John Duncan

[Softwood Lumber, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government's handling of softwood is off the rails. When the 1996 softwood deal went sour, the Minister for International Trade said that it was a good deal and that even if it was a bad deal how dare we criticize it when the forest industry made him do it.

Predictably, the U.S. Department of Commerce is once again proceeding with its divide and conquer tactics. This time it is targeting the provinces rather than industry. When is the trade minister going to do his job and use his federal mandate to stop these U.S. divide and conquer tactics?

[Points of Order, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, during question period the hon. member for Calgary West was asking a question and very close to his microphone were members of the Liberal Party.

The hon. member for Portneuf was very noisy into the microphone of the hon. member for Calgary West. We are under an obligation when sitting in proximity not to speak into the same individual's microphone. I would like some sensitivity expressed by the Speaker toward the issue.

[Liberal Party of Canada, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to advise all hon. members that the species at risk legislation is not as comprehensive as we first thought. For example, there is no mention whatsoever of protection of one of the most endangered species of all and that is honest Liberals.

As their numbers dwindle by the day, who will step forward to provide protection for those poor and rare reminders of a cleaner environment? What about that other species at risk, the ambitious former finance minister and leadership candidate? Are there no protective barriers behind which this species can hide from the heavy boots of its natural enemies? Maybe I should say the singular enemy.

Goodness knows there is that other species which requires protection as well. Who will step forward to propose amendments to protect the lame duck Liberal leader?

[Code of Conduct, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my next question relates to the fact that there has been a lot of focus in the debate on an ethics commissioner, but would the member not agree that in actual fact the major determinant is leadership from the top or lack thereof, ethics flowing from the top or a lack of ethics flowing from the top?

The way to guarantee that in the long term and to change the culture is an ethics commissioner, but in actual fact we need that kind of check and balance, especially when we do not have that kind of leadership from the top.

[Code of Conduct, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the member for Cumberland--Colchester if the question of an ethics commissioner is one that has led him at any point to look into the provincial administrations across Canada? Has he looked at the overnight transition that occurred in British Columbia and Alberta when they put ethics commissioners in place and how that actually affects the culture of political governance in what I think is a very positive way to put some checks and balances in place that are really in the public interest? Maybe he could comment on the merits of all of that.

[Petitions, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions signed by over 200 individuals from my riding of Vancouver Island North.

The petitioners are calling upon parliament to ensure all necessary steps are taken to protect our children from any material promoting child pornography and to make it clear that any such exploitation of children will be met with swift punishment.

[Fisheries, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is a ritual that occurs every year on the B.C. coast. Everyone involved in the recreational salmon fishery urges the DFO to announce its annual fishing plans early. Every year the department announces them late.

Dependent businesses are placed in an impossible situation where they must book summer clients without knowing the catch limits so they will not lose them to Alaska or other jurisdictions. In past years negative surprises from DFO have led to massive cancellations.

Alaska releases its detailed fishing plans for the following year in November. DFO only released its 2002 salmon fisheries management plans for northern and southern B.C. on May 31.

There is no technical barrier to prevent earlier DFO announcements. DFO must develop a sense of urgency.

[Softwood Lumber, June 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is poor logic. It is not the cost; it is what this government did.

When it comes to the U.S. farm bill, the government is not keeping its promise to farmers to launch a WTO-NAFTA challenge, but when it comes to maintaining confidentiality of the minister's harassment and intimidation of a B.C. sawmiller, the government is prepared to launch appeals ad nauseam.

When will the minister stop harassing a good corporate citizen?

[Softwood Lumber, June 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Pope & Talbot company has been running successful sawmills in B.C. for 30 years. Between 1996 and 2001, the trade minister unfairly and consistently downsized its softwood lumber export quotas. The only remedy available to the company was under NAFTA chapter 11. The NAFTA judgment was scathing about government actions and awarded the company $700,000.

Since the NAFTA ruling, the company has expressed ongoing concern about harassment. When is the minister going to stop this vindictive behaviour?

[Agriculture, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. farm bill is completely federal and the minister knows it. The president signed that bill a month ago. Parts of the bill breach our trade agreements, yet the Liberal government refuses to act.

The bill has been in the works for three years. The government has no action plan. Now it wants more time to study it. Why has the government failed to keep its promise to Canadian farmers by refusing to launch WTO and NAFTA challenges?