the government is hiking taxes under the guise of tax fairness. It leaves no stone unturned in the search for more money. Everything, even increasing fairness in the way we are taxed, can be and is turned into another way to gouge the taxpayer.

Once again I acknowledge that we will support this legislation, but only because it does some small bit to afford some equality in the markets of the affected businesses.

[Softwood Lumber, April 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what we want to know is what our government is doing on this issue in the United States.

Home Depot Incorporated, Weyerhaeuser Company and a group of U.S. lumber producers and retailers that operate in both Canada and the United States have launched a public appeal for lumber trade peace. In a newspaper ad campaign in Canadian and U.S. cities, six major players in the North American lumber market are calling for discussions between the Prime Minister and the United States president. These companies are trying to fill a vacuum created by the government.

Why has the government still not responded to the outrageous letters and opinion pieces written by a U.S. senator and the U.S. trade commission?

[Softwood Lumber, April 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Weyerhaeuser Company, the world's leading lumber producer, is joining the NAFTA challenge to the U.S. duties on Canadian softwood lumber.

There is faulty methodology in the application of these duties. For example, there is discrimination against western red cedar, which has been hit by the duties even though it does not compete with U.S. lumber. Some U.S. companies claiming they are hurt by Canadian lumber are basing their arguments on flawed arithmetic.

Why is the government so inept at persuading the public and the U.S. legislators about these obvious flaws in the U.S. lumber lobby's arguments?

[Softwood Lumber, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Lumber Trade Council has the facts the international trade minister needs to settle the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute. Myth: Canada controls one-third of the U.S. market because of subsidies. Fact: The U.S. industry has been unable to meet its lumber demands for decades.

American consumers love Canadian softwood lumber. They buy $7 billion a year worth of it. They cannot get enough. It is a select few U.S. lumber producers who do not like our wood and for two decades they have been trying to keep our softwood out.

The U.S. coalition for fair lumber imports said that 133 mills closed because of Canadian imports. What a myth. Only 7 of these 133 U.S. mills admitted to that and as many as 14 closed due to a shortage of timber. Other mills closed due to inefficiency or difficulties exporting to Japan. Some of these 133 mills did not even close.

The government should use the facts to counter the myths perpetuated in the Canada--

[Species at Risk Act, April 16th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-5.

As we debate the bill I am reminded this is not the first time it has been debated. There have been other manifestations of the bill in previous years and other parliaments. As we were considering this issue in one of those debates I received a phone call from a lady in Ontario not too far from where we are right now. I have told this story in the House before but I am going to repeat it.

This lady was told that under the Ontario species at risk legislation, she was going to be forced to give up the use of a piece of property she had bought. She had purchased a piece of vacant land. She had an idea in mind and she borrowed a considerable amount of money to purchase this piece of property and then paid the costs of planning and developing. Before it was finished, she was notified that the property was no longer available for the use she had planned on and that an endangered species had been discovered on it. It was a bird, I believe it was a shrike. I wish I could remember the specific name. In any case this lady said that whatever we do, we should keep in mind the people who innocently get involved in situations like this.

This lady bought the property, paid for it and owed the money to the bank. No one is going to buy it back from her. What is she going to do besides suffer the consequences of not being able to take advantage of an investment she made and not being able to repay it? The money she had saved, the money she was able to borrow and the resources she used to guarantee the loan were all lost.

This is a consequence of highhanded legislation where a government has as its lowest priority those people it purports to represent. This situation is not new. There have been other stories and incidents like this one that the government has been able to take advantage of, but because it has the authority, the power and the majority in parliament under the whip to enforce that power, the taxpayers, Canadian citizens, the ones who are supposed to benefit from the resources of this vast, beautiful and rich country of ours, are left without. They are ditched.

At committee a number of amendments were proposed to the legislation that would allow public consultation to include members of the public. Those who were faced with finding endangered species on their property would be allowed to enter into a relationship with authorities and conservation officials using the guidelines of the legislation. They would work together in a co-operative manner to protect endangered species.

What would happen if someone inadvertently walked across a valuable piece of property and found an endangered species? Would the temptation be to run and tell someone and face the risk of having that property confiscated, taken away, not to be used? Not a chance. As a matter of fact, when the loggers were faced with the spotted owl threat earlier on, a well-known official told his people “If you see one of those things, shoot the damn thing and get a shovel and bury it”.

