John Duncan

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I am the chair of an ad hoc group called the coastal parliamentarians in British Columbia. It is comprised of all federal members of parliament and provincial members of the legislature that touch on salt water. Interesting issues come up in this group.

One of the things that is very awkward is the fact that there is not a single government member of parliament from rural British Columbia, whether coastal or non-coastal. Therefore, there are an awful lot of frustrations on that file. What I am finding, and what is apparent to everyone, is that a lot of those frustrations deal with two departments, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Transport.

Of course, what we are talking about tonight deals with the Secretary of State for Rural Development. If members want to take some question out of what I am talking about tonight, one question would be how can we end the frustrations that we face in dealing with rural and remote coastal issues in British Columbia when we are dealing with a bureaucracy and a government side that does not really understand those issues? Many of them are fixable. One of the things that is becoming very apparent to us is that when those same kinds of issues are brought up in Atlantic Canada where there are government members, they get fixed an awful lot easier than what happens in our circumstances.

We have some real life examples right now. Many of them are two-bit items that really hurt and public safety is often at risk. I just fail to understand why the government would choose to put public safety at risk. The marine travelling community is the busiest recreational waterway in Canada. The federal government is basically abandoning its strong mandate for public safety in those areas by getting rid of rescue stations. It was to do it this year. Now it is saying it will not do it until next year. It is just summertime events, not big cost items.

Getting rid of the coast guard divers off the Hovercraft near Vancouver airport is putting people at risk. We have every signal from the coast guard now that the destaffing of light stations will be back on the burner again. The promise was not in this millennium, which I think was what the minister of the day said in terms of destaffing. However we are into a new millennium now. Those are great frustrations.

I heard the secretary of state refer to community futures and some initiatives with that group in rural communities. We have rural coastal communities that have been denied community futures coverage. They have written to the appropriate minister of the day on numerous occasions and have never received satisfaction. Maybe if I had had a chance to rise on a second question, that would have been my question. How can this be? It is a political decision.

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask a succinct question of the secretary of state. It relates to the rural economies, certainly in my part of British Columbia or in coastal British Columbia, that are in very deep trouble in many respects.

We have heard some federal hints that there will be program announcements. I think the minister made some reference to that. However, there is certainly a lack of clarity. I wonder if the minister could offer any more clarity than what is a general issue right now in terms of what people at home know about what the government is planning.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 24th, 2001]

How much was paid by the government to defend itself in the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney's lawsuit over the Airbus affair, including payments to private lawyers and agents retained by the government and the estimated salary and expenses of lawyers and other staff employed by the government, based on the hours they devoted to the file and their hourly rate of pay?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is undemocratic. This is the second time today that I find myself standing and talking about legislation that is undemocratic. That is the direction of the government.

I want to paraphrase a famous phrase because I do not remember the words exactly. Winston Churchill once said that democracy was very hard work but that it was the best governance system that we had. If we choose not to work hard at democracy then we will lose it.

The bill once again displays a malaise coming from the government in terms of how it approaches very important initiatives. There is nothing more important in what we do in this institution than to look after the revenue that is collected from taxpayers and purportedly spent for the greater good.

It is difficult to accept legislation that deals with two unrelated things. It was unnecessary. If we had dealt with the Canada foundation for innovation initiative separately, we could have approached it in a very professional manner. We could then have dealt with the rest of the bill, which would have been the appropriate way to do it.

I conclude that the government is using this as a political instrument. It would like the opposition to vote against it because then it could say that the opposition is opposed to the Canada foundation for innovation. That is absolutely not the case. We are opposed to the way that this came about.

In 1997 the Canada foundation for innovation was included in the deficit as if it were a liability even though the foundation did not exist at the end of that year. The government chose to include the $800 million as a liability. It was a total departure from previous accounting policies, practices and principles for the third year in a row, and in contrast to public sector accounting and auditing board guidelines.

The auditor general was very kind as he called it inappropriate accounting and a parliamentary oversight. Inappropriate accounting is a very strong criticism to come from an auditor and parliamentary oversight is very kind indeed, because we are still doing it. That criticism, which should be of major concern, is being ignored. It is being ignored deliberately and not just in this instance.