We are concerned about endangered species. There must be a co-operative effort initiated by the government in legislation such as this, but unfortunately not with this legislation, so people can co-operate with those who are concerned about the loss of endangered species. There must be a method of public consultation whereby people clearly know the rules. If there is an endangered species, people can begin to co-operate immediately for the benefit of that species and not be faced with the threat of losing what they have or faced with the consequences and all of the costs of the unfortunate discovery of an endangered species on their property.

As one who was born to rural life and lived on a ranch, it is a wonderful thing to be involved with the various species of birds, animals, plant life and micro-organisms. I can remember as a child being on my belly watching things like frog eggs. It is something that we must cherish. It is something that is part of our Canadian heritage. We must not allow people in areas that have no responsibility for endangered species to take over control of the program so that those who bear the burden must suffer all the consequences.

It has been my observation that in the House we are often told that Canadians are a community of people. Yet in this circumstance it is not the community that is bearing the consequences or the costs; it is the individual. The legislation, with the amendments the government has introduced, strips the consultative process from this.

For example, most of the amendments in Group No. 4 concern issues of notice, public consultation and discussion. This presents opportunities to stress the fundamental importance of making consultations as wide as possible, of ensuring that consultations have a real impact on the administration of the act and are not done simply for show.

Included in this was the proposal for a five year review of the act. Initially the bill had provided for a parliamentary review of the species at risk act five years after it came into force. The standing committee added the additional requirement that it be subsequently reviewed at five year intervals. Motion No. 130 from the government however will remove this standing committee amendment. It does not think the automatic five years are needed and instead would put the onus on parliament to put a review on the agenda should it be deemed necessary.

You and I, Madam Speaker, have sat at committee together. We have worked in parliament enough to know that parliament does not do anything until the executive decides that parliament will do it. How will parliament do what needs to be done, to put something on the agenda if the government has already determined it is not necessary? This is totally wrong. It denies people the input, the opportunity to be consulted, to know, to respond favourably and to act in a co-operative manner for something of which we are all in favour.

Not only is it contemptuous again of the standing committee, it removes an opportunity for greater accountability and for public involvement. Mandatory reviews of legislation, not quite as effective as a sunset clause but perhaps a close second, are important for ensuring that an act is working as intended and for creating an opportunity to make changes that will simply not be left to the whim of the government House leader of the day to fit his particular agenda.

This is basic democracy. It is accountability. It ensures that legislation is ever kept current, ever kept green.

[Forestry, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, while the government is bungling the softwood lumber file the infestation of the mountain pine beetle continues to destroy B.C. forests. The Liberal government must not confuse the two crises and it must not ignore the damage being done by this huge beetle infestation.

The government has a constitutional responsibility for forests under federal jurisdiction. B.C. needs help dealing with the crisis for which a plan has already been developed, but we need a commitment from the other landowner. We need a commitment from the federal government.

The Minister of Natural Resources has already admitted the beetle poses a serious threat to B.C. forests. The minister must not be bullied by his cabinet colleagues into accepting that beetle damage to B.C.'s forestry industry is temporary, that EI programs can handle the jobs that will be lost, or that the Americans will accuse him of subsidizing the industry.

The pine beetle will eat through the government's revenue pipeline from British Columbia.

[Softwood Lumber, April 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, because of the Liberal government's failure to successfully negotiate an end to the softwood lumber dispute with the United States, Canada's forest products industry is preparing to withstand the impact of punitive tariffs on $9 billion worth of our lumber exports while the Americans are going to get a multibillion dollar windfall.

Late last year, while watching the international trade minister bungle negotiations, the official opposition began calling for arrangements to support the softwood industry workers. So far the Liberals have no plan to see these Canadians through this crisis.

Entire communities rely on the softwood industry and something must be done about the loss of thousands of these jobs caused by this government. This industry is Canada's largest single exporter.

Even though the Liberal government is raising the employment insurance surplus to $42 billion on the backs of our workers, it changed the Employment Insurance Act and is now denying benefits to many lumber workers.

The government continues to seriously fail Canada's softwood lumber industry.

[Points of Order, March 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to your comments and I would like some clarification. I believe you said that there was an agreement and that there now is not an agreement between all the opposition parties. Were you inferring that one party may later disagree with the agreement and break that agreement? Was that your inference? I would like to understand what you said.