What do we have here? We have the Minister of Industry making an announcement of a $750 million spending initiative. We are not sure whether it is over ten years, or ten years plus or minus one or two, or some other factor. The government wants to set it all up as current liability and that is inappropriate accounting.

The government has now gone from the days when it was trying very hard to balance the national books, because we had a crisis in the making if we did not, to a position where we are spending $35 billion more than we did the year before last. Thirty-five billion dollars out of Canada's budget is a very steep increase. A lot of it is going out in end of fiscal year spending sprees that are not subject to the normal course of scrutiny which happens when we have a budget in the spring with all that goes into the preparation of the budget.

We have ministers near the end of the fiscal year making spending announcements prior to any parliamentary or legislative authority and operating under the assumption that they will get whatever they want out of this place because this place is just a rubber stamp. That is the way the government treats this place and that is very destructive.

Instead of bolstering, boosting and creating a progressive dynamic democratic institution, we are going backward. It happens time and time again. We have not had a government committed to democratic principles for a very long time.

There may be some historical reasons for that. We were a much more homogeneous country early in our history. We have always been a country with a small population in a large land. Governance was easier and it was more consensual. We were also a very centralized country, whereas today it is very clear that we are becoming less centralized because we are getting a lot more economic growth from outside central Canada.

When I was a young man we were taught that our major city was Montreal, Toronto was second, Vancouver was third and Winnipeg was fourth. Things are very different today. At least three of the top five financial cities in Canada are in western Canada. There has been a complete rejockeying of positions in cities like Montreal and Winnipeg.

This has changed the dynamics of the country much faster than our central bureaucracy or federal governments up until now have recognized. We need a government that works hard to make legislative initiatives and other initiatives fit into a modern, progressive and democratic model. Unfortunately that is not happening.

Our party would like a simple amendment to be made to the legislation. We would like to have the auditor general oversee on an ongoing basis the Canada foundation for innovation. That is not in the legislation. Unfortunately that is consistent with where the government is coming from. We would make that amendment to the bill and I would hope that government members would support it.

[Canada Elections Act, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting debate today. When it comes to democracy most politicians have something to say.

I have some background on the proposed legislation from the standpoint that it all derives from what happened to the Communist Party when it was running candidates and what happened in the courts when it was stripped of its assets because it ran less than 50 candidates. The government, in my mind, went overboard.

The government has done everything it could to have a monopoly on politics and to find a way to exclude parties that it considers potentially troublesome. That is not democracy. It is not acceptable for the government to take the actions that it does.

The only accommodation that the Liberal government has made toward the response of the courts in this whole action is that it is now saying that a party only needs to run 12 candidates in order to have a party label on the ballot. That is a precious small concession when one considers what it takes to run a political party.

Candidates need the ability to raise funds and to mobilize for byelections. They need the ability to secure party assets that continue from election to election and to have a continuous stream of revenue for political activity. They need to be able to carry out those activities without being hampered by a size determined by the government. It is very anti-democratic.

It has to be looked at not from the standpoint of a start-up or smaller party but from the standpoint of being a member of the public. Does the public not deserve to know, according to label, what that person wishes the label to be?

None of it makes sense when it is looked at in the true spirit and sense of democratic principle. It only makes sense if one is trying to restrict the political spectrum in some way and trying to create a monopoly on politics.

It goes to the posture and attitude of government and of governance. It is one more reflection, after being in this place for eight years, of a government that enjoys governance too much. It is prepared to dismiss anything that may disquiet its enjoyment of governance.

It is reflected in many ways. I must conclude that government members, whether they are on the backbenches or in cabinet, are so immune to other people's feelings that very often they do not actually even recognize other points of view. Nor do they recognize the toxic ramifications of some of their actions. They may not today or tomorrow but they do filter into our society and into our so-called democracy in ways that chip away day after day at basic democratic principles and basic individual rights.

What is being done now will be challenged and it will go to the courts again. The government has attempted to control third party spending limits on advertising and that kind of thing. It is a whole attitude posture, positioning to increase the comfort zone of the government, fortifying its monopoly on politics and excluding criticism.

The government is very consistent in how it approaches all these issues. When there is pressure for change the status quo is worse than standing still. The status quo is going backward because most of the other western democracies are not retaining the status quo. They are moving forward. Considering where we stack up on basic democratic principles, we are having a much more difficult time justifying that we are a true democracy.

I will refer to something that is near and dear to my heart. Some members did bring into the debate some of the experiences they shared in terms of the Charlottetown accord and all the discussion, debate, heat and light that led up to that whole exercise.

I was highly motivated as a citizen in 1992 to do something about what I saw as an imposition by all political parties in the House and by all provincial premiers. We were not here. We only had one member. The comfortable political elite of the nation tried to ram down the throat of Canadians an agreement that would have changed the country forever and would have made it even more difficult to make effective, progressive and democratic change in the future. However we have been going backward even without the referendum.

I was very motivated personally and that is what led me into the political arena. If I had not been motivated in that regard I would not have been motivated to run for federal politics and I would not be here today. It is that simple. Maybe that is good. Maybe it is bad, but I have enjoyed my time here.

It was interesting to be part of the no side with limited resources, resources that were raised in ways that involved a lot of personal sacrifice, and then to watch the highly financed yes committee. There is no way to compare it. If a forensic audit were carried out, it would find that some business was done in that time that was not tidy. I am thankful for the opportunity to have spoken to the legislation.

[Lumber Industry, March 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the clear answer. There was some non-clarity over the last few days. I am happy to know that with 24 hours to go the government knows where it is going.

We have a national industry consensus that emissaries represent a good option to advance Canadian interests on softwood lumber. When will the minister announce the Canadian representative?

[Division No. 38, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, March 2 I asked the Minister of the Environment an important question. The minister was not here and neither was his junior minister which is unacceptable. Here is the background to my original question, and I still want an answer.

On February 17 the minister unfairly compared the gas fired cogeneration plant in Campbell River on Vancouver Island with the proposed Sumas 2 plant in Washington state. The minister incorrectly stated that the Vancouver Island plant was ten times as polluting per unit of power and that the province of B.C. should do better.

The minister criticized the province as if he did not know that as part of a thorough environmental review, his own officials were part of the project approval. I have the approval letter right here. It is from Environment Canada, dated February 25, 1998 and is addressed to the provincial environment office. It says that:

—we would not disagree with...recommending they issue a project approval certificate for this project.

I would say that is a pretty strong endorsement.

The $220 million Campbell River plant was approved in 1998 and construction is now complete. It is scheduled to go operational next month, and now the minister is criticizing it.

The real facts are as follows. The polluter label does not apply because this project will, in combination with boiler shut downs at the pulp mill, reduce overall nitrous oxides, sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide from current levels.

The new steam source means that Elk Falls can shut down two wood-oil fired burners and reduce the use of a gas fired boiler. This reduces the mill energy requirements and total emissions. In addition, sulphur emissions were originally projected based on a much higher sulphur content in the natural gas supply locally than has been demonstrated to be the actual case. The Vancouver Island plant compares very favourably for sulphur dioxide emissions once this correct sulphur content is taken into account.

The minister is apparently totally unaware of this fact. The $240 million project is environmentally sound, creates jobs and helps the economics of the pulp mill. It is no wonder that it received great endorsements from all sectors, until these unfortunate statements by the minister which have outraged the mayor of Campbell River, baffled me and the provincial MLA.

The mayor wrote to the minister on February 19 consequent to the unwarranted criticisms the minister made a couple of days earlier. It is now five weeks later and the minister has still not responded to this letter in any way. The minister has done Vancouver Island a great disservice and particularly my community.

When will the minister retract his unsubstantiated, incorrect and irresponsible criticisms of an enlightened energy project known as the island cogeneration project?

[Lumber Industry, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is not all about who will get credit for doing what. We know the American lumber coalition constantly makes negative statements about Canadian forest practices and policy, but it does not represent all U.S. interests.

For example, the president of Louisiana-Pacific has said that the history and data suggest Canada would win a free trade challenge on the merits. Canada also has major trade allies in consumer, builder, lumber dealer and other groups in the States, so why has the minister allowed our position to erode when there is so much support for free trade?

[Lumber Industry, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there is broad consensus for a return to free trade in softwood lumber. Yesterday the minister said we need a team Canada for softwood lumber. This pro-free trade team needs a captain to unite and ignite the players. When will the minister name this captain?

[Rights Of The Unborn, March 22nd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If someone denies unanimous consent, does he or does he not have to be in his seat when he does so? The individual who denied unanimous consent was not in his seat.